Academic Excellence Without Erasure: A New Approach to Reframing Rigor

teacher in a classroom with two students below the words "`
Academic Excellence Without Erasure: A New Approach to Reframing Rigor"

Educators traditionally see rigor as strict adherence to standardized methods for educating students. The typical educator envisions rigor as the mastery of dominant academic norms. Most often, for educators, rigor privileges speed, precision, and individual performance. Rigor traditionally equates difficulty with quality while reinforcing narrow definitions of intelligence and excludes ways in which marginalized students come to know things. All too often, rigor in academics is seen as gatekeeping knowledge. Rigor is not seen as a way to empower knowledge. This way of thinking is contrary to equity-centered teaching methods.

Modern educators should move away from typical restrictive learning methods. Equity-minded teachers do not think of education as something that is one size fits all. They think of education as something that is tailored to meet students’ individual needs. These educators pay attention to their students. They decipher how their students learn, what their cultural values are, and how to reach their students. Equity-minded educators teach in ways that empower students and respect different ways of learning and acquiring knowledge. In this article, we are encouraging educators to uphold academic excellence without erasing identity, culture, and lived experience.

Historical Context: Rigor as a Tool of Exclusion

Academic rigor has been influenced by Eurocentric, assimilationist standards for most of the history of the United States. The dominant educational frameworks in the United States prioritized Western epistemologies and marginalized Indigenous, African, and other non-Eurocentric ways of knowing and learning. This was reflected in the standardized curricula and assessments which usually reflected the cultural norms of white, middle-class experiences. This way of doing things reinforced narrow definitions of the meaning of success and intelligence. Academic achievement was positioned as conformity to the dominant language, cognitive styles and behaviors. Pluralism and community-based knowledge was excluded and escribed and treated as inferior. The tendency to exclude non-dominant voices and views embedded inequities in to the very definition of rigorous educational practices.

Rigor is often framed through standardized assessments that privilege dominant cultural norms while downplaying students whose intelligence emerges through things like oral traditions, collaboration, or multi-lingual expression. Educators who equate rigor with speed and precision penalize neurodivergent learners whose cognitive abilities require extending time or alternative formats to display their mastery of a topic. Multi-lingual students often find themselves denied access to rigorous coursework and academic advancement based on their language proficiency scores. This reinforces deficit narratives faced by these students. This is problematic because their linguistic ability should be seen as an asset. Curricula that is called rigorous often centers Eurocentric texts while excluding culturally sustaining pedagogies and sends a clear message that non-dominant cultural norms are less valuable and deficient.

Epistemic injustice is how one describes the ways that individuals and communities are unfairly discredited or excluded from knowledge production and validation. In educational spaces, epistemic injustice is seen when students’ lived experiences, cultural narratives, and non-dominant ways of knowing are classified as irrelevant, unacademic, and lacking in credibility. When diverse epistemologies are not recognized as legitimate it is part of systemic barriers that silence marginalized voices. Addressing epistemic injustice calls for educators to reimagine rigor to include pluralistic, community-rooted, and culturally sustaining ways of learning.

What is Lost When Rigor is Narrowly Defined

Students suffer losses when rigor is narrowly defined. For example, when rigor is equated solely with speed, standardized outcomes, and precision, we lose the opportunity and ability to honor diverse intellectual traditions, and ways of knowing. Narrow definitions of rigor exclude practices that foster deep engagement and critical thinking such as relational, creative, and community-based learning practices. Students who process information differently are often characterized as lacking vigor. Instead, if we look at neurodivergent, multilingual, or students of non-dominant cultural backgrounds as they valuable and capable of academic rigor, we would see the value in their ways of learning.

If educators refuse to do this, and continue to be bound be limited definitions and views of what academic rigor looks like, they miss the opportunity to cultivate an inclusive view of academic excellence. Narrow views of rigor undermine equity reinforces the gatekeeping of knowledge and ways of knowing. This view silences marginalized voices and limits transformative possibilities in education. An inclusive view of academic excellence, on the other hand, would recognize a dynamic, student-centered pursuit of mastery and make it possible for more voices to be recognized and respected. It would also make it possible for more students to learn and achieve academic excellence.

Educators must respect the knowledge that comes from oral traditions, community-based knowledge, non-linear logic, and multilingual expression.

Curricular exclusion of community knowledge occurs when educators rely on standardized curricula that centers Eurocentric texts and narratives while excluding Indigenous, Black, and immigrant community knowledge. This exclusion or erasure erases students’ lived experiences and reinforces the notion that only dominant cultural perspectives have academic validity. Multilingual students are often placed in remedial classes or tracks based on English proficiency rather than their intellectual capacity or prior academic achievement. This practice devalues linguistic capital and perpetuates the myth that academic rigor must be monolingual.

Reframing Rigor: A New Definition Rooted in Justice

With this article we propose a new definition for rigor. Imagine for a moment that the definition for rigor included things like:

Intellectual curiosity
Cultural responsiveness
Methodological pluralism

Intellectual curiosity can be defined as a self-motivated desire to explore, seek understanding and ask questions beyond that which is required or expected. Intellectual curiosity fuels lifelong learning. It is what drives open-ended, interdisciplinary inquiry. Intellectual curiosity is the spark that moves assignments to discovery and research into transformation.

Cultural responsiveness can be defined as the ability to recognize, honor, and integrate diverse cultural identities into one’s teaching, leadership, and research. It is more than being aware of cultural differences, it is about actively working for inclusive, affirming and relevant pedagogy and practices. If educators want to be culturally responsive it will be seen in the curricula they design, the rituals they practice, and in how they use their relationships to uplift marginalized voices.

Methodological pluralism can be defined as a way of doing research that sees value in and uses multiple methods and ways of knowing. It rejects the idea of rigid disciplinary boundaries. Instead it embraces qualitative, quantitative, Western, and Indigenous methodologies. This pluralistic view supports equity and epistemic justice by validating diverse forms of evidence and experience.

Practices the Embody Reframed Rigor

There are a number of practices that educators, scholars, and institutions can use to help achieve results from their students that are rigorous. For example, educators can design assignments that honor multiple literacies. This means they would allow for communication from students to take place in more than just reading and writing. Assignments should include ways to answer that include digital, visual, cultural, and emotional ways of making meaning. This can be accomplished by offering students the option to choose between essays, podcasts, infographics, zines, or photo essays. An interesting option would be to encourage students to use family stories, community knowledge, or cultural texts in their answers.

Educators could use grading rubrics that value the process students use as well as their narrative reflections. If educators use process-oriented rubrics, the focus is shifted to growth, intention, and insight. For example, categories such as:

Connection to prior learning
Depth of self-reflection
Adaption based on feedback

When rigid point systems are replaced with growth oriented language like, “emerging,” “developing,” and “transforming” students can show growth which will encourage them to continue working in order to achieve rigor. An interesting idea would be for educators to invite students to help define ways to determine meaningful progress.

Additionally, educators can find places for narrative, art, and community voice in academic work. This practice affirms that knowledge is not neutral, it is shaped by identity, culture, and collective experiences. One way this can be accomplished is by integrating storytelling prompts. For example, asking students to begin responses with personal narratives or community observations. Educators could also validate artistic expression by accepting poetry, collage, music, or movement as legitimate and academic expression. Another option would be for educators to center community wisdom and encourage interviews, histories or collaborative projects with local organizations to be acceptable ways of sourcing data for projects.

Addressing the Inevitable Pushback: “What About Standards?”

Educators may be afraid that the methods shared in this article will not help students reach academic rigor. This is a case where one should adhere to the notion of, “don’t get ready, stay ready.” Equity-minded educators who want to employ these methods should be prepared to hear that reframing rigor as described here, “lowers the bar.” When they hear this, they should be prepared to respond with evidence and examples showing how inclusive rigor raises the bar. They should state it does this by explaining that inclusive rigor demands more relevance, reflection, and responsibility from students. They should also emphasize the fact that excellence and equity are not mutually exclusive. They can in fact coexist and when they do, the results are excellent and incredible.

Click here to download our worksheet: “Reframing Rigor- Academic Excellence Without Erasure.”

Conclusion

This article is a call to action for educators. We are calling them to reframe rigor to reflect the fact that all learners have brilliance. It is the job of the educator to find ways to let that brilliance out and help nourish it. This is a good time for educators to look at their own definitions of rigor and success and find ways to include more students in those definitions. It is time to find more ways help all students achieve academic success.

References

Nikolaidis, A. C. (2023). Epistemic injustice in education: exploring structural approaches, envisioning structural remedies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 57(4–5), 842–861. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhad074