The 500-Pound Gorilla: The Role of Culture in Mathematics Education
There is no racial bias in mathematics education, right? Well, I am sure we all cringe whenever someone brings up race and culture in the context of everyday life, but when we do, are we avoiding reality? If we cannot separate ourselves from our culture, then we must examine education with culture in mind.
When I look at mathematics education in general, I see countless factors that impact student achievement. One of the most significant—and often overlooked—is culture. As a math and science educator of color, it’s easy to assume that the culture of the student matters most. After all, we’ve been taught that understanding a student’s background, experiences, and community is critical to helping them succeed. But what about my culture?
Could my cultural lens, beliefs, and experiences as a teacher be just as important? Could they influence how I approach teaching, how I perceive students’ abilities, or even how I interpret their challenges? And what about the broader culture of mathematics education itself—the unspoken norms, expectations, and assumptions that shape the way we teach and learn math?
It’s uncomfortable to talk about, but we may be overlooking the 500-pound gorilla in the room when we skirt around the role of race and culture in student achievement in mathematics. While math may be universal in its principles, the way it is taught and learned is anything but.
Consider the ways cultural norms shape how we view intelligence, problem-solving, or even the value of education itself. In some communities, math is seen as a gateway to opportunity—a means of breaking generational cycles of poverty or underrepresentation. In others, it may feel distant, inaccessible, or irrelevant to daily life. These perceptions are not inherent; they are shaped by history, experiences, and societal messages.
Now add the cultural lens of the educator to the equation. Teachers bring their own assumptions into the classroom—about what “good math students” look like, how success is demonstrated, and what kinds of behaviors signal engagement or disinterest. These assumptions, often unconscious, can create barriers for students whose cultural expressions of learning differ from those expectations.
Then there’s the culture of math education itself. For decades, math classrooms have been dominated by rigid practices that reward speed and correctness over exploration and understanding. Students who don’t conform to these expectations are often labeled as “struggling” or “behind,” when in reality, they may simply approach learning differently.
So where does this leave us? If we truly want to improve mathematics education for all students, we must be willing to confront the cultural factors at play—ours as educators, those of our students, and the broader systems in which we work. This means embracing uncomfortable conversations about race, bias, and equity. It means challenging the traditional norms of math education and creating spaces where every student can see themselves as capable mathematicians.
Ultimately, addressing the role of culture in mathematics education is not about assigning blame; it’s about broadening our perspective. It’s about recognizing that math is not just a set of numbers and formulas—it’s a human endeavor, shaped by the experiences and identities of those who engage with it. And if we can approach it with that understanding, we can create a more inclusive and empowering environment for every learner.
Well, maybe these aren’t such random thoughts after all.
If you found this post valuable, please consider supporting my work as an independent creator.
Who is Really "At-Risk" in Education?
What’s the one thing humans can’t seem to resist? Labels. We name, sort, and categorize everything. From the dawn of time, we’ve been obsessed with putting things in boxes—sometimes literally. And nowhere is this habit more entrenched than in education.
We label students. We label classrooms. We label entire schools. “At-risk.” “Gifted.” “Special ed.” “Low-performing.” “High-achieving.” The list never ends. But here’s the real question: are these labels helping us—or quietly hurting the very people we claim to serve?
Think about the term “at-risk student.” Sounds harmless, maybe even compassionate, right? Except it isn’t. It’s a warning stamp, a flashing red sign hung around a kid’s neck. Poverty, unstable housing, limited resources—these are real barriers. But once a child is branded “at-risk,” the risk shifts. Suddenly, teachers lower expectations. Peers view them differently. Worst of all, students start to see themselves through the label. And that’s how a word becomes a prophecy.
We do the same with classrooms. “Advanced Placement.” “Inclusion.” “Remedial.” These labels might help with scheduling and resources, but they also carve invisible hierarchies into the school culture. Students quickly learn where they’ve been placed—and what that supposedly says about their intelligence, their future, their worth. Once you’ve been slotted into a category, how easy is it to climb out?
And then there are campuses. “Title I.” “Low-performing.” “Failing.” Yes, those words drive funding and policy, but they also brand entire communities. A Title I school may be full of brilliant kids and dedicated teachers, but the label often overshadows everything else. Who wants to be defined by a deficit before they even begin?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: labels aren’t neutral. They carry weight. They shape mindsets. They reinforce ceilings. And when used carelessly, they trap students and schools in narratives they may never escape.
So, who is really at risk in education? Not just the students. All of us. Because the moment we start believing our own labels, we stop seeing possibility. We stop investing in growth. We stop imagining more.
Education should be the great door-opener, not the great box-builder. Labels may tell us where someone starts, but they should never decide where they finish.
The next time you hear someone described as “at-risk,” ask yourself: at risk of what? Failure—or being underestimated into failure?
If you found this post valuable, please consider supporting my work as an independent creator.
Reimagining Teacher Evaluation during the COVID-19 Era
Today, school systems are scrambling to determine how “school” will look for the Fall 2020 academic term with the COVID-19 pandemic forcing unprecedented restrictions. Most conversations have been about maintaining safety in schools and ensuring high-quality instruction, but re-configuring teacher evaluation also should be a focus of our planning.
In the new, COVID-19 era of education, state educational agencies must determine how to move forward as many schools move to implement hybrid virtual and in-person instructional models. Several states not only have delayed or suspended their assessments programs, but they also have suspended their teacher evaluation systems temporarily. There are many unknowns, yet administrators cannot afford to extend program suspensions. They must begin crafting alternative methods to evaluate teachers’ effectiveness.
So, where do we begin? For starters, we need to realize that evaluating online teachers is not a new challenge for school leaders. We already know how to do evaluations, and several groups, including the International Society for technology in Education (IStE), have developed evaluation standards for online learning programs. The key now is to build upon existing foundations as we develop evaluation methods that fit the unique learning environment associated with the COVID-19 crisis and that will answer the fundamental question—Is what we’re doing working?
We also need to reflect on possible challenges in this new context. For example, I came up with a few questions after some directed thought. How do you conduct a walk-through in a virtual class? How do you gauge student engagement or determine quality teacher monitoring of student learning? How do you navigate the complexity of evaluating teachers instructing a classroom of students face-to-face while facilitating a group of students online in both synchronous and asynchronous configurations?
Traditionally, policymakers are interested in gains in standardized test scores (if the testing system will operate as usual). However, administrators will have to look for other indicators of success, such as whether the new hybrid virtual models are addressing the needs of traditionally at-risk subgroups, or producing outcomes that are only indirectly related to test scores, like student engagement.
Now is the time to begin planning for new teacher evaluation methods that will meet the needs of teachers within our new educational reality. The bottom line is, our measurement and evaluation systems will have to be based on factors that are within our power of influence or control in addition to the outcomes of student achievement scores. To do this, we should be able to use aspects of existing teacher evaluation frameworks. However, with the impact of COVID-19 here to stay, we will need to reimagine educator evaluation to match the emerging classroom instruction and student assessment changes.
If you found this post valuable, please consider supporting my work as an independent creator.