Pedagogy for a Successful Multicultural Classroom
A Sociocultural-Based Method for Teaching and Reaching At-Risk Students
Summary
At the same time, these scholarly endeavors will also be very beneficial to practicing teachers, scholars, practitioners, etc. and the relevant field(s) of study as a practical theoretical framework and handbook for use especially after the pandemic we experienced.
Dr. Adams’ book reminds educators that though we stand on the shoulders of giants, re-examining and revising our conceptual understandings through an historical lens is crucial to contemporary practice. In addressing “at-risk” via the pre- and post-pandemic worlds, Adams provides important insights into both process and content.
–Dr. Eric C. Sheffield, College of Education & Human Services, Western Illinois University.
This book is about developing an understanding of those student groups who are less successful in our public schools and help them be successful. In accomplishing this, Adams covers an impressive, in-depth, explanatory range of ideas, concepts, research, theories, and paradigms related to public schooling. Indeed, very few books cover the range he does. I bet; you will learn much that you did not know about public schooling from practice to research to theory.
–Dr. James Joseph Scheurich, Indiana University-Indianapolis.
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cover
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- CHAPTER 1 Introduction
- Brief historical background
- Who are today’s diverse at-risk students?
- Construct categories of the at-risk students
- Minority students/students of color
- Student of low socioeconomic status
- Urban students
- English Language Learners (ELL)
- Class-stratified students
- LBGTQIA+ students
- Students with disabilities
- Students of other faiths (religious beliefs)
- Theoretical framework
- Identity theory
- Self-efficacy theory
- Sociocultural theory
- Urban regime theory
- Habermas’ theory of discursive argumentation and communicative behavior
- Research methodology
- Overview of the book
- Conclusion
- Chapter summary
- Theoretical framework
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 2 Paradigms of the Term “At Risk”
- Moral and epistemic purposes of understanding one’s paradigm for at-risk diverse students
- Definitions of the terms and explication
- Philosopher Thomas Kuhn and paradigm
- Where does a paradigm come from?
- Paradigm and cultural evolution
- Understanding different categories of paradigm
- Scientific paradigm
- The emergent paradigm
- Could the philosophical foundation of the U.S. educational system have effects on our current existing paradigm of knowledge construction in teaching and learning?
- Progressivism and the influence of psychological theories—constructivism
- Paradigms of the at risk in the United States—what some renown scholars say
- Culture of poverty
- Deficit-thinking conception
- Cultural deprivation theory
- Cursory review of educational paradigms in U.S. history from the 1970s to present
- Dominant paradigms/themes in 1970s
- Dominant paradigms/themes in 1980s
- Dominant education paradigms/themes in 1990s
- The rise of educational adequacy movement in the court system
- Dominant paradigms/themes in 2000s to 2010
- What is No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?
- What are the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)?
- Dominant paradigms/themes in 2010 to present
- Every Student Succeeds Act (2015)
- Student enrollment: Two tipping points
- Pendulum swung for civil rights protections and enforcement
- COVID-19 crisis
- What are the challenges of being and becoming a teacher and one’s paradigm today?
- Epistemology
- Positionality
- Axiology
- Conclusion
- Case study: Teacher and the paradigm
- Chapter summary
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 3 Past and Present Practices of Teacher Preparation Programs
- Explication and background information
- Importance of examining past and present practices of teacher preparation programs
- Brief early development for TPPs
- Teacher preparation in colonial America
- Types of school systems in early America
- Common conceptions of teacher training in colonial America
- TPP after US Independence (1776) and beyond
- TPP and the eighteenth-century America (1820s to 1840s)
- TPP in US history from 1850s to 1880s
- Developments in American universities and teacher training
- The common school and the threat of diversity-multiculturalism
- TPP in US history from 1890s to 1910
- Herbartian philosophy influence in TPP
- Technical and professional schools
- Resurgence of teacher unions with the imprint of feminization of education
- TPP in US history from 1910s to 1930
- TPP in US history from 1930s to 1960
- TPP and reconstructivism
- Teaching as a profession steeped in history and a sense of respect
- Brown v. board of education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)
- The creation of an office of education in the U.S. department of the interior
- TPP in US history from 1960s to 1980s
- Teachers, social equality, and professionalism—multicultural education movement
- Summary of organization of TPPs and philosophies in the twentieth century
- Issues and problems unveiled in the TPPs in the twentieth century
- 1. Issues and problems of general education
- 2. Issues and problems of the study of educational principles
- 3. Issues and problems of practical training
- 4. Issues and problems with appointment procedures and probationary requirements
- 5. Issues and problems with in-service training
- 6. Issues and problems of americanization philosophy and practice of training
- TPPs in US history from 1990s to the present
- 1. Pre-K-12 teacher updated requirements
- 2. The standards movement
- 3. Assessing students
- 4. Assessing teachers
- 5. Teacher apprenticeship program
- Ongoing challenges in TPPs for further exploration in the twenty-first century and beyond
- 1. eLearning Is central to most academic programs
- 2. Equity and identity matter to students more than ever
- 3. Inequities, teacher recruitment, and shortages
- 4. Teacher preparations and preparing and supporting teachers
- 5. Robust ongoing research based on theory and practice
- A synoptic look at the American education reform movements or school systems which influenced TPPs in history
- Monitorial school system
- Oswego Movement: American educational reform movement Oswego
- Test of teaching knowledge (TTK) movement
- A synoptic look at famous educators/scholars and their influence in the American TPPs
- Emma Jacobina Christiana Marwedel
- Elizabeth Harrison
- John Dewey
- Maria Montessori
- Commonalities among scholars: The need for robust teacher training for our children’s future
- Some specific historical landmarks learned from the past which can help us continue to improve our present and future TPPs
- Homeroom’s birth: A case study
- Ideals of the Common School Movement
- Transformative visions of George Counts and TPPs
- TPP—application in context
- Case Study: Missouri Western State University—Department of Education
- Introduction
- Missouri Western State University—Department of Education
- Course offerings
- Exploratory level—phase 1
- PST evaluation
- Developing knowledge stage—phase 11
- Investigating stage—phase III
- PST evaluation
- Specification of junior experience assessment
- Applying knowledge stage- phase IV
- Student evaluation
- Specification of student teaching assessment
- Program recognition, accolades, and awards
- CAEP accreditation
- Missouri DESE
- Specification of the State of Missouri expectations and their communication
- Educational honor society: Kappa Delta Pi
- Conclusion
- Chapter summary
- World culture theory
- A natural aristocracy teacher training theory
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 4 Are Teachers Authentically Prepared for Today’s Increasingly Diverse Student Population?
- Introductory definition of the terms and explications
- Etymological explication and meaning of teachers being authentically prepared
- Etymology and definitive explanation of the terms
- Education scholars and being APTs in general
- Commonalities among scholars
- Etymology explication and meaning of preparation for today’s increasingly diverse student population
- Today’s diverse student population
- Education scholars and preparation for today’s increasingly diverse student population
- Cultural competency (Gay, 2022; Gollinick & Chinn, 2025; Ladson-Billings, 2021; Santamaria, 2009)
- Critical reflectiveness and inquiry stance (Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Sensory & DiAngelo, 2017; Zeichner, 1983)
- Builder of a community of learners/social relations (Adams, 2020; Duncan-Andrade, 2022; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Sleeter, 2013)
- Equity pedagogy (Gay, 2023; Gorski, 2017; Nouguera & Syeed, 2021; Peguero & Bondy, 2011; Samson & Collins, 2012)
- Affirming attitudes toward students from culturally diverse background (Howard, 2019; Milner, 2020; Villegas & Lucas, 2002)
- Sociocultural transformative framework (Banks, 2019; Darder & Torres, 2014; Nieto, 2013)
- Becoming interculturally competent or cross-culturally competent (Bennett, 2017; Sua’rez-Oroco, 2007)
- Commonalities among scholars
- We are not authentically prepared as we think for today’s growing diverse student population
- Contextualizing our unpreparedness
- Training problems
- Policy mismatch
- Problems with ongoing professional development
- Substantive views from other educational scholars
- Contemporary applicable examples
- Case study 1: Practical experiences and personal stories
- Case study 2: Two teachers
- Possible practical solutions
- Training solution
- Policy solutions
- Professional development shakeup
- Concluding remarks
- Chapter summary
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 5 Transformative Curriculum Matters for At-Risk Diverse Students
- Brief history, etymology, and explication
- Importance of the transformative curriculum for at-risk diverse students
- Etymology definition and historical inception
- Historical curricular conception
- Foundations of curriculum
- Philosophy and curriculum
- Curriculum theory in practice—past and present
- Faculty psychology CT
- The Herbartian CT
- Social efficiency CT
- Progressive reform CT
- Multicultural education CT
- Sputnik, the National Defense Act, and the CT
- Reconceptualized curriculum and the CT
- Prominent education scholars and curriculum ideologies in practice
- Schiro and the curriculum ideologies in practice
- The learner-centered ideology
- The social reconstruction ideology
- Pinar and the curriculum ideologies in practice—the currere
- Pinar’s method of currere
- Pinar’s curricular framework
- New curricular trends—curriculum integration—what does it mean?
- Why curricular integration?
- Levels of curriculum integration
- Can curriculum integration survive in an era of high-stakes testing?
- Curriculum transformation—is there a crisis?
- What is the origin of the crisis in CT and practice?
- Examples of curriculum crises and controversies today
- Could going back to the origins of philosophical underpinnings of curriculum design be a solution to the crises?
- What are these philosophical models/underpinnings of curriculum design?
- Subject-centered design
- Learner-centered design
- Problem-centered design
- Backward design model
- Authentic transformative curriculum for at-risk students—what does it mean?
- Contemporary education scholars and transformative curriculum
- Banks and transformative curriculum
- Banks and transformative curriculum on knowledge paradigm
- Jean Anyon and transformative curriculum on type of school
- Transformative curriculum according to Shulman (1987)
- Transformative curriculum according to Floden and Meniketti (2005)
- Transformative curriculum according to Clift and Brady (2005)
- Authentic transformative curriculum based on Freire (2000) and Grundy (1987)—Praxis
- Commonalities among scholars about the need for robust contemporary transformative curriculum for at risk diverse students
- Curriculum and philosophical underpinnings: Application to teaching
- Case study: Two teachers
- Transformative curriculum from sociocultural framework
- Transformative curriculum from self-efficacy framework
- Transformative curriculum from identity framework
- Transformative curriculum in an era of high-stakes testing
- Conclusion
- Summary of chapter
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 6 Teaching Praxis and Instruction for At-Risk Diverse Students
- Definitions of the terms and explication
- Importance of teaching praxis and instruction for at-risk diverse students
- Etymology and definition of praxis
- Educational scholars and praxis
- Understanding the concept of praxis
- Praxis, critical thinking, and problem-solving
- Etymology of the term “instruction”
- Significance of the term “instruction” today
- The teacher and their philosophical underpinnings
- The teacher and self-knowledge
- The teacher and philosophical underpinnings: Applications to teaching
- Perennialist teachers and metaphysics
- Essentialist teachers and metaphysics
- Romantic teachers and metaphysics
- Progressive teachers and metaphysics
- Conclusion
- Scholarship of teaching
- Earnest Boyer and the scholarship of teaching and learning
- Carolin Kreber and developing the scholarship of teaching through transformative learning
- Burden and Byrd on the scholarship of teaching
- Zeichner and the scholarship of teaching
- Sleeter and the scholarship of teaching
- Sharon Feiman-Nemser and the scholarship of teaching
- Commonalities among scholars: The need for teaching and learning scholarship post-pandemic
- Contemporary examples
- How can teachers connect with today’s at-risk students?
- Understanding students today
- The importance of instructional strategies for at-risk and diverse students
- Student-centered instructional approaches
- Case study: Two teachers
- Teacher identity and its impact
- Teaching from a sociocultural framework
- Classroom management and its importance for at-risk diverse students
- The nature of classroom management
- Theoretical foundations of classroom management
- Joint Productive Activity Theory
- Humanist Theory
- Psychosocial and Moral Development Theory
- Cognitive theory
- Integrating theories for effective classroom management
- Importance of instructional strategies
- Research insights on effective instruction
- Impact of culturally relevant instruction
- Building a welcoming classroom community
- Chapter summary
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- CHAPTER 7 What Does It Mean to Be a “Process Teacher” in Twenty-First Century America?
- Introduction
- Meaning, definitions, perspectives, and significances
- Process teacher and sociopolitical context
- Critical analytical skills and the process teacher
- Conceptual framework
- Bourdieu’s social reproduction theory
- Students at risk and social reproduction in the United States
- Habermas theory of discursive argumentation and communicative behavior
- Process teacher and fundamentals of research components
- Critical ethnography
- Action research
- Significance practical process of action research for teachers today
- Identify the problem
- Determining the question helps focus your inquiry
- Develop an action plan
- Collect data
- Analyze data and form conclusions
- Modify your theory and repeat
- Report the results
- Participatory research and the process teacher
- PR methods
- Education, social change, and participatory inquiry
- Process teacher as a reflexive practitioner
- Why not just be a reflective process teacher?
- Organizational structures of the schools and the process teacher
- The state offices and administration
- State board of education
- The chief state school officer/state superintendent
- State department of education
- Local school districts
- Local school superintendents
- Local school principals
- Other influential figures in American public education—professional organizations
- Other influential figures in American public education—parents
- Other influential figures in American public education—business
- Other influential figures in American public education—federal government
- How are schools financed?
- Process teacher and basic purposes and significances of the school
- Basic purposes of school—Intellectual purposes
- Basic purposes of school—political and civic purposes
- Basic purposes of school—economic possibilities
- Basic purpose of school—social
- Issues of organization and structures in public schools
- The process teacher and structural and organizational setbacks
- Tracking
- Standardized testing
- Limited role of teachers
- Process teacher, ethics, and the law
- Teachers’ lifestyles and laws
- Personal appearance, hair, clothes, and weight
- Private sexual behavior
- Conduct with students
- Prayer and scripture in school and the law
- Creationism vs. evolution
- Religious neutrality-principle in the classroom
- Other selected court cases
- Laws regarding education for students with disabilities
- IDEA (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)
- Process teacher and dispositions
- Deficit thinking and the role of a process teacher
- The syndrome of blaming the victim
- Systematization of oppression
- Pseudoscience
- How can a process teacher deconstruct deficit thinking?
- Post-pandemic pedagogy and process teacher
- ChatGPT and the post-pandemic process teacher
- Generation Z and others and the post-pandemic process teacher
- What should process teachers do in this situation?
- Post-pandemic process teacher and literacy interventions for the at-risk students
- How about student motivation for reading and resistant readers?
- What are some of the teaching characteristics that promote reading?
- Reading comprehension, instructional conversation, and grit
- Working with stakeholders in literacy intervention for the at-risk students
- Process teacher and pedagogical practical strategies
- Debate methodology instructional approach
- Inquiry-based instructional approach
- Gradual release of responsibility instructional approach
- Guest speakers instructional approach
- Hands-on learning pragmatic approach
- Jigsaw instructional approach
- Journaling instructional approach
- Literature circles instructional approach
- Voices from the classroom
- Learning centers pragmatic approach
- Types of learning centers
- Lecture–discussion instructional approach
- PBL instructional approach
- Implementing project-based learning
- Defining the problem
- Generating ideas
- Prototyping solutions
- Testing
- Role play and simulations instructional approach
- Think–Pair–Share instructional approach
- Student presentation instructional approach
- Socratic seminar instructional approach
- Chapter summary
- Questions for discussion
- Further reading
- References
- Epilogue
- Final thoughts
- Index
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
Brief historical background
The term “at-risk” gained prominence in educational discussions following the release of the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, published by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). Under the Reagan administration, the 18-member task force issued a forceful document that employed a war metaphor to critique the state of U.S. education, declaring it to be under threat. The language in that now-historical document was strong and clear.
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world …. We report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the education foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur-others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments. As it stands, we have allowed it to happen to ourselves. We have squandered the gains in students’ achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those gains possible. We have in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament. (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983, p. 5).
The report portrayed American society as economically and socially endangered, highlighting the rising global competition from countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea. At the time, due to declining education standards, the United States was losing its competitive edge across various sectors. This underscored the need for a renewed focus on advanced knowledge areas, which led to the emphasis on the information age, skilled intelligence, innovative learning strategies, and new paradigms for constructing knowledge (Valencia, 2011). Particularly significant was the report’s assertion that United States’ economic, health, and social recovery depended on the effectiveness of schools and the robust support of vulnerable, at-risk students in classrooms today (Sleeter, 2013).
Who are today’s diverse at-risk students?
In this chapter, the term “at-risk” students refers to those who are at high risk of failing or dropping out of school before graduating from high school [National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2024)]. These students are either labeled, officially or unofficially, as being in danger of academic failure due to a range of challenges they face and are often perceived as potentially becoming a burden to society (Ladson-Billings, 2014). In essence, they are youth who are less likely to successfully transition into adulthood, achieve economic self-sufficiency, and require temporary or ongoing interventions to succeed academically.
Construct categories of the at-risk students
Minority students/students of color
Despite decades of rhetoric about equality in the United States, the educational experiences of minority youth, particularly African American and Latino/a students, remain unequal (Linda Darling-Hammond, 2014). These students face numerous barriers to self-sufficiency. Many attend underfunded schools with fewer instructional resources and are subjected to high tracking, which only deepens the existing inequalities (Kozol, 2007). As a result, they are at greater risk of dropping out, leading to limited job prospects and increased reliance on welfare. Additionally, racial discrimination often contributes to violence, bullying, and further hinders their employment opportunities. As Alexander (2012) notes, these students live within the “Color of Justice,” as they are more than 10 times as likely to be incarcerated compared to their white peers (p. 97).
Student of low socioeconomic status
In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a “war on poverty” in America, asserting that the richest nation on Earth could afford to win it. As part of his anti-poverty agenda, Johnson directed resources toward eradicating poverty, which included expanding social security, establishing medicare, and creating the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Patterson, 1994). As a result, Title I of the ESEA was introduced to allocate targeted federal resources to high-poverty, high-needs schools. However, more than 50 years after this declaration, poverty remains a persistent issue. Nearly one in five children in the wealthiest nation on Earth still live in poverty, with over 12.8 million children affected (Children’s Defense Fund, 2024).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2024), the proportion of low-income public-school students has steadily increased since 1989. At that time, less than 32 percent of students were classified as low income. By 2000, the figure had risen to over 38 percent, and by 2006, it had reached 42 percent. The Great Recession of 2008 caused that number to surge to 48 percent, and by 2019, it surpassed 51 percent. The negative and far-reaching effects of poverty are undeniable. Poverty strains our economy, overburdens our healthcare and criminal justice systems, and undermines our education system’s ability to help children achieve at high levels (CDF, 2024).
As Gorski (2013) notes, poor students face heightened risk factors in their education, not only from issues like housing instability or food insecurity, but also from deeper impacts on their brain development, peer relationships, and ability to complete formal education. These students are at risk due to a variety of factors, including social–behavioral issues (such as substance abuse), environmental challenges (such as living in violent neighborhoods), ecological stressors, and familial difficulties (including exposure to psychological instability).
Urban students
Unlike suburban and rural school districts, urban school districts operate in densely populated areas and serve a significantly larger number of students. Urban students often face higher concentrations of poverty, greater racial and ethnic diversity, and more frequent rates of student mobility, as well as larger concentrations of linguistic and cultural diversity (Milner, 2010). These environments are considered intensive due to the sheer number of people in the city and, consequently, in the schools. In these settings, students are often traumatized by the challenges of overcrowded infrastructure, high crime rates, and broader social factors such as housing instability, poverty, and transportation issues—factors that are directly connected to their experiences within the school. Several factors make these students particularly vulnerable:
Lack of experienced teaching staff: Urban students are more likely to have inexperienced or unqualified teachers, fewer college preparatory courses, more remedial courses, and higher teacher turnover rates (Sleeter, 2013). These students are often taught by teachers with less than 3 years of experience, which research has shown results in lower effectiveness compared to those with more experience. Additionally, studies indicate that teachers who perform better on general knowledge certification exams are more likely to leave schools with the lowest-achieving students, further exacerbating high teacher turnover in lower-performing schools. This creates a cycle in which low-performing schools struggle to build a core of experienced teachers, resulting in an unequal distribution of qualified educators (Anyon, 2005; Nieto, 2014).
Low student academic achievement: Many factors contribute to the persistence of low student performance in urban schools. This is often reflected in poor achievement test scores, students not performing at grade level, and high rates of high school non-completion (Sleeter, 2013). Urban students enter school with varying levels of academic readiness and face numerous stressors that hinder their ability to perform at their best. While most students desire to succeed and recognize the importance of education for future success, structural barriers both inside and outside the school often prevent this achievement. These barriers may include a lack of motivation, limited parental involvement, and the negative impact of stereotypes, all of which contribute to their vulnerability (Adams, 2020; Milner, 2010).
Low expectations of students: Both the teaching staff and the broader school environment often fail to foster a culture of high academic expectations (Valencia, 2011). This systemic challenge perpetuates a culture of low expectations for urban students, which in turn undermines their academic morale. Despite efforts such as early intervention systems to identify struggling students, the structural and cultural challenges within these schools create an environment where academic standards are set too low, diminishing students’ chances for success.
English Language Learners (ELL)
The percentage of public-school students in the United States who are English Language Learners (ELLs) has increased significantly over the years. In the fall of 2017, 10.1 percent (or 5 million students) of public-school students were ELLs, compared to 8.1 percent (or 3.8 million students) in fall 2000 (NCES, 2024). The distribution of ELLs varies greatly across states, ranging from just 0.8 percent in West Virginia to 19.2 percent in California. ELL students are a diverse group, representing a wide range of languages, cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities, with Hispanic or Latino students being the majority and Spanish the most commonly spoken language. Most ELLs are born in the United States (Samway & McKeon, 2007). These students are enrolled in school districts across the country, yet they face unique challenges and represent a significant untapped resource if their full potential is realized (Gollnick & Chinn, 2025).
Social and economic disadvantages: ELL students often face socioeconomic challenges, including living in poverty and having parents who have not completed high school. Research shows that nearly 40 percent of ELL parents, particularly those of Latin American origin, have not finished high school (Gollnick & Chinn, 2025). This economic disadvantage places ELL students at greater risk for academic struggles.
Lower graduation rates: ELL students also face lower graduation rates. According to the NCES (2024), 37 percent of ELLs drop out of high school. This dropout rate has serious long-term consequences, as individuals without a high school diploma earn 34 percent less than high school graduates and 134 percent less than college graduates. Additionally, they are four times more likely to be unemployed, face health challenges, rely on welfare, and experience incarceration (NCES, 2024). Some researchers argue that the dropout rate may actually be higher, as the lack of consistent national definitions of “dropout” and failure to track students accurately further obscure the issue (Samson & Collins, 2012).
Lower academic performance: ELL students often perform below their peers in academic achievement. According to Gollnick and Chinn (2025) and the National Education Association (NEA, 2024), one-quarter of ELL students are failing to make progress toward English language proficiency and are performing below the required standards. In large school districts like the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the academic performance of ELLs is particularly concerning. For instance, only 5 percent of high school ELLs met proficiency in English or math, compared to an average of 37 percent in English and 17 percent in math for the district as a whole (California Department of Education, 2024). Furthermore, the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that only 29 percent of ELLs scored at or above the basic level in reading, compared to 75 percent of non-ELL students, illustrating significant achievement gaps between ELLs and their peers (NAEP, 2024).
Teachers’ lower expectations: Many teachers are not adequately prepared to teach ELL students. A lack of practical, research-based strategies, resources, and professional development leaves teachers ill-equipped to meet the needs of ELL students (Durgunoğlu & Hughes, 2010; NEA, 2024). As a result, ELL students often face lower expectations and are sometimes tested in English before they are proficient in the language. Many teachers report feeling frustrated by the wide range of English proficiency levels in their classrooms and express a need for more professional development and in-service training to support ELLs effectively (Educators for Excellence, 2024; NEA, 2024). Meeting the needs of ELL students requires a coordinated approach across the educational system, with better preparation of teachers to work with this diverse population.
Self-esteem issues: ELL students often experience challenges that affect their self-esteem. When students are unable to participate in class discussions or activities due to language barriers, they may feel excluded or ostracized. This can lead to frustration, reduced motivation, and a lack of confidence in their ability to succeed. The overwhelming nature of learning a new language while keeping up with regular academic work can also cause students to feel discouraged and disengaged from the learning process (Educators for Excellence, 2024; Lopez & Lopez, 2012).
Challenges for immigrant students: Undocumented immigrants face additional difficulties, as they are “trapped at the intersection of two systems in crisis: the public education system and the immigration law system” (Lopez & Lopez, 2010). These students experience the inequities of desegregation, high-stakes testing, and trauma from harsh immigration enforcement. They often have limited access to instructional materials, curriculum, and appropriate assessments to measure their learning progress, leaving them vulnerable in the educational system (Burden & Byrd, 2025).
In conclusion, while ELL students face significant challenges, they also represent a valuable resource for the country. With the right support, resources, and educational opportunities, these students have the potential to thrive academically and contribute significantly to the nation’s future success.
Class-stratified students
Class is a social system that structures society into groups with differential access to cultural, economic, political, and social resources. In this system, class shapes virtually every aspect of people’s life: the schools they attend, the stores they shop at, the food they eat, the jobs they hold, and the communities in which they live. Consequently, individuals often find themselves confined to a particular class or socioeconomic stratum, identifying with and participating in social, behavioral, and occupational patterns characteristic of that class (Gollnick & Chinn, 2025). In the United States, this class-based stratification significantly impacts people’s livelihoods, their educational experiences, and the knowledge they acquire (Anyon, 2005).
Although social class is a constructed system, people’s rankings within this structure are often determined by factors beyond their control. This inequitable allocation of resources perpetuates policies and practices that restrict access to opportunities, thus reinforcing the status quo (Gollnick & Chinn, 2025). The class structure in United States is typically divided into categories such as the lower class (often unemployed or homeless), working class, middle class, upper middle class, and the executive elite (Anyon, 2005; Gollnick & Chinn, 2025). Among these groups, the lower and working classes are disproportionately vulnerable. Furthermore, those who are unemployed or homeless face a lack of stable income, which often results in their children experiencing persistent poverty. These children are socially isolated, living in low-income housing or homeless shelters, which further exacerbates behavioral and developmental differences compared to children from more affluent backgrounds.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2024), over 9 million civilians are classified as unemployed or homeless, placing them in this vulnerable category. Children in these circumstances face numerous challenges, including trauma from instability, family problems, domestic violence, lack of healthcare, and other psychological issues. They are more likely to suffer from hunger, poor nutrition, and higher rates of health problems such as asthma, respiratory infections, ear infections, and obesity compared to their peers from higher social classes. These children are exposed to environmental, educational, health, and safety risks, all of which compound their vulnerability.
Class-based stratification also affects cognitive, behavioral, and socioemotional development. Compared to their peers, children from lower social classes are more likely to experience academic struggles due to a variety of systemic disadvantages. This inequality extends into education, where public schools in complex industrial societies often provide unequal educational experiences and curricula based on students’ social class (Anyon, 2005; Sleeter, 2013). The effects of this stratification are internalized by individuals, perpetuating disparities in income and social mobility throughout their lives. Despite the popular belief that the United States is a land of opportunity, the reality is stark: as of 2024, 42 percent of U.S. children live in low-income families, with 20 percent living below the poverty line and 10 percent experiencing deep poverty (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2024). This harsh reality underscores the persistence of class-based inequalities in shaping the lives of America’s most vulnerable populations.
LBGTQIA+ students
Students who identify as LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual/Ally) remain one of the most vulnerable groups in schools. While the growing visibility of LGBTQIA+ individuals has made it clear that the American population is not exclusively heterosexual, there continues to be significant resistance at the local, religious, state, and national levels regarding their rights (Gollnick & Chinn, 2025). Despite increasing acceptance in many parts of society, LGBTQIA+ students still face discrimination and hostility in schools. Many students are harassed or bullied when they openly acknowledge their sexual orientation, and in some cases, teachers may even label them as deviant or immoral. This mistreatment can have serious mental, physical, and emotional consequences, and tragically, a number of these students attempt or complete suicide as a result.
Details
- Pages
- VI, 340
- Publication Year
- 2026
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783034358507
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783034358514
- ISBN (Softcover)
- 9783034358392
- DOI
- 10.3726/b22877
- Language
- English
- Publication date
- 2026 (April)
- Keywords
- At-Risk Students DEI Post Pandemic Pedagogy Classroom Management
- Published
- New York, Berlin, Bruxelles, Chennai, Lausanne, Oxford, 2026. VI, 340 pp., 1 b/w ill.
- Product Safety
- Peter Lang Group AG
