Advancing alternate tools: why science education needs CRP and CRT

Abstract

Ridgeway and Yerrick’s paper, Whose banner are we waving?: exploring STEM partnerships for marginalized urban youth, unearthed the tensions that existed between a local community “expert” and a group of students and their facilitator in an afterschool program. Those of us who work with youth who are traditionally marginalized, understand the importance of teaching in culturally relevant ways, but far too often—as Ridgeway and Yerrick shared—community partners have beliefs, motives, and ideologies that are incompatible to the program’s mission and goals. Nevertheless, we often enter partnerships assuming that the other party understands the needs of the students or community; understands how in U.S. society White is normative while all others are deficient; and understands how to engage with students in culturally relevant ways. This forum addresses the underlying assumption, described in the Ridgeway and Yerrick article, that educators—despite their background and experiences—are able to teach in culturally relevant ways. Additionally, I assert based on the finding in the article that just as Ladson-Billings and Tate (Teach Coll Rec 97(1):47–68, 1995) asserted, race in the U.S. society, as a scholarly pursuit, was under theorized. The same is true of science education; race in science education is under theorized and the use of culturally relevant pedagogy and critical race theory as a pedagogical model and analytical tool, respectively, in science education is minimal. The increased use of both would impact our understanding of who does science, and how to broaden participation among people of color.