Recent changes to the California teaching standards are a good thing. Here's why.
California has approved updated teaching standards that will shape instruction and educator development statewide. After a lengthy revision process, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing adopted new 2024 Standards for the Teaching Profession in February. These standards, last refreshed in 2009, highlight the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of expert teachers.
The 2024 standards elevate key priorities like diversity, equity, inclusion, and social-emotional wellbeing. There is a greater focus on understanding students’ identities, building strong family partnerships, reflective teaching practices, and creating positive learning environments. Whilst retaining the same six domains, the revised standards feature updated language and sample indicators that promote student-centered, culturally-sustaining approaches.
Some of the major changes outlined across the domains include an emphasis on student assets over deficits, setting relevant learning goals, varied instructional strategies, equitable assessments, teacher reflection and growth, and community collaboration. The new standards address current issues like implicit bias, access and support for exceptional learners, integration of technology, and teacher self-care. In particular, Standard 6 focuses more explicitly on ethical responsibilities related to equity.
These teaching standards aim to guide continuous improvements in helping every student thrive academically and socially-emotionally. They provide a vision for quality teaching focused on inclusion, relationships, high expectations, and addressing individual student needs within an asset-based view of diverse learners. The Commission has directed further steps to support Teacher Induction Programs transition fully to the 2024 CSTP by the 2025-26 academic year.
In short, California’s updated standards reflect teacher excellence priorities focused on equitable treatment of diverse students inside and outside the classroom. The goal is to equip teachers to create optimal conditions for all students to learn, grow, and reach their full potential.
Oh … but … DEI?!
Yes, we said it. “Key priorities like diversity, equity, inclusion, and social-emotional wellbeing.”
California’s student population is incredibly diverse across races, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic statuses, and other student identities. Yet historically, many groups have experienced significant disparities in access, opportunities, achievement, and overall wellness in schools. These systemic inequities have persisted over time. Codifying priorities like diversity and inclusion into the teaching standards signals that change is imperative for traditionally underserved / underrepresented students to reach their potential.
By explicitly naming these issues rather than leaving them implicit, California is acknowledging that past approaches have been insufficient for equitably meeting needs. Research shows identity-conscious, culturally responsive strategies can positively impact engagement and outcomes when students see themselves reflected (as I note here). Hence the greater focus within the standards on understanding and leveraging student assets over viewing differences as deficits in the system.
Incorporating social-emotional dimensions also speaks to the science confirming that emotional health and relationships shape development, motivation, and learning. With the trauma of the pandemic especially, many students require explicit SEL supports. Specifying this expectation for teachers again makes it an actionable priority rather than simply aspirational (no, kids are not bootstrapping their way to wellness and prosperity like your great grandparents supposedly did).
Overall, through direct language on equitable treatment of diversity, California is demanding that teachers adopt mindsets and practices that dismantle barriers and actively sustain inclusion for groups that schools have underserved historically. This includes a responsibility to self-reflect on biases that interfere with student success. By embedding these ethical priorities for ensuring student belonging, the standards promote systemic reforms. In summary, the urgency of addressing long-standing inequities is likely why these areas are called out distinctly even though they build on past guidelines. The need for change is clear and significant.
Do you want to teach kids to read, or do you want to share your love of Shakespeare?
When it comes to teaching students literacy skills, our core focus should be instilling a love of reading rather than rigidly adhering to traditional canonical texts. Students are vastly more engaged and motivated to read when they see themselves reflected in relatable stories compared to archaic works often disconnected from their realities.
Rather than insist on teaching Shakespeare to elementary school children, educators would better serve students by selecting culturally relevant texts that validate their diverse backgrounds and capture their curiosities. The technical skills of reading comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, and more can be developed just as effectively through written materials that mirror students’ identities and communities. In fact, the brain science shows we absorb information more deeply when it connects to our frames of reference (“interest-based nervous system” anyone?).
Promoting reading proficiency requires getting students intrinsically interested in books first and foremost. Especially given increasingly diverse classrooms, that means diversifying literature selections beyond older Eurocentric staples that have marginalised many groups historically. Students should see inspiring protagonists who look like them pursuing compelling stories rooted in rich cultural traditions. Quality literature exists that can expand kids’ global perspectives far beyond the Western canon.
Once students have cultivated a genuine passion for literature through relevant texts, those who develop advanced skills and deeper interests can optionally explore classical Western authors later on. But reading ability opens countless doors, so students deserve materials that spark meaningful engagement right from the start. Prioritizing cultural responsiveness and representation when selecting books and curricula is key for laying that vital foundation.
The bottom line is that technique can be taught through any content. If the goal is developing confident, enthusiastic readers rather than analysing Shakespeare, students are far better served by reading stories that speak to their contemporary realities. Their skills will blossom when literacy feels accessible, enjoyable and empowering.
Finally, ethics
We educators have a duty to evaluate how our underlying assumptions and positionalities unconsciously impact learning materials selected for diverse youth. Clinging to canonical texts often stems less from literary merit than cultural paradigms where dominant groups define “worthy” stories reflecting their norms. Yet prioritising Western, male, Eurocentric works whilst excluding global majority authors and perspectives breeds notions of intellectual superiority that marginalise students from other backgrounds.
Rather than import our personal cultural biases, the ethical imperative as teachers guiding vulnerable young minds is prioritising stories that affirm students’ pluralistic identities and equip them to critically analyse inequities while cultivating academic skills. We must self-interrogate why we gravitate toward familiar texts that historically served to acculturate immigrants into dominant paradigms. What novels might my students find more engaging and empowering? What contemporary, multicultural literature could expand my own horizons as an educator? Am I clinging to outdated requirements that demotivate youth?
This self-work relies on humility in acknowledging that our worldviews as educators shape classroom decisions. Collaboratively examining blind spots and shared accountability can help overcome inherent biases that rationalise exclusive curricula. Committing to continuous learning about communities we serve is critical for meaningful relationships and teaching excellence. When students feel mirrored and heard through course materials, their academic growth flourishes exponentially. Our role is nurturing that intrinsic motivation rather than forcing rigid conformity to historically narrow perspectives. Prioritising inclusivity and engagement is an ethical imperative if we believe in equitably serving every student.
I welcome constructive dialogue with colleagues around opportunities for growth in how we select culturally sustaining instructional materials that empower the full diversity of our students. This self-interrogation is difficult but so vital.