I never had imagined other art teaching approaches were possible until I started the masters program at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago two years ago. Through various pedagogical readings in the Art Education courses and deep conversations with peer students, sharing different perspectives, I gained interdisciplinary insights. I began to see the social connections and complex relationships involving artmaking beyond artistic creations. Now, I realize that I was so caught up in teaching “art objects” and focused on teaching technical improvements, I lacked the imagination for other possibilities. I reflected on my background and previous art practice in detail and aimed to rebuild the future teaching approaches and define what art is. “Often it is only through reflection that we even recognize that we had a choice, that we could have done something differently.” (McEntee, 2003). As the art instructor of Chicago Moms Art, I tried to incorporate all that the students brought to the classroom to reshape the pattern of the class. I found their unique inputs were an asset to the whole group as the students generated new meanings and knowledge through storytelling and creating. In my previous efforts, I tried to teach art techniques and reform the lesson patterns without considering the student’s individuality, implementing deficit ideologies. The students’ paintings did not have a space for the students to express their thoughts and personalities. I began to recognize that the techniques that my students used to finish a painting is not as important as the thoughts the students put into their paintings. Asset-based pedagogies offer a counter narrative to deficit ideology outcomes by valuing students’ insights, languages, and cultural practices (Flint & Jaggers, 2021). The students would not be measured by the standard of any expectations and would not receive any comparison to the aptness of technical abilities within this pedagogical approach. Their background knowledge, culture, and experiences are resources for learning and provide new possibilities for teaching and learning (Dudley-Marling, 2007, as cited in Flint & Jaggers, 2021). These engagements culminate in the belief that “difference does not mean deficit, it means more human(ity)” (Swartz, 2009, as cited in Flint & Jaggers, 2021). With more humane classroom practices, a stronger sense of belonging, agency and wellbeing can be established among students and myself (King, 2016, as cited in Flint & Jaggers, 2021). These engagements provide pathways for the students and families to participate in authentic learning experiences and to begin to see the classroom as a place where they all belong (Flint & Jaggers, 2021). The funds of knowledge of the students and their lived experiences are important for reimagining art education in the classroom, leading to culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris & Alim, 2017).