The concepts of culturally responsive and relevant teaching have been re-evaluated and have evolved into the concept of culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012). The critique derives from questioning whether the terms relevant and responsive really reflect the teaching and research based on them. According to Paris (2012), “the term culturally sustaining requires that our pedagogies be more than responsive of or relevant to the cultural experiences and practices of young people — it requires that they support young people in sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously offering access to dominant cultural competence” (p. 95). In other words, the aim of culturally sustaining pedagogy is to move from the static notions of relevance and responsiveness, that focus on pedagogy which is appropriate in a particular period of time, and to emphasise an idea of sustainability that will support students in the future (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014). Ladson-Billings, who introduced the term culturally relevant pedagogy supports the concept of culturally sustaining pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Furthermore, Ladson-Billings criticises some teachers who claim to apply teaching methods which focus on cultural diversity, for being one-dimensional and not fully translating research into practice. The critique is based on the notion that teachers are often focused on content integration and ignore other important dimensions of culturally relevant pedagogy, including encouraging students to think critically about policies and practices that may have an influence on their lives inside and outside educational institutions (Ladson-Billings, 2014). 

Paris (2016) suggested guidelines for teachers who intend to implement culturally sustaining pedagogy in their classrooms:

1. An understanding of the systemic nature of racialized and intersectional inequalities and their own relative privileged or marginalized position within those systems. 
2. An understanding that education participates in and often perpetuates such inequalities, though it can also disrupt them. 
3. An understanding of the ways deficit approaches have historically and continue to perpetuate racialized inequalities, and an understanding of asset approaches and how to curricularize them. 
4. An understanding that critical asset approaches do improve academic achievement, but that current measures of achievement are narrow and assimilative and so not the sole goal. 
5. An understanding that humanizing relationships of dignity and care are fundamental to student and teacher learning. 

Paris (2016, pp. 7-8)

Further reading

• Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). Three decades of culturally relevant, responsive, & sustaining pedagogy: What lies ahead? The Educational Forum, 85(4), 351-354.
• Paris, D. (2016). On educating culturally sustaining teachers. TeachingWorks working papers.
• Paris, D. (2021). Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures. The Educational Forum, 85(4), 364-376.

Watch a short video about educational justice by Django Paris (author of the term culturally sustaining pedagogy)

References:

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard Educational Review,84(1), 74-84. 

Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. 

Paris, D. (2016). On educating culturally sustaining teachers. TeachingWorks working papers.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.