Developing Socially Just Teachers

Cross-cultural background experiences

Garmon (2004) defined cross-cultural experiences as those “in which there [is] opportunity for direct interaction with one or more individuals from a cultural group different than one’s own” (p. 207). Candidates’ cross-cultural experiences before entering and adjacent to their teacher preparation programs have been linked to greater openness to diversity (Adams, Bondy, & Kuhel, 2005; Garmon 2004) and commitment to teaching in urban and/or high needs schools (Taylor & Frankenberg, 2009). Taylor and Frankenberg (2009) found that teacher candidates without prior urban experiences became less committed to urban teaching over the course of their yearlong urban teacher preparation program than candidates with some prior urban experience.

Teacher preparation experiences

A number of studies (Athanases & Oliveira, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2001; McDonald, 2007) have indicated that programs whose course work, field experiences, and supervision cohere around a common vision of CRT and socially just teaching are more effective than more fragmented programs. Athanases and Oliveira (2008) studied graduates of such a program and found that most were acting as advocates in and out of their classrooms (e.g., setting up extra tutorials outside of class to meet diverse learning needs, speaking out to obtain needed resources for special needs students, starting a bilingual parent group). These teachers reported that they felt inclined to do so because their preparation program courses had emphasized the importance of advocacy and provided opportunities in their fieldwork to practice interceding on behalf of students and their families.

In addition, a small group of longitudinal studies have demonstrated a link between teacher preparation program coherence around an equity-oriented mission and urban teacher retention (Freedman & Appleman, 2009; Quartz & TEP Research Group, 2003). For example, Freedman and Appleman’s (2009) study of graduates of the University of California at Berkeley’s Multicultural Urban Secondary English Credential Program over a 5-year period found that graduates who remained teaching in high-poverty urban schools said they had intentionally entered an urban teacher preparation program with “a sense of mission, which was reinforced and developed by [their] teacher education program” (p. 329).

Support for equity teaching during the early years of teaching

Recent studies (Picower, 2011; Puig & Recchia, 2012; Ritchie, 2012) have demonstrated the power of support networks for sustaining socially just teaching in the early years of teaching. Picower (2011) studied six graduates of a justice-oriented preparation program who met as a critical inquiry study group biweekly the year after graduation. She found that the group supported these teachers’ efforts to integrate critical pedagogy into a mandated curriculum and speak against policies that they felt were not in the best interests of their students. Ritchie (2012) found that justice-oriented teacher networks played an important role in sustaining eight practicing teachers whose work in critical pedagogy or teaching for social justice has been described in book(s) or journal article(s) during the past 10 years.

S/I orientation: Consciousness-raising and advocacy

Interviews indicated that Cassie, Michael, Francine, Rosina, and Anna had a structurally and individually oriented conception of socially just teaching with emphasis on the structural. These teachers used sociocultural and equity frameworks to define socially just teaching. For example, Rosina said it was “teaching students who have been left behind in the social network [because of] socioeconomic status.” Cassie and Anna said it was “being an advocate for change” in what Cassie called “systems that blame the victim.”

These teachers described a range of teaching practices that included consciousness-raising, advocacy, CRT, and caring relationships. Because their consciousness-raising and advocacy activities set these teachers apart, I highlight how these teachers described those particular practices in their teaching.

All five teachers described efforts within their classrooms to make students more aware of societal injustice, take positions on controversial topics, and see themselves as capable of making a difference in their communities. Michael said that he wanted to make his predominantly African American history students “question every fact that their textbooks . . . may force-feed them” and see “that . . . the United States is not . . . the bastion of freedom and democracy that a lot of textbooks paint it as.” Cassie shared with her students her perception of the school’s unfair curricular practices for special education students and how they [her students] “had a right to” and are “fully capable of doing . . . what other classrooms are doing.” Anna described a curriculum where she was trying “to expose students to . . . injustices in the world” and get them to “want to do something about [them].” Rosina described curricular topics that included historical examples of oppression (African Americans in the Jim Crow South, Chicano farm laborers) and injustices taking place in their “own neighborhoods,” such as disparities in food prices and access to healthy foods across areas of the city.

In addition, Francine and Michael explained how they were helping their students think of themselves as change agents in their communities. Francine organized her first grade students, many from immigrant families, into a team that she called the “Peacemakers.” She wanted them to see themselves not only as “good friends” but also as “young authors” who “can grow up to make a difference.” Because Michael wanted his high school students to “know that they don’t live in a vacuum and that . . . every day they can do something to help someone else,” he raised funds to take a group of his students on a Habitat for Humanity trip to a rural area in another state to help people who were losing their farms. His rationale was, “I think they grew up in a system that made them think of themselves as these underprivileged kids [who] can’t help other people.”

In addition to these consciousness-raising activities in their curricula, Francine, Michael, and Cassie also described ways they were engaged in advocacy designed to change unfair structures or curricular policies that limit opportunities for students. For example, in her 1st year of teaching first grade, Francine was trying to “help the whole school . . . give every kid a chance to learn” by changing what she called the school’s “traditional and conservative” reading curriculum which had all students reading the same stories and taking the same spelling test every week. She noted that in a school where over 90% of the students were students of color and second language learners, “A lot of the things we’re doing aren’t really beneficial to a lot of the kids.” So she convinced the principal to find funds for a new reading curriculum that was designed to individually assess all of the students and then provide multicultural reading materials and assignments that would address various student needs.

In her school where all of the students were eligible for subsidized lunch and most were second language learners, Cassie expressed dismay over the lack of educational opportunities available to her students who were classified by the school as special education students: “My students were held to incredibly low expectations. In previous years, they ate breakfast and lunch in the classroom and were not exposed to any classes or . . . academic content with general education peers.” By the end of her 1st year of teaching, she had convinced the school administration to change their mainstreaming policies so that her students were not isolated during recess. She also contacted the school district’s superintendent to argue for her students’ need for standard math and literacy curricula. She borrowed curricular materials from her colleagues and from the district’s curricular warehouse, explaining, “I will do what it takes to provide [my] students with access to those materials.”

I/S orientation: CRT and caring

Three of these teachers (Don, Katelyn, and Angela) were individually and structurally oriented toward socially just teaching but with emphasis on the individual. These teachers used a combination of sociocultural and individualistic frameworks to define socially just teaching and describe their teaching practices. Katelyn and Don spoke about providing “equal opportunities” for students who don’t always have them, such as “giving kids the opportunity to go to college.” Angela said that socially just teaching involves “knowing that [all students have] the right to learn no matter what their background is” and “teaching every student the way [he or she] can learn.” In particular, they described their teaching practices primarily as a combination of various CRT strategies described earlier and caring relationships with individual students.

As seen in Table 3, there was evidence of CRT methods (“funds of knowledge” pedagogies, high expectations, warm demanding, connection with parents) in all eight of the S-I- and I-S-oriented teachers. However, here I describe how Don and Angela with their I-S orientation focused on culturally responsive caring relationships.

In both interviews, Don, a White English teacher in a predominantly African American public high school, talked about the importance of “rapport” and personal involvement with his students: “I want to talk to them every day . . . I want to be a person that they can rely on.” In both interviews he described his success in helping students navigate college and job applications and also getting financial aid for further education.

Both of Don’s interviews also indicated that an important way that he established this rapport and also taught English was by tapping into his students’ cultural resources. In his second interview, he explained, “I think knowledge of the culture of the people you’re teaching is incredibly important. You have to know where they’re coming from . . . We have to [always] be learning from our kids.” To more fully understand his students’ language, ways of expression, and humor, he consulted with African American colleagues about “slang words” that his students used. He also said that he had spent “a ton of time” listening to their music, going to their movies, and “watching . . . all these old Black sitcoms that they talk about.” In both interviews, he offered examples of how he used African American popular culture and language as bridges to understanding literature and developing writing skills. He used the music of Tupac Shaqur and Famed Rapper to teach poetry and novels. He taught paraphrasing by asking students to translate rap songs “so that a White person can understand.”

Angela, an African American English teacher in a predominantly African American high school, also conceptualized her socially just teaching as a combination of CRT and caring. She explained how she drew largely from her own experience: “I am African American and I teach African American children, so I feel like I’m in tune to what’s ‘culturally relevant.’” She is direct with her students about why they need to learn Standard English:

My students . . . speak African American Vernacular English. I tell them that’s not wrong; it’s a part of our culture . . . But you have to be able to speak Standard English . . . [because] . . . people judge you based on how you look and how you speak.

However, she indicated that she was interested in developing her students’ bilingualism. To teach Standard English, she had her students translate Standard English texts into African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and also write paragraphs in AAVE and then translate them into Standard English.

In her second interview, Angela reported her success in combining high expectations with emotional warmth. She recalled that when she first came into her school, students “pretty much did whatever they wanted” but now with her “structure and high standards,” her students recognize that “you don’t play” in her classroom. However, she mentioned numerous ways that she had personally connected with her students. She started a peer mentoring program for her school’s 1st-year students to make them feel “more welcome,” solicited money from local merchants for students who could not afford prom clothing, and shared her personal email and phone number with students and parents. As a result, she said that “a lot of my students . . . call me ‘Mama.’” Even after they leave her class, “they stop by during passing period [to] still get that little personal moment.”

Individual orientation (I): “Color blind” caring

Four teachers (Megan, Kelly, Adriana, and Jeremy) were only individually oriented in their reflection and pedagogical decision making. They did not use sociocultural frameworks to define socially just teaching. In fact, two of these teachers said that “socially just teaching” was “hard to define.” When pressed, all of these teachers used frameworks that focused on students as individuals. Megan and Adriana said socially just teaching was “being open to differences.” Kelly said it is “trying to understand where each student is coming from.” Jeremy said it is “getting involved in the lives of your students.”

Adriana stressed that teaching for social justice and being “a good teacher” were one and the same, that a “good teacher” is “caring,” and ”positive” with students. She offered an example of how she reached out to one of her third graders whose mother had died: “She needs someone to talk to, to cry, and to hang out with.” When asked directly about his use of CRT practices with students, Jeremy replied that he did not have much of an opportunity to do so because he teaches math. When pressed for an example of how her socially just teaching practices look in the classroom, Adriana could only think of a holiday program that they had in her school where they “sang a song in a different language.”

Although all these teachers, when asked about their socially just teaching practices, gave examples of caring for individual students, they did so without mention of their non-White students’ race or cultural backgrounds, nor did they give any indication that they had thought about the structural inequities that might be impacting their students’ school experiences. There was indication, however, of deficit thinking in both of the interviews of these four teachers. When speaking about her students’ “different backgrounds,” Kelly spoke about her need to be “patient” with “students [whose] home lives aren’t as desirable as they may wish.” She also said that her 1st year of teaching had been “stressful” because of “where the kids come from” which was “so urban.” She gave examples of students who “haven’t had breakfast in the morning” or who were “moving all the time.” In speaking about her socially just teaching practices, she described students “who come to school unclean and with dirty clothes and with not very much sleep and not very much food” and how she tried to “help them get over whatever’s going on at home.”

Unlike the other eight teachers in this study, Adriana, Megan, Kelly, and Jeremy did not offer any examples in their second interviews of how they were using their students’ cultural “funds of knowledge” (Gonzalez et al., 2005) in teaching. Megan acknowledged the need to “change and modify [lessons] . . . because of how differently children learn” but admitted that “I have a lot to learn” about their “cultures [and] backgrounds.”

Prior cross-cultural experiences

Nine of these teachers came into their preparation with significant prior cross-cultural experiences. Angela, Don, Katelyn, and Jeremy grew up in racially diverse neighborhoods and attended urban public schools. Don was active throughout his youth on racially diverse athletic teams and for 6 years coached predominantly African American and Latino boys on a local high school football team. Katelyn volunteered at urban soup kitchens and a preschool for children of young mothers in her urban high school.

Although they grew up in predominantly White, suburban or small town neighborhoods, Cassie, Michael, Francine, Anna, and Rosina also entered their teacher preparation program with prior cross-cultural experiences, primarily through employment and/or community service. Every summer during high school, Cassie volunteered at a summer camp where she developed close friendships with three African American women who became her college roommates. Michael, Francine, and Rosina tutored at urban schools serving predominantly African American and Spanish-speaking students. Anna participated in service projects sponsored by her church that included work with children from low-income families in Appalachia and Washington, D.C., experiences which, she said, made her aware that she “had a really standard, White, middle class upbringing.” In contrast, Megan, Kelly, and Adriana grew up in small towns and attended parochial schools where they had little or no exposure to people of diverse races, ethnicities, languages, or socioeconomic classes. Their first interactions with people of color were during college.

Additional cultural immersion experiences during college

All nine of the teachers who came into the program with prior experiences working in high-poverty settings expanded on these experiences during college. Francine volunteered in a local homeless shelter; Michael served as a mentor in a local Big Brother/Big Sister Program. Anna worked with children diagnosed with autism in their inner city homes. Angela and Rosina worked as tutors in local African American and Latino schools. Cassie taught in a high-poverty Chicago public summer school program. Katelyn and Rosina studied and worked in Mexico, which Katelyn said gave her the firsthand experience of “being a second language learner.” In contrast, Megan, Kelly, and Adriana reported no interactions with racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic populations different from their own except during their program field experiences in urban schools.

Program conceptual framework, fieldwork, courses, and mentors

A year after completing their preparation program, while all 12 students spoke about their diverse field experiences as major influences on their socially just teaching, only the 8 teachers whose teaching included culturally responsive, consciousness-raising and/or advocacy practices, also cited the program’s social justice theme and specific course content and instructors that challenged their thinking about students and schools. Michael mentioned readings by Gloria Ladson-Billings and Paulo Freire that pulled him out of his “comfort zone.” Anna said that her educational policy course work and readings “really opened my eyes to the inequalities in education.” She explained that this view was reinforced by her field experiences in various schools serving different socioeconomic classes where she saw disparities in resources, teaching methods, and what students were able to do. Francine recalled writings by Jonathan Kozol that inspired her to want to work with students “in difficult situations and difficult schools” and not go there to be a “superhero” but to simply work with kids to “bring the best out in them.”

Cassie remembered how her cooperating teacher in student teaching “creatively met the needs of English language learners” and students with diagnosed learning disabilities and said that she was using many of those methods in her 1st year of teaching special education in a school serving a large number of English language learners. Michael spoke about being placed in student teaching with “two phenomenal history teachers” from whom he learned “so much about the reality of day-to-day urban education,” including “how to deal with bureaucracy and the importance of collaboration and flexibility.” Francine mentioned two course instructors and two supervising teachers who “were such wonderful role models” for urban teaching: “I learned from them that if we’re not optimistic, if we don’t set up a positive classroom, a hopeful classroom, and a safe classroom, very little learning will happen.”

In contrast, when asked about important teacher education program influences on their teaching, Megan, Adriana, and Kelly made no mention of course content, readings, instructors, or mentors. In fact, two of them said that they found the courses somewhat repetitive. Adriana explained that the program

really drills into you the idea of multicultural education, being open and accepting to all different backgrounds of students, but I think that I heard the same text, the same stories, the same lecture [and] I had the same discussion in classes probably 10 times.

While Jeremy remembered a diversity class that he took with its interesting discussions on controversial topics, he recalled that the course did not change his thinking but reinforced his belief that “our society blows differences out of proportion and really, we’re all basically the same.”

In contrast to the other eight teachers, Megan, Adriana, Kelly, and Jeremy spoke primarily about the field experiences that had made a lasting impression. Megan, Adriana, and Kelly valued the experiences because, in Megan’s words, they put them with “populations that I wasn’t familiar with.” When pressed further, however, on how her field experiences had changed her, Megan expressed a disturbingly deficit view of clients at a shelter for women and children, suggesting that her previous impressions of diverse populations were only reinforced rather than changed by this experience:

Just seeing how those people had to live and then seeing these kids . . . changed my whole outlook . . . These moms who were pregnant and who had an infant and a toddler and . . . two other kids in school . . . somewhere made these choices . . . Did her family fail her? Did the community fail her? Not to say that her life is gone, but I don’t think her life is as good as it could be and I think that’s sad . . . I saw these kids who were four and couldn’t speak yet . . . Maybe their mom doesn’t know that you’re supposed to read to your kids. I thought everybody knew that.

Support during the 1st year of teaching

As seen in Table 3, in contrast to the four individually oriented teachers, who saw socially just teaching only as caring, all eight of the other teachers reported various sources of support in their 1st year of teaching. Cassie and Francine were part of urban teacher corps program cohorts (in different cities) that met frequently and had mentors available for support. They also felt strengthened in their socially just teaching as they worked on advanced degrees in special education (Cassie) and English Language Learning (Francine). Francine noted: “I am able to reflect with other teachers who have the same passion and the same drive and the same willingness to put [themselves] out there to teach in more challenging situations.” Angela was excited that her coworkers “are so involved in the students’ lives” and that they often collaborate with each other on lesson planning and team teaching. Michael described how he was inspired by being “surrounded by people who are really good at what they do.” Don credited his “phenomenal” administrators and colleagues for supporting him at times when he felt “clueless.” Anna, Rosina, and Katelyn discussed the comforts of working in small urban charter schools where faculty and administrators share a common vision.