Allison Dyer

4/13/20
The Culture of Exclusion in Mathematics Education and Its Persistence in Equity-
Oriented Teaching

Chapter by Five

1. Summarize and Respond

In this article, Louie discussed the pervasiveness of what she calls the “culture of
exclusion,” a banking culture of education which poses mathematical content and
intelligence in a linear, hierarchical notion, thereby excluding students who are
deemed “low” on that linear spectrum. In her study, Louie observed the practices of
math teachers who worked at a school dedicated toward inclusive cultures of
mathematical intelligence. Yet, all of these teachers displayed notions of exclusive
culture in their perceptions of mathematical activity as well as mathematical ability.
The one teacher who was most successful in consistently framing diverse
mathematical activity and ability spends a spends a significant deal of their personal
time working with inclusive pedagogical communities and participating in extra
professional development. Though teachers can better act upon their intended
principles by building strong systems of support, the deeper problem is the culture of
exclusion within the mathematics field and the system of education.

This article not only provides a great deal of food for thought regarding how teachers
can reflect upon their daily practices and their effect on the messages that students
receive. It also highlights the need for system-wide reform in the fight for educational
equity.

2. Quotes and Responses

a. “More work is needed to illuminate the intersections of mathematical identities

and identities that are racialized, gendered, classed, and (dis)abled, but it is clear
that hierarchies of mathematical ability do not apply in a neutral or just way
across all people but rather serve to reproduce other social hierarchies (R.
Gutiérrez, 2002; Oakes & The RAND Corporation, 1990; Shah, 2017)” (p. 491).

This is such a key concept that Louie highlighted. Though schooling has the
potential to work toward the dismantling of social hierarchies, it often instead
serves to promote those hierarchies. Attitudes toward intelligence within the
discipline of math are so critical because perceptions of mathematical intelligence
are often used to signify broader forms of intelligence. However, this hierarchical
perspective does not affect all groups equally; instead, it serves to maintain the
higher status of dominant groups.
 b. “To deliberately shift this or any culture requires strong and consistent signals
“that the predominant cultural frame is no longer at play” (Hand et al., 2012, p.
260). Thus, it is entirely possible for actors (such as teachers) to invoke
nondominant frames without meaningfully altering the dominant culture by
layering dominant frames over alternatives in such a way that the alternatives are
barely visible” (p. 493).

Louie noted that students will intuitively interpret events through the lens of
dominant pedagogies that all of us have been indoctrinated into. Just as we have
to work to shift our perspective, we must help students to do the same. Therefore,
it is essential that we continually and explicitly remind our students of these
inclusive frames of mathematical activity and mathematical ability through both
our words and our actions.

c. “Inclusive framing competes not as an equal option that teachers are more or less
free to choose but as a relatively abstract set of ideas about equity, diversity, and
inclusion versus a familiar, even automatic, toolkit for making sense of and
enacting classroom practice. This perspective challenges the idea that equity in
mathematics education might be achieved if only the beliefs, knowledge, or skills
of individual teachers could be improved without broader attention to the systems
in which teachers are embedded.” (p. 515).

Though the teachers in this study were at a school dedicated to inclusionary

principles, the exclusionary culture of the field of mathematics played a large role
in their daily practices. I think that it is important to recognize that this push
toward inclusion is an uphill battle, not a split path. It is difficult to shift
perspectives, and therefore continual evaluation and reflection is necessary to
make sure that we are upholding the ideals we intend to promote. However, a shift
in the greater culture will make the push toward inclusion much more attainable.

3. Questions

a. As teachers working toward inclusionary practices, how can we best advocate for
ourselves to receive access to communities of inclusion and professional
development as a part of our dedicated school day rather than additional
independent “volunteer” hours?

b. How do we locate communities of inclusion and resources similar to the ones

Ryan utilized if we are not directed to such spaces by our districts?

c. The author asserts that there is a need for a push toward inclusive practices within
the greater field in order to shift away from the culture of exclusion. What is our
role as individual educators in promoting this shift?
 d. How can we best monitor our own classroom cultures to ensure that the culture of
exclusion is not manifesting in opposition to our intentions?

4. Connections

This reading has been an excellent follow-up to “The Smartness Dilemma” and has
furthered much of my thinking that arose from the previous article. When reflecting
about “The Smartness Dilemma,” I pondered the idea that one must be
wholeheartedly dedicated to inclusive concepts of ability in order to avoid deficit
thinking. However, this article articulates the greater complexity in this shift. Louie
noted, “Ryan was not a superhero who transcended the culture of exclusion through
sheer force of will. Rather, he embedded himself in an alternative culture,
participating in multiple communities that motivated and sustained his engagement
with inclusive frames” (p. 514). The success of one teacher in acting upon their
beliefs did not necessarily rely on their strength of beliefs. Rather, more important
was Ryan’s connection to resources and to others that could help him in this shifted
frame of reference. Though it is important to believe strongly in a set of ideals, it is
also have critical to maintain supports that will assist with the implementation of
these ideals.

Additionally, when reflecting upon “The Smartness Dilemma,” I wrote about the
concept of “good” vs. “bad” teachers in relation to the broader culture of the
discipline. I pondered the thought that most teachers do have positive attitudes toward
their students but were so indoctrinated into deficit mindsets that they did not
recognize the effects of their beliefs. This article reinforces that notion. Louie argued,
“Advancing equity in mathematics education may depend on the field’s ability to
recognize and respond to exclusion as a cultural and not solely an individual
phenomenon” (p. 516). Though it is important to reflect on our own practices and
individuals, it is even more important that there is a cultural shift within the math
discipline itself. Difficulty in implementing new ideologies is not reflective of a
teacher’s skill or dedication; rather, it is reflective of the overwhelming influence of
the larger culture.

5. Classroom Application

Though this article discusses the need for shifts in the greater math culture, I think it
can be beneficial to think about my future practices as an individual. I found the idea
of practical rationality quite interesting. “Often, practical rationality also erases its
own tracks, making practitioners believe and make believe that these practices
themselves are ‘natural’” (p. 2)” (p. 492). It is interesting yet disconcerting to think
about how subversive dominant culture can be and how it can disguise itself as a
natural rationalization. Hence, as individuals we must be aware of how our minute
individual actions either promote or refute the dominant culture. Louie highlighted
the power of a simple word such as just within teacher dialogue: “With the word just,
both teachers naturalized the categories they described, suggesting that having
students who “just cannot follow” or “just learn a lot faster” is simply the way things
are” (p. 501). Even the smallest of actions and word choices influence the greater
message we are presenting. As a teacher, it is important to be cognizant of the
messages we are sending, through seemingly small actions and dialogue, to both
students and other teachers.

Louie reiterates the same notion of careful reflection when it comes to teacher
practices. “In other words, without consistent, deliberate attention to reframing, much
of their instruction had the unintended effect of reinscribing the culture of exclusion”
(p. 513). Without deliberately reflecting upon what perspectives we are promoting,
we will most likely yield to dominant cultural perspectives. Louie noted that it is our
daily, repeated way of framing activity and ability that is most critical. “The most
consistent way that teachers invoked the sense-making frame, however, was not in
their use of big, creative tasks (which were few and far between) but in the questions
that they used to press for reasoning and justification in everyday classroom
conversation” (p. 504). This provides me with some reassurance. While taking this
course, I have worried about difficult situations I may deal with as a student teacher
and a teacher. If I am placed with a cooperating teacher who does not value
groupwork, how will I provide equitable education to my students as a student
teacher? Although this idea terrifies me, it is helpful to think about the power I do
possess within my actions. If I am not able to implement groupworthy tasks, I can
still implement inclusive practices through the way that I speak to students and the
ways that I choose to value their contributions.