Abstract

　Every child has the human right to education, training and information, and to other fundamental human rights dependent upon realization of the human right to education. The human right of all persons to education is explicitly set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. In order to realize human rights, we must bring the human rights movement into classrooms around the world. Teachers must think and talk explicitly about values that are shared across vast cultural and geographical gulfs, as well as across the boundaries created by income and wealth inequalities. We must be concerned with the fundamental values that follow from our acknowledgement of the intrinsic dignity of humans. Culturally responsive pedagogy is a platform from which teachers can model and discuss the values inherent in the human rights movement. It requires teachers to effectively educate students that vary in culture, language, ability, and many other characteristics. Teachers utilize both empirically sound and culturally responsive pedagogy to design classrooms that welcome and support all types of students. In this paper we define culturally responsive teaching and present ways to create culturally responsive classrooms.

　Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Human Rights: Identifying Global Values in the Classroom In a most surprising way, it has come to our attention that our graduate students, who are diligently studying to become special education teachers, understand very little about the human rights movement. We teach at a California State University in one of this nation's most liberal cities. Our students pride themselves in areas of political activism, tolerance, and liberalism but we are not sure how willing they are to reflect on and research the foundation of their beliefs. Here is what happened in class one evening last semester that got us thinking that our students may need to think in a more critical way about global issues. In an introductory special education class, we were discussing how teachers could be more culturally responsive. We had already discussed "White privilege" (Sleeter, 2000) in the US and dominant versus sub-dominant cultures (Willie, 1996), when we asked the class to think of shared values across cultures and geographical divides, as well as across boundaries that created socio-economic status. While we waited for the class to respond, we asked, "What about human rights, doesn't every culture value human rights?" In a media-like, frenzied attack, several students shouted out responses like, "...the United States doesn't value human rights, look at Abu Ghraib" and "What about what our military is doing around the world?" "Why isn't the United States doing more in Rwanda?" Calmly, we asked for a show of hands for who knew about the history of the Human Rights movement. With no show of hands, we asked what they knew about the history of the human rights movement, natural law, and Western imperialism. In response, the class as a mob continued to condemn the United States record on human rights with overly generalized, media-like rhetoric and without substantive facts or theoretical perspectives. At that moment we realized several things about our students' education.

　First, these graduate students were probably never asked to think about the theory and politics behind the human rights movement. Most of these students grew up in the United States and took for granted their own human rights. Through the ever-present media in many young people's lives, human rights abuses around the world are reported almost on a daily basis (genocide, torture, rape, inscription). Media reports condemn the United States for not rushing in and protecting the human rights of subdominant cultures, tribes, and individuals dominated by dictatorships. But are students asking themselves why they are incited toward anger? It seems there is this underlying, not conscious, hegemonic instinct that is responsible for the anger. It's ironic that we just finished discussing White privilege in the US and how dominant cultures dole out civil rights and yet those very same students are unwittingly presenting themselves as angry citizens of the world's hegemony. This brings me to my next point. Second, these graduate students are not using their critical thinking and self-reflection skills; those were the very skills that we all agreed are important to teach to children in elementary through high schools. To be incited toward anger by the media and yet unwilling to learn more about human rights, their role, and the role of countries around the world is to be educated and indoctrinated by the media. Third, our students are not thinking globally; they are not developing the attitudinal and ethical dispositions necessary for promotion of global civility and international understanding (Reimers, 2009). Finally, we realized that our students are fully capable of using critical thinking and self-reflection skills to define their roles as globally competent educators prepared to teach the global citizens of tomorrow.

　Special Education Teachers as Human Rights Activists How do we know our students are capable and willing to think and reflect critically on their roles as globally competent and culturally responsive educators? Because our special education teachers are graduate students who willingly enter the field fully aware that they will face many challenges and receive low wages compared to other professions that require the same amount of education. As special education professionals, they have entered the American public school system that strives to inculcate the ideals of equality and freedom in the individual; Universal education for all citizens is a cornerstone in the US democracy. However, the realization of that provision has been a source of moral, ethical, and legal debates. In fact, the very existence of special education services to meet the educational needs of individual students with disabilities is a result of litigation that parallels the civil rights movement in the US in the 60's. As our students progress in their special education studies, they become keenly aware of the need to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities and their parents because their classroom practices are defined and guarded by US Federal Legislation (eg., IDEA 2004). So, by taking on the role of a special education teacher, our students become de facto defenders of the educational rights of children with disabilities and they are passionate about that role.

　In essence, they are already part of the human rights movement but they have not been provided with the opportunity or rhetoric to view themselves through this human rights perspective. Further, they have not been provided with adequate opportunities to think of themselves and their practice in a more global role. We realized that despite our efforts to infuse our curriculum with culturally responsive practices that include examining "culturally relevant and responsive anti-bias curricula and pedagogy" (Chren, Nimmo, & Fraser, 2009), it is not enough. We need to take our students beyond the walls of the classroom, out onto the global stage so that they have the opportunity to think about "global citizenship" as it relates to national and local educational issues (Myers & Zaman, 2009). So we embarked on a journey to design a program that would educate our graduate students about the issues surrounding global citizenship and education and human rights. It was our hope to provide students with the historical and theoretical perspectives that influenced the human rights movement and education as a fundamental human right. Moreover, we wanted to create an arena that provided our students and the community with the opportunity to discuss local and national issues that pertain to human rights and education. Finally, we did not just want to talk about the issues but we wanted to seek out and share active ways to help our students develop global competency. In this way, as our students moved into their own classrooms, they could teach and be active role models for global thinking for their students and their communities. Here we present our developing program in three segments. We use the term "developing" because we hope to continually make changes that are responsive to changing local, national and world conditions. The first segment is concerned with defining global citizenship and discussing the problems inherent in the realization of that concept. Second, we discuss how to develop culturally responsive classroom practices that promote the ideals of cultural democracy and empowerment.

　Finally, we present specific ways for teachers to bring the human rights movement into their classrooms and local communities. Globalization and Global Citizenship: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives Why is the concept of global citizenship important to human rights and education? While the concept of global citizenship is only currently being defined and discussed around the world, it has the capacity to transcend the debate or tension between natural rights and legal rights as they relate to education Globalization. Globalization includes a broad range of economic, social, cultural, and political issues that arise from multinational markets and flows of capital, labor, goods and information (Lindahl, 2006). Lindahl puts forth a definition from Spring (2001) of Globalization as "a conglomeration of ideas, technology, media and money that envelops the world" (p. 8). Globalization could mean a new world order with nation states seeking to obtain economic and political advantage to stimulate the world market but cooperating on issues of common concern (Hiro, 2010). Hiro describes a global balance of power where no nation state emerges as a superpower; rather they develop relationships that are "fluid combinations of 'cooperation and competition'" (2010). An area of cooperation is the realization of education as a fundamental universal right. The United Nations' (UN) 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN's 1959 Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights all declare education as a fundamental human right. Most recently, in September 2000, the United Nations outlined specific goals for educational improvement in the United Nations Millennium Declaration. This declaration commits all 189 member states to expand and improve early childhood care and education, to ensure that all children have access to a free and compulsory primary education of good quality, to achieve a 50% reduction in adult illiteracy (especially among women), to achieve gender equality in primary and secondary education, and to improve all aspects of education (Lindahl, 2006; World Education Forum, 2000). Despite the declarations and covenants, the realization of education as a universal fundamental human right has not been accomplished. One reason is because traditionally rights have been viewed as legal rights or natural rights. Legal rights are generally defined by nation states and require right-bearers to rely on the power of the state to guarantee rights and prevent violations (Ingram, 2008). Natural rights are inherently controversial because they are viewed as a result of Western religions and ethical principals disguised as universal values and designed to further Western expansion and imperialism (Myers & Zaman, 2009; Pagden, 2003). This dichotomy between legal rights and natural rights and the tension it ensues is dissipated in a document entitled Our Global Neighborhood.

　Written by an international team and published by the United Nations, Our Global Neighborhood discusses the creation of a universal conception of the person and the legitimacy of international law unencumbered by Western bias. The person is an autonomous human being with intrinsic human rights. Further, the document states that global citizenship is based on a strong commitment to principals of equity and democracy grounded in civil society. The realization of human rights is dependent on international law supported by a legal, political, and cultural world order (Pagden, 2003).

　Global Citizenship. Meyers and Zaman (2009) describe global citizenship as "an ethical construct that is premised on the normative value of contributing to the creation of a better world, especially the responsibility to solve world problems." Citing Dower and Williams (2002), they further describe the following three fundamental characteristics of global citizenship that correspond to moral, institutional, and political dimensions: a) Membership in a world community with shared identity and ethical responsibilities (moral dimension); b) belief in human rights as a legal framework and in global institutions (institutional dimension); and c) commitment with other global citizens to solve world problems (political aspect). Membership in a world community would allow for differing and sometimes contradictory values and national allegiances among people but also demands an unwavering commitment to a shared sense of responsibility to act for the betterment of the world's people (Myers & Zaman, 2009). Myers and Zaman describe the moral foundation for global citizenship as the belief in human rights. Human rights center on the protecting the dignity and autonomy of each and every human being and are based on the universal principal that all people share a set of intrinsic rights. In this way, no nation state can require citizenship for the provision of those rights. However, this presents the problem of who provides protection against national and international violations of human rights? Historically, powerful states provided the mite to enforce or protect human rights but this often led to the powerful dominating the weak states.

　Myers & Zaman put forth the idea of a hegemonic world state that focuses on understanding across differences and solidarity in a global democracy. The last characteristic of global citizenship is the commitment with other global citizens to solve world problems. This is where teachers and all global citizens can begin to solve world problems by thinking globally and acting locally (Myers & Zaman). As role models, teachers can participate in global social movements and introduce their students and schools to local, state and national concerns that have a global impact. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Theory In order for teachers to think globally and act locally, they must first reflect on their teaching practice in two ways. First, teachers must examine their own sociocultural identities (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). They need to explore and reflect on the various social and cultural groups to which they belong by choice or by default, including race, ethnic, social class, language, and gender groups. Through a critical self-analysis, teachers can recognize the nature and scope of their attachments to those groups and how membership in them has defined their personal and family histories (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Second, teachers must try to shift their view of diversity from something that exists in others to the relationships that develop between teacher and student (Chen, Nimmo, & Fraser, 2009). In this way, teachers are more prepared to identify bias and create a classroom environment that fosters an understanding and appreciation of other cultures. A useful strategy that teachers can use to seriously reflect on their assumptions and biases is teacher research and self-study (Berry, 2009; Gilles, Wilson, Elias, Martille, 2010). Teacher research allows teachers to not only reflect on their teaching, but to systematically inquire into their attitudes and assumptions. Often, we observe, reflect and then come to conclusions about students, colleagues, parents, as well as classroom contexts and behaviors, but when those conclusions are put under the microscope, we find the assumptions we use to make sense of our reflections are often flawed. So, we need to check our beliefs and assumptions and revise our thinking based on evidence from systematic self-study and teacher research. Teacher educators also use portfolios as a means to help teachers reflect. Teacher education programs have students put educational material together and then critically reflect on the learning they have acquired over time, once again looking at evidence to exam their own development process (Killeavy, Maureen; Moloney, Anne 2010; McIntyre, Dangel, Rainer, 2009). In determining ways to incorporate culturally relevant practices in the classroom, Chen, Nimmo, and Fraser (2009) present Banks' (2002) Transformation Approach that requires structural changes to the traditional curriculum to enable students to consider concepts, events, and themes from the perspective of diverse ethnic and cultural groups. In addition, they discuss the importance of an anti-bias approach to curriculum design and classroom management that fosters cultural democracy and empowerment. Chen, Nimmo, and Fraser propose the following four objective for designing curriculum and instruction: a) to nurture the construction of a knowledgeable, confident identity as an individual and as a member of multiple cultural groups; b) to promote comfortable, empathetic interactions with people from diverse backgrounds; c) to foster each child's ability to critically think about bias and injustice; and d) to cultivate each child's ability to stand up for herself or himself, and for others, in the face of bias and injustice. In this way, all students learn to be secure about their identities and more fully participate in their home culture and the classroom culture, whether they are members of the dominant or non-dominant local culture. Teaches who design classrooms with these goals in mind are modeling the moral and ethical imperative underlying human rights, preserving the autonomy and dignity of every individual. Culturally responsive classrooms enable students to think globally, critically, and freely about their place in the school, community, nation and world. In classrooms that appreciate diversity, students from transnational households do not have to navigate two cultural identities, the nationality of their country of origin and the new United States identity cultivated in traditional classrooms (Myers & Zaman, 2009). A longitudinal research study of 5,000 children of immigrants reports that after four years of high school, adolescents were more likely to identify with the nationality of their home country than with being a U.S. citizen (Porter & Rumbaut, 2001 in Myers & Zaman, 2009). Cultural and political integration is difficult for children and adolescents without guidance to bridge the two identities. Students with non-dominant cultural backgrounds are less likely achieve academically at the level of their peers from the dominant culture, and more likely to develop critical views of state and national governmental policies (Myers & Zaman). However, by developing a sense of global citizenship with the ability to live in different cultures and move across different societies fluently, students can be more open to new and different cultures.

　They learn that their well-being is connected to the well-being of the class and community. Students learn to depend on each other, treat each other as equals, and try to understand each other's beliefs, customs, values, and behaviors so that they can collectively tackle problems facing their classroom, community and world (Zhao, 2009).

　Getting Started in the Culturally Responsive Classroom In our experience with training special education teachers, we have found that most teachers, when given the opportunity to reflect on their personal philosophy and practice, truly believe that the dignity and autonomy of every individual must be protected and that education is a universal right, in fact the cornerstone of democracy. However, they go to school the next day and do exactly what they did before because they do not know how to start setting up a culturally responsive classroom with a global focus. They find it especially difficult when they are not well supported in their in beliefs or practices by the school or other teachers. We first acknowledge that it is hard for a number of reasons. Then we explain that developing into a culturally responsible teacher is a process that begins with baby steps, and progresses with self-reflection, education, and patience. Why is it hard to make change? Our major focus in this section of the paper is on making changes in teacher dispositions and classroom and community practices. We will discuss three areas of education where teachers can take action toward developing culturally responsive classrooms with a global focus. First, teachers must consider what goes on in their classroom, what curriculum is presented, its content, and how the classroom is managed. Second, teachers must try to develop a mind-set that values content as equally as character. Effective planning and critical self-reflection helps the teacher keep the goal of cultural competence within reach. Third, teachers must consider how their classrooms are situated in the community. In this way, teachers can focus on making minor changes in the curriculum and their classroom management that will have noticeable effects on the culture in the classroom. Involvement in the community enables a teacher to create a classroom climate where parents feel welcome and are not intimidated to participate. For our teachers, making structural changes to the existing curriculum in local schools is nearly impossible. They are working with a standards-based curricula designed to strengthen the science and mathematics knowledge of our nation's youth. As special education teachers, they are more outrageously charged with closing the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their typically developing peers. Teachers are often presented with a curriculum chosen by a committee at their school. While new teachers can work to get on that committee to make change, change is nonetheless slow. However, there are ways for teachers to present an existing curriculum while addressing the appropriate content standards and still incorporate global education and human rights. For example, Lucas (2009) discusses how to incorporate human rights education in the social studies classroom at the elementary and middle school level. In her discussion, Lucas explains that elementary students are not too young to learn about some of the harsh realities involved in the struggle for human rights because they are exposed to the same media coverage of human rights abuses and global tragedies as our graduate students. An informed classroom discussion can help young students think about and process the complex issues that surround global tragedies like the recent earthquake in Haiti or the devastation of New Orleans by Katrina. Lucas cites Flowers et al.'s (2000) research suggesting that by the age of ten, attitudes about human dignity and equality are already firmly established. Elementary students need to understand that human rights are an intrinsic human value and that governments and ordinary citizens have a responsibility for making the kinds of changes that benefit all people. Lucas provides suggestions on how to use the book, A life Like Mine: How Children Live Around the World (DK and UNICEF, 2002). Developed by UNICEF, the book focuses on the daily lives and chores of eighteen different children around the world. With pictures and narratives that center on the real-life situations that students everywhere can relate to, it serves as a springboard for classroom activities and discussions. Lucas provides concrete suggestions for using the book at different levels and she includes an in-depth plan to create a UN simulation. What a teacher can do Culturally responsive teaching is not about adding more content to the existing curriculum; it is about developing a mind-set that values content as equally as character development. Vellegas and Lucas (2002) propose six characteristics, which lay out the essential dispositions, knowledge, and skills for teaching in a culturally diverse society. By recognizing competence and making changes in the following areas, teachers can make progress towards cultural competence: (a) becoming socioculturally conscious; recognizing that there are multiple ways of perceiving reality and that these ways are influenced by one's location in the social order; (b) developing affirming views of students from diverse backgrounds, seeing resources for learning in all students rather than viewing differences as problems to be overcome; (c) seeing himself or herself as both responsible for and capable of bringing about educational change that will make schools more responsive to all students; (d) understanding how learners construct knowledge and being capable of promoting learners' knowledge construction; (e) knowing about the lives of his or her students; and (f) using his or her knowledge about students' lives to design instruction that builds on what they already know while stretching them beyond the familiar. These six qualities constitute the central themes or strands that give conceptual coherence to the type of teacher education seen as necessary for preparing culturally responsive teachers (Vellegas & Lucas, 2002). Rather than making curricula changes in schools, Vellegas and Lucas are proposing making changes in the teachers' approach to the curriculum. In this way, cultural diversity and competency is an asset and serves to motivate immigrant students and students from subdominant cultures who strive to navigate cultural identities to engage in classroom activities (Reimers, 2009). Teachers who work at developing culturally competent classrooms and work to involve the community in the schooling of their children begin to shape changes in educational thinking and practices. Reimers (2009) describe these changes in educational thinking as a melding of the endeavor toward academic excellence and the development of character education. He describes culturally responsive education with a global focus as education that includes academic excellence, character development, global awareness, problem solving ability, technological proficiency, and civic competency (Reimers, 2009).

　Finally, Reimers (2009) suggests that when teachers design a culturally competent classroom with a focus on global competence, they are better able to tap the resources in their culturally diverse communities. He believes that teacher-led movements can advance global education better than political advocates because they don't rely on "bureaucratic instruments of control" but rely on non-threatening grassroots efforts that can originate in the local community. Mary Cowhey learned firsthand that grassroots organizing not only lead to parent empowerment but also to increased student achievement (Cowley, 2010). Cowhey describes how her effort to empower low-income parents led to the development of a thriving organization of low-income families of color who collectively worked to improve the academic achievement of their children. In her article, Learning to Roar, Cowhey includes a list of grassroots organizing principles to create a successful organization of parents. She includes useful suggestions like using small cozy places for meetings and avoiding institutional spaces where people are less likely to feel comfortable. She suggests starting small but working to create "critical mass;" parents need to see that other parents like themselves will be at the meeting. She includes lessons they learned as they created a thriving organization of low-income families of color. In this paper, we are presenting new ideas and developing research to support culturally responsive teaching and global competency. It is our hope that readers are inspired by our passion and seek to add to this developing field of teacher preparation and global awareness. Please contact us with thoughts, ideas, and inspirations.

References Berry, A. (2009). Exploring Vision in Self Study. Studying Teacher Education 5(2). 159-162. Chen, D. W., Nimmo, J., & Fraser, H. (2009). Becoming a culturally responsive early childhood educator: A Tool to support reflection by teachers embarking on the anti-bias journey. Multicultural Perspectives, 11(2), 101-106. Cowhey, M. (2010). Learning to roar. The Education Digest, January 2010. DK and UNICEF (2002). A life like mine: How children live around the world. New York: DK Publishing. The Commission on Global Governance. (1995). Our Global Neighborhood. Oxford University Press. Gilles, C., Wilson, J., & Elias, M., (2010). Sustaining Teachers' Growth and Renewal through Action Research, Induction Programs, and Collaboration. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1). 91-108. Hiro, D. (2010). New world order without a hegemon: Compete and cooperate. YaleGlobal Online, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/new-world-order-compete-and-cooperate, May 15, 2010. Ingram, J. D. (2008). What is a "Right to have rights"? Three images of the Politics of Human Rights. American Political Science Review, 102 (4), 401-416. Killeavy, M. Moloney, A. (2010). Reflection in a Social Space: Can Blogging Support Reflective Practice for Beginning Teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 26(4), 1070-1076. Lindahl, R. (2006). The right to education in a globalized world. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(1). 5-26. Lucas, A. G. (2009). Teaching about human rights in the elementary classroom using the book A Life Like Mine: How Children Live around the World. The Social Studies, March/April 2009. McIntyre, C., Dangel, J. R., (2009). Teacher Candidate Portfolios: Routine or Reflective Practice Action? Action in Teacher Education, 31(2). 74-85. Meyer, J. P, & Zaman, H. A. (2009). Negotiating the global and national : Immigrant and dominant -culture adolescents' vocabularies of citizenship in a transnational world. Teachers College Record, 111(11), 2589-2625. Meyer, J. (2001). Reflections: The worldwide commitment to Educational Equity. Sociology of Education Extra Issue 2001, 154-158. Pagden, A. (2003). Human rights, natural rights, and Europe's imperial legacy. Political Theory, 31(2). Reimers, F. M. (2009). Leading for global competency. Teaching for the 21st Century, 67(1). Sleeter, C. (2000). Diversity vs. white privilege. Rethinking School Online, 15(2). Willie, C. V. (1996). Robin M. Williams, Jr. lecture, 1995-Dominant and Subdominant people of power: A New way of conceptualizing minority and majority populations. Sociological Forum, 11(1). Zhao, Y. (2009). Needed: Global villagers. Educational Leadership, September 2009. Human Rights 1