REMEDYING EDUCATIONAL RACISM? STUDYING ETHNIC STUDIES 
By 
LEAH DUNBAR 
A DISSERTATION 
Presented to the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership 
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon  
in partial fulfillment of the requirements  
for the degree of Doctor of Education. 
June  2020 
DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE 
Student: Leah Dunbar 
Title: Remedying Educational Racism? Studying Ethnic Studies 
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Doctor of Educational Leadership degree in the Department of 
Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership by: 
Gina Biancarosa Chairperson 
Gerald Rosiek Core Member 
Joanna Smith Core Member 
Leilani Sabzalian Institutional Representative 
and 
Kate Mondloch Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School  
Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. 
Degree awarded June 2020 
ii 
© 2020 Leah Dunbar 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 
Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivs (United States) License. 
iii 
DISSERTATION ABSTRACT 
Leah Dunbar 
Doctor of Education 
Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership 
June 2020 
Title: Remedying Educational Racism? Studying Ethnic Studies 
America’s classrooms are still reproducing predictable and inequitable outcomes for 
students of color. Empirical evidence has shown a link between ethnic studies courses 
and increased academic achievement, and recent policy initiatives demonstrate that 
educational leaders are responding to growing demand and evidence that supports ES 
instruction.  
This mixed methods study chronicles administrative and instructional efforts to 
implement ES standards in two districts to identify what has worked well and what 
challenges are posed by ethnic studies implementation. 
Findings from an online survey show that strategies to support implementation include 
creation of ES lead/work groups, and training and recruitment of experienced ES 
teachers. Core themes emerging from structured interviews indicate the key role of 
teacher leaders; administrative support that spans both central office and the site; the 
centrality of student agency and voice as data; and the infusion of equity based 
pedagogical practices schoolwide. This study demonstrates that grassroots organizing; 
building capacity; and intentional leadership that views ES pedagogy and content as 
essential in addressing educational inequities; are crucial components of ethnic studies 
implementation.  
iv 
CURRICULUM VITAE 
NAME OF AUTHOR:  LEAH DUNBAR 
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: 
University of Oregon, Eugene 
Pacific University, Eugene 
University of Essex, Colchester UK 
DePauw University, Greencastle IN 
DEGREES AWARDED: 
Doctor of Education, Educational Leadership, 2020, University of Oregon 
Master of Education, Secondary Language Arts, 2000, Pacific University 
Master of Arts, Women Writing, 1996, University of Essex 
Bachelor of Arts, English Literature, 1994, DePauw University  
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: 
Indigenous, Race, and Ethnic Studies 
Culturally Responsive Teaching  
Amplifying Student Voice 
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 
English Language Arts/Social Studies Specialist 
School Improvement Team Lane ESD March 2020 - present 
ELA/Ethnic Studies Instructor 
Eugene 4j School District  August 2002 - present 
Instructor Ethnic Studies 101, Lane Community College August – Dec 2016 
GRANTS, AWARDS, AND HONORS: 
Equity Foundations Award, Pacific University,   October 2019 
Best Teacher/Professor, Best of Eugene Weekly  October 2019 
Excellence in Education Award, Oregon Education Association April 2019 
Equity Leadership Fellows Program Award, University of Oregon  May 2016 
MLK, Jr. Community Leader Award, City of Eugene January 2016 
v 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge my sister, Rena Joy Dunbar, for 
agreeing to walk this journey with me, every step, literally since before our birth, and also 
literally, in this doctoral program. Completion of this project marks the beginning of 
something even more #twinspired. And, ALL the Dunbar siblings- Karen, Lynn, Teri, 
Teddy- and offspring. Your encouragement steadied us when we needed it most. A special 
thank you to Shadiin Garcia, Leilani Sabzalian, and Krystal Sundsrom: we offer our 
gratitude for you going before and holding the lamp so we could find our way. Deep 
appreciation also goes out also to the powerhouses of EMPL: Joanna Smith, Ilana 
Umansky, Gina Biancarosa, and Angela Burham, not only for being badass intellectuals, 
but more importantly, for your unwavering faith that kept the waves from completely 
overtaking us when we lost our anchor in the physical plane, our Source, OG heart-led 
educator Jean Dunbar. The Cohort of Awesomeness: y’all know what you did. We will 
reunite with you and margaritas. Thank you to the guides who showed us, as our mom 
did, that a real teacher must also have the courage to be a truthslinger, making sure we 
would not dare be otherwise: Susan Dwoskin, Diana Grandberry, Carmen Urbina, 
Anselmo Villanueva, and Misa Joo. Thank you Alicia DeLouise for your patience, 
tutoring these twins in stats is an exercise in sainthood and we recognize you. The mind, 
body, and soul nourishment of the Cynthia Dance Empowered community has been 
crucial every step, leap, and turn. Because of all of your support, strong and stunning 
women, we are still standing. And, to our Day Ones, the Tuesday Ladies, who have been 
and will always be by our side in every revolutionary endeavor and girls’ weekend, 
vi 
forever and ever, awoman. Last and not least, thank you to Earl Dunbar, our North Star: 
“because you did Twe can”. 
vii 
This work is dedicated to my parents Jean and Earl Dunbar, my Sources; my 
partner Scott and our children Solstice, Jameson, Diviny, and Demitrey- who have shared 
me 
with this work and are my Why; the Courageous scholars of J9; and the 
abolitionist educators and activists past, present, and future, who have always known 
#BlackLivesMatter. 
viii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Chapter     Page 
CHAPTER I: CASE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 1 
History of Ethnic Studies .................................................................................... 1 
Ethnic Studies Now............................................................................................. 3 
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................ 8 
Part One: Final Literature Pool ........................................................................... 8 
Types of Research. .......................................................................................... 8 
Settings. ..........................................................................................................11 
Part Two: Sleeter-identified Themes: Content and Impact ............................... 14 
Summary ........................................................................................................... 19 
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 19 
Dialogic Organizational Development.......................................................... 23 
Dialogic Change Model. ............................................................................... 24 
Gaps in Prior Research...................................................................................... 27 
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................ 30 
Setting and Participants..................................................................................... 31 
Sampling Plan ................................................................................................... 32 
Data collection and instrumentation ................................................................. 33 
Phase I: Survey ................................................................................................. 34 
ix 
Chapter     Page 
Phase II: Interviews........................................................................................... 36 
Sample............................................................................................................... 38 
Analysis............................................................................................................. 38 
Validity .............................................................................................................. 40 
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 43 
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS .................................................................................... 44 
Phase I: Survey Results ......................................................................................... 44 
Descriptive Statistics of the Sample ................................................................. 44 
Phase of Implementation............................................................................... 48 
Description of the Research Question........................................................... 50 
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of Survey Items .................................. 52 
Phase II: Interview Results ................................................................................... 69 
Description of the Sample and Protocol ........................................................... 70 
District A. ...................................................................................................... 70 
District B. ...................................................................................................... 72 
Analysis of Interview Transcriptions ................................................................ 73 
Exploring and Engaging. .............................................................................. 73 
Building and Formalizing. ............................................................................ 75 
Implementing and Evaluating. ...................................................................... 79 
x 
Chapter     Page 
Developing Further Replicating or Institutionalizing. .................................. 81 
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................ 83 
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 85 
Discussion of Results by Research Question .................................................... 85 
District B: Ethnic Studies and Dialogic Change ............................................... 95 
Contributions to Literature ................................................................................ 98 
Phase I Limitations ......................................................................................... 100 
Future Research Directions ............................................................................. 105 
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 106 
APPENDIX A ..................................................................................................... 108 
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................110 
APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................113 
APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................114 
APPENDIX E ......................................................................................................115 
APPENDIX F...................................................................................................... 121 
APPENDIX G ..................................................................................................... 122 
REFERENCES CITED ....................................................................................... 125 
xi 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table     Page 
Table 2.1. Subjects, Sample Size, School Description, and Setting ................................. 12 
Table 3.1. Survey Questions Aligned with RQs and Phases of Dialogic Change Model . 37 
Table 4.1. RQ by Survey Item and Participation .............................................................. 47 
Table 4.2. Phase I Descriptive Data .................................................................................. 48 
Table 4.3. Q4 Summary of Responses Indicating Phase of Implementation .................... 50 
Table 4.4. Q5 Summary of ES Characteristics identified as “Most Important” for 
Successful Programs ......................................................................................................... 53 
Table 4.5. Q6 Summary of Factors Identified as “Most Challenging” to Successful ES 
Implementation ................................................................................................................. 56 
Table 4.6. Q7 Summary of Strategies Identified as “Most Effective” for Supporting 
Successful ES Implementation ......................................................................................... 59 
Table 4.7. Q8 Summary of Most Valuable Tactics for Successful ES Implementation .... 61 
Table 4.8. Q9 Summary of Most Influential Factors in Recent ES Efforts ...................... 64 
Table 4.9. Q10 Summary of Responses to Implementation Challenges ........................... 67 
xii 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure      Page 
Figure 2.1. Dialogic Organizational Development combined with ES organizational 
learning ............................................................................................................................. 25 
Figure 3.1. Explanatory sequential mixed methods .......................................................... 30 
Figure 4.1. Characteristics of Successful ES Programs by Site and Role (RQ3) ............. 54 
Figure 4.2. Challenges to ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) ........................... 57 
Figure 4.3. Effective Strategies for ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) ............ 60 
Figure 4.4. Recommended Tactics for ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) ....... 63 
Figure 4.5. Influential Factors in ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) ................ 65 
Figure 4.6. Challenges to ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) ........................... 68 
xiii 
CHAPTER I: CASE ARGUMENT 
History of Ethnic Studies 
Ethnic studies is the interdisciplinary study of cultural identity, diverse historical 
perspectives, and the examination of difference, power, and systems of oppression in the 
United States (de los Ríos, López, and Morrell, 2015; Sleeter, 2011). The activism of 
students and scholars of the Civil Rights era introduced the subject as an academic 
discipline; educational institutions and textbook companies responded to calls for 
curricula and course offerings that were reflective of diverse multicultural perspectives, 
not just of the European immigration narrative (Dee and Penner, 2016; Sleeter, 2011). 
The demand for ethnic studies (ES) scholarship challenged the dominant mythology of 
European conquest and manifest destiny to more accurately reflect the complexity of 
identities in the United States, with a particular focus on how the government exploited, 
murdered, and enslaved millions, as part of the colonial project that resulted in the 
formation of the United States (Tintiango-Cubales, Kohli, Sacramento, Henning, 
Agarwal-Rangnath Sleeter, 2014).  The critical exploration of population shifts, patterns 
of migration, multicultural histories, and contemporary social issues intersecting with 
American identities has been termed “Ethnic Studies” (Tintiangco-Cubales, et al., 2014). 
More recent scholarship in the field has provides an even more complex definition, 
whereby “ethnic studies” must be replaced by “critical ethnic studies”, which interrogates 
the role of ethnic studies within the university, and calls up on scholars to “address these 
systems of power more (ins)urgently while also “[nurturing] political subjectivities that 
are compelled to imagine decolonial futures” (Patel et.al, 2017). Critical ethnic studies is 
1 
an acknowledgement of the political and intellectual endeavor that the discipline 
represented once incorporated into universities, thereby becoming “institutionalized”,  
and includes a self-critique of the positionality of the scholar/teacher, as well as critique 
of the discipline that explores the ethnic studies scholars’ relationship to knowledge and 
power.  
Though there have been courses offered in ethnic studies at the community 
college and university level for decades, and some integration of multicultural 
perspectives into K-12 curricula efforts since the ‘60s, the national discussion of the 
social and academic value of an ethnic studies program at the secondary level has 
escalated since the passage in 2011 of House Bill 2281 in Arizona. This legislation sought 
to ban an ethnic studies program in Tucson Unified School District (Cabrera, Milem, 
Jaquette, and Marx, 2014). This program, known as Mexican American Studies (MAS), 
sought positive academic outcomes for students by employing culturally responsive and 
critical pedagogical practices rooted in indigenous epistemologies (Cabrera, et al., 2014).  
The ban in Tucson, Arizona, has served as a catalyst for reexamination of the value of 
ethnic studies as an effective intervention in the closure of racial achievement gaps in 
America’s public schools. Of further interest is the employment of ethnic studies as a 
strategy to address the broader goal of operationalizing pluralism in the United States. 
Given the transforming demographics in American schools, the rising demand for ethnic 
studies across the country, and because of, rather than despite, efforts to ban it, this area 
of research continues to grow.  
2 
Ethnic Studies Now 
There are several arguments that support the adoption of ethnic studies curricula. 
Students of color enrolled in ES courses graduate at higher rates than their non-enrolled 
peers (Cabrera, et al., 2014; Sleeter, 2011). Further, the racial/ethnic composition of the 
U.S. population is changing.  The white population of the United States, which made up 
76% of the total population in 1990, now makes up 61% of the country. Other ethnic 
groups’ populations have increased dramatically, though they still make up a smaller 
proportion of the country’s population. For example, from 2000 to 2016, the Asian 
American population increased by 72 percent from 10.5 to 18.0 million, though they 
increased only from 4 to 6% of the entire country. The largest demographic shift can be 
seen in the Hispanic/Latinx population, which increased from 9 to 18%. The Black 
population remains around 12%. The percentage of American Indians/Alaska Natives is 
1% of the undergraduate population (Postsecondary National Policy Institute, 2019). 
However, it is important to note that the percentage of American Indians/Alaska Native 
students is most likely inaccurate due to the U.S. Department of Education’s new 
guidelines on reporting race and ethnicity data on students, whereby approximately 
31,000 fewer AI/AN students were reported in 2010–11 than 2009–10 (The White House 
Initiative on American Indian and Alaska Native Education U.S. Department of 
Education (WHIAIANE) has recommended that students and staff are provided the 
opportunity to self-identify and provided the opportunity to take into account Native 
students who are bi-racial/bi-cultural (WHIAIANE, 2015). This erasure is consistent with 
the sixth key component of Tribal Critical Theory that recognizes that educational 
policies “toward  Indigenous people have, historically, closely followed each other 
3 
toward the problematic goal of assimilation” (Brayboy, 2013, p. 95). It is important to 
resist the erasure of Native American students. Regardless of low and or underreported, 
their experience in school matters, and it is the responsibility of our schools, and a tenet 
of ethnic studies, to address the ways colonialism continues to negatively impact Native 
students’ school experiences and outcomes. 
America’s classrooms are still reproducing inequitable outcomes because they 
have yet to incorporate cultural identities, diverse historical perspectives, and the 
examination of difference in the United States (Musu-Gillete, et.al., 2017). Though high 
school completion rates are higher for Black and Hispanic students than they were in 
1990 (an increase from 83 percent to 92 percent and from 59 percent to 88 percent, 
respectively) they are still lower than that of whites, which improved from 90 to 95 
percent in the same period (Musu-Gillete, et al, 2017). In addition, some gaps have 
widened, such as the 30-point white-Black difference in reading scores for 12th graders, 
with White students scoring an average of 295 and Black students averaging 266 on the 
NAEP reading scale in 2015. This persistent disparity is mirrored in the data on out of 
school suspensions. In 2011–12, about 6.4 percent of public school students received out 
of school suspensions, Black students made up a higher percentage (15.4 percent, or 
492,800 out of 3.2 million public school students total) of this population than any other 
ethnic group (Musu-Gillette, et al., 2017). Lack of college access is most acute for 
historically marginalized students, even as our teaching force has become less diverse (de 
los Ríos et al., 2015).  
The persistent racial achievement gap, which has been more recently recognized 
as an opportunity gap, has been a constant in American public education since Brown v 
4 
Board of Education (1954) efforts to desegregate schools. The conversation has evolved 
from an examination of access to opportunities afforded white students, to a critical 
theoretical approach to curriculum and pedagogy, embodied in this moment by the term 
“Culturally Responsive Teaching” (CRT), whereby instructional strategy, cultural 
connection between curricula and students’ experiences/lives, and recognition of 
students’ innate knowledge are seen as tools to engage students and scaffold learning 
(Dee & Penner, 2017; de los Ríos et al., 2015). Ethnic studies is more than just a critical 
examination of power and perspective. Ethnic studies also draws upon the critical 
analysis of racism offered by Critical Race Theory (CRT) the hallmarks of which can 
(and should) be evidenced within ethnic studies scholarship: 1) the normalcy of racism in 
US society; 2) interest convergence; 3) race as a social construction; 4) intersectionality 
and anti- essentialism; and, 5), voice or counter-narrative (Delgado and Stefancic, 2001). 
Ethnic studies combine the study of difference with critical theory in order to situate 
students as empowered learners and citizens. In addition to this philosophy of social 
action, Ethnic studies programs are characterized by 1) the incorporation of the lived 
experiences and histories of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds; 2) curricula that 
offer students opportunities to engage critically with American narratives around 
democracy, race and racism, and power; and 3) curricula implemented via a culturally 
responsive instructional practice (Sleeter, 2011). 
As a result of the growing body of empirical evidence that finds a link between 
ethnic studies courses and increased academic achievement, states have begun to take 
notice by answering grassroots calls to support ethnic studies in k-12 schools (Tintiango-
Cubales, et al., 2014). In July 2017, Oregon passed House Bill 2845, a bill that directs the 
5 
Oregon Department of Education to develop ethnic studies k-12 state standards, with 
implementation planned for 2020 (June 2017). 
More recently, school districts such as Los Angeles United School District 
(LAUSD) and San Francisco United School District (SFUSD) have initiated the 
institutionalization of ethnic studies in response to student demand1 in acknowledgement 
of the rapidly transforming demographic composition of American schools, and because 
white students benefit too (Dee and Penner, 2017). California passed AB-2016, a bill that 
“encourages” California schools to offer a model ethnic studies curriculum, currently in 
development.  State Assembly members Medina, Weber, and Bonta, have proposed 
Assembly Bill 2772, which would require students to have taken an ethnic studies course 
based on the “model curriculum” in order to graduate, though this has been amended to 
seek grant funding for ethnic studies courses from the California State Department of 
Education (AB-2772 Pupil Instruction: ethnic studies: grant program 2018). Los Angeles 
Unified School District (LAUSD) passed a resolution in 2014 to mandate a college 
preparatory ethnic studies course as a high school requirement and Santa Barbara Unified 
School District school board just passed the high school requirement to be added for 2019 
(de los Rios, Lopez & Morrell, 2015; Garcia, B., 2018).  Seattle School District, in 
response to a resolution passed by the National Association for Advancement of Colored 
People (NAACP), also passed a resolution in support of ethnic studies on June 28, 2017 
(Seattle Public Schools, 2018).    
 The recent interest in ethnic studies curricula and its presence in public 
educational policy makes it important to consider what is known about ethnic studies 
1 Student demand is a complex vocalization that usually entails a community (parents, organizations, etc.,) 
creating the conditions to support student voice and advocacy. 
6 
from prior research. This review is a search of the most recent scholarship on the topic of 
teaching ethnic studies curricula at the secondary level.  
7 
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW 
This literature review uses Christine Sleeter’s (2011) five characteristics of 
effective ethnic studies programs as a framework to analyze the relevant literature (See 
Appendix B). Part One describes characteristics of the final literature pool and Part Two 
organizes the literature using Sleeter’s (2011) themes of effective ethnic studies 
programs. 
Part One: Final Literature Pool 
The fourteen literature articles I selected for this review are focused on the 
pedagogical strategies and/or impacts of ethnic studies in secondary and K-12 settings.  I 
systematically reviewed and synthesized the final literature pool and divided the review 
into three major categories: (a) types of research design, (b) settings, (c) analysis (see 
Appendix B for studies organized by design, measures, and analysis methods).   
Types of Research. The majority of research in my pool was qualitative; 
however, there were five quantitative studies. The quantitative studies all presented 
findings that suggest a positive relationship between ethnic studies courses and desired 
achievement outcomes for students (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014; Dee & 
Penner, 2017; Godfrey, Santos, Burson, 2017; Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, & Landreman, 
2002; Mayhew, Grunwald, & Dey, 2005). For example, Cabrera et al., (2014) used a 
cross-sectional multivariate analysis of TUSD’s student level administrative data to 
establish the relationship between taking MAS classes and passing Arizona state 
standardized tests. This study utilized a dataset from four cohorts (2008-2011) of students 
enrolled in Tucson’s Mexican American Studies program (MAS) with the largest 
participant pool (N= 26,022) of the studies included on my review. These four years 
8 
represented the “peak” of MAS participation in Tucson schools before the ban. Findings 
established that students in the MAS program had a 64% increased likelihood of passing 
the AIMS (Arizona’s Instrument to Measure Standards) state assessment and three of the 
four cohorts saw a positive relationship between program participation and graduation 
(Cabrera et al., 2014). 
While a longitudinal study is designed to permit observations over an extended 
period of time to gauge change; in contrast, cross-sectional studies are designed to collect 
observations at a single point in time (Babbie, 2013). Of the studies included in my 
literature review, four were longitudinal quantitative studies, four of my fourteen studies 
were longitudinal qualitative case studies, four were cross-sectional qualitative studies, 
and two were cross-sectional quantitative studies.  
Out of the three longitudinal quantitative studies in this synthesis, two looked at 
student academic and/or behavior outcomes that followed student participation in ethnic 
studies courses (Cabrera et al., 2014; Dee & Penner, 2017). Cabrera et al. (2014) 
examined the relationship between course participation and student achievement for three 
student cohorts between 2008 and 2011, using graduation and the state standardized test 
results as their measure. Dee and Penner (2017) also conducted a quantitative 
longitudinal cohort study which followed 9th grade ethnic studies students identified as 8th 
graders as low achieving to test the efficacy of ethnic studies to engage students and raise 
achievement. In contrast to these ethnic studies course cohort studies, the Godfrey, 
Santos, and Burson (2017) study looked at ethnic and social identity formation in a 
general 6th grade student population. This study is relevant to this review as the authors 
examined students who do not display high levels of “system justification” in order to 
 9 
explore the role that marginalization and belonging play in middle school academic and 
behavioral trajectories. System justification theory proposes that “individuals are 
motivated to justify and rationalize existing social arrangements, defending and 
bolstering the status quo simply because it exists” (Godfrey et al., 2017, p.1) and 
examines the importance of ethnic studies for what the researchers term “marginalized 
youth” and measured the impact of their system justifying beliefs on development in the 
areas of behavior and achievement outcomes in 8th grade.  
Seven of the studies included in this review are qualitative case studies that 
examine how students’ multiple identities interact with ethnic studies curriculum. A 
qualitative case study by Caraballo (2017) looked at how urban middle school students’ 
experience is shaped and mediated by their multiple identities and literacies, describing 
student achievement as “identities in practice.” Similar to the 2017 de los Ríos study of 
“photovoice,” this study employed narrative analysis to explore “the liminal spaces 
between students’ home/cultural and academic contexts and document the dynamic ways 
in which students resist the discursive regulation of their academic identities” (Caraballo, 
2017, p.587). To be successful within the “discourses of achievement” is to attain or 
master the dominant “culture of power”; however, to enact a critical assemblage (shaping 
the ELA curriculum in ways that give voice to the multiple narratives of identity) while 
developing a critical awareness of how literacies operates within interrelated worlds, can 
be a way to remove the barriers to educational justice (Caraballo, 2017; de los Ríos, 
2017). 
The Chung & Harrison study used in-person semi-structured interviews to look at 
how teacher education programs (TEP) may be structured, institutionally and 
10 
ideologically, to “hinder the success of preservice teachers of color” (Chung & Harrison, 
2015, p.4). The result of continued curricular and pedagogical mismatch is the 
underrepresentation of teachers of color that mirrors the opportunity gap that exists in our 
k-12 systems.
Settings. As this review explores the current scholarship on secondary ethnic 
studies instruction, both content and impact, middle school and university level studies 
included are intended to reflect the scope of ethnic studies implementation models in 
North American public education. 
Table 2.1 describes the subjects, sample size, school description, and locations of 
participants from the studies included in this literature review of ethnic studies programs 
and their impact. These studies include a wide range of sample sizes from an intensity 
sampling of seven award winning teachers (Farinde-Wu et al., 2017) to 26,022 
participants (Cabrera et al., 2014). Five of the studies in this review feature culture-
specific programs like that of TUSD’s Mexican-American Studies program (Cabrera et 
al., 2014; de los Rîos, 2013; de los Rîos, Lopez, & Morrell, 2015; de los Rîos, 2017; San 
Pedro, 2015).  For example, San Pedro’s (2015) three-year ethnographic study challenges 
the narrative that Native American student silence indicates disengagement, in contrast to 
what silence may communicate in a European-American dominant classroom, and 
examines how a culturally responsive practice creates space for “the listening and sharing 
of story as a dialogic process between researcher and participants” (San Pedro, 2015, p. 
518). Participants range from middle and high school students to first year university 
students, students in a teacher education program (TEP) and also high performing 
teachers in a high school setting. 
11 
Table 2.1. Subjects, Sample Size, School Description, and Setting 
Study Subjects N Description Location 
1 4 high school 26,022 MAS (Mexican TUSD 
student cohorts American Studies) 
2 An 8th grade class NR Northeastern Urban Selective public 
over the course of Academy (NUA) middle school in 
a semester a large city 
3 Students of color 12 Teacher Education Midwest 
Program (TEP) University 
4 5 high school 1,405 Year-long ethnic studies SFUSD 
cohorts course 
5 Self-identified 11th 35 Year-long MAS course California 
and 12th grade 
Chicanx and 
Latinx students 
6 3 programs Not Two high school classes Pomona High 
employing ES identified and one summer and School 
studies with high after-school program 
school students 
7 3 Chicanx “focal 3 Secondary Working-class 
students”  Chicanx/Latinx course high school in 
Southern 
California 
8 “Award Winning 7 High school teachers BISD (“major” 
Teachers” urban school 
district) 
9 Sixth graders 257 Diverse, low income, Urban 
middle school southwestern city 
10 Entering first year 8051 Flagship universities 3 states 
college students with a strong stated representing the 
commitment to diversity Midwest, 
Northeast, and 
Mid-Atlantic 
12 
Table 2.1. continued
Study Subjects N Description Location 
11 30 Filipino- 35 A follow-up survey of Seattle, WA 
American and 5 TEP “Pinoy Teach” TEP 
Euro-American program 
preservice teachers 
12 Undergraduate 544 Predominantly White, Midwest 
students public university 
13 2 teachers and 43 45 Two high school ethnic Pacific 
high school studies classes and Northwest 
students  instructional materials 
14 High school 16 Native American DVHS in 
Seniors literature classroom Northern Arizona 
composed of multi-
tribal and multicultural 
student body (off 
reservation) 
Note. NR=Not Reported. 
Eight of the studies included in this review are situated in school districts where 
the majority of students are students of color2 (Cabrera et al., 2014; Carabello, 2017; Dee 
& Penner, 2017; de los Rios, 2013; de los Rios & Morrell, 2015; de los Rios, 2017; 
Farinde-Wu et al., 2017; Godrey et al., 2017). Data on how ES successfully addresses the 
student needs of districts such as these are illustrative of the increased call for responsive 
instruction and curriculum that is being heard from diversifying public school districts 
across the nation. For example, Dee & Penner (2017) used a regression discontinuity 
(RD) design to assess the GPA improvement of five cohorts of 9th graders (n=1405) to 
2 In the de los Rios, López and Morrell (2015) study, the authors argue that it is vital that the needs of 
students in large, urban school districts are addressed, as “Of the 6.9 million students who are enrolled in 
the nation’s largest 60 school districts, 71% of them are either African American or Latino (as opposed to 
approximately 35% of the nation as a whole…. Nationwide, the largest central city school districts are 
home to 28% of all African American students, 24% of all Latino students, 19% of all Asian American 
students, and 25% of all ELL (Council of Great City Schools 2012; de los Rios et al., 2015). 
13 
establish the causal effects of a yearlong ES course for students “on the margin of 
participation” (pg. 134).   
Not only do articles in this review consider ES effects at the secondary level, but 
it is important to consider the culturally sustaining impact of ES on those who would 
teach in middle and high school.  Two studies that explore the effects of culturally 
relevant programming on preservice teachers of color and their students are located in 
teacher education programs (TEPs). The Chung & Harrison (2015) study used in-person 
semi-structured interviews to look at how teacher education programs (TEP) may be 
structured institutionally and ideologically, to “hinder the success of preservice teachers 
of color,” which is both echo and ripple of the opportunity gap that exists in our k-12 
systems (p.5). Thus, this study examines how participants navigate the institutional 
barriers in teacher education programs and argues for an ethnic studies critique of teacher 
education. Chung & Harrison (2015) asks, “How might TEPs be transformed to make 
space for students of color?” (p. 5), while Halagoa’s (2010) study of the long-term impact 
of a Filipino-American curriculum on preservice teachers ten years later could be 
considered to answer this question, which found that the participants had an increased 
sense of empowerment, appreciation of diversity, and civic engagement (Halagoa, 2010).  
Part Two: Sleeter-identified Themes: Content and Impact 
Sleeter’s seminal (2011) review of ethnic studies research, commissioned by the 
National Education Association, argues for ethnic studies as a remedy for the 
disenfranchisement and disengagement of students of color in American classrooms (p. 
5). Sleeter’s comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of effective ethnic studies 
14 
courses resulted in “five consistent themes of the field” that differentiate ethnic studies 
from conventional Euro-American studies courses:   
1) Explicit identification of the point of view from which knowledge emanates,
and the relationship between social location and perspective;
2) Examination of U.S. colonialism historically, as well as how relations of
colonialism continue to play out;
3) Examination of the historical construction of race and institutional racism,
how people navigate racism, and struggles for liberation;
4) Probing meanings of collective or communal identities that people hold; and
5) Studying one’s community’s creative and intellectual products, both historic
and contemporary (Sleeter, 2002; 2011, p. 3)
These themes are not discrete, separate notions.  The nuances they hold overlap 
with each other (See Appendix B).  For example, being exposed to a point of view can 
impact how a person identifies.  Sleeter describes this as a “critical multicultural 
education approach in which the curriculum is organized around themes having to do 
with understanding and learning to challenge racism and other forms of oppression, 
rather than around groups. Thus, while it's partly a matter of how much one understands 
about ES, it’s also partly what one sees ES as being primarily about” (C. Sleeter, personal 
communication, June 25, 2018). In keeping with this critical perspective of ethnic studies, 
this review attempts to use this framework to explore examples of ES content and impact 
at the secondary level. 
15 
Theme 1: Explicit identification of the point of view from which knowledge 
emanates, and the relationship between social location and perspective. Ethnic studies’ 
aim is to include multiple perspectives from voices that have been primarily excluded 
from K-12 content. Eleven studies included in this review fall under this theme. For 
example, the three-year ethnographic study conducted by San Pedro (2015) looks 
specifically at the role of silence and culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) in a Native 
American literature course with curriculum-centered indigenous knowledge, which 
consciously decenters assimilationist and colonial educational practices. San Pedro 
(2015) explored how “schooling spaces that have historically rejected the beliefs, 
languages, and knowledges of Native American students” (p. 516) as well as regard the 
silence of those students as disengagement. In contrast to this, San Pedro observed the 
role of silence in Native culture as a form of participation, where “silence was discussed 
as a rich and fertile ground for identity development through the use of listening, 
dialogically and critically, to the positions and stories of students in this classroom 
space…. they were part of the conversation and a part of the lessons and materials, which 
were rooted in issues and topics important to their shared understanding of their world 
and worlds” (p. 537). Hurtado, Engberg, Ponjuan, and Landreman’s (2002) survey of 
8,051 students entering college in three flagship universities found that students who 
engaged in discussions about race and ethnicity in their precollege experiences, and were 
more practiced in perspective-taking and engagement with students with diverse 
experiences from their own, were more prepared for what the authors termed “democratic 
outcomes,” including understanding the “importance of engaging in social action to 
create change in society” (p. 182). 
 16 
Theme 2: Examination of U.S. colonialism historically, as well as how relations 
of colonialism continue to play out. Colonization affects the way families view 
themselves and that in turn impacts a student’s identity development.  Ten of the studies 
in this review address this relationship specifically. Pinoy Teach, a Pacific Northwest 
teacher preparation program, critically examined US colonialism in the context of 
Filipino colonial narratives in local middle schools. Halagao (2010) found that when 
exposed to decolonized curriculum, students experienced a ‘“deeper love and 
appreciation of ethnic history, culture, identity and community” (Sleeter, 2011, p.14).  
This curriculum utilized a problem posing pedagogy to interrogate impacts of 
colonization.  Sleeter (2011) characterizes this content as a process of decolonization that 
“helped them to develop a sense of empowerment and self-efficacy that persisted, as well 
as a life commitment to diversity and multiculturalism” (p.14). 
Theme 3: Examination of the historical construction of race and institutional 
racism, how people navigate racism and struggles for liberation. Seven studies in this 
review explicitly explored the social construction of race as a component of an ethnic 
studies curriculum and its impacts. As an example, the Godfrey, Santos, and Burson 
(2017) study looked at ethnic and social identity formation in a general 6th grade student 
population.  They found that “marginalized youth who are more critically conscious -- 
who understand the economic, political and social forces that contribute to inequity, feel 
empowered to changes these conditions -- and take part in social action -- have better 
occupational outcomes” (p.2).  The authors found that when students understand the 
genesis of racism, it creates a pathway for them to navigate it. 
17 
Theme 4: Probing meanings of collective or communal identities that people 
hold. Ethnic Studies programs that cultivate, honor, and give voice to student ethnic and 
cultural identities produce students who not only identify more strongly as an ethnic 
being, but also experience/reach higher educational outcomes. All of the studies included 
in this review address the importance of ethnic identity exploration within a school 
context. For example, de los Rios (2013) discusses a yearlong social science elective 
course that implemented Chicano/a-Latino/a studies.  She found that “this class served as 
a space for eleventh and twelfth grade students to move between their colonized and de-
colonized sensibility and to shift into a third space -- a decolonial imaginary -- that 
encompassed both tensions and possibilities” (p.71).  Students explored the 
contradictions between stereotypical representations of Latinx and their authentic, 
academic selves.   
Theme 5: Studying one’s community’s creative and intellectual products, both 
historic and contemporary. As with Theme 4, all of the studies in this review address the 
critical ways ethnic studies fills in the educational gaps that result from a Eurocentric 
educational frame that has up to this moment characterized schooling in the United 
States, both from a historical and contemporary perspective. As an example, Naegele’s 
(2017) qualitative case study looked at high school students’ experience in ethnic studies 
courses in two schools in the Pacific Northwest. One classroom that was part of the study 
was an ethnic studies course where students explored the historical legacy of slavery 
while reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ Between the World and Me. Students were encouraged to 
examine contemporary issues such as code switching, police brutality, and the 
complexities of Black identity in the US. “Students were able to use discourse as an 
 18 
intellectual process to self-awareness and academic growth. Students described the 
interactive nature of ethnic studies and explained different experiential activities 
facilitated in class that helped them understand what racism and ethnic studies are” (p. 
94). 
Summary 
In summary, as this literature review reveals, the empirical evidence base that 
supports ethnic studies instruction in high schools is growing following a period of 
intense political scrutiny following the ban of the Mexican American Studies program in 
2010 in Arizona (Tintiangco-Cubales, et.al, 2014; Wanberg, 2013).  Ethnic studies can 
manifest itself across grade levels, as elective or required, in teacher preparation realms, 
and across varied racial and ethnic histories and presences. Recent legislative initiatives 
demonstrate that policy makers are responding to increased demand and evidence that 
supports ethnic studies instruction. 
Research Questions. I aim to answer the following research questions: 
Research Question 1: What assets/strengths/supports are most helpful in the 
implementation of ethnic studies? 
Research Question 2: What are the barriers/challenges to ES implementation? 
Research Question 3: To what degree do result depend on participants’ district, 
participants’ roles, and the phase of implementation at participant’s site? 
Theoretical Framework  
The process of examining how ethnic studies courses interact with, shape, and 
reflect the larger educational system is complex. Only by the exploration of how those 
within organizations (in this case, building, and district decision-makers in schools and 
19 
school systems) engage, react, and respond to the promotion of ethnic studies (ES) as a 
response to opportunity gaps, can we see where ES elicits changes in systems as has been 
evidenced in students (Sleeter, 2011). In other words, my research questions seek to 
identify the ways in which we see ethnic studies taken up as a new narrative that results 
in organizational transformation through learning.  
In order to address my research questions, it is helpful to understand ES as a 
dialogic pedagogy enacting change within systems that are fluid, interconnected, and 
dynamic. This dissertation utilizes dialogic organizational theory (Bushe & Marshak, 
2014; Demers, 2007) as a framework for understanding the implementation process 
through which an organization changes to reflect the diverse needs and values of those 
within it.   
Creswell and Creswell (2014) describe how theory in mixed method studies 
operates “as an orienting lens that shapes the types of questions asked, who participates 
in the study, how data are collected, and the implications made from the study” (p.208). 
My research plan is to use a two-phase, sequential, exploratory, mixed-method research 
design that is illustrative of Bushe and Marshak’s (2014) dialogic organizational theory of 
change. Bushe and Marshak (2014) argue for a disruptive rather than diagnostic approach 
to organizational change and describe three primary change processes that contribute to 
organizational transformation. These processes include 1) the emergence of a new 
narrative after the disruption of the ‘established’ meaning-making processes, 2) changing 
hegemonic narratives through ongoing and deliberate dialogue, and 3) introducing 
‘generative images’ which provoke new ways of thinking (Bushe & Marshak, 2014). This 
 20 
theory reflects the idea that knowledge is not fixed, and there’s no meta-narrative that 
exists because one’s understanding is always emerging.  
All elements of an organization are connected. Organizational change theorists 
have long described the importance of examining entrenched beliefs and attitudes within 
organizations. Ethnic studies operates as a theory that engages and challenges the 
hegemonic model of education that exists and persists in many educational organizations. 
The mental model, one of Senge’s “core disciplines” (Senge, 1990, p. X) of the learning 
organization, can be a useful way of thinking about the “story” of education, and the 
ways in which ethnic studies is a new mental model that is “shaping our perception,” 
namely giving voice to our multiple histories, shaping and producing a new definition of 
what it means to be an “American.” ES operates as a plural and critical, rather than a 
singular and hegemonic, narrative of knowledge and being. The dominant narrative of 
American studies, coined the “whitestream” (Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014),  
has operated as a mental model that has impeded learning within the school organization 
(think about inaccurate or whitewashed textbooks), while ethnic studies offers a new 
mental model that challenges the “theory in use” (Senge, 2006,  p. 177).  The “theory in 
use” (school as reproduction) model does not challenge the precept that all students can 
achieve at high levels, nor does it provide a curriculum model and pedagogy that engages 
students from all backgrounds. The “closing the achievement gap” narrative can be seen 
as a “theory-in-use” that reinforces system archetypes, replicates inequities by equity 
initiatives that do not transform practice, e.g. the intervention Achievement Via 
Individual Determination (AVID),  a program that targets the “academic middle” which, 
 21 
in turn, supports canonical AP tracking). The incorporation of ES be seen as a shift part of 
shaping the system that must accommodate new understandings. 
In addition to the consideration of the power of the mental model, it is important 
to note that in contrast to a focus on organizations as open systems, dialogic 
organizational development (OD) is based on a view of organizations as dialogic systems 
where individual, group, and organizational actions result from self-organizing, socially 
constructed realities created and sustained by the prevailing narratives, stories, and 
conversations through which people make meaning about their experiences (Bushe & 
Marshak, 2014, p. 193).   
In Demer’s (2007) analysis of the social dynamics perspective of organizational 
change, the dialogic mode consists of actors engaged in “actions and conversations that 
may be translated into text… for the change to become organizational, it has to become 
part of the text. This means that to understand change dynamics, organizational change, 
both as text, and as conversation, must be studied (Demers, 2007, p. 205). How is ethnic 
studies changing the text? Demers’s synthesis of organizational change theories (2007) 
describes how a narrative approach looks at how change emerges from disturbances that 
change the conversations, which shape meaning making and everyday thinking and 
behavior. We can see ethnic studies as a disturbance (that has emerged from grassroots 
advocacy) that now functions to create a “new identity for the organization and its 
members” (p. 196). 
Brazilian educational theorist Paulo Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), 
made the claim that education is “suffering from narration sickness” (p. 71). Freire 
attributes this sickness to the imbalance of the teacher-student relationship, which can be 
22 
healed through a dialogic process between student and teacher, and through the 
transformation of a banking system of education (whereby the teacher “deposits” 
knowledge into the student), into one that is liberatory and transformative, what Freire 
calls “problem posing” (Freire & Ramos, 1972). This idea can be extended further: a 
dialogic organizational development practice sees beyond problem posing and can be 
applied to a generative practice that makes room for new types of relationships, 
possibilities to emerge (Demers, 2006). Through this framework I hope to demonstrate 
that ethnic studies engages organizations in a transformative process of thinking and 
learning.  
Dialogic Organizational Development. Dialogic OD emphasizes discourse, 
emergence and generativity to foster or accelerate change (Bushe & Marshak, 2014). 
Generativity creates change by offering people new images that allow them to see old 
things in new ways and to make new actions available that couldn’t be conceived of 
before. Emergence creates change by the disruption of stable patterns and creating 
opportunities for new thoughts and actions to emerge. Narrative and discourse create 
change by altering the stories and symbols people use to make meaning of themselves 
and the situations they are in. (Demers, 2007). In her synthesis of organizational change 
theories, Demers goes on to outline characteristics and principles of “discourses about 
change” (p. 193), which: 
• Assumes groups and organizations are self-organizing socially constructed 
realities that are continuously created, conveyed, and changed through narratives, 
stories, images, and conversations. 
 23 
• Are based on concepts of complexity, meaning-making, emergence, and self-
organization, these dialogic process activities assume relationships and 
organizations are continuously re-creating themselves through the ongoing 
conversations that occur at all levels and parts. 
• Will encourage incremental shifts that lead groups to self-organize in new and 
different ways as a result of shifts in the nature of conversations, for example, 
their participants, emphases, or patterns,  
• Acknowledge the inherently generative potential of action as reflective of 
situational/local context 
Dialogic Change Model. Adapted from Bushe and Marshak’s (2014) theory of 
dialogic organizational development, Kuenkel (2016) developed the following Dialogic 
Change Model, which represents the different phases of transformation that organizations 
undergo with the implementation of the dialogic approach. As all stakeholders within an 
organization are impacted by reform initiatives, it is helpful to understand how a change 
process unfolds. Figure 2.1 illustrates how the dialogic change model could be applied to 
understand ethnic studies implementation as a dynamic and emergent school reform 
change process that echoes the ever-shifting landscape of American classrooms. 
Exploring and Engaging. Phase 1, exploring and engaging, may involve schools 
and districts involved in the research of various ethnic studies models, pedagogies, 
including culturally responsive instruction. This phase may also be exploratory efforts to 
identify interested students and qualified potential instructors. Community inreach or 
outreach may be part of this phase, connections and relationship building between 
 24 
various stakeholder groups that include historically marginalized, underserved, or 
underrepresented populations. 
Figure 2.1. Dialogic Organizational Development combined with ES organizational 
learning 
Building and Formalizing. This phase involves clarifying and building goals and 
curriculum. Some districts may create an ethnic studies work group or task force; 
proposed pilot curricula or programs; create summer work; gather resources, engage in 
standards development and alignment activities; and embed building or district-wide 
ethnic studies professional development into yearlong PD plan. This stage may also 
involve consolidation, or integration of other equity initiatives into an ethnic studies 
implementation plan.  
Implementing and Evaluating. This phase may involve piloting stand-alone 
ethnic studies courses, embedding ethnic studies standards and/or pedagogies into 
existing courses; document and resource curation and lesson study. This phase may also 
25 
include team teaching and observation opportunities, as well as collection of student 
artifacts and feedback. Traditional data collection also may be part of this phase 
(enrollment, attendance, and state assessment scores). The creation of new specialists, 
including ethnic studies teacher on special assignment (TOSA) or instructional coaches 
may be considered. Collaboration among teachers, interdisciplinary teams, buildings, or 
institutions (dual enrollment?) also may inform the implementation and evaluation of this 
work.  
Developing Further, Replicating, or Institutionalizing. Scaling and redesign 
efforts are part of this phase. Ethnic studies standards are being implemented system-
wide. There is a shared commitment to expand ethnic studies standards and pedagogies to 
support student engagement and learning. Faculty understand goals of ethnic studies and 
building and district leadership can utilize data and information from evaluation phase to 
further refine ethnic studies instruction, curriculum, programs and policy for 
sustainability. 
My literature review examined ethnic studies at the secondary level and found 
that successful ethnic studies courses adhere to certain themes (Sleeter, 2011; Zulema, 
2017) and that students experience positive academic and social outcomes that contribute 
to school resiliency and long-term democratic participation (Hurtado et al., 2002; 
Mayhew et al., 2005). This emergent body of evidence supports legislation proposals that 
mandate the implementation of ethnic studies state standards in K-12 systems such as in 
California and Oregon. My research questions intend to explore the discourse and impact 
of ethnic studies course/instructional practice on school organizations. I seek to explore to 
what degree building and system leaders can articulate the content, goals, benefits, and 
 26 
challenges of implementing ethnic studies curricula, and their perception of ES’ effect on 
the academic outcomes and social climate of the systems in which they operate. As ES 
programs are characterized by 1) the incorporation of the lived experiences and histories 
of students from diverse ethnic backgrounds; 2) curricula that offer students opportunities 
to engage critically with American narratives around democracy, race and racism, and 
power; and 3) a culturally responsive instructional practice (Sleeter, 2011) it is imperative 
to explore how systems are responding to these initiatives, and what new narratives are 
emerge in response to the continued demand for ethnic studies courses and curriculum. 
Gaps in Prior Research 
My literature review examined studies of ethnic studies at the secondary level. 
The growing body of evidence supports the argument that ethnic studies improves 
academic and social outcomes for all students (Cabrera et al., 2014; Dee & Penner, 2017; 
Godfrey & Burson, 2017; Sleeter, 2011). Similarly, there is evidence that ethnic studies is 
viewed and experienced positively by teachers (Farinde-Wu, et al., 2017; Naegele, 2017).  
Naegele’s recent cross case study (2017) found that teachers and students had positive 
perceptions of ethnic studies in the Pacific Northwest. The momentum is building for 
further evaluation of the impact of ethnic studies, not just on the students or teachers, but 
within the larger educational context. There was a noticeable lack of data on approach to 
implementation of ethnic studies on the schools within which these courses operate.  
As we consider the growing ethnic studies k-12 movement, it is important to 
identify the strategies employed by key decision-makers within school districts as they 
articulate and move the ethnic studies conversation forward. What levers can be 
identified by decision makers that districts and states can utilize as they respond to 
27 
community, teacher, and student calls (or challenges) to ethnic studies? Given the passage 
of HB 2845 in Oregon, the proposal of HB 1294 in Washington, and the recent veto of 
AB2772 in California by Governor Brown (9/3018) these issues seem urgent for school 
decision-makers.  
Therefore, this study will focus on the strategies and barriers as identified by 
building and system leaders as districts explore and implement ethnic studies at the 
secondary level. As a mixed methods study, my study will build on prior research that 
was predominantly qualitative; the explanatory sequential approach will help explain the 
quantitative findings from my survey that follow the coding of responses. Second, my 
study will look at two West Coast school districts with established ethnic studies 
secondary courses, compared to the previous research that tended to examine select 
programs at a single school. Finally, the qualitative portion will include open-ended 
questions with program participants from each site to provide analysis and context for the 
survey responses, helping to explain the quantitative findings. 
While the prior research on ethnic studies looks at curriculum, instructional 
pedagogy, and student outcomes, there exists a lack of data on school and district 
leaderships’ sense of ethnic studies.  Previously examined literature on ES has shown that 
the majority of this content was either elective or implemented by supporters of ES, be 
they professors, social justice leaders, and or grassroots educational experts and 
advocates.  Therefore, mainstream administrators and district level leaders largely have 
not been required to implement this content.  This is about to change, with newly adopted 
ES legislative initiatives in Oregon, Washington and California.  The implementation of 
this legislation poses a challenge for education leaders with little ES content knowledge.  
 28 
Therefore, this proposed study seeks to chronicle administrative level efforts to 
implement ES standards in two states to identify what has worked well and what 
challenges they face. 
29 
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 
I used a two-phase, sequential explanatory mixed methods research approach to 
explore the perceptions of school and district leaders of districts engaged in ethnic studies 
implementation at the secondary level. I collected, analyzed, and combine quantitative 
and qualitative data. In Phase I, I administered an online survey that included both open- 
and close- ended survey questions in Qualtrics, an online survey platform provided by 
University of Oregon.   
Then, in Phase II, I gained a deeper understanding of the emergent organizational 
narratives of school and district leaders around ethnic studies in various settings and 
program implementation phases through qualitative interviews. The quantitative results 
helped guide the interview question development, which was specifically designed to 
elaborate upon the initial results. In identifying and synthesizing these factors, I can be 
better able to offer conclusions and possible recommendations for schools and districts 
about the process of moving forward with the implementation of ethnic studies standards 
embedded within already-existing courses, and the development of ethnic studies stand-
alone courses and programs. 
Figure 3.1. Explanatory sequential mixed methods 
Phase I: Qua ntitative Phase II: Qual itative Interpretation 
QUANT data QUAL data 
collection collection 
30 
Setting and Participants 
My study looks at ethnic studies courses/programs in two locations on the West 
Coast. I chose these two school districts because they have a long-established (District 1) 
or nascent (District 2) Ethnic Studies program . The participants for this study are a 
sample of key decision makers involved in ethnic studies implementation of elective 
courses offered in a secondary setting. Participants were recruited through an email 
request through the building principal at each site and through outreach via already 
existing personal and professional networks. While each districts’ implementation 
process is context-specific, I hoped to receive a comparable number of survey responses 
from both districts. Further, interview participants were selected from the original survey 
pool, in order to “maximize the importance of one phase explaining the other” (Creswell 
& Creswell, 2018, p. 222).  
District 1. District 1, in California, employs 363 central office certificated and 212 
school site administrators. There are 15 high schools with 15,861 students as of October 
2017. District demographic information was available but separated by high school. 
District total enrollment = 54,063. The following district wide data was available. 7 % of 
District B students are African American, 27% are Latinx, <1% are Native American, 1% 
are Pacific Islander, 15% are White, 35% are Asian American, 5% Multi-Racial, 5% 
Declined to State, 29% English Language Learners, 11% Special Education, and 55% 
Socioeconomically Disadvantaged.  (*District facts at a glance). 
District 1’s 2017 graduation rate is 84%, which is also the graduation rate of 
White students, which was ten percentage points below that of Asian American students 
(94%). Filipino American student rate also exceeded that of White students at 89%. 
31 
African American graduation rate is 77%, Latinx students 70%, and Pacific Islander 
graduation rate is 80%.  
District 2. District 2 is located in Washington state, and employs 44.80 district 
administrators, and 187.25 school administrators (Glander, 2017). Total 9-12th grade 
enrollment in the 2016-17 school year was 14,818. There are 12 comprehensive high 
schools, though total high school enrollment data includes transitional and alternative 
programs. In 2017, 2,468 enrolled students were African American (16.7% 2, 635 
enrolled students were Asian (17.8%); 1,858 were Hispanic (12.5%); 1,097 Multiracial 
(7.4%); and 6, 565 enrolled students were White (44.3%). In 2017, 1,326 of 9-12 students 
were eligible for Bilingual services (9.3% of enrolled students). (*District Data Profile, 
2018).  
Data provided from 2015-6 4-Year Cohort reports that the district graduation rate 
was 76.94%. The total number of “on time” graduates in 2016 was 2, 639 students. There 
was no significant gap between that of White and Asian American Students (83.65% and 
81.36% respectively). The graduation rate of American Indian/Alaska Native students 
was 54.55%, Pacific Islanders, 57.69%, these two groups represented the greatest gap. 
The graduation rate was 69.22% for African American students, and 61.81% for Latinx. 
The graduation percentage for those in the “Multiracial” category was 76.83%, closest to 
the district average. (*District Data Profile, 2018). 
Sampling Plan 
I reached my survey and interview subjects by first contacting pre-identified 
district personnel, such as the Chief Academic Officer listed on the district website, 
 32 
district directors of Curriculum and Instruction, and also ES course instructors identified 
through professional and personal outreach. 
I requested permission to contact the pilot ES instructors or those who are seen as 
pivotal district or building allies in ethnic studies course implementation. I conducted a 
convenience sample of ethnic studies instructors, building, and district leadership from 
that point. My goal was to include at least 100 survey respondents total, with a balanced 
representation across districts and roles. Given the total number of building and district 
leadership positions per district, the projected completion rate should offer statistical 
power.  
Part two of my sampling process involved my second data collection instrument, 
a semi-structured interview with open-ended questions. Creswell and Creswell (2018) 
describe how “qualitative approaches allow room to be innovative and to work more 
within researcher-designed frameworks” (p. 20). This approach is particularly relevant 
given the nature of the dialogic organizational change framework, through employment 
of narrative analysis of ethnic studies philosophy and pedagogy. The subjects’ interview 
responses were used to provide interpretation and analysis of the quantitative data 
collection.  
Data collection and instrumentation 
There are two data collection instruments in this study, both created by me: (a) a 
12-question web-based questionnaire and (b) a semi-structured individual interview.
Dillman, Smyth, and Christian (2014) note that online survey use is proliferating, as “web 
is especially attractive because of speed, low cost, and economies of scale” (p. 301). I 
used Qualtrics to design and deliver the survey via email to the sample of school 
33 
professionals. As this population tends to be tech savvy, the survey includes a variety of 
item response formats, including forced-choice questions, where, according to research, 
respondents are more likely to consider each item, as well as questions using a Likert 
scale (Dillman, Smyth, and Christin, 2014, p.128).  
Ethnic studies is described as “an interdisciplinary field that begins with the 
assumption that race and racism have been and will continue to be strong social and 
cultural forces in American society (Hu-Dehart, 1993). de los Rîos, Lopez, and Morrell 
(2015) describe potentials of a “critical race pedagogy” to mitigate the problem of the 
miseducation of students of color in the United States (p. 85-6).  They offer three case 
studies as evidence for their argument that effective ethnic studies programs are rigorous 
and engaging curricula that connect students to “literacies of power, agency, social 
awareness, civic engagement, and academic achievement” (p 84). The first part of my 
quantitative survey looks at the components of the course itself, using items that speak to 
these literacies, as well as questions that address the impact of ES outside of the 
classroom, and phase two interview questions will build from these responses. 
Phase I: Survey 
Phase I examines pedagogical and organizational change and ethnic studies. I 
reached out to various professional and personal contacts to identify potential research 
sites. Babbie describes the unit of analysis as “the what or whom being studied (2013, p. 
97). I contacted ethnic studies teachers/grassroots advocates and building leaders as those 
who have moved or are moving the ethnic studies conversation and implementation 
process through their organization. The perspectives of these stakeholders are critical in 
34 
order to determine “how the narrators [of ethnic studies] create a new identity for the 
organization and its members (Demers, 2007, p. 196).  
I included information about my University of Oregon program enrollment as 
“people are more likely to comply with a request if it comes from an authoritative source 
that has been legitimized by larger society to make such requests (Dillman, Smyth ad 
Christian, 2014).  I then sent out an initial email to the teacher/advocates and 
administrative contacts at each of the four districts that explains the scope and purpose of 
this proposed study and that there are two potential ways for them to be involved: (a) an 
ethnic studies course survey, (b) interview participation. This initial email included the 
survey link and due date of the survey. The initial email reminded administrators that this 
proposed study would build on previous work to add to the growing research-base for 
ethnic studies K-12 implementation, provide a brief description of the interview goals 
and request for further recommendations, and note that schools will be notified on how to 
participate in these phases at a later time. As, it is important to communicate the 
importance of the contact and survey completion (Dillman et. al., 2014), my initial letter 
cited the value of the study within the broader goal of supporting educators, schools, and 
districts in implementation of Ethnic Studies State Standards and courses.  
The survey, found in Appendix E addresses a) the phase of implementation of 
ethnic studies programs, b) characteristics of successful ethnic studies pedagogy and 
practice, and c) strategies for successful implementation of ethnic studies programs. Part 
A consists of 12 questions total. As an example, participants are asked to rank what they 
see as the most to least important characteristic of an ethnic studies program and utilizes 
the Sleeter themes, such as “development of ethnic literacy.” The survey was emailed out 
 35 
with a shortened URL and QR (quick response) code that took the user directly to the 
browser-based survey.  
I administered the email survey in early Spring 2019. I started with a short 
introduction email, (or reminder to those already contacted), indicating how I received 
their email address, including a short introduction to my study goals, as well as the 
timeline for completion and my affiliation with the University of Oregon.  
I began with snowball sampling, identifying likely participants by school district 
and through professional networks. Any new contacts were added to my participant 
database. Email requests for participation were sequenced: I reached out with an initial 
request two days before sending out the email with the survey link and embedded QR 
code (in case respondents replied using a mobile device). I sent a follow up email one 
week later, with a reminder about the importance of survey completion, and a final 
reminder after two weeks, along with a thank you for all participants once my survey had 
closed. I also thanked the various contacts who shared my survey with others.  Table 3.1 
identifies which survey items address my research questions. 
Phase II: Interviews 
I used open-ended survey questions to further determine respondents’ perception 
of ethnic studies curriculum as a remedy for the persistent opportunity gap that exists for 
students of color in our classrooms.  From these open-ended responses, I identified my 
interview subjects and composed appropriate questions.  
36 
Table 3.1. Survey Questions Aligned with RQs and Phases of Dialogic Change Model 
Research 
Question 
Survey Question RQ1 RQ2 
Q3 My school has (check as many as apply): X 
a) One or more "stand alone" ethnic studies courses (e.g., ES
101, ES 012, Mexican American Studies (MAS), etc.)
b) One or more courses that embed ethnic studies standards in
existing course curriculum (e.g. History of the Americas, etc.)
c) An ethnic studies course sequence or pathway
d) Other (courses or curriculum that are relevant to ethnic
studies (please describe)
Q4 Which phase of ES implementation best characterizes the ES X 
efforts in your district? 
Q5 Please indicate what you feel are the most important X X 
characteristics of a successful Ethnic Studies program. 
Q6 The following have been challenges to ethnic studies X 
implementation in my district  
Q7 Which of the following best describes your building or districts' X 
most effective strategies for supporting successful ethnic studies 
implementation? 
Q8 Based on your experience, how valuable are the following tactics X 
for districts considering implementation of ethnic studies district-
wide? 
Q9 Which factors have been most influential in your districts' most X 
recent ethnic studies efforts? 
Q10 Please describe one challenge you or your school/district has X 
faced in implementing ethnic studies and how that challenge was 
overcome or mitigated. 
Q11 Is there anything else you wish to share about the process of X X 
ethnic studies implementation in your building or district? 
Q12 Are you willing to be interviewed for this study? If so, please 
provide your email address or phone number for follow-up. 
37 
As an example, an interview participant whose school offers a Mexican American Studies 
(MAS) or Asian American Studies (AAS) course may identify a different implementation 
strategy, or recommend different student population recruitment/intervention strategies, 
than a respondent with an ethnic studies elective course offering. 
Sample 
I hoped to conduct at least two interviews at each district with either a high school 
ethnic studies teacher and/or grassroots ES advocate identified by either my initial 
outreach, or through interest indicated in survey responses, in order to receive more 
detailed information about the efficacy and strategic establishment and implementation 
process of ethnic studies courses in their local school communities. Once interview 
participants were identified, I focused on program characteristics, specific barriers, 
challenges, and successes identified, and also solicited their feedback on any 
recommendations they would offer to nascent ethnic studies courses or programs.  
Both instruments (the survey and interview) are designed to answer each research 
question, with the open-ended and interview responses extending on the survey 
responses. 
Analysis 
This study is interested in identification of variables that may indicate effective 
strategies or barriers for effective ethnic studies implementation as identified by those 
making decisions about ethnic studies curricula and programming. Initial analyses will be 
descriptive in nature. In addition to calculating means and standard deviations for each 
question, bar graphs will be created to represent the number of respondents endorsing the 
38 
importance, effectiveness, challenge, value, and influence of different factors in the 
implementation of ES.  
Understanding how context may relate to differences in the most effective 
supports and biggest challenges of ES implementation is one objective of this study. An 
urban district in close proximity to the origin of ethnic studies may offer valuable insight 
for districts that are new to the ethnic studies conversation as district demographics 
continue to shift. Descriptive data will also be examined by district. The intent is not to 
compare districts, but to understand whether results are consistent across districts. An 
independent samples t test will be applied to the descriptive results to see whether 
apparent differences across districts are statistically significant or likely due to random 
sampling variability. 
Understanding the role of the participant, as well as the phase of implementation 
were hypothesized to be instrumental in the types of responses obtained. Thus, 
descriptive results will also be analyzed by participant role and by phase of 
implementation using an independent samples t test to determine if any observed 
differences are statistically significant or likely due to random sampling variability. 
In addition, answers to open-ended questions, including where participants 
provided other responses to the quantitative items, were coded and categorized with 
consistency checks completed by an experienced faculty member at the University of 
Oregon. First, I read through responses question by question and highlighted any 
impression, motif, or theme that emerged from the feedback. As Creswell (2014) 
suggests, “the traditional approach in the social sciences is to allow the codes to emerge 
during the data analysis” (p. 199). Next, I coded the data using established categories 
39 
based on the five ES themes identified by Sleeter (2011), and previous studies included 
my literature review. Additional themes arose from the open-ended question responses, 
and I added codes to capture the themes. Data was collected and organized through word 
processing and spreadsheet computer programs (i.e., Word and Excel).  
I made several passes through the survey results to see if themes emerged that 
could be applied to Phase II interview results. First, I transcribed interview recordings 
using online software and edited for coherence and grammar. I then shared interview 
transcripts with all interviewees, asking them for feedback, corrections, and elaboration 
as a means to member check. I then continued to use the Sleeter’s five (2011) ethnic 
studies themes (i.e. Origin of knowledge, Historical U.S. colonialism and contemporary 
colonialism, Historical construction of race, Institutional racism, Navigation of racism) as 
an organizing frame to determine the degree to which the ES courses and the 
understanding of ethnic studies held by building leadership were aligned.  Next, my 
second phase involved several more passes through the four interview transcripts: 1) to 
see how the four interviewees responses to the 10 questions differed from and/or echoed 
each other or survey responses, and 2) to see if responses could be mapped onto the 
dialogic framework in order to better understand and articulate how ethnic studies 
interacts with broader organizational change processes. Finally, I read each transcript 
intact, noting patterns that may be evident from participant role and region, as indicated 
by respondents in their surveys, open-ended question, and interview responses.  
Validity 
I chose to focus on two districts along the West Coast of the United States where 
student demographics are comparable, providing construct validity, which, increasingly 
40 
in recent studies, has “become the overriding objective in validity” (Creswell & Creswell,  
2018, p. 153) and is particularly important given that this sequential explanatory mixed 
methods approach seeks to determine the perceived efficacy of ethnic studies secondary 
programs. 
There were limitations related to external validity, given that both my survey and 
interview sample were non-random. External validity asks, “To what populations, 
settings, treatment variables, and measurement variables can this effect be generalized” 
(Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002, p. 37)?  Part of my research was to elicit whether 
there are generalizable conclusions about the role of building and system leadership in 
guiding the communication of ethnic studies programming; however, this study was only 
administered in districts where ethnic studies is already being implemented.  
I pilot-tested the survey instrument with colleagues, including my principal, 
assistant principal, and district leadership in Fall 2018, in Eugene, Oregon, to gain 
feedback on internal and external construct validity. To increase the validity of the 
findings in the study, I asked several colleagues familiar with the research topic to review 
and offer feedback on survey items and I requested a peer examination of the raw data I 
received.  
Methodological triangulation is the use of two or more methods in studying the 
same idea under investigation (Creswell, 2014). I used the survey data, open-ended 
question themed responses, and attendance/achievement data to ascertain whether the 
participants’ perception of ethnic studies corresponds with the Sleeter themes, and to 
what degree the respondent felt ethnic studies curricula/programming meets student and 
system needs, with both the “traditional” measures of school success, i.e., grades, 
41 
attendance, and graduation rates, and/or if there were other measures to consider, such as 
student perception of learning and engagement. For example, a lengthy quotation from an 
answer from the open-ended question section helps explain survey data, while the survey 
data can increase generalizability of themes uncovered through open-ended responses.  
According to Creswell and Creswell, “validity using the convergent approach 
should be based on establishing both quantitative validity (e.g. construct) and qualitative 
validity (e.g. triangulation) for each database” (Creswell & Creswell, 2014, p. 221). The 
biggest threat with this approach is unequal sample size, therefore I used the same 
concepts for both the quantitative and qualitative aims of this study.    
Because ethnic studies is grounded in critical pedagogy, which acknowledges that 
there is no such thing as a neutral learning process (Friere,1990) the subjectivity of the 
researcher must be acknowledged: “qualitative research is primarily concerned with 
understanding how a particular researcher’s values and expectations may have influenced 
the conduct and conclusions of the study” (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, pg. 124). My own 
experience as an ethnic studies instructor, critical educator, and person of color may be 
useful for the familiarity with, and crafting of survey items related to implementation, but 
also may bias my interpretation, therefore I had a colleague conduct an independent peer 
examination of findings during the interpretation phase. 
To further increase validity and credibility, I reviewed the ES advocate(s)/ 
administrator interview questions with a group of graduate students in the Doctor of 
Education program following the analysis of my survey results. 
42 
Conclusions 
My survey questions are designed to ascertain 1) the strategic decisions and 
pedagogical choices made by districts and instructional leaders for ES implementation, 2) 
the areas of resistance and challenge as ethnic studies programs expand and are refined , 
3) keys for successful navigation of barriers for teachers, students, and administrative
leadership to ES program adoption; and 4) an accounting of the complex political, social, 
and academic landscapes that the ES programs navigate both within the organization and 
without. 
43 
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 
As noted in Chapter 1, I designed this dissertation study to answer three research 
questions, which are repeated here for clarity.  
Research Question 1: What assets/strengths/supports are most helpful in the 
implementation of ethnic studies? 
Research Question 2: What are the barriers/challenges to ES implementation? 
Research Question 3: To what degree do result depend on participants’ district, 
participants’ roles, and the phase of implementation at participant’s site? 
I organized this Results chapter around each phase of my study. I present Phase I 
data in four sections:  (a) description of the sample, (b) description of the research 
questions, (c) descriptive and inferential statistics of the survey sample organized by each 
survey item, then (d) I address open-ended Question 11 and 12. Phase II consists of data 
analysis of the transcripts of four interviews. I analyzed the interviews in the context of 
the Dialogic Organizational Development (Dialogic OD), seeking to clarify areas of 
confusion and/or support consistent data from the survey data. The chapter concludes 
with a discussion of the results for each research question and a preview of the next 
chapter. 
Phase I: Survey Results 
Descriptive Statistics of the Sample 
Study participants were self-identified by role and implementation phase. The 
purpose of grouping participants by role was to investigate what commonalities or 
different responses emerged for each role: a) building or central office decision-makers 
(“administrators”) or b) ethnic studies instructors (“teachers”).  As per the research 
44 
questions, results were analyzed by these two groups, as well as by phase of 
implementation (“site”).  Survey requests were sent to 157 staff members identified as 
“ethnic studies decision-makers”: a) central office administration concerned with 
instructional decision-making, b) building administration, and c) ethnic studies 
instructors. District A, in full implementation, provided a database of 157 staff email 
limited to those three roles. District B, in pilot phase, provided research permission forms 
for the six principals of the schools listed as piloting ethnic studies on the district website. 
Principals had to return a signed “permission to conduct research” form for their school 
before any assistant administration or ethnic studies teachers could be contacted directly. 
District B Principals were contacted with the email invitation to participate and 
description of the study, and three reminder emails: two building principals consented to 
the research application, one principal “did not consent”, and three principals did not 
respond to the research request.  
Overall survey completion rate was low. The survey response rate was 32% (n = 
57) responses out of the total sample (N= 177) invited to take the survey. Question 1 had 
57 respondents, with 3 respondents indicating non-consent. Questions 2-4 were 
demographic questions. There were 53 respondents who answered Q2, which asked 
participants to indicate position in school district (“role”). Q3 was designed to identify 
what types of ethnic studies programs, if any, were present in respondents’ school or 
district, while Q4 asked respondents to identify what “phase” of implementation “best 
characterizes the ethnic studies efforts in your school?” Respondents could check 
multiple options on Q3 & 4. There was attrition as the survey proceeded. Only 20% (n = 
35) of the total sample (N = 177) completed 100% of the survey. This means my survey 
 45 
suffers from an 80% non-response bias, which lowers its representativeness (Fincham, 
2008). Question 11 was open-ended, and asked participants if “there is anything else 
[respondents] wish to share about ethnic studies implementation in your building or 
district?” Question 12 was an invitation for a follow-up interview, to which 15 
respondents answered “yes” and 20 “no.” Question 13 was conditioned on respondents 
identifying themselves as an “ethnic studies instructor” earlier in Q2, and asked “what 
best characterizes the level of administrative support you have received from your 
building and district administrators re: ethnic studies implementation?” Eleven 
participants answered that question: 7 indicated “very supportive”, 2 respondents 
answered “supportive” and 2 answered “moderately supportive”. The items “not 
supportive” or “not at all supportive” were not selected. Table 4.1 demonstrates survey 
participation for each survey item. 
Role. Respondents identified themselves by position (“role”), and district and 
building administrators comprised 47% of total survey respondents. Participants who 
identified themselves as instructional/curriculum leaders (n = 5) were included as 
“administrator” when analyzing for difference, as during my initial outreach period 
district contacts’ job titles included “ethnic studies program coordinator” or “ethnic 
studies program manager”, administrative positions located within central office capacity 
in both research sites. Ethnic studies instructors; one respondent who self-identified as 
both ‘ethnic studies instructor” and “department leader”; and one self-identified “English 
teacher” were included as “teachers” (n = 13) when comparing for significance. 
Respondents who did not complete the survey, or “False” results were removed from the 
sample for statistical analysis.   
 46 
Table 4.1. RQ by Survey Item and Participation 
Total # of 
Survey Item RQ Respondents % 
1 Consent to the study 57 100 
2 Position in district 53 93 
3 Types of ES offerings 1,3 51 89 
4 Phase  1,3 47 82 
5 Important characteristics 1,2,3 44 76 
6 Challenges  2,3 43 75 
7 Effective strategies 1,3 38 67 
8 Valuable tactics  1,3 36 63 
9 Influential factors 1,3 34 60 
10 Challenge (open-ended) 2,3 26 46 
11 Anything else? (open-ended) 1,2,3 18 32 
12 Willing to be interviewed? 1,2,3 35 61 
13 Level of administrative support 3 11 
14 Identify a supportive administrator 1,2,3 9 
Of the 35 respondents included in statistical analysis by survey item, 47% were 
district or building administrators. 15% of participants identified themselves as 
“curriculum/instructional leaders”, 35% identified themselves as an ethnic studies 
instructor, and 1 (3%) identified themselves as a Language Arts instructor. Descriptive 
information collected on this survey is presented in Table 4.2. 
47 
Table 4.2. Phase I Descriptive Data 
Variable District A District B Total Percent 
 Role 
 District Admin 1 2.5 
 Building Admin 7 1 24 
 Building Principal 4 3 21 
Instructional/Curriculum Leader 2 3 15 
ES Instructor 12 0 35 
Other (ELA) 1 0 2.5 
Total 26 8 100 
Of the 57 initial survey respondents, three did not give consent to finish the 
survey, leaving 54 participants. Of the 57 participants, 100% completed Q1, 53 
completed Q2, but only 35 completed every question of the survey. As mentioned above, 
data included in statistical analysis is corrected for partial completion for questions 5-10, 
which address this study’s research questions, though all survey responses both full and 
partial, were included in demographic and summarized data as it is still valuable to the 
study as a whole, and I acknowledge the limitations in the lack of responses to Q5-14 and 
concede that the validity of those results are questionable.   
Phase of Implementation. In addition to identifying themselves by “role” or 
position within the school district, Q3 asked respondents to identify what type of ethnic 
studies program was present in their school. 22 respondents indicated their school had 
“One or more “stand alone ethnic studies courses of some kind”; eight responded that 
their school included “one or more courses that embed ethnic studies standards into 
48 
existing core curriculum; four respondents indicated their school had an “ethnic studies 
course sequence or pathway”. There were nine “Other” responses: three indicated that 
they had multiple selections from the items, but couldn’t select more than one box; two 
included descriptions of elementary foreign language programs,  “which provides 30-40 
minutes of exposure a day to the language, culture, and/or traditions of the Filipino 
community”; one respondent replied that their school was in the early stages of ethnic 
studies development, and one replied “N/A”. 
Q4 asked participants were asked to identify “which phrase of implementation 
best characterizes the ethnic studies efforts in [your] school?” This question was intended 
to create a variable by which to evaluate if districts and administrators in different stages 
of implementation responded differently to questions prioritizing important 
characteristics of ethnic studies programming, as well as in the identification of effective 
strategies and barriers to successful implementation. In acknowledgement that 
participants may experience different phases of implementation depending on their role 
(for example, a district administrator may understand that one building is in “full 
implementation” while another building may be in the “pre-planning”, “professional 
development around culturally relevant pedagogy” phases simultaneously (or various 
combinations of implementation), thus, participants could select more than one choice. 
However, all survey participants indicating “pilot” were included in that category as their 
primary indicator. Ten of those respondents selected one or more phases in addition to 
“pilot”, and one responded each, within the” Partial Implementation”, and 
“Redesigning/Designing” indicated their district/building was in multiple phases of 
implementation.  See Table 4.3 for a summary of responses indicating phase. 
49 
Table 4.3. Q4 Summary of Responses Indicating Phase of Implementation 
Selected as part of multi-
Primary stage implementation Response 
Phase indicator and/or redesign frequency 
Pre-planning  1 1 2 
Professional Development 3 5 8 
Planning/Design 0 6 6 
Piloting of ES course/curriculum 15 10 25 
Redesigning/Refining 3 8 11 
Partial Implementation 4 1 5 
Full Implementation 8 0 8 
Total 34 31 65 
Description of the Research Question 
Research Question 1. RQ1 asks “what are the characteristics, strategies, and 
supports most helpful in the implementation of ethnic studies?” Survey items 5, 7, 8, & 9 
were designed to answer this question, with Q5 asking respondents to rank a forced 
choice menu of options developed from Sleeter’s (2011) 5 themes of ethnic studies. Q7 
asked respondents to identify effective strategies from a list of options synthesized from 
current ethnic studies initiatives being employed in districts on the West Coast (e.g. such 
as adding ethic studies credit as a graduation requirement). Q8 asks respondents to 
identify successful tactics particular to their ethnic studies implementation process, and 
Q9 asks respondents to choose from a list of “influential factors” for their district’s recent 
ethnic studies efforts.  
50 
Research Question 2: RQ2 was designed to identify the barriers and challenges 
to ethnic studies implementation. Questions 6 & 10 ask participants to identify challenges 
on a Likert scale from “very challenging” to “not challenging”.  Question 6 asked 
respondents to rank items such as “adequate teacher preparation”, “creating k-12 
alignment”, etc., according to level of perceived level of challenge to ethnic studies 
implementation. Items were designed to capture the range of levers that interact with 
curricular change in large public districts. Respondents were able to indicate more than 
one response as “very challenging”, “somewhat challenging”, “hardly challenging”, “not 
challenging” and “does not apply”.  Question 10 was an open-ended question asking 
respondents to describe a challenge faced by the respondent or their school/district 
implementing ethnic studies. Responses were coded and analyzed for difference. A 
summary of all responses and coding choices for Q10 is provided in Appendix G. 
Research Question 3: RQ3 was designed to determine if participating 
respondents’ experiences shaped response by district, roles, and phase of implementation. 
Though I planned initially to run a Chi Square analysis, in order to establish more 
statistical power I chose to run independent  t-tests for Questions 5-10 as my parametric 
statistical analysis to evaluate whether a statistical relationship exists between the two 
participant “roles” and the respective characteristics, strategies, supports, and challenges, 
as illustrated in Figures 1 through 7.  
 An independent samples t-test using Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was 
conducted to compare responses between the different ethnic studies “decision-maker” 
roles: those identified as “administrators” and those identified as “teachers” (ethnic 
studies or those embedding ethnic studies lessons into their course curriculum) for each 
 51 
survey response. Responses were also compared by site (“District A” or “District B” to 
test the hypothesis that role of participant and phase of implementation shapes perception 
of process recommendations and characteristics important to successful ethnic studies 
implementation. I provide descriptive analysis and inferential statistics for each survey 
item in the following sections.  
Descriptive and Inferential Statistics of Survey Items 
Question 5: Characteristics of Successful Ethnic Studies Programs. Question 
5 asked respondents to indicate the most important characteristics of a successful ethnic 
studies course or program and was designed to address RQ1. 37 of 44 (84.09%) 
respondents indicated “student-centered, problem solving approach combined with 
authentic caring” as very important. Respondents were able to choose more than one 
response as “very important”. Other top ethnic studies characteristics identified as “very 
important” include, respectively: “Critical stance, developing critical    about self and 
others”, and “Objective of systemically examining and dismantling institutionalized 
racism and other systems of oppression”- Ten “Other” open-ended responses were 
provided by respondents that repeated core ethnic studies pedagogical aims such as 1) 
cultivation of anti-racist orientation in students and spaces (e.g. the importance of 
creating “intentional anti-racist spaces within classes and the school”), 2) fostering 
student inquiry and agency (e.g. “the creation of an educational system that develops a 
hunger for all knowledge in all students”) and 3) community and solidarity-building (e.g. 
“community and solidarity as well as a thirst for knowledge and action”;  and “analysis of 
power and privilege across race, class, gender, sexuality and ability”.  Further discussion 
52 
of these priorities for ethnic studies decision-makers are addressed in the discussion 
section. See Table 4.4 for a summary of responses to Q5. 
Table 4.4. Q5 Summary of ES Characteristics identified as “Most Important” for 
Successful Programs 
 Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Missing M SD % Total 
Characteristic Important Important Unimportant Unimportant 
Student 
Centered, 
Problem-
Solving 32 2 0 1 4 1.14 .55 89.7 35 
Approach, 
Authentic 
Caring 
Critical 
Stance, 
Critical 
31 1 0 1 6 1.12 .55 84.6 33 
Consciousness 
About Self 
and Others 
Examining 
and 
Dismantling 
Institutional 
31 3 0 1 4 1.17 .57 89.7 35 
and Systemic 
Racism and 
other Systems 
of Oppression 
Exploration of 
History and 
Present from 
the 
30 4 0 1 4 1.20 .58 89.7 35 
Perspective of 
Non-
Dominant 
Groups 
Culturally 
77.2
Sustaining 29 5 0 1 4 1.23 .60 35 
7 
Pedagogy 
Development 
of Ethnic and 
28 6 0 1 4 1.26 .61 89.7 35 
Cultural 
Literacy 
Other 10 0 0 2 32 1.00 .00 17.9 7 
  
 53 
There was no significant difference in responses “what you feel are the most 
important characteristics of a successful ethnic studies course or program between the 27 
participants from District A and the 8 participants from District B. There was no 
significant effect for development of ethnic or racial literacy between District A (M = 1.2, 
SD = 4.2) and District B (M = 1.38, SD = 1.06), t (33) = -.62, p = .542. Similarly, when 
conducting an independent t-test between administrators and teacher responses (“role”), 
again there was no significant effect. Summarized data by mean for each comparison 
grouping is presented in Figure 4.1. 
Figure 4.1. Characteristics of Successful ES Programs by Site and Role (RQ3) 
Q5 Characteristics of Successful Q5 Characteristics of Successful 
ES Programs by Site ES Programs by Role
Exploration of history Exploration of history
and present from 1.38 and present from 1.27
perspective of non- 1.15 perspective of non- 1.08
dominant cultures dominant cultures
Systemically examining Systemically examining
1.38 1.22
and dismantling and dismantling
insitutional racism 1.11 insitutional racism
1.08
Critical stance, Critical stance,
1.38 1.19
development of critical development of critical
1
consciousness 1.04 consciousness
Culturally sustaining 1.38 Culturally sustaining 1.32
pedagogy 1.19 pedagogy 1.08
Problem solving and 1.38 Problem solving and 1.22
authentic caring authentic caring1.07 1
Dev of ethnic and racial 1.38 Dev of ethnic and racial 1.32
literacy literacy1.22 1.15
0 1 2 0 1 2
Mean Mean
District 2 District 1 Administrators Teachers
*p = < .05.
54 
Question 6: Challenges to Ethnic Studies Implementation. Question 6 asked 
respondents to identify challenges to ethnic studies implementation in their districts and 
was designed to answer RQ2. “Adequate Teacher Preparation” and “Adequate 
Resources” both were identified as “very challenging” with 10 respondents each within 
that category. Least challenging factors included “Community Buy-In”, “District Buy-
In”, and “Faculty Buy-In”. Both categories, “Very Challenging” and “Somewhat 
Challenging” had the same five factors. Included in the five “other” open-ended 
responses, one respondent addressed “verbal buy in [without] needed school supports”; 
two responses addressed lack of building administrative support; one respondent 
identified  community involvement as a challenge to curriculum development; one 
respondent identified “Eurocentric values within veteran teachers in the building” as a 
challenge; and “state, and national level attacks” on ethnic studies. A summary of 
challenges to ethnic studies implementation is represented in Table 4.5.   
An independent- samples t-test was conducted to compare responses to challenges 
to ethnic studies implementation by site and role. While there were no significant 
differences in responses by role, there was a significant difference in the identified factor  
[in]”adequate teacher preparation” variable (or factor?) by site: District A (M = 2.46, SD 
= 1.07) and District B (M = 1.5, SD = 1.06), t (32)= 2.23, p = 0.03. These results suggest 
that District B, in an earlier phase of implementation district-wide, experiences a greater 
effect from this variable.  Results from this independent t-test are displayed in Figure 4.2. 
55 
Table 4.5. Q6 Summary of Factors Identified as “Most Challenging” to Successful ES 
Implementation 
    Missin M SD % Tota
 g l 
Very Somewhat Hardly Not      
Challengin Challengin Challengin Challengin
Factor 
g g g g 
Adequate 2.2 1.1 87.
Teacher 10 14 2 8 5 34 4 3 2 
Preparation 
Adequate 
Resources 
(FTE, 2.1 1.0 82.
textbooks, 10 13 4 5 7 32 3 4 1 
pd, 
collaboratio
n time) 
Creating k- 2.1 1.0 74.
12 9 13 1 6 10 29 4 9 4 
alignment 
Mispercepti
on of 2.4 1.1 79.8 7 9 7 8 31 
content and 8 2 5 
purpose 
Community 
groups’ 
perception 2.7 2.0 82.
of 5 6 12 9 7 32 8 4 1 
representatio
n of 
curriculum 
District buy- 2.7 1.0 82.4 12 5 11 7 32 
in 2 8 1 
Faculty buy- 2.6 1.1 82.6 10 5 11 7 30 
in 6 5 1 
Alignment  2.9 1.0 79.
with State 2 8 11 10 7 31 4 4 5 
Standards 
Parent buy- 3.0 79.0 11 8 0 8 .87 31 
in 3 4 
Community 3.1 76.0 9 7 14 9 .87 30 
buy-in 7 9 
1.0 12.
Other 5 0 0 0 32 .00 5 
0 5 
 
 56 
Figure 4.2. Challenges to ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3)   
Q6 Challenges to ES 
Implementation by Site Q6 Challenges to ES 
Implementation by Role
Misperception of content 2.14 Misperception of content 2.9
and purpose 2.58 and purpose 1.8
Community groups' 3 Community groups' 3.2
perception of… 2.71 perception of… 2
Alignment with state 3 Alignment with state 3.1
standards 2.91 standards 2.6
Adequate resources (fte, 1.75 Adequate resources (fte, 2.1
texts, pd, collab, etc.) 2.25 texts, pd, collab, etc.) 2
Community buy-in 3
3.23 Community buy-in
3.3
2.9
Parent buy-in 1.36
0.83 Parent buy-in
3.36
2.75
Faculty buy-in 1.63
1.25 Faculty buy-in
2.1
2.68
District buy-in 2.25
2.88 District buy-in
2.8
2.5
Creating k-12 alignment 2
2.18 Creating k-12 alignment
2.3
1.9
Adequate teacher prep 1.5 * 2.1
2.46 Adequate teacher prep 2.3
0 2 4 0 2 4
Mean
Mean
District 2 District 1
Administrators Teachers
        
*p = < .05.       
Question 7: Effective Strategies for ES Implementation. Question 7 asked 
respondents to identify “most effective strategies for supporting successful ethnic studies 
implementation” addressing RQ1. Piloting of courses in multiple sites and implementing 
a single grade elective course were identified as “most effective” with the same 
frequency, as indicated in Table 4.6. There were four open-ended strategies provided in 
the “Other” response category, which fit closely, but not identically, with existing survey 
items: 1) “partnerships with community based organizations”,  2) “ethnic studies for all 
 57 
9th grade students, 3) “implementation of 8th grade ethnic studies required course at my 
middle school”, and 4) “one person ethnic studies department at district level”. The 
strategy “Building into the master schedule with intentional supports” was identified as 
both “most effective” by 11 respondents, ranking it as 5th (28.95%), and “does not apply” 
by 11 respondents. One respondent provided an open-ended response identified as “less 
effective” that read: “teachers paid by district to write curriculum that is community 
vetted”. 
In the independent t-tests comparing group means between roles no significant 
effects were found. However, there was a significant difference in two strategies by site. 
There was significance in the factor “Implementation of 9th grade (or other single grade) 
ethnic studies elective” between District A and B. District A (M = 2.04, SD 1.10) and 
District B (M = 3.16, SD 1.33), t (29) = -2.17, p = 0.38. The second statistically 
significant factor by site was “Embedding Ethnic Studies standards/pedagogy into 
existing courses”. District A (M = 2.38, SD 1.17) and District B (M = 1.33, SD = .52), t 
(28) = 2.10, p = .0.45. Results from the independent t-tests to test the hypothesis that role 
and site may impact recommended strategies for ethnic studies implementation are 
displayed in Figure 4.3. 
 58 
 
Table 4.6. Q7 Summary of Strategies Identified as “Most Effective” for Supporting 
Successful ES Implementation 
    Missing M SD % 
 Total 
Most Somewhat Somewhat Less     
Strategy Effective Effective Ineffective Effective  
Piloting of ES 11 10 2 8 8 2.23 1.20 79.5 31 
courses in multiple 
sites  
Embedding ES 10 12 1 7 9 2.17 1.15 76.9 30 
standards/pedagogy 
into existing 
courses 
Implementation of 11 9 3 8 8 2.26 1.21 79.5 31 
9th grade (or other 
single grade) ES 
elective course 
Partnering with 10 7 4 10 8 2.45 1.20 79.5 31 
outside entities to 
articulate ES 
curriculum 
Building into 8 7 5 13 6 2.70 1.24 84.6 33 
master schedule 
with intentional 
supports 
Advocating for ES 8 9 5 10 7 2.53 1.19 82.1 32 
graduation 
requirement 
Other 3 0 0 1 35 1.75 1.5 10.3 4 
 
  
 59 
Figure 4.3. Effective Strategies for ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3)  
Q7 Effective Stragegies for ES Q7 Effective Stragegies for ES 
Implementation by Site Implementation by Role
Advocating for Ethnic
Advocating for Ethnic 2.5
2.38 Studes graduation
Studes graduation
2.58 requirement
2.58
requirement
Partnering with outside
Partnering with outside 2.26
1.86 entities to articulate ES
entities to articulate ES
curriculum 2.752.63
curriculum
Piloting of ES courses in 2.14 Piloting of ES courses in 1.91
multiple sites 2.26 multiple sites 1.9
Building into the master Building into the master
2.63 2.6
schedule with intentional schedule with intentional
2.72
supports supports 2.85
Embedding ES
1.33 Embedding ES
standards/pedagogy into 2
2.38 standards/pedagogy into
existing courses existing courses 2.38
Implementation of 9th
3.17 Implementation of 9th
grade (or other single 2.56
2.04 grade (or other single
grade) ES elective
grade) ES elective 1.84
0 2 4
0 1 2 3
Mean Mean
District 2 District 1 Administrators Teachers
*p = < .05.
Q8: Recommended Tactics for ES Implementation. Question 8 asked 
respondents to evaluate effective tactics for successful ethnic studies implementation and 
was designed to answer RQ1. Item eight provided six options ranging from the creation 
of work groups to build capacity to designing structures to support family and community 
engagement. Respondents chose “Creating an Ethnic Studies Task Force/Work Group” as 
the most valuable tactic (84.09%), with “Delivering Professional Development Around 
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy” next (82.35%). There were no “Other” responses 
60 
provided to this item. Table 4.7 summarizes frequency of tactics selected as of “high 
value” in successful ethnic studies implementation.  
Table 4.7. Q8 Summary of Most Valuable Tactics for Successful ES Implementation 
High Moderate Low No 
Missing M SD % Total 
Tactics Value Value Value Value 
Creating an 
ES Task 27 5 0 0 7 1.16 .37 82.1 32 
Force/Work 
Group 
Delivering 
PD around 
26 6 0 0 7 1.19 .40 82.1 32 
Culturally 
Sustaining 
Pedagogy 
Training and 
recruitment of 26 5 1 0 7 1.22 .49 82.1 32 
experienced 
ES instructors 
Creating 
community 
25 7 0 0 7 1.22 .42 82.1 32 
group/higher 
education 
partnerships 
Capacity 
building of 
site-based 21 11 0 0 7 1.34 .48 82.1 32 
Equity Teams 
or Racial 
Equity Teams 
Design 
supports for 
family and 17 12 2 0 7 1.59 .76 82.1 32 
community 
engagement 
in ES 
2 0 0 0 37 1.00 .00 5.1 37 
Other 
 61 
Independent t-tests were conducted to determine if there were any statistically 
significant differences between comparison groups to tactics for successful ethnic studies 
implementation. There was no significant difference by site for tactics for districts 
strategizing around ethnic studies implementation. There was significant difference 
between roles for “training and recruitment” as a tactic, admin (M = 1.35, SD .59) and 
teacher (M = 1.00, SD .00); t (30) = 2.05, p = .049. These results may suggest that 
respondents who self-identified as administrators see training and recruitment as a more 
effective strategy for implementation. See Figure 4.4 for results from the independent t-
tests to test the hypothesis that role and site may impact recommended tactics for ethnic 
studies implementation. 
Question 9: Influential factors in Ethnic Studies Efforts. Question 9 asked 
respondents to “identify the factors most influential in [their] districts’ most recent ethnic 
studies efforts”, addressing RQ1.  Teacher leaders were identified as “very influential” 
(82.35%), with school board policy (63.64%) and grassroots community activism 
(60.61%) also indicated. Conversely, parent groups received the largest percentage of 
“not influential” selections, chosen by 5 respondents (16.67%). There were no open-
ended responses provided for this item. A summary of most to least influential factors in 
recent ethnic studies efforts is represented in Table 4.8.  
 
 62 
Figure 4.4. Recommended Tactics for ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3)   
Q8  Recommended Tactics Q8  Recommended Tactics for 
for ES Implementation by ES Implementation by Role
Site 
Design supports for
1.25 Design supports for
family and community 1.5
1.71 family and community
engagement in ES 1.65engagement in E
Training and
Training and recruitment
recruitment of 1.25 1
of experienced ES
experienced ES 1.21 1.35
instructors
instructors
Capacity building of Capacity building of site-
site-based Equity 1.38 based Equity Teams 1.25
Teams (ET) or Racial 1.33 (ET) or Racial Equity 1.4
Equity Teams (RET) Teams (RET)
PD around culturally 1.25 PD around culturally 1.17
sustaining pedagogy 1.17 sustaining pedagogy 1.2
Create community
Create community 1.2
1.13 group/higher ed
group/higher ed 1.25
1.25 partnerships
partnerships
Create ES Task 1.1
Create ES Task 1.12 Force/Work Group 1.25
Force/Work Group 1.17
0 1 2
0 1 2 MeanMean
District 2 Administrators Teachers
           
* p < .05. 
  
 63 
Table 4.8. Q9 Summary of Most Influential Factors in Recent ES Efforts 
    Missin M SD % Tota
 g l 
Very Moderatel Slightly Not      
Factors Influenti y Influenti Influenti
al Influential al al 
Teacher 27 5 0 1 6 1.2 .61 84. 33 
leaders 4 6 
School board 20 9 3 0 7 1.4 .67 82. 32 
policy 7 1 
Students/stude 19 7 3 1 9 1.5 .82 76. 30 
nt union 4 9 
groups 
Grassroots 19 6 4 3 7 1.7 1.0 82. 32 
community 2 2 1 
activism 
Recent 18 4 6 2 9 1.7 1.0 76. 30 
empirical data 3 1 9 
supporting ES 
instruction 
Political 17 8 4 1 9 1.6 .85 76. 30 
climate 3 9 
Parent groups 8 12 5 5 9 2.2 1.0 76. 30 
3 4 9 
State 8 9 8 4 10 2.2 1.0 74. 29 
legislation 8 3 4 
Current media 7 12 9 2 9 2.2 .89 76. 30 
coverage 0 9 
Other 0 0 0 0 39     
 
Respondents were asked to identify factors that they felt were most influential in 
their districts’ most recent ethnic studies efforts. There was no statistically significant 
differences between roles however, comparing factors by site found statistically 
significant difference between sites. “School board policy” was an influential factor, 
 64 
District A (M = 1.35, SD = .63) and District B (M = 2.29, SD = .76; t (30) = -2.29, p 
= .029. See Figure 4.5 for results from the independent t-tests to test the hypothesis that 
role and site may influence identified influential factors in ethnic studies implementation. 
Figure 4.5. Influential Factors in ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3)   
Q9 Influential factors in ES Q9 Influential factors in ES 
efforts by Site efforts by Role
Political climate 2 Political climate 1.56
1.52 1.76
State legislation 2.71 State legislation
2.14
1.52
School board policy 2 School board policy
1.35 1.38
Current media 2.29 Current media coverage
coverage 2.17
Recent empirical data Recent empirical data
supporting ES 2.14 supporting ES
1.89
1.61 1.5
instruction instruction
Grassroots community 1.63 Grassroots community 1.7
activism 1.75 activism 1.75
Parent groups 1.88 Parent groups
2
2.36
Teacher leaders 1.13 Teacher leader
1.3
1.28 1.15
Students/student union 1.13 Students/student union 1.47
groups 1.68 groups 1.64
0 1 2 3 0 M1ean 2
Mean
District 2 District 1 Administrators Teachers
                          
* p < .05. 
Question 10: Challenges to Ethnic Studies Implementation. Question 10 was 
an open-ended question that asked respondents to “describe one challenge you or your 
school/district has faced in implementing ethnic studies and how that challenge was 
 65 
overcome or mitigated” and addressed RQ2. 26 respondents offered feedback to this 
question, with 4 respondents describing more than one challenge. Therefore, 30 responses 
total were provided by participants which were organized into six variables by four 
themes that emerged: 1) Lack of resources, staffing, support; 2) scheduling and/or course 
sequencing challenges; 3) misperception or misunderstanding of the value/content of 
ethnic studies;  4) need for ethnic studies state standard/curriculum development; 5) 
elective vs. requirement issues; 5) ineffective leadership. As an example, one respondent 
answered, “we have had several challenges, but if I were to focus on one, it would be 
uneven support at the site level. However, we as Ethnic studies practitioners/leaders are 
fortunate to have relatively strong support from our larger community that is always 
pushing/encouraging central office leadership to continue to strengthen the Ethnic Studies 
related work.” This response was included in “Resources/Staffing Support, while, 
“Gaining the support in messaging that ES is an important course which all students will 
benefit from” was categorized as fitting into “perception/understanding of importance of 
ES”.  See Appendix G for a summary of responses and coding choices. Q10 themes 
organized by response frequency are presented in Table 4.9. 
I conducted independent t tests between the two comparison groups (“roles” and 
“district”) to test the hypothesis that role and phase of implementation may impact 
perceived challenges to ethnic studies implementation. Independent t tests comparing 
groups by site had no statistical significance, while there was statistical significance 
between groupings by role for two themes in respondent-identified challenges: “schedule 
/sequencing” and “elective course rather than required”.   
66 
Table 4.9. Q10 Summary of Responses to Implementation Challenges 
Theme Count % 
Resources/Staffing Support 13 30.95 
Schedule/Sequencing 9 21.43 
Perception/Understanding of ES 5 11.90 
Standards and Curriculum 8 19.05 
Development 
Not Required 4 9.52 
Ineffective Leadership 3 7.14 
Total 42 100.00 
Results suggest that teachers find scheduling and sequencing of courses as more 
challenging: “Administrators” (M = .22, SD = 43) and “Teacher” (M= .63, SD = .52), t 
(24) = -2.08, p = .048. There were statistically significant differences also for responses
addressing offering ethnic studies as an elective rather than a required course 
Administrators (M = .06, SD = .34) compared to Teachers (M = .38, SD = .52), t (24) = -
2.19, p = .04. Results from Question 10 are displayed in Figure 4.6.  
67 
Figure 4.6. Challenges to ES Implementation by Site and Role (RQ3) 
Q10 Challenges in ES 
Q10 Challenges in ES 
Implementation by Site
Implementation by Role 
0.17
Ineffective Leadership
Ineffective 0.25 0
Leadership 0.56
Elective Course Rather 0.38
Elective Course 0 than Req. 0.06
Rather than Req. 0.22
0.25 0.28
Standards/Curr. Dev. Standards/Curr. Dev.
0.33 0.38
Misperception/Lack
0.13
of Understanding of Miserception/Lack of 0.22
0.22
ES Understanding of ES 0.13
Schedule/Sequencing 0.25
Challenges 0.39 Schedule/Sequencing 0.22
Challenges 0.63
Insufficient 0.63
Resources 0.44 0.5
Insufficient Resources
0.5
0 0.5 1
Mean 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Mean
District 2 District 1
Administrators Teachers
* p < .05.
Open-ended Question 11. Question 11 asked respondents “is there anything else 
you wish to share about the process of ethnic studies implementation in your building or 
district?”. 14 survey participants responded to this question. 10 of those responses 
included recommendations for successful implementation, echoing priorities themed in 
Q10. Resources, including Teachers on Special Assignments (TSAs) to lead ethnic 
studies initiatives (3); training opportunities for teachers and administration on 
embedding of ethnic studies curriculum into existing programs (2), statewide testing of 
68 
social studies with ethnic studies state standards (2), intentional creation of community 
partnerships and cultivation of ethnic studies teaching cohorts (2). Some responses 
captured the challenge of implementation without a clear articulation of the content and 
goals of ethnic studies (3). Six responses were positive about their own experience 
(“Ethic studies is very well received at my site and is well respected by the current 
administration”), designed for those considering ethnic studies implementation to “start 
and don’t stop”, and a summary of the respondents’ sense of progress: “the success of 
[ethnic studies in District A] is directly anchored to: 1. Community Partnership 2. Strong 
Teacher-Leader 3. Strong theoretical/practical knowledge and know-how 4. Success of 
the program 5. Political alignment from top to bottom. The last point was/is the result of 
ongoing and longstanding organizing!”  
In the next section, I present data analysis from Phase II, in which I conducted 
four interviews. I analyzed the data set from these interviews to further explore the 
characteristics of successful ethnic studies implementation using the Sleeter’s five (2011) 
ethnic studies themes and mapped responses onto the dialogic framework in order to 
articulate how ES is shaping organizational equity reform, with a focus on the ways role 
and region interact in strategic implementation.  
Phase II: Interview Results 
In this section, I present findings from four transcribed recordings of principal 
interviews, conducted in December 2019. First, I describe the interview sites and 
interviewees, and review the protocol. Because there were only four interviews, I elected 
not to code data, but instead to apply the data from the transcriptions to themes that 
emerged from my Phase I data collection as well as noted significant points of similarity 
69 
or difference, or that echoed Sleeter’s (2011) five themes of ethnic studies addressed in 
the literature review section. Through this lens, I provide analysis of the interview 
transcriptions as related to explanation of (a) how ethnic studies pedagogy can be 
articulated through an administrative lens for effective implementation, and (b) the role a 
dialogic change model framework may play in strategic implementation and 
organizational change. Finally, I summarize key findings from the interviews.  
Description of the Sample and Protocol 
All four of my interviewees were volunteers identified through survey question 
12. I selected two building principals from each district, in order to investigate the
perceived role of ethnic studies as a mechanism for organizational change from the 
perspective of the leader of that organization. How do school leaders see ethnic studies? 
Is ethnic studies disruptive to the narrative of educational inequity as the literature 
suggests, and if so, in what ways does ethnic studies provide opportunity to students 
traditionally marginalized, and in what ways does ethnic studies impact school culture 
through learning?  Finally, how does an ethnic studies pedagogical lens impact school 
leadership?  
District A. District A was in the full implementation phase, offering either ethnic 
studies elective credit or social studies credited courses, and/or an embedded ethnic 
studies framework or lessons present within all of its high schools, some middle schools, 
and few at the elementary level. This work was in its sixth year at the time of this writing, 
following a school board resolution six years earlier in support of ethnic studies. Principal 
Acevedo3 of Roosevelt High School, my first interview subject, was the leader of the 
3 All names of interview subjects, schools, and districts have been changed. 
70 
flagship school for ethnic studies programming in the city. The school was located in a 
working class, largely immigrant neighborhood. Principal Acevedo, a former social 
studies teacher, described a tradition of critical education designed to serve the largely 
Filipino student population present in the large comprehensive high school before the 
development of the stand-alone ethnic studies course pilot, and this reputation was one of 
the reasons Principal Acevedo gave for choosing to relocate to District A and teach at 
Roosevelt. He stated that demographics of that school community reminded him of 
“home”, a large city on the West Coast. At the time of our interview Principal Acevedo 
had been the Roosevelt principal for three years.  
My second interview subject, Principal Baker of Washington High School, also 
had previously taught at Roosevelt for three years as a Language Arts instructor. In 
addition, he had experience at various interdisciplinary specialized high school programs 
before becoming an administrator. Principal Baker was also originally from a city in on 
the West Coast and shared he chose to relocate in District A because of its larger, more 
diverse population.  
Both Principal Acevedo and Principal Baker had close, collegial relationships 
with the ethnic studies program coordinators in District A, having both worked in the 
same building during the program’s pilot phase. They both described the consistent 
mentoring and curricular support provided to their teachers by the ethnic studies 
coordinators. The ethnic studies courses at District A were designed to engage students 
the district designated as at high risk of credit deficiency or dropout, and employed as an 
intervention for student disengagement as a result of Eurocentric, culturally unresponsive 
curriculum and teaching, targeting 9th and 10th graders. 
71 
District B. District B, also a large, urban school district, but located in the Pacific 
Northwest, was in the pilot phase of implementation at the time of this study, with a list 
of six pilot schools and a description of their ethnic studies efforts provided on the district 
website, work formally organized after a 2017 school board resolution to expand and 
improve ethnic studies curriculum in the district. As described in Phase I, despite 
obtaining district research approval, district response to survey invitations was 
constrained by research protocol requirements and the sudden retirement of an advocate 
of the study, a central office director. Both principals who provided survey consent for 
their buildings also agreed to be interviewed. Principal Campbell was an experienced 
administrator with 18 years’ experience as a school leader. At the time of this study, she 
was principal at Fieldham High School, a small, college preparatory arts public school 
program of around 250 students co-located with a museum in the city center. Principal 
Campbell, an African American woman and former science instructor, offered a 
perspective informed by her experience leading as a woman of Color in a 75% white 
school.  
The fourth interviewee, Principal Douglass, a white male with over 14 years as 
principal, was also a veteran administrator of a predominantly white alternative program, 
yet he was quick to distinguish the culture of New Directions High School from that of 
Fieldham. He described his current student population as over 75% LGBTQ-identified 
due to New Directions having gained a reputation over recent years as a safe space for 
LGBTQ, and marginalized youth, as results from the recent climate surveys we discussed 
attested. New Directions High School’s website described the school’s program as 
“learner-driven” with a vision guided by a commitment to social and racial justice.  
 72 
Fieldham High School and New Directions offered two different models of ethnic 
studies implementation. Fieldham HS offered a course fulfilling a Humanities 
requirement to Seniors with optional college credit, while New Directions considered all 
programming informed by ethnic studies pedagogy, with a few explicit ethnic studies 
course offerings, and others “embedded”.  
Three of the four interviewees were administrators of Color: Filipino (Acevedo), 
Black biracial (Baker), and Black (Campbell), and Principal Campbell was the only 
woman interviewee. All four interview subjects’ ethnic studies courses were in full 
implementation in their buildings, not pilot phase, though only District A had full 
implementation district-wide. 
Analysis of Interview Transcriptions 
Interview questions were developed after identifying themes from survey 
responses as well as questions designed to provide extend or elaborate upon those 
themes. There was general thematic consensus between data generated from the four 
interviews. See Appendix F for Interview Questions. Overall, interviews also provided 
some insight and possible explanations for the difference between approaches to ethnic 
studies implementation and recommended strategies for successful implementation. In 
addition, the interviews reflected the qualitative data collected in Phase I.  
Exploring and Engaging.  All of the interviewees described initiatives in their 
buildings and districts that led to the current incarnations of ethnic studies course 
offerings available to students at the time of the interviews. Roosevelt High School offers 
one to two sections of an ethnic studies elective to 9th grade students who have 
“historically been disengaged”: students with multiple risk factors (i.e. free and reduced 
73 
lunch, homelessness, etc.) are identified and recruited for the course, which has become a 
template for the district. Principal Acevedo went on to describe his understanding of the 
term “ethnic studies” as informed by “the history of the Third World Liberation 
movement at San Francisco State, and UC Berkeley”. Principal Baker also described the 
relevance of ethnic studies for their school community, which is largely immigrant and 
non-white, and the strong ties to resistance pedagogy in the families served by the school, 
where ethnic studies is “something that’s been driven by [those communities]”.  Both 
principals from District A discussed funding and state college entrance requirements that 
constrain ability to offer more sections to more students at multiple grade levels, 
however, at Principal Baker’s school the 10th grade ethnic studies courses for social 
studies credit, and are co-taught with a special education teacher, as Washington High 
School is 65% English Language Learners at different levels, newcomers, and primarily 
students of color. “[Ethnic studies] is a something where you get to have some agency 
and control and some focus on things that really better relate to you culturally and 
racially. Yeah, so that’s why we found [ethnic studies] very important.” Principal 
Campbell discussed the opportunity gaps that persist for African American males in 
District B and barriers that exist for historically marginalized students to access ethnic 
studies courses, as well as the potential for the presence of ethnic studies courses to create 
a false sense of inclusion.  
All interviewees addressed the importance of student agency, of the role that 
developing students’ sense of their own power as independent learners to effect change, 
be it with their own interactions with curriculum or outside of the classroom. Students 
and community are seen as the stakeholders for whom the course is designed, and student 
 74 
feedback has driven ‘ethnic studies decision-makers’ to create space within their building 
allocations to support that learning. Principal Baker describes how ethnic studies 
pedagogy then permeates other spaces:  
“…And we see that because that also translates to a lot of those students, 
all the students have to go through ethnic studies. But we also see that in some of 
the leadership opportunities that they see and take on after that, and how they can 
frame things when they’re bringing it to us as either administration or bring it to 
the adults and staff in our school. So that’s really great. In terms of the other 
teachers, our school isn’t huge, but there’s also been a little bit more cross-
curricular support and development just in terms of that, especially across 
curriculum for ethnic studies and English specifics or English Language Arts, 
helping in some of the writing processes…. And we’re really trying to do that at 
our school site in all of our disciplines, not just history and English, but in math 
and science…. One of the great things about [the ethnic studies] program is it, it’s 
really brought a lot of information to that department, our Social Studies 
department, and they’re very smart, very progressive and very on top of what they 
want to do in terms of helping students be independent learners, as opposed to 
dependent learners. And so that has affected that culture within that department. 
And that also spreads as well. Because when other people see that student 
reaction, and also how invested that department is, they see things and they add 
on to them.” 
 
Principal Douglass addressed this point, described  his building’s evolution from a 
school that had always been rooted in social justice to an alternative program where the 
“three main themes right now are dominant narrative, critical narrative [and] anti-racism, 
and we try to integrate that into everything we’re doing in the school.” He then went on 
to discuss how the school’s 15-year old Black Studies program would now be considered 
ethnic studies, which was “good, but wasn’t enough”.  
Building and Formalizing. Survey and interview results amplified the tenet of 
ethnic studies pedagogy as a student-teacher relationship that is rooted in authentic care 
and distinguished between theory and the practice of ethnic studies pedagogy. District A 
adopted a resolution for ethnic studies in 2013, which both administrators referenced 
during their interviews as an essential building block to supporting the implementation 
 75 
process. Principal Acevedo situated his course within the larger history of ethnic studies 
in education:  
Yes, so you know, look what we’re looking at 50 years of struggle for 
ethnic studies this year. This was the shift that I read about in college, it was 
inspired by, I can’t believe it’s been 50 years and like, we are starting to just 
scrape the surface of institutional breakthroughs that are going to facilitate what I 
hope is further democratization in pedagogy, right? Because ethnic studies isn’t 
just theories, philosophies or a radical account of what has happened historically, 
but it’s also the implementation of inquiry-based, equity based pedagogical 
practices, right? And so Ethnic studies isn’t just philosophy, it’s practice too…. 
So, the board adopts this resolution in 2013. Great. That’s theory… Put your 
money where your mouth is. That’s the beginning of practice. And then you get 
the right people to run that shit and not just some sort of bureaucrat, year, but a 
practitioner who can also like work in concert with some other practitioners and… 
then think about it on the system level to scale it up.  
 
All of the interview subjects discussed the critical role of the teacher to 
demonstrate authentic care. Principal Baker saw ethnic studies as critical to students’ 
introduction to social studies, where “we want them to start off strong and then we want 
to keep building on that”, eventually translating into higher graduation rates. Both 
principals from District A also mentioned the role of teacher recruitment and the 
challenge presented by gentrification.  Because of the rising cost of living in District A, 
there is high teacher turnover (25-35% per year). Ironically, this factor has enabled both 
principals to be intentional about recruitment of teachers of Color, who are more likely to 
have had ethnic studies already in their background. Principal Acevedo also 
acknowledged that part of the implementation process involves taking “experts” out of 
the classroom to guide that work on a systemic level. However, this turnover creates 
space for leaders to be intentional about who they are moving into those gaps. Principal 
Campbell spoke to this point as well, describing the growth of the ethnic studies 
instructor at Fieldham and her view of her administrative responsibility to “remove 
 76 
barriers so that he can continue on to professionally grow and teach… he’s taking it out 
there [to other teacher education programs].” Principal Campbell also described how her 
school moved from “theory to action” as a response to a racist incident at the school “that 
really prompted a rethinking of our practices and a rethinking of our implicit biases on 
this campus where [implicit bias] was campus wide”, requiring all stakeholders (students 
and staff) to engage in conversations around what an anti-racist culture school culture is 
in reality, what Principal Campbell described as “an organizational cultural shift”.  
Principal Douglass outlined a years-long process of replacing teachers who were 
not “on board” with the school’s vision of racial and social justice, where now the school 
is “up to 40% staff of color. And it’s been intentional. It’s been a long road, we also had 
to move out people, because they weren’t, you know, they didn’t want to do what we 
wanted to do. And so we’re sort of in our fourth evolution of all this. New Directions has 
a participatory democratic structure, where building  professional development occurs 
two times a month, where once a month is racial justice, and once a month is ethnic 
studies, and “what we’re talking about is how, what kinds of issues and challenges are 
coming up in integrating these concepts of dominant narrative and critical narrative into 
all curriculum. And it’s nice, because the whole school, we’re all on board with it, which 
is different than a lot of schools. We have nobody trying to sabotage or opt out.” 
All of the building leaders spoke to the difference between having a teacher who 
loved their students, and a teacher with the requisite skills to teach ethnic studies which is 
what makes a district-wide curriculum helpful. Principal Douglass said, “you can’t do it 
without the right adults”. Both District A leaders described their work as making 
intentional decisions to shape a culture that is informed by an ethnic studies pedagogical 
77 
lens: “I think how administration responds to the opportunities for these things. So 
therefore, how they see this as an opportunity, how they can see it driving the larger 
culture and climate of a school and vision for school. Also, how they then support that 
implementation…. Also, teacher leaders, how are the teacher leaders seeing this as an 
opportunity?” 
Principal Douglass echoed Principal Baker’s point about the role of grassroots 
initiatives being the most authentically disruptive to institutional inequities, criticizing 
initiatives that come from the top down. Principal Douglass’s perspective of the work to 
diversify the work force was more explicit than that of Principal Campbell, describing the 
vulnerability of staff of Color to displacement and budget cuts, as well as the risk of 
burnout from bearing the expectation to support all students and/or colleagues of color, 
citing District B’s ethnic studies program manager being placed on paid administrative 
leave as an example of this contradiction.  
Principal Douglass describes the centering of ethnic studies and racial justice as 
“the heart of who we feel we are at this point”, and the school also “embraces 
intersectionality”.  New Directions has a total minority enrollment of 31%, with 26% of 
students identified as economically disadvantaged, and over 75% of students identifying 
as LGBTQ. Principal Douglass cited New Direction as having the highest scores on 
school climate surveys, though “we’re also the highest, unfortunately, for things like 
depression, anxiety, and attempted suicide”. He described how the staff recognized that 
students, up to two years prior, could work their way through the schedule without taking 
ethnic studies, so the staff viewed it as their “responsibility” to mandate that every 
 78 
student has to take at least two ethnic studies classes, and then (now) four ethnic studies 
[required] classes:  
I mean, ethnic studies is fundamentally about race and anti-racism. And 
we’re committed to [that work] as much as possible. But I think part of the way 
we think as a staff is that we have to continue to grow and we have to continue to 
learn, and part of that is learning with kids and part of it is learning together. But 
each of us has to be thinking about things. And, you know, running and pass to 
each other, trying to deepen our own understanding, because we’re a learning 
community. And the core that has been the racial justice initiative we started a few 
years ago now, with ethnic studies. It was one of the things- our naming it as 
ethnic studies- was one of the things that grew out of that.  
 
Implementing and Evaluating. District B principals discussed the role of 
continuous professional development that accompanies ethnic studies implementation. 
Both principals from District B described student leadership bodies that are very active, 
supported by each schools’ Racial Equity Teams (RET), that asks faculty to consider the 
question, “what are racial equity instructional practices?’, as well as school-wide day-
long conferences explicitly oriented around racial justice. All interviewees described the 
ways that ethnic studies pedagogy, once in place, has impacted the culture of the school, 
both in students’ ability to articulate, identify, and engage in anti-oppressive behavior, 
and demand that of their learning spaces. There was an emphasis from all interviewees on 
student voice as data, from climate surveys to student governance. “Measuring student 
success? Student success is tailor made…So I think successfully implemented ethnic 
studies curriculum will be anchored in the philosophy that the curriculum is universal [in 
design], but it has particular scaffolds for a particular student.” In addition to determining 
whether an ethnic studies program fulfills its goal of democratization, there is an 
emphasis, again, on student feedback on the efficacy of ethnic studies:  
“How do we continue to build on things as our students progress in their 
grade levels and in their proficiency? So I think that’s another really key, 
 79 
important part of this and the last one, oftentimes we forget about this- identifying 
student voice and student agency. Are students responding to this? Do they enjoy 
this class? What are the things that they can speak to, in terms of why do you feel 
like you like this class? Are we reaching you as students? And to be able to hear 
that feedback as a teacher and as a department and as an entire school, and 
especially also as an administrator… So even if it’s a grand, great philosophy that 
we see as an adult, depending on the implementation, depending on the support 
they get, they’re going to give us that feedback. And so being able to see and 
identify those things, and hear and respond to our students is really, really critical 
for all of us.  
Principal Campbell recommended that ethnic studies content and pedagogy 
should be introduced much earlier in students’ education, around sixth grade,  
“so that as [students]become young adults and they transition into the high 
school, then they have a sense of understanding and acceptance and urgency in 
knowing that, for some people, color is a barrier in the classroom, color is a 
barrier in employment, color is a barrier in communication and 
misunderstandings… And so I think that having people [who have had ethnic 
studies is valuable] because our kids tend to lose empathy during the middle 
school years…. So I think that in order to create an understanding for the kids 
especially, and, hopefully it can formulate within the family communities, 
bringing families together early on, and not waiting to do [a courageous 
conversation about race] like we did here  with our parent community.”  
Like the administrators from District A, Principal C sees offering ethnic studies at 
earlier levels as an important way to increase success for meeting credit requirements for 
students entering high school. Principal C also asks who is accessing Ethnic Studies. Do 
students who are historically marginalized have the same access given the cumulative 
impact of disenfranchisement (credit deficiency, prerequisites, etc.)? “I think about ethnic 
studies in terms of how it looks good on everybody’s college transcript, but how 
disruptive is it really?” 
 District B has a district wide ethnic studies advisory group developing curriculum 
and capacity, though Principal Douglass also questioned the authenticity of that work, 
saying “as a district, we talk a good game. There’s a lot of individuals who sort of project 
80 
themselves. But talking about antiracist pedagogy or trying to get ethnic studies just in 
every school has been really, really hard, and it’s the principals that have been one of the 
places that’s been the barriers- that’s [have] been the gatekeeper.” Principal Douglass 
went on to discuss how comprehensive high schools were stymied by the barrier of the 
interdisciplinary nature of ethnic studies and credit requirements, saying, “that’s not hard. 
You just cross credit… inherently, the comprehensive high school [and] the rigidity of 
that, that mindset, right? Like you can only afford this kind of credit in this kind of class 
and this kind of credit in this kind of class- that’s a barrier in itself then, right, to ethnic 
studies implementation because it’s interdisciplinary work.”  
Developing Further Replicating or Institutionalizing. District A interviewees 
discussed the key role of allocating resources, “human resources”, throughout all levels 
of the system to support ethnic studies implementation. This included supporting the 
work of the program coordinator by giving him another staff member, and then “what we 
have is people working from the Board of Education, district level brass, teacher level 
practitioners working in concert, as well as with university professionals…” as well as 
consistency in leadership- ensuring that teachers and leaders are not forced to move on 
because of the high cost of living.  
But I think what’s helpful in this district is this coherent curriculum that’s 
been developed by a tried and tested authentic caring teacher and who has been 
able to establish a team of other authentic and caring teachers to help him design 
this curriculum and [develop] the articulation from middle school to high school. 
So, yes, I would say that’s number one. 
 
This emphasis on replication relies on the role of the instructor more than the 
curriculum, “who the instructor is, that instructor really having a belief in that 
fundamental sense of I’m here to support students and want to build strong relationships 
 81 
with them.” In addition, because ethnic studies is in full implementation district-wide, 
teachers have a cohort of other teachers in addition to the teachers on special assignment 
(TSAs) to go to for support. District A leaders felt a strong sense of central office support 
for ethnic studies, as did Principal Campbell of District B, describing the superintendent 
of District B as “amazing…. a catalyst for why [initiatives focused on educational equity] 
is happening the way it’s happening”. She went on to describe central office focus on race 
and equity led primarily by women of Color, the implementation of Racial Equity Teams 
(RET) at about 80% of schools in District B, and the diversification of principalship.  
Principal Douglass spoke to the positive feedback from students: the presence of 
ethnic studies classes. The negative feedback: they want more ethnic studies classes. Like 
Principal Campbell, Principal Douglass addressed the necessity of pushing people into 
uncomfortable spaces to have authentic dialogue about racism, asking, “what’s the 
critical piece? You got to have adults who understand and believe in this stuff and want to 
get into the down and dirty of let’s have discussions, let’s talk about our own lives as 
much as appropriate, and without the right staff, you’re not gonna make much progress.” 
New Directions has made ethic studies a requirement, students have to take a certain 
number of ethnic studies classes. Douglass admitted that he does not see ethnic studies as 
a successful district-wide initiative, ultimately, due to the lack of support for the ethnic 
studies program manager and the inability of the district “to disrupt what these white kids 
are thinking what’s happening at these white schools? What’s the curriculum? Is there 
any discussion about these things?” Principal Douglass noted that any successful 
initiatives [to diversify the workforce] undertaken in his district have involved partnering 
outside of the district. 
 82 
Summary of Findings 
The following are understandings that emerged when reviewing the transcripts of 
these four principals who each articulated an ethnic studies pedagogical lens which 
characterized their leadership, enabling their ability to move ethnic studies as an 
instrument of educational reform into and through their system. It is important to note 
that these participants are not representative of administrators as a whole, they are what is 
possible: existence proof of strong and successful ethnic studies leadership. Therefore, 
themes are coded with an eye toward what is possible:  
• An ability to articulate the ways in which ethnic studies pedagogy is centers
student identities, voice, experience- how personal experience interacts with
collective narratives.
• The understanding that credit and college entrance requirements often serve as
barriers to effective ethnic studies implementation.
• An intentionality around recruitment and retention of skilled teacher(s), who
demonstrate both content knowledge and embody authentic care for students.
• An understanding of the imperative of a community of skilled ethnic studies
curriculum designers and implementers outside of the building to access for
support
• Orientation of self as a leader either in community with or in conflict with central
office in support of students
• Recognition that ethnic studies philosophy, pedagogy, and content should be
embedded in the culture of the school, not just within a stand-alone class
• A demonstrated receptivity to personal growth as a leader. Acknowledgement
bias and blind spots, of personal implicit biases: racism, sexism, homophobia,
etc.
• Recognition that ethnic studies implementation process starts small, with the
grassroots, and builds on the efforts and activism of those that have gone before.
“Grassroots is no joke”
• Gentrification is impacting not just the student demographics but also that of
faculty, which shapes curriculum offerings and student experience.
• The perspective that ethnic studies requires an acknowledgment of the social,
economic, and political environments that impact mental health (students and
adults) “It’s so much work here. Like yeah. The 60-hour weeks and 60 hours of
secondary trauma. 60 fighting the district”.
Overall, there was a general thematic consensus between data generated in Phase I 
and Phase II: theoretically, both ethnic studies instructors and those administrators 
83 
making decisions that directly impact ethnic studies have an understanding of the factors 
impacting students’ lives, the critical role of a teacher who demonstrates authentic care, 
and the ways in which school climate and culture, central office administration, district 
and statewide educational policy can facilitate or hinder implementation. The next 
chapter will present the conclusions of the study by research question, limitations of the 
study, and discuss future research needed in this field.  
84 
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 
In this chapter, I first present a summary of my findings and discuss how my 
findings contribute to the literature on the implementation of ethnic studies at the 
secondary level. I then discuss how ethnic studies is operating within the dialogic 
organizational development framework, challenging the narrative of one district as its 
pilot of ethnic studies continues to disrupt and provide opportunity for ethnic studies 
organizing and learning. I will then discuss limitations of the study and how the 
limitations can inform future research. 
Discussion of Results by Research Question 
The goal of this ethnic studies implementation study was to gather the voices of 
ethnic studies “decision-makers” to contribute to the growing body of literature 
supporting ethnic studies implementation at the secondary level. In this section, I present 
an integrated summary about my findings by each research question. The summary for 
each research question incorporates results from each phase of my study. Finally, I 
conclude with an overall summary including how results from each research question 
correspond with my theoretical framework and provide a rationale for the study’s 
conclusions.  
Research Question 1 (RQ1). The data from Phase I and Phase II provide answers 
for RQ1: What assets/strengths/supports are most helpful in the implementation of ethnic 
studies?  Quantitative and qualitative data from this study suggest that both ethnic studies 
teachers and administrators recognize teachers who demonstrate authentic care 
(Valenzuela, 1999) grounded in ethnic studies pedagogy is foremost in successful ethnic 
studies implementation. This essential characteristic of successful ethnic studies 
85 
implementation may seem obvious, yet all four interviewees underscored the point that 
ethnic studies is a pedagogical orientation that goes beyond specific content; teachers 
who demonstrate authentic care communicate their belief in the capacity of all students to 
become independent, critical thinkers possessed with a sense of intellectual agency. They 
also invite students to situate their own knowledges within their social location and 
perspective and facilitate a dynamic classroom space that not only enables student voice 
but understand it to be an essential component for emancipatory learning. ES teachers 
who demonstrate authentic care create climates of respect that allow students to engage 
critically with their own personal histories- exploring how personal identity is situated 
within a sociohistorical context- and cultivate in their settings a sense of empowerment 
that impacts the culture of the school beyond the classroom.  
My findings are consistent with the literature review.  “Authentic care” or “care” 
was a central characteristic of the effective ethnic studies instructor, mentioned in nine of 
the fourteen studies cited in my literature review: Cabrera et al 2014; de los Rios 2013; de 
los Ríos et al., 2015; Dee & Penner 2017; Farinde-Wu et al 2014; Halagao 2010; Naegele 
2017; San Pedro 2015; Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015;; as well as by Sleeter 2011. The 
ethnic studies pedagogical conception of care goes beyond an investment in a students’ 
academic performance. It is a rehumanizing endeavor in that students are understood as 
possessors of inherent knowledge, ways of being, and sense of self separate from their 
(subjective) identities reduced, by schooling, to test scores and GPA.   
In this way, successful ethnic studies implementation requires an understanding of 
the two aims of ethnic studies. The first aim involves disruption of a hegemonic narrative 
of history, and the second is creating a positive learning space of support and healing for 
 86 
those battered by white supremacy. Ethnic studies incorporates culturally responsive 
teaching as a core tenet, a pedagogical approach which affirms students as possessors of 
their own cultural knowledges, and cultivates student meaning-making through the 
exploration of students’ personal identities and our national meta- and counter-narratives. 
It utilizes: “the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and 
performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more 
relevant to and effective for them. It teaches to and through the strengths of these 
students” (Gay, 2010, p. 31). This teaching orientation was identified in the survey results 
as an important strategy for districts in the exploring and engaging stage of 
implementation by the ES decision-makers who participated in this study.  Identification 
of and supporting ethnic studies teacher-leaders was another tactic employed as a 
mechanism for ethnic studies capacity-building by those leaders who were in pre-
planning or pilot phase. This included an explicit emphasis on the importance of Brown 
and Black students being affirmed in their collective or communal identities, one of 
Sleeter’s (2011) ES themes, and also in ways of being and knowing through curriculum, 
and the growing sense of self into critical awareness of knowledge-making in the world. 
This also corresponded strongly with the literature review, where “culture” and “cultural 
knowledge” was mentioned 477 times. (Cabrera et al 2014; Caraballo 2017; Chung & 
Harrison 2015; Dee & Penner 2017; de los Ríos 2013; de los Rios  et al., 2015; de los 
Ríos 2017; Dee & Penner 2017; Farinde-Wu et al., 2014; Godfrey et al., 2017; Halagao 
2010; Hurtado et al., 2002; Naegele 2017; San Pedro 2015; Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 
2015; as well as by Sleeter 2011). 
87 
Responses from survey open-ended feedback reinforced the pivotal role of ES 
leadership in support of teacher leaders and ES content and program development. 
Building and central office leadership is fundamental to effective ES programming, 
providing adequate resources (human as well as material) in classroom and buildings; and 
also central office system-wide support in the role of teachers on special assignment 
(TSAs),  curriculum specialists, and/or ethnic studies leaders or advisory groups; in order 
to create and sustain a community of ES practitioners operating at the forefront of the 
ethnic studies movement across sites with the support of building administrators.  
Survey and interview responses to items addressing RQ1 indicate that strategic 
implementation of ethnic studies necessarily requires an acknowledgement that 
implementation approaches respond to the needs of particular communities and be 
context-specific. The school sites in District A served majority students of color, therefore 
the curriculum not only explicitly addresses historic past and present navigation of 
colonialism, but also serves as a guidepost for students as they themselves navigate 
racism. Alternatively, within the two largely White schools situated in District B, not only 
is it important to present history through the critical ES framework, but also to cultivate 
intentional anti-racist consciousness and carve out spaces beyond ethnic studies content, 
with a deliberate intent to disrupt narratives of White dominance and hegemony. As one 
survey respondent said, “a systems approach is needed for sustainable implementation. 
Don’t start with the curriculum. Start with organizing and building collective capacity 
among educators, students, and families.”  
School board resolutions of support and that of state legislating bodies is 
fundamental for guiding district and building prioritization of ethnic studies via resource 
88 
allocation and curriculum development. The literature strongly supports that notion of 
ethnic studies as curricular reform, and this emphasis on curricular shift was addressed 
more than 500 times total in thirteen of the fourteen studies, and supports the study’s 
findings that ethnic studies stand-alone courses, embedded ethnic studies lessons,  
standards, and pedagogical orientation will facilitate implementation both building and 
system-wide (Cabrera et al 2014; Caraballo 2017; Chung & Harrison 2015; Dee & 
Penner 2017; de los Ríos 2013; de los Rios  et al., 2015; de los Ríos 2017; de los Ríos 
2017; Dee & Penner 2017; Farinde-Wu et al., 2014; Halagao 2010; Hurtado et al., 2002; 
Mayhew et al 2005; Naegele 2017; San Pedro 2015).   
Research Question 2 (RQ2). Research Question 2 asked, what are the 
barriers/challenges to ethnic studies implementation? As responses to RQ1 so clearly 
indicated, identifying, cultivating, training, and retaining the right teachers is essential for 
ethnic studies implementation. Effective ethnic studies teachers possess both the 
background knowledge to facilitate strong ethnic studies curriculum delivery combined 
with a commitment to a pedagogical approach that centers the student- teacher 
relationship with the goal of individual and collective conscientization- developing the 
skills to identify problems and pose solutions (Freire 1972). Survey and interview data 
echo that of the literature review, suggesting that (a) a lack of teachers with adequate 
teacher preparation in ethnic studies pedagogy, or (b) without the conditions with which 
to hone their craft within a community of supportive professionals, serves as a barrier to 
ethnic studies implementation. The participants in this study addressed factors impacting 
teacher preparation and retention: 1) budget constraints that prioritize tested subject 
matter, 2) a compartmentalized work culture perpetuating Eurocentric instructional norms 
 89 
that result in racial battle fatigue or isolation, and 3) displacement due to lack of seniority 
or gentrification. These barriers were cited by all four administrators and brought forward 
in survey data.   
The literature supports this barrier that emerged in both Phase I and Phase II of 
my research, and eleven of the fourteen studies address the need for successful programs 
to be adequately supported, and to see both funding in terms of teacher resources and 
training, and as leadership structures in place to support instructors (Caraballo 2017; 
Chung & Harrison 2015; Dee & Penner 2017; de los Rios  et al., 2015; de los Ríos 2017; 
Dee & Penner 2017; Farinde-Wu et al., 2017; Halagao 2010; Hurtado et al., 2002; 
Naegele 2017; San Pedro 2015). 
 Adequately prepared ethnic studies instructors should be viewed as a community 
resource, as effective ethnic studies programming supports students and schools- in 
recognition that they come to school with their own funds of knowledge (Valenzuela, 
1999) with the capacity to build democratic learning communities, coalitions of 
empowered learners who enact the principals of rehumanization. These principles are 
antithetical to standardization of curriculum and outcomes, i.e., traditional measures of 
student success that invisibilize or exceptionalize students of Color. Two studies in my 
literature review specifically addressed the lack of teacher preparation as a key barrier for 
ethnic studies implementation, describing this lack of an ethnic studies pedagogical lens 
in teacher preparation programs, which factors into student persistence (Chung 2015; 
Halagao 2010; Farinde-Wu et al., 2017). 
Study participants acknowledged that if the standards or content isn’t tested, then 
[the content matter] is not a district priority. It is important to note here the contradictory 
 90 
position of ethnic studies, as it moves towards standardization and system-wide 
implementation. On the one hand, in response to empirical data and community demand 
supportive of ethnic studies, districts and states are hard at work developing ethnic 
studies state standards that can gird programming and the backbone of a system as it 
expands to authentically embraces diverse student needs, identities, and community 
histories relative to, and critical of, dominant narratives that valorize American 
exceptionalism and imperialism. Interview and survey data, as well as the literature 
review reinforce the problem and solution that the development and embedding of ethnic 
studies standards offer, describing standards (i.e. tests) as negative when part of the 
standards-based reform movement of No Child Left Behind, wielded punitively against 
students of color and schools most underserved, paradoxically, the development of ethnic 
studies state standards can be seen as an innovative and canon-disrupting curricular 
intervention on behalf of all students, the most recent chapter of 70 year struggle for 
ethnic studies to replace the traditional “history” curriculum with a more historically 
accurate and critical analysis of race, power, and oppression in the United States settler 
colonial project. Perhaps ironically, given the clichéd educational emphasis on 
“relationships and rigor” and the now forty-year endeavor to “close the achievement 
gap”; the development of content standards in ethnic studies would allow for the more 
authentically rigorous exploration of who students are relative to their histories and 
futures, facilitating student engagement as they seek to position themselves within both 
through an assets framing.  
Research Question 3 (RQ3). My third research question was designed to test the 
hypothesis that ethnic studies instructors and administrators making decisions that 
 91 
impacting ethnic studies implementation may prioritize supports and barriers differently. 
RQ asked: to what degree do results depend on participants’ district, participants’ roles, 
and the phase of implementation at participant’s site? My original hypothesis was that 
the disruptive nature of ethnic studies to the dominant educational discourse around who 
and how schools serve would shape how respondents prioritized implementation 
strategies, particularly in ways that may sustain organizational features that reflect and 
maintain status quo. Further, I was interested to see if administrators and curriculum 
directors would identify the same strategies as ethnic studies teachers, who I believed 
may be more critical of the organizational culture: from teacher pedagogy, curriculum, 
school climate, assessment, hiring practices and retainment.  
On most survey questions I found no significant variance of difference between 
role or site, for a few reasons, some which will be discussed further in the Limitations 
section. However, District A respondents were more likely to indicate that adequate 
teacher preparation was a challenge to effective implementation. This could be explained 
by a number of factors, including the challenge of maintaining a stable teacher force in 
the face of rapid gentrification of traditionally working class and immigrant 
neighborhoods, but could also be impacted by the largely White teacher candidate pool, 
in a district that serves majority students of color and the lack of cultural congruence 
between teachers and students. As mentioned in the Results section, administrators from 
both District A and B discussed their strategy of replacing teachers who left the building 
because of housing unaffordability or other reasons and often replaced them with teachers 
of Color, who were more likely to have either had the life or educational background to 
support skillful ethnic studies instruction.  
 92 
All four administrators interviewed as part of this study were able to clearly 
articulate the purpose and pedagogy of ethnic studies. In the case of District A, both 
principals were educators of Color who had taken ethnic studies courses as 
undergraduates, and had relocated to District A and Roosevelt High School specifically to 
be part of the culture of innovation that resulted in the ethnic studies pilot program, and 
both conveyed a strong sense of enthusiasm and conviction that the commitment to the 
objectives of ethnic studies was shared district-wide. District A survey participants were 
more likely to choose “implementation of a 9th grade stand-alone (or other single grade) 
course as an effective strategy for implementation, which followed the strategic 
implementation plan employed by that district begun in 2014 (check Phase II date). 
Because of the coherence of that strategy, the sense of purpose for both students, building 
leadership, and school community seemed in alignment. All interviewees leadership style 
was characterized by a commitment to cultivating critical independent learners who have 
a strong sense of self and belonging in both their school communities and beyond. 
 Ethnic studies teachers were more likely to suggest “training and recruitment of 
experienced ethnic studies teachers” as a recommended tactic for ethnic studies 
implementation.  This may be in acknowledgement of the lack of content-specific 
coursework in pre-service programs, as well as a community of support needed for a 
comprehensive ethnic studies program as they develop courses and programs at the 
secondary level. Respondents also discussed the value in embedding or infusing ethnic 
studies content within several subject areas, within a “social justice pathway”, or, as in 
New Directions High School, throughout the entire school. Both roles and both sites 
indicated that building capacity at the pre-planning and pilot phase required employing 
93 
several tactics: from the creation of ethnic studies task forces and/or work groups, to 
delivering professional development around culturally responsive pedagogy, and 
designing supports for family and community engagement for ethnic studies”, multi-
pronged approaches that reflective of the family and community-centered ethos of ethnic 
studies that counters the individualistic approach of the traditional stand-along American 
history course.  
Interestingly, “Teacher Leaders” were chosen more frequently by administrators 
than by ethnic studies teachers as the most influential factor in districts’ most recent 
successful ethnic studies efforts underscoring, again, the essential role of teachers in 
ethnic studies implementation efforts.  “School board policy” was also an influential 
factor, with a significant difference between District A and District B, which was 
somewhat surprising, as  District B’s ethnic studies efforts following the passing of the 
2017 school board resolution in support of ethnic studies has stumbled, at least as far as a 
system-wide strategy for implementation. as the reluctance of principals to participate in 
this study, and the placing of the ethnic studies program manager on paid administrative 
leave seems to suggest.  
There were two responses to “challenges in implementation” with significant 
variance by role that did correspond to expected outcomes. Administrators were more 
likely to choose “elective course rather than required” than were ethnic studies teachers. 
Question 10 was open-ended, and responses that fit into this theme included “the 
continual struggle to keep “ethnic studies as a course and the challenge of it not being a 
[graduation or college entrance] requirement and only an elective requirement” (See 
Appendix G). It was clear from all the survey and interview data collected that 
94 
participants shared a commitment to ethnic studies, and recognized that within a system 
characterized by scarcity, what is prioritized is what is required, not necessarily what is 
seen as best for students- and, like standardization, harms the most vulnerable and/or 
disengaged students. There was also significance by role for the option 
“schedule/sequencing challenges”, this time with teachers indicating that it was a more 
significant challenge than administrators. Again, as cited earlier, core graduation 
requirements and what is situated as the “core” serves as a barrier to implementation. One 
respondent described their challenge as “developing a student-centered, innovative 
master schedule to allow for all 9th graders to access both Ethnic Studies and Conceptual 
Physics, along with district Health and College & Career requirements.”  
Survey and interview participants noted both the structural and pedagogical shifts 
required to implement ethnic studies successfully, and that the process is reflective of the 
organizational culture sustaining or inhibiting it. District A’s efforts began over ten years 
ago, with the piloting of ethnic studies in five schools, which eventually expanded, with 
the passage of the school board resolution to expand the program in all of the city’s 
public high schools. The resolution also encouraged exploration of implementation into 
district middle schools, and the consideration of an eventual graduation requirement.  
District B: Ethnic Studies and Dialogic Change 
As established in the literature review, ethnic studies curriculum challenges the canon of 
history and/or social studies content that centers a noncritical narrative of Euro-American 
conquest, and the unquestioned authority of the teacher. A finding that emerged both in 
the literature and the study results suggest that strategic ethnic studies implementation 
must be guided by a system that embeds both its pedagogy and ES advocates throughout 
 95 
the multiple layers of the system: from the streets, to classroom, to building and central 
office administration, extending to the school board, supported by community 
organizations and other levers of policy-making.  
This study has utilized the Dialogic Organizational Development (Bushe & 
Marshak, 2014) framework as theoretical lens through which to explore if ethnic studies 
maintains its authentically disruptive and democratizing nature as it moves from theory 
into application within educational systems. It is a reasonable question to investigate if 
ethnic studies loses its revolutionary and disruptive nature as it becomes institutionalized 
and standardized? In her synthesis of organizational change theories, Christiane Demers 
(2007) described “discourses about change” as that which “are based on concepts of 
complexity, meaning-making, emergence, and self-organization, these dialogic process 
activities assume relationships and organizations are continuously re-creating themselves 
through the ongoing conversations that occur at all levels and parts” (p. 193).  
It is important to note here that an authentically critical ethnic studies operates 
with its own theoretical framework grounded in Critical Race Theory, which views 
policymaking differently that of the traditional mainstream approach to educational 
policy. “CRT views policy not as a mechanism that delivers progressively greater degrees 
of equity, but a process that is shaped by the interests of the dominant White population: a 
situation where genuine progress is won through political protest and where apparent 
gains are quickly cut back (Gillborn, 2013, p.134) That ethnic studies is a disruptive 
pedagogy can most clearly be seen in this moment in District B, as ethnic studies 
organizers- teachers and students- utilize the strategies of solidarity building, political 
organizing, and protest to make their presence felt both in school board meetings in 
96 
support of the ethnic studies manager who guided the work resulting in the 2017 board 
resolution (supported by a historically powerful and organized community group), and, in 
the response of ethnic studies students and teacher/activists who present a slate of ethnic 
studies candidates to exert political influence through their teachers’ union, and craft a 
nonprofit organization to support authentic ethnic studies implementation. In this way, 
barriers to implementation as embodied by (a) principals who silence or displace ethnic 
studies teacher leaders/organizers and (b) central office leadership (that seems at the 
conclusion of this study to currently be engaged in neutralizing and/or co-opting the work 
of district ethnic studies leaders through the contracting out of ethnic studies curriculum 
development. 
This example of institutional racism in response to ethnic studies implementation, 
through the displacing of the ES director, and contracting out of ethnic studies curriculum 
development, aligns with what CRT scholars assert is characteristic of educational policy:  
When calls for change become so great as to threaten the stability of the system, 
then (temporarily at least) the interests of the White majority are seen to converge 
with those of the protesting minority group and certain concessions may be 
grated. However, once the apparent contradiction between rhetoric and reality has 
been addressed, then the real-world impacts of the changes are reined in or 
removed completely. Far from advancing equity, therefore, a critical perspective 
views public policy as largely serving to manage race inequality at sustainable 
levels while maintaining, and even enhancing, White dominance of the system. 
(Gillborn, 2013, 138).  
 
The moves of District B leadership are being met by grassroots resistance strategies 
deeply rooted in ethnic studies’ commitment to struggle for decolonization and liberation, 
and is dramatically challenging the “theory-in-use”- a district that instituted a pilot ethnic 
studies program without adequate or perhaps even genuine support of leadership. One 
respondent from District B responded to Q11’s invitation for “anything else?” thus: “[the 
 97 
process of ethnic studies implementation] is frustrating, but youth and community 
partnerships and organizing, plus a strong work group of committed educators from 
across the district have meant a lot. I’m afraid educators of color and leaders of the 
movement are getting burned out from the districts’ two-faced support/non-support”. Like 
the Mexican American Studies program in Tucson, AZ, the controversy currently 
unfolding is sure to generate more interest and research of ethnic studies implementation 
processes. 
District B seems to be about five years behind District A, with the passage of their 
board resolution in support of ethnic studies in 2017, and an equally proactive group of 
progressive teacher leaders creatively responding to the calls for “ethnic studies now”. 
However, it remains to be seen if District B will develop “political alignment from top to 
bottom… the result of ongoing and longstanding organizing”. The organizing is 
happening, the ethnic studies tradition suggests perhaps the alignment will follow. 
Contributions to Literature 
This study contributes to the research of ethnic studies implementation in several 
ways. At the date of this dissertation, there is no published study directly investigating the 
process of ethnic studies implementation at the secondary level, that specifically 
examines the perspective of school leaders and ethnic studies instructors as they move 
this “new” content into the fabric of classrooms, schools, and k-12 public school systems. 
The results from my literature search indicated there was a need for research in the field 
of ethnic studies implementation at the secondary level, informing my decision to 
investigate this educational initiative to more effectively achieve educational equity for 
students. Primarily, this study contributes a first look at specifically administrative 
 98 
practices, priorities, and processes as ethnic studies content and pedagogy are moved 
through their organizations. 
My literature review is a new contribution to the field. My literature review 
identified a scarcity of ethnic studies research that included ethnic studies “decision-
makers” as the focus of study. The literature review provides a starting point for future 
research into ethnic studies implementation strategies by connecting studies that support 
social-emotional and academic learning of ethnic studies students with an analysis of the 
strategies and barriers that support effective ethnic studies implementation in k-12 
schools. This contribution to the literature illustrates where ethnic studies pedagogy, 
student outcomes, and strategies to support ethnic studies implementation overlap. As is 
the nature of early-stage research, results of the study are limited, however the literature 
review and results provide a foundation for further research.  
As is the nature of exploratory research, the purpose of my study was to establish 
the basis for the design or development of new interventions. By using a mixed-methods 
design, and multiple data collection activities- (a) quantitative survey questions, (b) 
qualitative survey questions, and (c) interviews- I captured both qualitative and 
quantitative data to establish new knowledge around approaching the ethnic studies 
implementation process. It is the intent of the study to inform further development of 
organizations in the pre-planning, piloting, implementing, and redesign phases of ethnic 
studies programming that may impact the who, how, and what strategies to support 
effective implementation. While it is beyond the scope of this dissertation to fully 
describe these strategies supporting ethnic studies implementation- particularly in 
districts dissimilar to the ones featured in this study, indications about what strategies and 
 99 
supports may broadly consist of can be seen in the themes discussed in the literature and 
supported in the empirical data of this study.  
This study moves from an understanding of ethnic studies as a theoretical and 
historical lens to one that is a pedagogical and practical initiative in service of achieving 
equity in schools. It examines the interaction of teaching and administering ethnic studies 
content and its impact on student agency, achievement, school culture, and policy as a 
dynamic dialogic change process both responsive and resistant to the pluralistic demands 
of America’s diverse school constituencies. 
Phase I Limitations 
Phase I includes several limitations that should be considered when interpreting 
results. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected in Phase I, therefore limitations 
in validity and reliability are reported. Limitations include, but are not necessarily limited 
to: internal validity, construct validity, and reliability threats. 
Internal Validity Threats. While the sample frame was intended to include a 
wide range of education professionals in various roles making decisions that impact 
ethnic studies implementation in two large school districts, and thereby increase the 
generalizability, both sample set were a voluntary sample: District A provided an excel 
sheet with a list of 157 email addresses from the following categories: central office 
administrators related to ethnic studies instruction, building administration, and ethnic 
studies instructors. District B building and teacher participants could not be contacted 
directly, but only once the principal had granted permission, and only two of the 
principals of the six ethnic studies pilot schools listed on the website consented to 
participation, thereby further limiting the sample to two buildings and voluntary central 
 100 
office administrators. Therefore, not only did the self-selection bias affect the response 
rate to my survey, but to the very nature of the population that was my sample.  
The sample size and low participation rates should also be taken into 
consideration. Overall response rate was quite low, with only 20% of the total sample 
completing the survey. However, it is worth noting that online surveys often have lower 
response rates, sometimes as low as 33%, particularly if the email is answered on a 
mobile phone (Dillman et al., 2014; Fincham, 2008; Nutty 2008). Unequal response rate 
is also worth noting. Of the 35 completed surveys, 63% (n = 22) respondents were 
classified as “administrators”, and 37% (n = 13) were “ethnic studies teachers”. Further, 
74 % (n = 26) respondents were from District A, and 23% (n = 8) from District B.  
Finally, the timing of survey administration, June in District A and September in 
District B should be taken into consideration and may have influenced the response rate. 
While these windows were dependent on the granting of district research approval 
according to the study timeline, June and September are notoriously challenging for 
educators as they conclude and begin the academic school year.  
Construct Validity Threats. Content validity and low reliability need to be 
considered due to the survey design and implementation. I designed the Ethnic Studies 
Implementation Survey instrument and there have been no other studies of its use. Lack 
of retests, low response rates, and no alternative form of the survey may have influenced 
both reliability and content validity measures.  
For example, Question 2 asked respondents to identify their position in their 
district. Forced choice options included instructional/curriculum leader which may be an 
administrative or instructional role, meaning that either could be identified as 
101 
“administrator” or “teacher” for statistical analysis purposes. Similarly, Question 4 asked 
respondents to indicate phase of implementation in their school. As RQ 3 seeks to 
compare responses by phase, this question did not take into account that the study was 
designed to assess district-level implementation practices, rather than building-level. 
Because participants may have been unaware of district-level implementation, or may 
have interpreted the question to apply to their own personal sense of implementation in 
their own planning process, content validity may have been compromised in the survey. 
However, steps to correct for low validity and reliability were taken. A nationally 
recognized expert on ethnic studies, as well as local professionals working with ethnic 
studies implementation and school administration were consulted before employing the 
survey to increase content validity. The survey was revised three times and field tested 
with ethnic studies teachers who did not participate in the study. Questions and answers 
were refined between each field test.  
Forced-choice surveys are not without limitations. Participants must choose the 
best answer, which is not always the “right” answer, thereby increasing the possibility of 
falsely positive or high responses. However, the survey was brief, clearly worded with a 
repeated Likert-scale structure for the survey items addressing the research questions, 
with three open-ended “other” options for each question, to provide opportunity for 
alternative responses and elaboration. These three attributes reduce the likelihood of 
ipsative data (Bartram, 2007; Brown & Maydeu-Olivares, 2011). 
Item non-response bias also must be considered. My survey did not require 
respondents to answer all questions before moving forward. This allowed respondents to 
skip questions and had an unintended consequence. Two open-ended questions, Question 
 102 
10 and Question 13, designed to answer RQ2 and RQ3, had lower response rates, 
potentially altering the accuracy and power of the statistical analysis. Further, I did not 
account for family-wise error, therefore some differences deemed to be significant may 
not be real.  
Social desirability bias influence must also be examined. Questions 1-4 did not 
lend themselves to this, however questions 5-13 asked respondents to identify 
characteristics, strategies, and challenges to ethnic studies implementation. Respondents 
may have overrepresented their familiarity with themes or processes of ethnic studies 
implementation as to appear knowledgeable or anti-racist, two socially desired identities.  
Internal Validity Threats. First, sampling for my four principal interviews was 
not at random. Instead, I chose a purposive sample (Creswell & Creswell, 2017; 
Dworkin, 2012). Of the four interviewees, all were selected from a pool of volunteers 
from the Phase I survey. All four were specifically chosen because they were building 
principals, two from each district, and because of their presumed level of familiarity with 
central office, building level, and classroom level considerations for ethnic studies 
implementation. Second, all interviews were conducted in person. Researcher interaction 
bias should be considered. Third, the overall sample size was in the small end of the 
acceptable range (Dworkin, 2012), However, by triangulating data from both the 
quantitative and qualitative sources, this small sample size is not likely to have decreased 
internal validity (Maxwell, 2012; Creswell & Creswell, 2017). Themes overlapped both 
among the interviews and between Phase I and Phase II data sets: thus, the information 
gleaned from the four interviews suggests satisfactory thematic coherence. Finally, some 
alterations were made to the transcript data, including written responses to open-ended 
 103 
questions on the survey. Slight corrections for grammar and punctuation, and or spelling 
for readability and identifying features of language and/or geographic references were 
deleted.  
External Validity Threats. The overall low survey response to Phase I and the 
sampling methods in Phase II may not reflect the experience of all principals guiding 
ethnic studies implementation in their buildings or geographic regions, therefore, the 
overall generalizability of this study may be limited as it is a single study.  However, the 
perspective of participants who are at the forefront of ethnic studies implementation as a 
system-wide initiative at the secondary level likely capture themes and considerations 
facing ethnic studies decision-makers in other systems as they move to expand ethnic 
studies instruction. 
 My professional experience and participation in the ethnic studies movement 
may have skewed what my informants shared in unknowable ways. For example, they 
may have been more primed to discuss what was working than what didn’t, due to the 
purposeful selection of my interviewees. My identity as a Black-biracial instructor of 
ethnic studies at a high school in the Pacific Northwest means that I have been driven to 
ask these questions by a life-long commitment to equity instilled in me by my 
teacher/activist parents. My research interest is shaped by 20 years of experience teaching 
high school, and by my commitment to fostering critical engagement in students. I 
attempted to counter this bias by editing my survey extensively for neutral language, and 
by employing respondent validation techniques during my interviews.  
 104 
Future Research Directions 
This study was conducted with the purpose of identifying strategies and barriers 
to supportive ethnic studies implementation and gaining understanding of how that 
implementation impacts school organizations.  If successful ethnic studies instruction is 
dependent on the preparation of teachers who understand the goals and pedagogy of 
ethnic studies and can skillfully implement that content, as study data suggests, then 
further research is needed to understand what preservice teaching programs can do and 
are doing to currently support ethnic studies instruction, and, perhaps more importantly, if 
ethnic studies as a discrete content area can support the recruitment and retention of 
teachers of color. 
Another recommendation that bears further research is the role of ethnic studies 
advisory or work groups, or racial equity teams (RET) in building capacity for ethnic 
studies implementation. In what ways are teachers and school districts creating and 
supporting networks of professionals committed to reflective and anti-racist practice, and 
in what ways is that supportive of the goals of ethnic studies in creating equitable 
classrooms and communities?  Do these types of teams impact the retention of teachers of 
color through the creation of a distributed body working to disrupt narratives of 
inequality in schools, or are teachers of color disproportionately doing the heavy lifting of 
dismantling racism, as is our longstanding tradition in schools and society? 
Finally, what is being done in administrator licensure programs to develop equity 
leadership in candidates? What does it take to produce leaders who can articulate and 
embody an ethnic studies pedagogical lens, as the leaders interviewed in this study did? 
What does authentic care look like at the administrative level, and what policies and 
 105 
practices then can be enacted that reflect care for, rather than measure the harm done to, 
our students? More research is needed to understand the ways that administrative 
licensure programs can support the kinds of courageous leadership required to guide 
successful ethnic studies implementation in school systems.  
Conclusion 
The results from this study indicate that ethnic studies pedagogy and curriculum 
are operating as a dialogic pedagogy enacting change. This transformation of the who, 
what, and how of education is creating conditions for emancipatory education that centers 
students as agents of knowledge-making and change. Ethnic studies educators and 
administrators are challenging the singular and hegemonic narrative of the American 
immigrant story of conquest and land of opportunity, moving schools and systems away 
from a “multicultural” melting pot narrative that upholds this narrative, and into a 
decolonizing and humanizing space where critical and pluralistic new narratives can 
emerge. Study participants responses demonstrate ethnic studies is present in multiple 
phases and configurations: single-subject classrooms and courses and students are taking 
that critical consciousness with them into the other school spaces in which they move, 
demanding that their other teachers and school leaders respond with authentic care. 
Ethnic studies is being infused into other content areas, ethnic studies themes and 
pedagogy moving building and system-wide, through professional development focused 
on strategies of racial and cultural literacy and responsiveness; and the development of 
anti-oppressive pedagogies; moving from standards-based reform to the development of 
an aligned k-12  curricular and pedagogical approach to social studies, language arts, and 
the teacher-student relationship itself that is supported by explicit school board policy, 
 106 
and community partnerships. As ethnic studies implementation continues, overcoming 
the challenge of providing adequate training and support is critical: to teacher leaders 
through a strong district-wide network connecting and supporting them via supported 
ethnic studies central office leadership that collects and disseminates data supporting the 
efficacy of ethnic studies; a collaborative network of support such as an ethnic studies 
lead group and student cohort that can utilize tactics of grassroots activism to build 
solidarity to amplify their voice when needed; and to preservice teachers whose 
educational preparatory programs provide students a critical pedagogical lens that 
provides a nourishing, sustaining, and culturally inclusive space for teachers of color as 
they prepare to effectively provide all students the education they deserve. 
107 
APPENDIX A 
RESEARCH ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THE LITERATURE POOL 
1. Cabrera, N., Milem, J., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. (2014). Missing the (student 
achievement) forest for all the (political) trees. American Educational Research 
Journal, 51, 1084-1118. 
2. Caraballo, L. (2017). Students’ critical meta-awareness in a figured world of 
achievement: toward a culturally sustaining stance in curriculum, pedagogy, and 
research. Urban Education, 52, 585–609.  
3. Chung, Jennifer Y., & Harrison, Lisa M. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies critique 
for teacher education. Multicultural Perspectives, 17, 4-12. 
4. Dee, T., & Penner, E. (2017). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from 
an ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 127-
166.  
5. de los Rios, C. V. (2013). A curriculum of the borderlands: high school Chicana/o-
Latina/o Studies as "sitios y lengua". Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public 
Education, 45, 58-73.  
6. de Los Rios, C., Lopez, J., & Morrell, E. (2015). Toward a Critical Pedagogy of 
Race: Ethnic Studies and Literacies of Power in High School Classrooms. Race 
and Social Problems, 7(1), 84-96. 
7. de los Rios, C (2017). Picturing ethnic studies: Photovoice and youth literacies of 
social action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the 
International Reading Association., 61, 15. 
 108 
8. Farinde-Wu, A., Glover, C. P., & Williams, N. N. (2017). It’s not hard work; It’s
heart work: Strategies of effective, award-winning culturally responsive teachers. 
Urban Review, 49, 279–299.  
9. Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E. and Burson, E. (2017), For better or worse? System-
justifying beliefs in sixth-grade predict trajectories of self-esteem and behavior 
across early adolescence. Child Dev. doi:10.1111/cdev.12854 
10. Halagao, P. (2010). Liberating Filipino Americans through decolonizing curriculum.
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 13(4), 495-512. 
11. Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002). Students'
precollege preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in 
Higher Education, 43, 163-186.  
12. Mayhew, Matthew J., Grunwald, Heidi E., & Dey, Eric L. (2005). Curriculum
Matters: Creating a Positive Climate for Diversity from the Student Perspective. 
Research in Higher Education, 46(4), 389-412. 
13. Naegele, Z. (2017). Student and Teacher Perceptions of the Impact Ethnic Studies
Courses Have on Students of Color: A Collective Case Study. University of 
Portland. Unpublished Dissertation.  
14. San Pedro, T. (2015). Silence as weapons: Transformative praxis among Native
American students in the urban Southwest. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48, 
511-528.
109 
APPENDIX B 
STUDY DESIGNS, MEASURES, AND ANALYSIS METHODS 
Citation Design Data Analysis 
1 Longitudinal Administrative data Logistic regression models 
cohort quant. (GPA, AIMS scores, 
graduation data) 
2 Case Study Written assignments, Documented coded 
school and curriculum narrative analysis (of 
documents, student focus tension, resistance, and 
group, and semi- hope) as students 
structured student and interacted with curriculum 
teacher interviews 
3 Interview study In-person semi- Coded “themed” data 
structured interviews 
with open-ended 
questions 
4 Longitudinal Administrative data (8th Regression discontinuity 
cohort quant. grade GPA, 9th grade analysis 
attendance, rates, 9th 
grade GPA and credits 
earned) 
5 Case study Weekly reflections, Coded “themed” data 
digital recorded 
discussion, and in-class 
and out of class 
(in)formal discussions 
and observations. Six 
one-on-one in depth 
interviews. 
6 Case Study Three participatory Coded “themed” data 
action research projects 
including interviews, 
surveys, photographs, 
participant observation, 
digital video, and 
descriptive statistics  
110 
7 Case Study Photovoice Coded “themed” data 
compositions, semi 
structured interviews, 
participant observations 
8 Interview study In-person semi- Coded “themed” data 
structured interviews 
with open-ended 
questions 
9 Longitudinal System justification Structural equation 
quant. scale adapted from Kay modeling techniques 
and Jost (2003); 
Rosenberg’s global self-
esteem scale (Rosenberg, 
1989); The Children’s 
Depression Inventory; 
Risky Behavior 
Questionnaire (Eccles & 
Barber, 1990); 
Classroom Regulatory 
Behaviors Scale (Santos 
& Menjîvar, 2013); 10 
item measure of 
perceived interpersonal 
ethnic discrimination 
from “others” and 
societal authorities 
(Whitbeck, Hoyt, 
McMorris, Chen, & 
Stubben, 2001) 
10 Cross-sectional Open-ended survey of Coded “themed” data 
qual. former Pinoy Teach 
participants  
11 Cross-sectional Survey from national Multiple regression and 
quant. research project called 
exploratory factor analyses 
Preparing Students for a 
Diverse Democracy 
12 Cross-sectional Survey adapted from a Linear regression 
quant. diversity climate survey 
developed at the Higher 
Education  
 111 
Research Institute 
(HERI) 
13 Case Study Classroom observations, Coded “themed” data 
open-ended student 
survey, teacher and 
student interviews, and 
student work products 
14 Longitudinal 1) Student artifacts, (2) Triangulation 
qual. field notes and
transcribed class
conversations; and (3)
personal
communications
including semi-
structured interviews and
impromptu
conversations
112 
APPENDIX C  
Studies’ Themes Corresponding with the Sleeter (2011) Categories 
Citation Themes 
 Origin of Historical Historical Probing Studying 
knowledge U.S. construction meanings one’s 
colonialism of race of community’s 
collective creative and 
and 
or intellectual 
contemporary 
communal products, both 
colonialism 
identities historic and 
contemporary 
1 X X X X X 
2 X X X X X 
3 X   X X 
4    X X 
5 X X X X X 
6 X X X X X 
7 X X X X X 
8 X   X X 
9 X X  X X 
10 X X  X X 
11  X X X X 
12    X X 
13                       X        X X X X 
14 X X  X X 
Total 11 10 7 14 14 
 
  
 113 
APPENDIX D 
Summary of Findings 
Cite Summary of Findings 
1 MAS students achieved higher AIMS scores and higher rates of passing and graduation 
despite having significantly lower GPAs and standardized test scores. 
2 Appreciating and facilitating students’ multiple literacies and identities while engaging 
them in critical literacy education supports students’ academic participation. 
3 Students of color in primarily white Teacher Ed programs experience barriers that can 
be mediated by employing an ethnic studies framework and more faculty of color. 
4 There is a strong causal relationship between the teaching of ethnic studies and 
increased achievement outcomes for 9th graders. 
5 Mexican American Studies (MAS) courses grounded in historically and culturally 
relevant pedagogy can reengage historically disenfranchised youth. 
6 Ethnic studies at the Secondary level is not new, and the critical pedagogy of race it 
provides students is both rigorous and relevant. 
7 New Literacy Studies (NLS) can provide diverse students voice beyond traditional 
print literacy that demonstrate their comprehension of the multilingual and global 
realities of today. 
8 Teachers who understand that culture and difference are assets that are fostered through 
connections between home, classroom, and community are more successful with our 
diverse student populations. 
9 Marginalized youth who are more critically conscious in 6th grade, exhibiting less 
systems-justifying belief had better trajectories through middle school. 
10 Pinoy Teach, a program designed to support pre-service teachers in Filipino American 
history and culture to middle school students, served as a tool to decolonize and 
support culturally sustaining practice.  
Students from highly segregated high school communities are less prepared for the 
negotiation required of democratic and socially diverse settings in college and beyond. 
12 Students with more pre-college experience with diverse peers and school climates that 
value diversity have higher expectations for their institution to create an authentically 
positive climate for diversity, and this effect is different according to gender. 
13 Students and teachers perceive strongly positive impacts of ethnic studies courses on 
students in regard to learning, engagement, and educational aspiration 
 
14 Literacy events that affirm Indigenous knowledges include examining the role of 
silence and storytelling as expressions of critical engagement of Native youth. 
 
 114 
APPENDIX E 
ES IMPLEMENTATION SURVEY 
 
Start of Block: SURVEY INSTRUCTION 
 
Start of Block: Informed Consent 
 
Q1  
  
Welcome to the research study!     
    
We are interested in understanding ethnic studies implementation.  You will be presented 
with information relevant to ethnic studies implementation at the secondary level and 
asked to answer some questions about it. Please be assured that your responses will be 
kept completely confidential. 
  
 The study should take you around five minutes to complete, and you will receive the 
results of my study for your participation. Your participation in this research is voluntary. 
You have the right to withdraw at any point during the study, for any reason, and without 
any prejudice. If you would like to contact the Principal Investigator in the study to 
discuss this research, please e-mail Leah Dunbar: ldunbar@uoregon.edu. 
  
 By clicking the button below, you acknowledge that your participation in the study is 
voluntary, you are 18 years of age, and that you are aware that you may choose to 
terminate your participation in the study at any time and for any reason. 
  
 Please note that this survey will be best displayed on a laptop or desktop computer.  
Some features may be less compatible for use on a mobile device.     
  
o I consent, begin the study  (1)  
o I do not consent, I do not wish to participate  (2)  
 
Skip To: Q2 If Welcome to the research study!     We are interested in understanding 
ethnic studies implementati... = I consent, begin the study 
Skip To: End of Survey If Welcome to the research study!     We are interested in 
understanding ethnic studies implementati... = I do not consent, I do not wish to 
participate 
 
Q2 My position in my district is: 
o Building principal  (1)  
o Building administrator  (2)  
o Department leader  (3)  
o Ethnic studies instructor  (4)  
o Instructional/curriculum leader  (5)  
o Other?   (6) ________________________________________________ 
 115 
Q3 My school has (check as many as apply): 
o One or more "stand alone" ethnic studies courses (e.g., ES 101, ES 012,
Mexican American Studies (MAS), etc.)  (1)
o One or more courses that embed ethnic studies standards in existing course
curriculum (e.g. History of the Americas, etc.)  (2)
o An ethnic studies course sequence or pathway (3)
o Other (courses or curriculum that are relevant to ethnic studies (please
describe)  (4)________________________________________________
Q4 Which phase of implementation best characterizes the ethnic studies efforts in your 
school? 
▢ Pre-planning (researching successful instructional and curricular models)  (1)
▢ Professional development around Culturally Relevant Pedagogy  (2)
▢ Planning/Design (clarifying standards, goals, identifying team, gathering
resources, etc.)  (3)
▢ Piloting of ES course/curriculum  (4)
▢ Redesigning/refining of ES course/curriculum (concurrent with or post-pilot
phase? please describe)  (5)
▢ Partial implementation (please describe)  (6) _________________________
▢ Full implementation (please describe)  (7) ___________________________
Q5 Please indicate what you feel are the most important characteristics of a successful 
ethnic studies course or program. 
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very 
Important Important Unimportant Unimportant 
(1) (2) (3) (4) 
Development of ethnic and racial ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
literacy (1)  
Student-centered, problem solving ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
approach combined with authentic 
caring (2)  
Culturally sustaining pedagogy (3) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Critical stance, developing critical ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
consciousness about self and 
others (4)  
Objective of systemically ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
examining and dismantling 
institutional racism and other 
systems of oppression (5)  
Exploration of history and present ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
experience from the perspective of 
non-dominant groups (6)  
Other (please describe) (7) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Other (please describe) (8) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Other (please describe) (9) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
116 
 
Q6 The following have been challenges to ethnic studies implementation in my district:  
 
(Rate level of challenge for all that apply and indicate if a challenge did not apply in your 
case) 
 
 Very Somewhat Hardly Not Does not 
Challenging Challenging Challenging Challenging apply (5) 
(1) (2) (3) (4) 
Adequate teacher ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
preparation (1)  
Creating K-12 ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
alignment (2)  
District buy-in (3)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
 
Faculty buy-in (4)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
 
Parent buy-in (5)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
 
Community buy-in ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(6)  
Adequate resources ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(FTE, textbooks, 
professional 
development, 
collaboration time) 
(7)  
Alignment with state ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
standards (8)  
Community groups' ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
perception of 
representation of 
curriculum (9)  
Misperception of ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
content and purpose 
(10)  
Other (please ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
describe) (11)  
Other (please ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
describe) (12)  
Other (please ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
describe) (13)  
 
 
 
 
 117 
Q7 Which of the following best describes your building or districts' most effective 
strategies for supporting successful ethnic studies implementation? (Check all that 
apply and indicate strategy effectiveness) 
 
 Most Somewhat Somewhat Less Does 
Effective Effective Ineffective Effective not 
(1) (2) (3) (4) apply 
(5) 
Implementation of 9th grade ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(or other single grade) Ethnic 
Studies elective course (1)  
Embedding Ethnic Studies ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
standards/pedagogy into 
existing courses (2)  
Building into the master ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
schedule with intentional 
supports (3)  
Piloting of Ethnic Studies ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
courses in multiple sites (4)  
Partnering with outside ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
entities to articulate Ethnic 
Studies curriculum (5)  
Advocating for Ethnic ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Studies graduation 
requirement (6)  
Other (please describe) (7)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Other (please describe) (8)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Other (Please describe) (9)  ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
 
 
Q8 Based on your experience, how valuable are the following tactics for districts 
considering implementation of ethnic studies district-wide? 
  
 High Value Moderate Value Low Value No Value (4) 
(1) (2) (3) 
Creating an Ethnic ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
Studies Task 
Force/Work Group (1)  
Creating community ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
group/higher education 
partnerships (2)  
Delivering professional ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
development around 
culturally sustaining 
pedagogy (3)  
Capacity building of ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
site-based Equity 
Teams (ET) or Racial 
 118 
Equity Teams (RET) 
(4)  
Training and ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
recruitment of 
experienced Ethnic 
Studies instructors (5) 
Design supports for ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
family and community 
engagement in ES (6)  
Other (please describe) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(7)  
Other (please describe) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(8)  
Other (please describe) ▢ ▢ ▢ ▢ 
(9)  
Q9 Which factors have been most influential in your districts' most recent ethnic studies 
efforts? 
Very influential Moderately Slightly Not influential 
(1) influential (2) influential (3) (4) 
Students/student union o o o o 
groups (1)  
Teacher leaders (2) o o o o 
Parent groups (3) o o o o 
Grassroots community o o o o 
activism (4)  
Recent empirical data o o o o 
supporting ES 
instruction (5)  
Current media o o o o 
coverage (6)  
School board policy o o o o 
(7)  
State legislation (8) o o o o 
Political climate (9) o o o o 
Other (please describe) o o o o 
(10)  
Other (please describe) o o o o 
(11)  
Other (please describe) o o o o 
(12)  
119 
Q10 Please describe one challenge you or your school/district has faced in implementing 
ethnic studies and how that challenge was overcome or mitigated.    
________________________________________________________________ 
Q11 Is there anything else you wish to share about the process of ethnic studies 
implementation in your building or district? 
________________________________________________________________ 
Q12 Are you willing to be interviewed for this study? If so, please provide your email 
address or phone number for follow-up. 
o Yes  (1) ________________________________________________
o No  (2)
End of Block: Informed Consent 
120 
APPENDIX F 
ETHNIC STUDIES IMPLEMENTATION STUDY PHASE II: INTERVIEW 
Question 
1. Describe the ethnic studies program in your school.  What informs your understanding
of the term? What is/are the course titles, who is best served by these classes? 
2. How would you describe the impact of ethnic studies courses on the student
culture/climate of your school? How about on the teachers? 
3. What do you see as the most important component of a successful ethnic studies
program? (show/review survey options) Is there anything missing from this list that you would add? 
4. Survey respondents identified a “student-centered, problem solving approach combined
with authentic caring” as a critical component of a successful ES program. How does a school 
leader make sure that is present in the practice of ES? 
5. SFUSD is in “full implementation” of ethnic studies courses. Can you name or identify
any organizational or systemic shifts that have occurred as a result of this work? (can include 
student achievement outcomes/curricular reform, teacher pedagogy, etc.) 
6. What barriers or challenges has your building struggled with the most as regards ethnic
studies implementation? 
7. What do you see as most important, structurally, to be in place to support ethnic studies?
Philosophically and/or pedagogically what do you see as most important? 
8. Describe the support you receive from your district’s central office for ethnic studies
work. What does that support look like? 
9. What is your school’s relationship to recent media response to (names specific ethnic
studies work)? Has the community perception of ethnic studies changed as a result of that 
conversation? 
10. How is data about students' perceptions of the curriculum assessed and how are their
perspectives utilized to refine and modify the curriculum? 
11. What do you think is the single most important component to a successfully
implemented ES program? 
121 
APPENDIX G 
Q10 Challenges in Implementing Ethnic Studies (Open-ended Answers and Coding 
Scheme) 
Question Please describe one challenge you or your school/district has faced in 
implementing ethnic studies and how that challenge was overcome or 
mitigated. 
Coding Variables 
1 2 3 4 5 6 
Support/ Scheduling/ Understanding Standards Not Ineffective 
Resources/ Sequencing of the Value  and Required Leadership 
Staffing of ES Curriculum for 
Development Graduation/ 
College 
Entry 
1,4 Our school faces the challenge that we don't have enough staffing to fully 
implement a comprehensive Ethnic Studies curricular program.  We also 
face the challenge that it is currently embedded in the history department 
with supports from individual teachers in other departments.  We are 
moving in the right direction, but it is frustrating to not be able to move 
quicker. 
4 identifying high quality standards aligned materials was a challenge.  The 
district recruited staff to study, design and write curriculum. 
1 Teachers didn’t feel fully prepared; resources around PD and planning 
time were allocated to support. 
1 Funding - obtained funding for course implementation 
1 It's a challenge to reach educators to provide professional development 
during the school year. This has been mitigated by partnering with other 
organizations, specifically the education association, to deliver PD in the 
summer and create an organized sequence of PD during the school year 
6 In a previous year, the person in the job of Ethnic Studies manager had 
neither the will nor the expertise to lead our Ethnic Studies Department.  
To overcome this challenge, someone who did have the will and the 
expertise was hired to lead. 
122 
3 Our biggest challenge was convincing district and faculty that ethnic 
studies was the right direction, convincing staff that the master narrative 
was biased and destructive to students of color. in our school, we held 
staff meetings designed to spark open conversations about race and how 
we approach the topic in education. Then Trump was elected, and all 
those conversations became more than Black people whining. They 
became self-reflective, awakening conversations about what was being 
done to people of color in this country. They became put up or shut up 
conversations about how to change the direction of this educational 
system and an acknowledgement that there was a lot of work to do.  
3 District - predominately Asian schools or schools known for being 
academically rigorous are less supportive of the class being fully 
implemented. Not yet overcome. 
3, 4 Getting other teachers to implement in their current curriculum. 
1,6 The district is paying lip service to ethnic studies, but undercutting the 
people are trying to make it happen by not allowing director to spend 
existing money or more people for the department, and by silencing the 
director. 
3 Gaining the support in messaging that ES is an important course which all 
students will benefit from.   
1 I have just begun teaching Ethnic Studies, so I guess tackling the 
curriculum without any specialized training. Training was offered but at a 
late date that conflicted with other training I was taking. Still working on 
overcoming this. 
1,2 Ethnic Studies was only offered as an elective course for upper class men 
(11th/12th graders). Our school has recently rolled out more sections 
available for 9th graders by hiring another Ethnic Studies teacher. 
2 Bell schedule challenges-offering ethnic studies to every student while 
acknowledging that 9th grade is heavily impacted with A-G requirements 
(California) as well as physical education graduation requirements 
2 Developing a student-centered, innovative master schedule to allow for 
all 9th graders to access both Ethnic Studies and Conceptual Physics, 
along with district Health & College & Career requirements. 
2 We have had several challenges, but if I were to focus on one, it would be 
uneven support at the site level. However, we as Ethnic Studies 
practitioners/leaders are fortunate to have relatively strong support at 
 123 
from our larger community that ALWAYS IS 
PUSHING/ENCOURAGING central office leadership to continue to 
strengthen the Ethnic Studies related work. 
2 Creating a course sequence from 9th-12th grade. 
5 Ethnic studies as an elective not a requirement. Students will often get 
placed in the ethnic studies course just because the counselor saw that 
there was space in the class. 
5 The continual struggle to keep Ethnic Studies as a course and the 
challenge of it not being a Social Science A-G requirement and only an 
elective requirement. 
3 Teacher buy in/understanding of the importance of teaching non-
dominant cultures. 
1 Even though our district puts little to no money towards social studies, 
they have hired several TSAs to support ethnic studies at the high school 
level (and a bit at the middle school level). 
1 Funding ethnic studies at every school. 
1 Just teacher shortage in general. 
1,3 Definitely need the support of the school community to reach out to 
students to take the class and see the importance of Ethnic Studies in their 
lives. 
2 The biggest challenge I have faced so far is implementing a meaningful 
ES class in a continuation school setting where classes only last 9 weeks 
(quarter system). 
4 The attempt to implement a stand-alone course is something challenging 
at this time. I think a more sustainable way to embed Ethnic Studies is by 
embedding it within other content areas. 
 
 
 
 124 
REFERENCES CITED 
Babbie, E. (2013). The practice of social research (13th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 
Cengage Learning 
Brayboy, B.M.J. (2013). Tribal critical race theory: an origin story and future directions. 
In M. Lynn, & A. Dixon (Eds.), Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education 
(pp. 129-139). Routledge. 
Cabrera, N., Milem, J., Jaquette, O., & Marx, R. (2014). Missing the (student 
achievement) forest for all the (political) trees. American Educational Research 
Journal, 51, 1084-1118. 
Caraballo, L. (2017). Students’ critical meta-awareness in a figured world of 
achievement: toward a culturally sustaining stance in curriculum, pedagogy, and 
research. Urban Education, 52, 585–609.  
Chung, Jennifer Y., & Harrison, Lisa M. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies critique for 
teacher education. Multicultural Perspectives, 17, 4-12. 
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and 
mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. 
Dee, T., & Penner, E. (2017). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an 
ethnic studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 127-166. 
Delgado, Rl, & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York: 
NYU Press. 
de los Rios, C. V. (2013). A curriculum of the borderlands: high school Chicana/o-
Latina/o Studies as "sitios y lengua". Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public 
Education, 45, 58-73.  
de los Rios, C., Lopez, J., & Morrell, E. (2015). Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Race: 
Ethnic Studies and Literacies of Power in High School Classrooms. Race and 
Social Problems, 7(1), 84-96. 
de los Rios, C (2017). Picturing ethnic studies: Photovoice and youth literacies of social 
action. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy: A Journal from the International 
Reading Association., 61, 15. 
Demers, C. (2007). Organizational change theories: A synthesis. Los Angeles, CA: 
SAGE Publications. 
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and 
mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken: Wiley. 
125 
Farinde-Wu, A., Glover, C. P., & Williams, N. N. (2017). It’s not hard work; It’s heart 
work: Strategies of effective, award-winning culturally responsive teachers. 
Urban Review, 49, 279–299.  
Fincham J. E. (2008). Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the 
Journal. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 72(2), 43.  
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. 
Garcia, B. (2018, June 14). Santa Barbara School District to Add Ethnic Studies. 
Retrieved from https://www.independent.com/news/2018/jun/14/santa-barbara-
school-district-add-ethnic-studies/ 
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally Responsive Teaching. Multicultural Education Series. 
Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027. 
Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E. and Burson, E. (2017). For better or worse? System-
justifying beliefs in sixth-grade predict trajectories of self-esteem and behavior 
across early adolescence. Child development, 90(1), 180-195. 
Gillborn, D. (2013). The Policy of Inequity. In M. Lynn, & A. Dixon (Eds.), Handbook of 
Critical Race Theory in Education (pp. 129-139). Routledge. 
Glander, M. (2017).  Selected Statistics from the Public Elementary and Secondary 
Education Universe: School Year 2015-16. First Look. NCES 2018-052. National 
Center for Education Statistics. 
Halagao, P. (2010). Liberating Filipino Americans through decolonizing curriculum. 
Race, Ethnicity and Education, 13(4), 495-512. 
Hu-DeHart, E. (1993). The history, development, and future of ethnic studies. Phi Delta 
Kappan, 75(1), 50-54. 
Hurtado, S., Engberg, M. E., Ponjuan, L., & Landreman, L. (2002). Students' precollege 
preparation for participation in a diverse democracy. Research in Higher 
Education, 43, 163-186.  
June, Sophia. (2017, July 1). “Oregon is Now the Only State to Have Required Ethnic 
Studies Curriculum for K-12 Students” Willamette Week. Retrieved 3/18/18 
Kuenkel, P. (2016). The art of leading collectively: Co-creating a sustainable, socially just 
future. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. 
126 
Mayhew, Matthew J., Grunwald, Heidi E., & Dey, Eric L. (2005). Curriculum Matters: 
Creating a Positive Climate for Diversity from the Student Perspective. Research 
in Higher Education, 46(4), 389-412. 
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. 
Revised and Expanded from" Case Study Research in Education.". Jossey-Bass 
Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104. 
Musu-Gillette, Lauren, De Brey, Cristobal, McFarland, Joel, Hussar, William, 
Sonnenberg, William, & Wilkinson-Flicker, Sidney. (2017). National Center for 
Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, 2017. 
Naegele, Z. (2017). Student and Teacher Perceptions of the Impact Ethnic Studies 
Courses Have on Students of Color: A Collective Case Study. University of 
Portland.  
Postsecondary National Policy Institute. Native American students in higher education. 
October, 2019. 
Patel, S. (2017). Nada Elia, Jodi Kim, Shana L. Redmond, Dylan Rodriguez, Sarita 
Echavez see, and David Hernandez. Critical Ethnic Studies: A 
Reader. ReOrient, 3(1), 105. 
San Pedro, T. 2015). Silence as weapons: Transformative praxis among Native American 
students in the urban Southwest. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48, 511-528. 
Seattle Public Schools (2018). “Data Profile”, retrieved from 
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=26005032  
Seattle Public Schools. (2018). “Ethnic Studies Task Force”, retrieved from 
https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=22431848 
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning 
organization. New York, Ny: Doubleday/Currency. 
Sleeter, Christine E. (2011). The Academic and Social Value of Ethnic Studies: A 
Research Review. National Education Association Research Department, 
National Education Association Research Department, 2011. 
Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kohli, R., Sacramento, J., Henning, N., Agarwal-Rangnath, R., 
and Sleeter, C. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies pedagogy: Implications for 
practice. The Urban Review, 47(1) 104-125. 
U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaska 
Native Education, School Environment Listening Sessions Final Report, 
Washington, D.C., 2015.  
127 
Valenzuela, Angela. (1999) Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of 
caring. Albany: State University of New York Press. 
128