Once upon an anti-black time: unpacking the counter fairy tales (CFT) model to support culturally responsive literacy instruction for black girls

Abstract

Purpose

This paper aims to argue that culturally responsive approaches to literacy instruction are necessary not only to celebrate Black girl literacies but to also expose, challenge and disrupt antiblackness in English education. However, without explicit exemplars to guide classroom practice, this type of instruction will remain elusive. The present paper expands upon the original conceptualization of Counter Fairy Tales (CFT) by further explicating the framework and providing recommendations to inform culturally responsive literacy practices to disrupt antiblackness.

Design/methodology/approach

The question that drives this study asks how can the CFT model be applied as a form of culturally responsive literacy instruction to best teach Black girls?

Findings

The CFT framework places value on Black girls’ ways of knowing and gives primacy to their voice and unique experiences through culturally responsive literacy instruction.

Research limitations/implications

The larger implication of this research is for teachers to begin to create culturally responsive literacy instruction that honors the lived experiences of today’s Black adolescent girls, particularly those in young grades. Inclusive and affirming literary practices must be established, an environment in which Black girls can share their voices and visions as they explore themselves through writing.

Originality/value

This conceptual paper is one of few that specifically focuses on how teachers can use CFTs to facilitate the inclusion of Black girls’ experiential and communal ways of knowing to support culturally responsive literacy instruction in younger grades.

Citation

Young, J., Butler, B.R., Strong, K. and Turner, M.A. (2021), "Once upon an anti-black time: unpacking the counter fairy tales (CFT) model to support culturally responsive literacy instruction for black girls", English Teaching: Practice & Critique, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 501-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-10-2020-0134