Advancing Equity and Achievement in America's Diverse Schools: Inclusive Theories, Policies, and Practices 9780415635615, 9780415635639, 9780203092446

Citation preview

ADVANCING EQUITY AND ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA’S DIVERSE SCHOOLS

Advancing Equity and Achievement in America’s Diverse Schools illustrates how educators, students, families, and community partners can work in strategic ways to build on social, cultural, and ethnic diversity to advance educational equity and achievement. By drawing on the latest data on demographic change, constructions of culture and cultural difference, and the politics of school reform in urban, rural, and suburban school communities, this volume looks toward solutions and strategies for meaningful educational improvement. Contributors consider both the diversity of youth and families served in public schools, and the culture of U.S. schooling, highlighting the influence of policy and reform agendas; students’ identities and agency; experiences and approaches of diverse educators; and the workings of effective school partnerships. Chapters also focus on those often overlooked in educational scholarship such as Native Americans, students experiencing poverty and/or homelessness, Muslim students, students with special needs, and students and educators who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or queer. In all, this edited collection stresses the need for high quality education that is inclusive, culturally responsive and unifying so all students can experience academic success. This book is a meaningful resource for educators, policymakers, and community-based leaders interested in doing such transformative work. Camille M. Wilson is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Wayne State University, USA. Sonya Douglass Horsford is Associate Professor of Education at George Mason University, USA.

This page intentionally left blank

ADVANCING EQUITY AND ACHIEVEMENT IN AMERICA’S DIVERSE SCHOOLS Inclusive Theories, Policies, and Practices

Camille M. Wilson and Sonya Douglass Horsford

First published 2014 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Taylor & Francis The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data ISBN: 978-0-415-63561-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-63563-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-09244-6 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

This book is dedicated to Amari, Benjamin, Bryson, Ella, and children and youth throughout the world – all of whom are deserving of educational opportunity, equity, and excellence to fulfill their dreams and promise.

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS

List of Tables Acknowledgments Introduction Camille M. Wilson and Sonya Douglass Horsford

x xi 1

PART I

Understanding Educational Equity and Achievement in America 1 A Nation (of Students) at Risk: The Political Rhetoric of Equity and Achievement in US Education Reform Sonya Douglass Horsford

7

9

2 NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover: Race to the Top’s Troubling Changes to Rules, Incentives, and Practice Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

25

3 Examining Teacher Quality, Educational Policy, and English Learners in Latina/o Growth States Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

41

4 Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools: New Opportunities for Transformative Leadership Camille M. Wilson

57

viii Contents

PART II:

Affirming Multiple Dimensions of Diversity in Schools

77

5 Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation: The Challenge of Facing Islam in the Classroom Liz Jackson

79

6 Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools: The Need for Activist Educators James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

94

7 Disrupting Deficit Views: Latina/o and Native American Youth Constructing Cultural, Linguistic, and Learner Identities Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz 8 Teacher Identities in Transition: Perspectives from ESL International Teachers Christine W. Nganga

108

123

PART III:

Fostering Collaboration and Partnerships 9 Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership: The Case of South Kilbourne Elementary School Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith 10 Reducing Achievement Gaps and Increasing the School Success of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Special Needs Using the Comprehensive Support Model Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn 11 Policy Intersections in “Real Lives”: Families Experiencing Homelessness and School-Related Matters Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller 12 New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation and Parent Engagement in the Post-Civil Rights South Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

141

143

159

171

186

Contents ix

13 Conclusion Sonya Douglass Horsford and Camille M. Wilson

200

List of Contributors Index

203 207

LIST OF TABLES

3.1 US states’ English learner (EL) population growth (2000–2010) 3.2 Teacher quality requirements in EL growth states 3.3 NAEP reading achievement in growth and density states (2002–2011) 6.1 Recommended resources 8.1 Participants’ profiles 9.1 South Kilbourne’s rise in rank within the district for math and English language arts (ELA) 9.2 2011 Achievement data for third grade without student teachers 9.3 2011 Achievement data for fourth grade with student teachers 9.4 2011 Achievement data for fifth grade with student teachers

42 45 52 105 129 153 153 153 154

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

While the US public education system is in need of much improvement for it to be the provider of equitable and excellent education for all children, extraordinary schooling still occurs in many sites thanks to the devotion of many public educators, educational advocates, families, and equity-oriented researchers and reformers. So, we first thank those who work toward social justice in education and commit themselves to addressing inequity and affirming the value, humanity, learning potential, and wonder of all children. The contributing authors in this book are part of this special group and we are honored to have their scholarship included in this volume. We also thank our editorial team at Routledge, including senior publisher Catherine Bernard, editorial assistant Allison Bush, and marketing assistant Heather Brown for their assistance and support. We express our individual thoughts of gratitude below. Camille M. Wilson: I wish to thank my co-editor Sonya Douglass Horsford for being a wonderful collaborator from whom I learned and with whom I greatly enjoyed working during the book’s development. In addition, I am especially grateful to teachers who significantly shaped my understanding of educational equity and modeled what it means to be a social justice educator, particularly Steve Jubb and Amy Stuart Wells. I also thank Jeannie Oakes, Jennifer Obidah, Carolyn Riehl, Fred Bergerson, Mike McBride, and Donald Bremme. For deepening my understanding of social justice pedagogy and activist-oriented scholarship, I also thank those I worked with at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, UCLA’s Center X and Teacher Education Program, and former colleagues and students at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. My work continues to be enriched by my current colleagues at Wayne State University’s College of Education and its Leonard Kaplan Education faculty fellows.

xii Acknowledgments

For friendship, scholarly inspiration, and peer mentoring over the years, I thank Lucila Ek, Susan Auerbach, Jennifer Jellison Holme, Noelle Morrisette, Shelly Brown-Jeffy, Vickie Suggs, Karen Johnson, Tondra Loder-Jackson, Adrienne Dixson, and Sonya. For undying loyalty and sisterly care, I thank Aurora Chang, Kesha Evans, and Mandeep Birak. Last, and most importantly, I am fortunate to be loved and supported by many family members who have been an endless source of nurturing. I especially thank my first and most powerful teacher of social justice, my mother Rhonda (Ayo Grace) Long, as well as my inspiring sister Alexis Childress, and my son and “sunshine” Amari Reese Wilson Cooper. Sonya Douglass Horsford: I wish to thank my family, friends, and colleagues for their ongoing support throughout the development of this book project. A special thank you to my co-editor Camille Wilson, who is brilliant, kind, and a true reflection of what it means to be a social justice educator, and my work family at The Lincy Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. I am grateful for the educators, writers, and scholars whose contributions have inspired me to celebrate what works in education and to change what does not. Our journey continues.

INTRODUCTION Camille M. Wilson1 and Sonya Douglass Horsford

Three decades ago the American public and educational system was taken aback by the findings of the US government commission report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, which detailed how the achievement of US students severely lagged behind those of other youth around the world (NCEE, 1983). Numerous warnings were then uttered about how the lower performance of American school children jeopardized the nation’s ability to compete on a global scale; and educators were pressed to adopt numerous reforms aimed at raising standards, test scores, and “levels of excellence” (Darling-Hammond, 2010; NCEE, 1983, Appendix A). Today, concerns about US student achievement still abound; but critical educators and analysts also know that without educational equity and equal opportunity provided to American youth of all backgrounds, the educational success of many children will be suppressed along with the growth of the nation. It therefore is not enough to assess educational achievement or plan schooling reforms without considering the social and cultural contexts of schooling; understanding the diversity of American youth and their various backgrounds, assets, challenges, and needs; and acknowledging that opportunity and equity gaps impair many students’ schooling performance. The US and its public schools are now more racially, ethnically, linguistically, and socially diverse than ever before (Center for Public Education, 2012;2 Shrestha and Heisler, 2011). Moreover, given that almost half of American children under five years of age are members of racial and ethnic “minority” groups, American public schools will continue to diversify (Center for Public Education, 2012). At the same time, the growing populations of people of color in the US do not account for the diversity that exists when it comes to students’ religions, sexual orientations, (dis)abilities, and other key components of their backgrounds and identities. Hence, innovative, inclusive, culturally, and socially relevant educational

2 Camille M. Wilson and Sonya Douglass Horsford

approaches are needed to advance both equity and achievement in America’s diverse schools. This book offers insight, strategies, and recommendations that can help educators, researchers, policy-makers, and other educational advocates to promote student success and increase the United States’ ability to flourish in an interdependent, global society.

Strengthening Achievement, Equity, and Diversity In Fareed Zakaria’s bestselling book The Post-American World (2009), Zakaria offers astute analyses of the impact of globalization and the declining status of the United States as the world’s dominant superpower. He, however, points to two major assets of the US: its demographic diversity and its educational systems that teach students not what to think, but how to think. He, like many cultural and political analysts before him, paints a picture of the US as being able to “manage” diversity better than most other nations in the world. Zakaria further suggests that America’s future prosperity will be greatly linked to its ability to maximize the talents of its multicultural/multiethnic population. While we agree that diversity is one of America’s greatest strengths, we assert that at least two major limitations impede the collective progress of Americans: first, the persisting systemic inequality that oppresses various socio-cultural groups and, second, a K-12 public educational system that reflects and exacerbates stratification among the haves and have-nots. We, as a nation, therefore, are left with K-12 schools that serve some students extremely well – helping to shape them into fulfilled, productive citizens, and even local, national, and global leaders. Other schools and educators, however, negate the intelligence, dampen the spirits, and limit the socio-economic outcomes of students, particularly those whose race, culture, class, religion, primary language, abilities, and/or sexual orientation varies from dominant norms (Nieto, 2004; Wilson et al., 2013). Hence, instead of offering students and their families a dynamic and excellent educational system that affirms diversity, too often students’ educational experiences and options are hindered by the many socio-cultural conflicts that divide school communities (Nieto, 2004; Riehl, 2000). These divides are exacerbated by the organizational culture of most schools, which are steeped in colorblind, seemingly positive values, beliefs, norms, and missions that actually collide with the cultures of diverse youth (Cooper, 2009; Cooper et al., 2010; Horsford, 2011). The US therefore remains a nation unable to fulfill its potential and its promises of equality and justice for all. Advancing Equity and Achievement in America’s Diverse Schools: Inclusive Theories, Policies, and Practices focuses on how educators, students, families, and community partners can bridge various social, cultural, and academic divides in schools to offer high-quality education that is equitable and socially just for America’s diversifying population. This book addresses not only the cultures of youth and families served in public school by highlighting the racial, ethnic, and linguistic

Introduction 3

diversity often included in multicultural discourse, but also considers the culture of US schooling. Many policies, practices, and ideologies that marginalize not only racial, ethnic, and language minority groups shape this culture of schooling and oppress and/or ignore religious minorities, those with disabilities, students experiencing poverty and homelessness, and those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ). Consequently, advancing both equity and achievement in today’s diverse and fractured school communities means promoting inclusion and affirming multiple dimensions of diversity. This book serves as a meaningful resource for those interested in doing such transformative work.

Considering a Tapestry of Critical Thought Collectively, the chapters in this book:  acknowledge the inequities found in school communities given the ways in which the organizational culture of schooling often clashes with the social, cultural, and academic needs of diverse students;  move beyond black-and-white racial binaries to address “diversity” by considering the multicultural/multiethnic/multilingual and various social and economic realities of US students, families, schools, and communities;  highlight various political, geographic, and policy contexts that influence the creation, persistence, and remedying of opportunity and achievement disparities among students;  emphasize the immediate need for education that is culturally responsive, conscientious, inclusive, and unifying while offering reform recommendations and descriptions of innovative practices;  address the needs of various marginalized and underserved populations, including those often overlooked in educational scholarship, such as Native Americans, students experiencing poverty and/or homelessness, Muslim students, and LGBTIQ educators and youth;  provide an interdisciplinary collection of educational scholarship that acknowledges widespread and permanent demographic change within school communities; and  bring together the educational ideas, theories, data, and strategies of critical scholars whose work complements and strengthens each other’s, yet is rarely showcased in one publication. In all, the book’s contributors offer conceptual and empirical work that reveals inequities, provides critical analyses, and proposes solutions that K-12 educators, scholars, and reformers can adapt and implement for their own teaching, learning, leadership, and policy contexts.

4 Camille M. Wilson and Sonya Douglass Horsford

Organization of the Book Part I of the book offers significant background and recommendations related to understanding educational equity and achievement in America. In Chapter 1, co-editor Sonya Douglass Horsford presents an historical analysis of the political rhetoric of equity and achievement in high-stakes educational accountability reform and its implications for future education research, policy, and practice. She discusses how this history continues to affect the educational needs and experiences of students in communities of color and how community-based education reform efforts hold promise for meaningful school improvement and change. Leading policy analyst and scholar Kevin G. Welner and Principal Carol C. Burris, both of the National Educational Policy Center, critique federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation and Race to the Top initiatives in Chapter 2. They caution against increasing reliance on standardized test scores to assess school quality and suggest alternatives for educational improvement. In Chapter 3, scholars Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre address the critical topic of better serving English language learners (ELLs), a fast-growing segment of the US population (Center for Public Education, 2012). Heilig and his colleagues specifically draw from their study of teacher quality in five southern states to highlight key socio-cultural and political contexts that affect policy-making and the hiring and development of teachers who serve ELL students. They discuss the challenges that state-level administrators face in addressing teacher quality and pinpoint reform implications. Co-editor Camille M. Wilson further highlights issues of cultural diversity and demographic change in Chapter 4. She suggests how educators can serve as transformative leaders through performing cultural work that addresses inequity, crosses socio-cultural boundaries, and fosters inclusion. Her chapter is informed by research done on educators’ and families’ responses to rapid demographic change in North Carolina schools. Part II of the book addresses the significance of and best practices for addressing multiple dimensions of diversity in schools. International educator Liz Jackson discusses the politics of teaching about Islam and Muslims in US public schools in Chapter 5. She offers historical context related to the biases and fears affecting educators, particularly since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and highlights other important debates about multicultural education and religious representation. Jackson offers specific strategies for teaching critical media literacy to promote awareness and combat harmful stereotypes. In Chapter 6, scholars James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen describe the discrimination and hostility that LGBTIQ students and educators can face in schools. They suggest how educators can become activist oriented in order to develop more safe and inclusive educational environments in which people who are LGBTIQ learn and thrive. Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz continue to interrogate biases and stereotypes as they describe how educators can disrupt deficit-based thinking of Latina/o and Native American youth in Chapter 7. Their research on

Introduction 5

Latina/o and Native American youth in California and New Mexico informs their recommendations for how educators can better understand such students’ learner identities and resiliency to more effectively educate them. In Chapter 8, scholar Christine W. Nganga considers issues related to teacher diversity as she draws from her study of international teachers who teach English as a second language. She describes how better understanding the concept and workings of transitional identity can help educational leaders to increase their support of international teachers. The third and final part of the book offers chapters showcasing the ways in which educators can foster partnerships and collaboration with significant school community members and organizations. In Chapter 9, scholar Tambra O. Jackson and Principal Sarah G. Smith describe the successful school–university partnership they developed at South Kilbourne Elementary School in South Carolina. This partnership is geared toward better preparing urban teachers, and the authors marshal data from the longitudinal study of their collaboration to propose effective teacher preparation practices. In Chapter 10, scholars Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn from the City University of New York address critical issues related to equitably serving students with special needs. They emphasize the value of schools implementing the Comprehensive Support Model that brings together educators, government staff, and family and community members to support culturally diverse learners in and out of special education programs. Governmental and policy contexts are also stressed in Chapter 11, as scholars Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller discuss how policy contexts affect families experiencing homelessness. They recommend how educators can be more effective advocates for students coming from such families and they stress vital information about socio-economic challenges and resources. In Chapter 12, University of Alabama at Birmingham scholars Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning share their experiences and lessons learned from preparing pre-service teachers to engage urban parents and families. They acknowledge some of the conflicts that can arise between educators, family members, and other community partners and describe how school–university partnerships can help enrich both teacher preparation and home–school relations.

Final Thoughts Together, the chapters make Advancing Equity and Achievement in America’s Diverse Schools a cutting-edge scholarly and interdisciplinary examination of how educators, students, families, and community partners can work in strategic ways to build on the strength of our nation’s cultural and ethnic diversity to improve education. The volume’s contribution and significance include its attention to recent demographic change, constructions of culture and cultural difference, the politics of school reform in various geographic school communities, and realworld education solutions. Its focus on bridging across points of difference and

6 Camille M. Wilson and Sonya Douglass Horsford

unifying stakeholders and communities through transformative teaching and leadership practices is much needed. Overall, it is our hope that this book provides timely and enlightening theories and strategies designed to improve educational processes, settings, and opportunities in America’s diverse schools.

Notes 1 Camille M. Wilson previously published under the name Camille Wilson Cooper. Her prior work cited in this chapter is referenced as Cooper, C. W. 2 The Center for Public Education acknowledged that Ron Crouch, Sally Banks Zakariya, and Joyti Jiandani contributed to this report, which was originally posted online on November 2007 and then updated in May 2012.

References Center for Public Education (2012) The United States of Education: The Changing Demographics of the United States and their Schools. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education, http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/ The-United-States-of-educationThe-changing-demographics-of-the-United-States-and-their-schools.html. Cooper, C. W. (2009) “Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5): 694–724. Cooper, C. W., Riehl, C. J., and Hasan, L. (2010) “Leading and learning with diverse families in schools: Critical epistemology amid communities of practice,” Journal of School Leadership, 20(6): 760–790. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Horsford, S. D. (2011) Learning in a Burning House: Educational Inequality, Ideology, and (Dis) Integration. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. NCEE (National Commission on Excellence in Education) (1983) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Nieto, S. (2004) Affirming Diversity: Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, fourth edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Riehl, C. J. (2000) “The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration,” Review of Educational Research, 70(1): 55-81. Shrestha, L. B. and Heisler, E. J. (2011) The Changing Demographic Profile of the United States, 31 March. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/ crs/misc/RL32701.pdf. Wilson, C. M., Douglas, T. M. O., and Nganga, C. (2013) “Starting with African American success: A strengths-based approach to transformative educational leadership,” in L. C. Tillman and J. J. Scheurich (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Leadership for Equity and Diversity. London: Routledge. Zakaria, F. (2009) The Post-American World. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc.

PART I

Understanding Educational Equity and Achievement in America

This page intentionally left blank

1 A NATION (OF STUDENTS) AT RISK The Political Rhetoric of Equity and Achievement in US Education Reform Sonya Douglass Horsford

The American public schools discourse of the 21st century remains unabashedly obsessed with education reform. A mainstream narrative of “achievement gaps” and urban schools requiring swift rescue from power-hungry teacher unions and their self-serving memberships has dominated conversations about how to improve education for America’s schoolchildren (or, as emphasized in the policy arena, America’s future workforce). Outside of those who come from a long line of educators, coaches, and mentors, a growing share of the American public has seemingly embraced the notion that failing schools are created by union leaders who put teachers before students, teachers who protect the status quo, and/or parents who simply don’t care enough to engage in the education of their children. Consequently, various education reform efforts grounded in political philosophies, cultural ideologies, and private agendas have trumped evidencebased approaches to effective teaching, learning, and leadership (Apple, 2001; Berliner and Biddle, 1995; Buras, 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ravitch, 2010; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2012). For instance, the corporate reform agenda, which supports a free market system of education, has focused on high-stakes testing and evaluation of students and teachers, expanding school choice options for parents through charter schools and vouchers, and overhauling collective bargaining agreements for teachers in order to close achievement gaps and improve student achievement (Hess, 2004; Hess and West, 2005; Ravitch, 2010). While this particular reform movement has spurred great appeal for and benefitted from feature-length films such as Waiting for Superman and Won’t Back Down, teacher recruitment programs such as Teach for America and corporate reform organizations such as Students First are fixated on firing bad teachers, closing underachieving schools, and recruiting parents to fire teachers and close

10 Sonya Douglass Horsford

schools. These practices not only ignore the well-established education research literature on the structural factors that reproduce inequality and suffering; they are implemented in the name of equity and achievement. This well-funded rhetorical crusade to “close the achievement gap” by supporters of Teach for America like the Walton, Gates, and Broad Foundations (Ravitch, 2010) further extends and deepens such structural problems through its ahistorical approach to educational improvement that privileges the advantaged while purportedly advocating for the students who are most “at risk” (Howard, 2003). The same can be said for “grassroots movements” aiming to put “students first” that are supported by big city mayors and school choice proponents across the country. The purpose of this chapter is to present a historical analysis of the political rhetoric of equity and achievement in the high-stakes accountability reform movement and its implications for future education research, policy, and practice. As we consider efforts to advance educational equity and achievement within a contemporary policy context dominated by calls for innovation, charters, vouchers, alternative routes to licensure, pay-for-performance, and the end of collective bargaining, this chapter is guided by two central questions: First, how did American public education get here – a place where educational equity and achievement are more commonly associated with high-stakes testing and turnaround school models than by strategies to increase educational opportunity, access, and equity? Second, why does US education policy seem more focused on dismantling public schools rather than transforming them? Finally, based on how we got here and the history of competing policy paradigms and political rhetoric used to frame issues of educational equity, achievement, and reform, in what directions must education research, policy, and practice go in order to improve America’s diversifying schools? To answer these questions, this chapter begins with a discussion of the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s (NCEE) 1983 report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, which sparked the education reform movement in America (Guthrie and Springer, 2004; Hunt and Staton, 1996; Wong and Nicotera, 2004). Given its unprecedented role in shaping US education policy, largely through its rhetorical influence as a political document, I will show how A Nation at Risk (NAR) serves as a useful model for understanding the political rhetoric of equity and achievement today. I will also argue that the co-optation of the language of equality, access, equity, and opportunity – hallmarks of education policy during the Great Society and Civil Rights Eras – poses an equal if not greater risk to both our nation and its students given its lack of attention to social and cultural contexts, culturally relevant leadership, and the role of community in education reform. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the promise and possibilities of community-based education reform as an approach to providing equitable educational opportunities and improving student and school performance in historically underserved and under-resourced neighborhoods.

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 11

A Nation at Risk: The Origins of Reform As Wong et al. (2004, p1) observed in a Peabody Journal of Education special issue revisiting A Nation at Risk: “NAR is still cited for its sweeping critique of the U.S. education system and the standards-based reforms it proposed as a solution.” NAR and its declaration that “The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity” ushered in a heightened rhetoric around America’s failing education system and its inability to produce students capable of competing in a knowledge-based global economy. Thirty years later, the report is still critical to our understanding of education reform and how we got where we are today in two important ways: first, support for an increased federal role in education as part of the “national interest”; and, second, a shift from a historical focus on equity in the mid-1950s and 1960s toward standards for excellence and accountability in the 1980s and beyond.

A National Interest in Education In 1981, as a member of the Reagan administration, United States Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell wanted to study the nation’s education problems and marshal public support for change through the creation of a presidential commission on education. The mood of the country was low given a sluggish economy, high interest rates, and widespread unemployment, particularly among youth of color (Bell, 1988, Hunt and Staton, 1996). According to Bell (1988, p114), “There was more soul-searching, wringing of hands, and criticism than confidence in those solutions, and the actions the government did take appeared ineffective. … I was hearing constant complaints about education and its effectiveness.” Since Reagan did not support the idea of a presidential panel, likely due to his campaign promise to eliminate the Department of Education, Bell exercised his cabinet-level authority to create the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) on August 26, 1981 “to examine the quality of education in the United States and to make a report to the Nation and to him within 18 months of its first meeting” (Bell, 1988; NCEE, 1983, p1). This report would also include “practical recommendations for educational improvement” after:  assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our Nation’s public and private schools, colleges, and universities;  comparing American schools and colleges with those of other advanced nations;  studying the relationship between college admissions requirements and student achievement in high school;  identifying educational programs which result in notable student success in college;

12 Sonya Douglass Horsford

 assessing the degree to which major social and educational changes in the last quarter century have affected student achievement; and  defining problems which must be faced and overcome if we are successfully to pursue the course of excellence in education. NCEE (1983, pp1–2) These recommendations covered six areas (content, standards and expectations, time, teaching, leadership and fiscal support) that, according to the report, “the American people can begin to act on now, that can be implemented over the next several years, and that promise lasting reform” (NCEE, 1983, p23), although the report also acknowledged its proposals were nothing new. Its assertion, however, that “The Federal Government has the primary responsibility to identify the national interest in education” and “should also help fund and support efforts to protect and promote that interest” (NCEE, 1983, p23) reflected a huge shift concerning the federal role in education. NAR was likewise ironic in its call to increase the federal government’s national interest in education given the Cold War politics of the time and the heightened criticism of US schools that resulted from Russia’s launch of Sputnik in 1957, which marked Russia making a significant space and science achievement before the US (Bracey, 2008). NAR argued that “downwardly spiraling pupil performance had rendered the U.S. education system dysfunctional, thereby threatening the nation’s technological, military, and economic preeminence” (Guthrie and Springer, 2008, p8); at the same time, the Reagan White House planned to abolish the Department of Education. The report’s declaration that the federal government “must provide the national leadership to ensure that the Nation’s public and private resources are marshaled to address” educational excellence (NCEE, 1983, p23) foreshadowed what would become an expanding federal role in education for decades to come; but NAR did not provide clear direction as to the level or kind of resources needed to stem this rising tide of educational mediocrity (Wong and Nicotera, 2004).

From Equity to Accountability: ESEA to NCLB In addition to redefining the federal government’s role in education, NAR provided what Wong and Nicotera (2004) posited a “third way” or perspective concerning this newly conceptualized federal role. Unlike the equity and access focus of Johnson’s Great Society initiatives during the Civil Rights Era, or even the Emergency School Aid Act of 1972 under the Nixon administration that sought to support school desegregation efforts, NAR demanded a higher standard for students, parents, and educators. It was also in direct opposition to Reagan’s New Federalism, which focused narrowly on efficiency and sought to devolve education to the states and abolish the Department of Education altogether. To Wong and Nicotera’s point, NAR did not adhere to either of the two prevailing

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 13

policy paradigms of equity or efficiency, but rather to a new paradigm concerned with standards, quality, and excellence. In fact, the word efficiency was mentioned not once in the 36-page document. Equity and equitable were only stated once each as emphasized in the following passage: We do not believe that a public commitment to excellence and educational reform must be made at the expense of a strong public commitment to the equitable treatment of our diverse population. The twin goals of equity and high-quality schooling have profound and practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit one to yield to the other in principle or in practice. To do so would deny young people their chance to learn and live according to their aspirations and abilities. It would also lead to a generalized accommodation to mediocrity in our society on the one hand or the creation of an undemocratic elitism on the other. NCEE (1983, p13) Reflecting on NAR’s impact upon the education of poor and minority children in the 21st century, social psychologist Jeff Howard (2003, p85) agreed with much of the report, but remained troubled by what he interpreted as “a strong … rather strange, juxtaposition between the goals of excellence and equity.” In reference to the report’s sole mention of equity, he concluded it “seems to turn on the assumption that in a diverse society a commitment to excellence will work at cross purposes to equity, unless the balance is carefully managed” and that “If we put too much emphasis on the drive for equity, we will be left with mediocrity” (Howard, 2003, p85). The policy paradigm shifted from equity in the 1960s, as represented by increased federal aid to disadvantaged schools through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and Title I policy, to excellence in the 1980s. This move from equity to effectiveness and accountability was reflected in the Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 that required district and state accountability measures for student performance and the evaluation of the Title I program’s success in improving student achievement (Wong and Nicotera, 2004). It also demonstrated NAR’s influence on federal education policy, which became increasingly high stakes over the next two decades. President Clinton’s Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994 and, of course, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 operationalized this shift by replacing a focus on inputs, funding, and resources with standards, outcomes, and results (Cross, 2004; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Nichols and Berliner, 2007; Welner and Weitzman, 2005). While this change in focus was not inherently bad, a failure to address what President George W. Bush portrayed as the “soft bigotry of low expectations” did exactly that: establish a different set of expectations for students based on demographic and family characteristics – primarily race and class. Rather than be used to identify and remedy educational inequities by race and

14 Sonya Douglass Horsford

class, the collection and disaggregation of student test scores simply confirmed to the American public that poor minority children were not as smart or high achieving as white children. Not only were these students at risk of school failure; they were the ones responsible for placing the nation at risk.

A Nation of “Students At Risk”: Expecting Failure Along with catalyzing the education reform movement, NAR has been credited with turning the words “at risk” into an education policy catchphrase (Placier, 1993). Decades since the report’s release, hosts of researchers, policy-makers, and educators appropriate the term “at risk” to students “endangered by their high probability of school failure” (Placier, 1993). While definitions of “at risk” and “school failure” vary by field, discipline, and context, common variables used to identify “at risk students” as used by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) include:       

basic demographic characteristics; family and personal background characteristics; the amount of parental involvement in a student’s education; the student’s academic history; student behavioral factors; teacher perception of the student; and the characteristics of the student’s school.

At the state and district level, definitions may include references to students living in a particular zip code or geographic area. In simpler terms, as stated in NCES’s longitudinal study entitled Characteristics of At-Risk Students (Kaufman and Bradbury, 1988, p1): “Students from lowsocioeconomic backgrounds, from minority groups, or whose parents are not directly involved in their education are at risk of educational failure – either by failing to learn while in school or by dropping out of school altogether.” The report warned of the growing percentage of such students and that “Over the last decade there has been a increasing realization that students from minority backgrounds, low-income families, or both – those students most likely to be ‘at risk’ – are rapidly assuming an unprecedented share of the student population” (Kaufman and Bradbury, 1988, p1). While the authors of the report expressed variation over exactly what percentage of the student population was at risk, they cited research (Pallas et al., 1989) anticipating “projected increases in the percentage of American schoolchildren from minority families, especially of Hispanic origin” would cause “the problem of school failure to increase substantially between now and the year 2020 unless significant improvements occur in the lives and education of poor and minority children” (Kaufman and Bradbury, 1988, p1). Unfortunately, the term “at-risk student” increasingly serves as a proxy for minority, poor, Black, or Latino student; however, some researchers have sought to

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 15

control for race and ethnicity in their definition of at-risk students. For example, in their study of at-risk high school graduates who successfully navigated college, Horn and Carroll (1999, pvi) deemed students at risk if they reflected one or more of the following:  were from a single-parent home;  had an older sibling who dropped out of high school;  changed schools two or more times other than the normal progression (e.g., from elementary to middle school);  had Cs or lower grades between sixth and eighth grade;  were from a low socio-economic family; or  repeated an earlier grade. Given the extensive research literature binding at-riskness and school failure to poor minority children, the widely held assumptions associated with what a teacher means when she says she works at an “at-risk” school or a non-profit organization declares its commitment to helping “at-risk” students presents a metaphorical knot difficult to untie (Wilson et al., 2013). Coupled with the rhetoric of educational equity and achievement, the semantics of at-riskness poses serious theoretical and practical challenges for educators in diverse schooling contexts. Those contesting the term frequently take issue with the idea that an “at-risk student” possesses a set of immutable characteristics that anticipate school failure. A. Wade Boykin, psychology professor and former co-director of the Center for Research on the Education of Student Placed at Risk (CRESPAR), has underscored the fact that “students are not inherently at risk but rather are placed at risk of education failure by many adverse practices and situations” (Boykin, 2007, para 2 [emphasis added]). The distinction is an important one to make not only in the conceptualization of at-riskness, but also in the ways in which we consider and discuss the “achievement gap” – another popularized catchphrase in contemporary US education policy and practice. Like the terms “at-risk student” or “student at risk,” and Boykin’s critique of using these terms in ways that suggest poor students of color are inherently at risk of academic failure, I argue that our ahistorical and decontextualized use of the term “achievement gap” is just as problematic in its expectation of educational success for some students and anticipation of academic failure for others. In the next section, I provide some historical context for today’s achievement gap narrative with a brief discussion of school segregation and the longstanding consequences of school desegregation for students and communities of color.

The “Achievement Gap”: Normalizing Underachievement While I have discussed the problems associated with the conceptualization and rhetoric of the “achievement gap” elsewhere (Horsford, 2011a, 2011b; Horsford

16 Sonya Douglass Horsford

and Grosland, 2013), I focus here on the importance of locating the discussions of gaps in achievement within their proper historical and political context – primarily American school segregation, desegregation, and a legacy of racial inequality. As historians John Hope Franklin and Alfred Moss (1988, p362) cautioned, “It is not possible to measure the effects that separate and unequal education had on both white and black populations in the areas where it was maintained.” They pointed to the stronghold of white supremacy, especially in the South, that “contributed to the perpetuation of a leadership that was devoted not only to the idea of separate education but also to the maintenance of economic and political inequalities between the white and black populations” (Franklin and Moss, 1988, p362). In addition to the obvious educational injustices and inequalities perpetuated by school segregation, the economic and political implications of a segregated society and racially separate schools and districts cannot be glossed over when considering approaches to closing the “achievement gap” today (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Given the fairly recent practice of school desegregation, both before and after Brown I (1954) and Brown II (1955), gaps in achievement between students whose families had generations of access to wealth, political power, and educational resources compared to those who did not should not be surprising. To restate Franklin and Moss’s point, “It is not possible to measure the effects.” The need to measure the effects of school desegregation on Black student achievement, however, resulted in extensive research findings that revealed not only the impact of desegregation plans, but also the achievement differences between Black and White children. For example, Chicago’s Hauser Report – a 1964 report submitted to the Chicago Board of Education by the Advisory Panel on Integration of Public Schools – studied the city’s “Negro” schools and sought to devise a plan that eliminated “any education, psychological and emotional problems or inequities” in the system. The report concluded that greater “educational opportunities for Negro boys and girls would result in a major closing of the achievement gap between group performances of Negro students and other groups of students” (Hauser et al., 1964, pp20–21). It is important to note that the study’s purpose and conclusions are based specifically on the relationship between student race and achievement – in this case, the gaps in achievement between Chicago’s “Negro boys and girls” and “other groups of students.” In contrast, contemporary discussions of the achievement gap have sought to ignore the term’s origins as a byproduct of school segregation practices, and desegregation evaluation research findings, which over time have racialized achievement and normalized underachievement for Black children and children of color (Horsford and Grosland, 2013). What is surprising is the lack of attention paid to the historical and contextual factors that have placed students at risk of being on the low-performing end of an achievement continuum. In her essay “Urban school achievement gap as a metaphor to conceal U.S. apartheid education,” Cross (2007, p247) opens by describing the “barrage of flyers announcing one conference, forum, or symposium after another

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 17

focused on closing the achievement gap.” She observes that despite a multitude of gaps in educational achievement (e.g., gender, special education, international comparisons), the achievement gap most often signifies the one between poor, low-achieving students of color and their middle-class, white, high-performing peers. While some scholars may embrace the idea that the achievement gap is not focused on race, but rather on poverty, language, or an array of other factors, their roots trace back to the gaps in educational opportunity and access available to children of color – namely, African American children. Indeed, the evidence revealing gaps in academic achievement by race are important and, much like the NCLB requirements to disaggregate student achievement data in order to identify significant differences by racial or ethnic populations, provide us with tangible evidence of how students are faring relative to one another. Nevertheless, an unhealthy fascination with the achievement gap by those in search of quick fixes is problematic (Cross, 2007; Horsford, 2011a; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Love, 2004). In contrast, the reform efforts supported by what Vasquez Heilig et al. (2012, p3) refer to as “social justice systemic reformers” who acknowledge systemic sources of educational inequality and view reform as a means to equalizing education for all students provide a more constructive strategy for decreasing achievement differences. For as James Coleman (1966, p31) explained in his seminal Equality of Educational Opportunity report, “The responsibility to create achievement lies with the educational institution, not the child.” For too long, the racialization of achievement and, more recently, the rhetoric of the achievement gap have normalized academic failure and decreased educational expectations for students of color while underestimating the significant role of neighborhood context and community.

From Rhetoric to Action: Toward Community-Based Education Reform Since the publication of NAR and the standards and accountability movement that followed, urban education reform and policy have focused largely on in-school factors, with limited regard for how social, political, and community contexts inform educational equity and achievement (Anyon, 1997; Berliner, 2006; Biddle, 2001; Wells et al., 2004). Unfortunately, the political rhetoric of increasing equity and improving achievement among America’s students of color has placed greater attention on what Howard (2003, p16) referred to as a “regime of relative standards” and a “sliding scale of expectations.” Grounded in deficit thinking, this sliding scale of expectations has been further supported by a mainstream achievement gap discourse that anticipates student achievement and ability according to demographic and family characteristics. This focus on “students at risk of failure” and the “achievement gap” between low-achieving Black and Latino students and their high-achieving White peers illustrates the problem of educational inequity, but falls short of advancing a

18 Sonya Douglass Horsford

meaningful solution. Given the extensive research data identifying students of color as underachieving, action must be taken to move beyond the rhetoric of closing an achievement gap and toward achieving academic proficiency and social supports for all children. The accountability movement’s focus on at-riskness and achievement gaps has stigmatized and prejudged students from low-income, urban communities of color while dodging the impact that poverty, neighborhood context, and related out-of-school factors such as housing, food security, healthcare, and family supports have on learning and achievement (Anyon, 1997; Berliner, 2006; Kozol, 1991; Noguera, 2003; Payne, 2008). In addition, the realities of a knowledge-based society that requires a skilled and educated workforce underscores the importance of preparing all students for the new economy. Certainly, improved instructional strategies, professional development for teachers and administrators, and data-based decision-making are critical to improving educational results for low-performing students. But these efforts, absent an understanding of a student’s personal background, culture, and community context, as well as gaps in expectations, resources, and opportunity, place an increasingly diverse nation of students at risk. As Berliner (2006, p951) explained, “all educational efforts that focus on classrooms and schools … could be reversed by family, could be negated by neighborhoods, and might well be subverted or minimized by what happens to children outside of school.” Ironically, efforts to improve equity and achievement in urban schools have largely ignored the very factors identified as placing students at risk, such as poverty, minority status, and lack of parental involvement (NCES). While some federal programs have aimed to mitigate the deleterious effects of segregation and poverty on urban schools (i.e., Title I, Magnet Schools Assistance), the possibilities associated with community-based education reform that attends to neighborhood context and the role of communities are well overdue (Horsford and Sampson, 2013).

The Return to Neighborhood Schools After decades of trying to advance educational equity and improve achievement for historically underserved students through desegregation, many communities of color have traded in their integration plans for strategies designed to strengthen and target investments into neighborhood schools, regardless of racial composition (Horsford, 2011b; Horsford et al., 2013). For example, the empty promise of integration experienced by many Black communities across the country has compelled a number of community-based leaders, parents, and educators to abandon desegregation strategies in exchange for community-led reforms that seek to restore the school–family–community bonds that existed among Black students, teachers, and parents within the Black community pre-desegregation (Horsford, 2010, 2011b; Morris, 2008; Walker, 2000). This sentiment is not limited to AfricanAmerican communities. In the post-Civil Rights Era, the desire for low-income communities of color, immigrant communities, and other groups whose children

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 19

have been denied high-quality educational experiences share a similar interest in accessing good schools (a point emphasized by corporate education reformers and school choice advocates no less) with caring teachers and leaders who value their culture, perspectives, and everyday experiences. One of the most popularized examples of this shift is New York’s Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), which served as the inspiration for the US Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods program. Founded in the early 1990s by Geoffrey Canada, HCZ is a non-profit organization serving roughly 10,400 children and 10,800 adults through an array of programs “aimed at doing nothing less than breaking the cycle of generational poverty for the thousands of children and families it serves” (HCZ, 2010). These social service, education, and community building programs include parenting classes, early childhood education, health education, afterschool programs, a family support center, a college success office, and two public charter schools with students, according to data provided on the HCZ website, scoring and testing significantly higher than their New York State, New York City, and District 5 peers in math and English language arts (HCZ, 2010). Impressed by this neighborhood-based approach to fighting poverty and creating a pipeline of support for children and families from cradle-to-college and career, in April of 2009, President Obama honored his campaign pledge to replicate the HCZ model by funding the creation of “Promise Neighborhoods” in 20 communities across the country: “the first federal initiative to put education at the center of comprehensive efforts to fight poverty in urban and rural areas” (US Department of Education, 2011).

The Promise Neighborhoods Program Through a US$10 million appropriation, the US Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods program officially became a grant fund administered by the Office of Innovation and Improvement and, in September of 2010, awarded planning grants to 21 high-poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities. In April 2011, an additional US$30 million was made available for a second round of ten planning grants and an initial round of four to six implementation grants to be awarded December 2011 (US Department of Education, 2011). The program has received great attention, with more than 339 planning grant applications in the first round (representing 48 states and the District of Columbia) and 234 (199 planning, 35 implementation) in the second round (Building Neighborhoods, 2011). As both a site and strategy for neighborhood-scale education reform and community transformation – a stark departure from NAR’s focus on a national interest in education, global competition, and top-down standards for accountability – Promise Neighborhoods require the active participation of parents, youth, neighborhood residents, service providers, researchers, community organizers, business leaders, and elected officials. A community needs assessment and segmentation analysis are required components of the grant and can include data

20 Sonya Douglass Horsford

sources such as school records, social service provider records, health district records, focus group interviews, citizen advisory panels, neighborhood surveys, and multi-case studies to determine the level of need among the target neighborhood’s children and families. Future research on Promise Neighborhoods and similar models of communitybased education reform will contribute greatly to our understanding of why urban communities across the country are interested in engaging in this level of reform (funding may be an obvious reason, but the degree of time, coordination, and matching funds required to submit an eligible application may suggest otherwise) and how they actually engage in this complex work. While there are numerous tools and resources available to local communities to develop Promise Neighborhoods, many questions remain. Do they work? Are they sustainable? And how do local communities hold their partners accountable in ways that ensure the goals of combating poverty and improving education are achieved? Empirical research documenting how these policies play out on the ground is sorely needed and will make important contributions to education research, policy, and practice.

A Nation at Promise: The Future of Urban Education Reform While the “swinging pendulum of public discourse” (Wells et al., 2004, p51) surrounding education reform continues to vacillate from the idea that “schools don’t matter” to the belief that schools could and should solve all of society’s problems, these competing paradigms underscore the need for research that would “consider and conceptualize a more complex and iterative relationship between schools and society” (Wells et al., 2004, p50). On one end of this continuum, the 1966 Coleman Report declared family background a more important indicator of student achievement than school staff, curriculum, and facilities, representing the view that schools are largely irrelevant. On the other end are the ideals guiding the effective schools movement as inspired by the work of Ron Edmonds (1979), who believed that schools could play a significant role in improving the lives of poor children through strong principal leadership, high expectations, an orderly environment, basic skills acquisition as a priority, and the means to monitor student progress. According to Edmonds (1979, p15), “Inequity in American education derives first and foremost from our failure to educate the children of the poor” and “Progress requires public policy that begins by making the poor less poor and ends by making them not poor at all,” which in many ways serves as the premise for HCZ, Promise Neighborhoods, and similar community-based approaches to school improvement and reform. Ironically, the effective schools movement, which took hold in a majority of US school districts and placed greater expectations on schools to educate and lift children out of poverty, may have motivated the standards and accountability era that followed in the 1980s and, ultimately, No Child Left Behind, given their shared interest in classroom characteristics, school effects, and test scores (Wells et al., 2004).

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 21

While there has been research on the role of schools in reproducing or dismantling inequality in society, “there are too few empirical attempts to place educators, students, and parents into a broader social and political context to understand how their local communities and the larger society constrain or enable educational policies and the effects that schools have on children” (Wells et al., 2004, p50). In some ways, community-based education reform represents yet another swinging pendulum of public discourse vacillating between competing approaches to closing achievement gaps and equalizing educational opportunities and outcomes for all students. While there is fairly widespread consensus concerning the disparities that exist for low-income children of color in regards to school quality and performance, the strategies put forward to address these inequalities remain a passionate source of debate. For instance, expanded school choice options for parents via charter schools and vouchers continue to gain traction, especially given their growing support at the federal level. At the same time, the limits of school desegregation policies and high-stakes accountability approaches to school improvement have spurred a renewed interest in neighborhood-based reforms that focus less on narrow conceptions of accountability and performance and more on comprehensive supports for children and families as a means of improving student achievement. As a new federal program, research on Promise Neighborhoods and similar community-based reform models can expand our understanding of the ways in which out-of-school factors such as intergenerational and concentrated neighborhood poverty, as well as efforts to mitigate the influence of such factors, may promote not only educational equity in distressed neighborhoods, but also improve student learning and achievement. Future research holds promise for reframing the education reform discourse beyond the empty rhetoric characteristic of high-stakes accountability reform. Especially needed are local case studies that document and describe the collaborative community processes that neighborhood residents, parents, students, educators, policy-makers, and community organizers employ to conceptualize, implement, and evaluate neighborhood-scale education reform and community-based accountability initiatives (Horsford and Sampson, 2013; Vasquez Heilig et al., 2012). As we reflect on the Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) report’s unprecedented influence in catapulting education reform onto the national agenda, we can clearly trace how an education reform discourse grounded not in credible research, but in fear driven by “spun statistics” (Bracey, 2008, p80), created a policy environment whereby political philosophies, cultural ideologies, and corporate agendas trumped education research and sound social science. Woefully, the rhetoric of educational failure and inability of American students to compete in a global economy remains at the heart of the 21st-century reform agenda and continues to serve as a rationale for busting teachers’ unions, closing urban schools, opening charter schools, and privatizing public education. The good news, however, is

22 Sonya Douglass Horsford

that the policy paradigm is shifting once again. Rather than characterizing the US as a nation at risk due to its increasingly diverse student population, a deliberate and research-based move from political rhetoric to community-based action for educational justice and excellence will be an important step in reframing our nation’s education system from a nation of students at risk, to one that provides an education worthy of every child’s promise.

References Anyon, J. (1997) Ghetto Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Apple, M. W. (2001) Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God and Inequality. New York, NY: Routledge/Falmer. Bell, T. H. (1988) The Thirteenth Man: A Reagan Cabinet Memoir. New York, NY: Free Pres. Berliner, D. C. (2006) “Our impoverished view of educational reform,” Teachers College Record, 108(6): 949–995. Berliner, D. C. and Biddle, B. J. (1995) The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, and the Attack on America’s Public Schools. New York, NY: Basic Books. Biddle, B. J. (ed) (2001) Social Class, Poverty, and Education. New York, NY: Routlege/ Farmer. Boykin, A. W. (2007) “Featured teacher,” Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at Howard University, para 2, http://www.cetla.howard.edu/featured_teacher/ archive/boykin.html. Bracey, G. W. (2008) “Disastrous legacy: Aftermath of a nation at risk,” Dissent, 55(4): 80–83. Buras, K. (2008) Rightist Multiculturalism: Core Lessons on Neoconservative School Reform. New York, NY: Routledge. Coleman, J. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, DC: US Printing Office. Cross, B. E. (2007) “Urban school achievement gap as a metaphor to conceal U.S. apartheid education,” Theory Into Practice, 46(3): 247–255. Cross, C. T. (2004) Political Education: National Policy Comes of Age. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007) “Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’,” Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3): 245–260. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Edmonds, R. (1979) “Effective schools for the urban poor,” Educational Leadership, October: 15–23. Franklin, J. H. and Moss, A., Jr. (1988) From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans, sixth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Guthrie, J. W. and Springer, M. G. (2004) “A nation at risk revisited: Did ‘wrong’ reasoning result in ‘right’ results? At what cost?” Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1): 7–35. Hauser, P. M., McMurrin, S. M., Nabrit, J. M., Nelson, L. W., and Odell, W. R. (1964) Integration of the Public Schools – Chicago. Chicago, IL: Board of Education, Chicago Public Schools. HCZ (Harlem Children’s Zone) (2010) Harlem Children’s Zone, http://www.hcz.org/ hcz-home.php. Hess, F. M. (2004) Common Sense School Reform. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Hess, F. M. and West, M. R. (2005) A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century. Cambridge: Program on Education Policy and Governance.

A Nation (of Students) at Risk 23

Horn, L. J. and Carroll, C. D. (1999) Confronting the Odds: Students at Risk and the Pipeline to Higher Education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Horsford, S. D. (2010) “Black superintendents on educating Black students in separate and unequal contexts,” The Urban Review, 42(1): 58–79. Horsford, S. D. (2011a) “Vestiges of desegregation: Superintendent perspectives on inequality and (dis)integration in the post-Civil Rights Era,” Urban Education, 46(1): 34–54. Horsford, S. D. (2011b) Learning in a Burning House: Educational Inequality, Ideology, and (Dis)integration. New York, NY: Teachers College Record. Horsford, S. D. and Grosland, T. J. (2013) “Badges of inferiority: The racialization of achievement in the U.S.,” in M. Lynn and A. Dixson (eds) The Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Forthcoming in November 2013. Horsford, S. D. and Sampson, C. (2013) The Las Vegas Promise Neighborhood Initiative: A Community-Based Approach to Improving Educational Opportunity and Achievement. Las Vegas, NV: Lincy Institute at UNLV, University of Nevada. Horsford, S. D., Sampson, C., and Forletta, F. M. (2013) “School resegregation in the Mississippi of the West: Community counternarratives on the return to neighborhood schools in Las Vegas, Nevada, 1968–94,” Teachers College Record. Howard, J. (2003) “Still at risk: The causes and costs of failure to educate poor and minority children for the twenty-first century,” in D. Gordan (ed) A Nation Reformed? American Education Twenty Years after “A Nation at Risk,” http://www.efficacy.org/ Portals/7/Article_Downloads/Writings}by}dr}jeff}howard/JeffHoward.StillatRisk-1.pdf. Hunt, S. L. and Staton, A. Q. (1996) “The communication of educational reform: ‘A nation at risk’,” Communication Education, 45(4): 271–292. Kaufman, P. and Bradbury, D. (1988) Characteristics of At-Risk Students in NELS:88. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Kozol, J. (1991) Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York, NY: Crown. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006) “From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools,” Educational Researcher, 35(7): 3–12. Love, B. J. (2004) “Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the ‘majoritarian achievement gap’ story,” Equity and Excellence in Education, 37: 227–246. Morris, J. E. (2008) “Research, ideology, and the Brown decision: Counter-narratives to the historical and contemporary representation of Black schooling,” Teachers College Record, 110(4): 713–732. Murphy, J. and Forsyth, P. (eds) (1999) Educational Administration: A Decade of Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA, and Columbia, MO: Corwin Press and University Council for Educational Administration. NCEE (National Commission on Excellence in Education) (1983) A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: Report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education, US Department of Education. Nichols, S. N. and Berliner, D. C. (2007) Collateral Damage: The Effects of High-Stakes Testing on America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Noguera, P. A. (2003) City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Pallas, A., Natriello, G., and McDill, E. (1989) “The changing nature of the disadvantaged population: Current dimensions and future trends,” Educational Researcher, 18(5): 16–22. Payne, C. M. (2008) So Much Reform, So Little Change: The Persistence of Failure in Urban Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Placier, M. L. (1993) “The semantics of policy making: The case of ‘at risk’,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2): 380–395. Ravitch, D. (2010) The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

24 Sonya Douglass Horsford

Slavin, R. E. and Madden, N. A. (1989) “What works for students at risk: A research synthesis,” Educational Leadership, 46: 4–13. United Neighborhood Centers of America. (2001). “Over 200 applications of Promise Neighborhoods grants”, Building Neighborhoods website. Retrieved from http:// uncaacf.org/?q=tags/promise-neighborhoods&page=3. US Department of Education (2011) Promise Neighborhoods, http://www.ed.gov/category/ program/promise-neighborhoods. Vasquez Heilig, J., Khalifa, M., and Tillman, L. (2012) “Why have NCLB and high-stakes reforms failed? Reframing the discourse with a post-colonial lens,” in K. Lomotey and R. Milner (eds) Handbook of Urban Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Walker, V. S. (2000) “Valued segregated schools for African American children in the South, 1935–1969: A review of common themes and characteristics,” Review of Educational Research, 70(3): 253–285. Wells, A. S., Holmes, J. E., Revilla, A. T., and Atanda, A. K. (2004) “How society failed school desegregation policy: Looking past the schools to understand them,” Review of Research in Education, 28: 47–99. Welner, K. G. and Weitzman, D. Q. (2005) “The soft bigotry of low expenditures,” Equity and Excellence in Education, 38: 242–248. Wilson, C. M., Douglas, T. M. O., and Nganga, C. (2013) “Starting with African American success: A strength-based approach to transformative educational leadership,” in L. C. Tillman and J. J. Scheurich (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Leadership for Diversity and Equity. New York, NY: Routledge. Wong, K. K. and Nicotera, A. C. (2004) “Educational quality and policy redesign: Reconsidering the NAR and federal Title I policy,” Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1): 87–104. Wong, K. K., Guthrie, J. G., and Harris, D. N. (2004) “Preface,” Peabody Journal of Education, 79(1): 1–6.

2 NCLB’S INTENSIFYING MAKEOVER Race to the Top’s Troubling Changes to Rules, Incentives, and Practice Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

In 2001, the US Congress passed a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which has been the federal government’s primary education legislation since it was originally adopted in 1965. The re-authorization, called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), greatly expanded the federal role in shaping education policy and practice throughout the nation. Its most radical transformation of US schools arose from its so-called accountability provisions. The law effectively required states to buy into a set of rules that tied the fate of schools and districts to an unprecedented and continual improvement of students’ standardized test scores. When the scores fell short, these schools and districts were subjected to escalating interventions, culminating in school transformation, turnaround, or takeover. This approach initially received broad and bipartisan support in Congress. Policymakers in 2001 were justifiably frustrated with the slow pace of improvement in the academic outcomes of the nation’s most disadvantaged students. They wanted to demand more, and NCLB’s accountability approach had the advantage of setting goals that were much higher than anything in past federal policy. It had the additional advantage of requiring disaggregated results and of attaching serious consequences to schools’ failure to meet goals for all disaggregated groups (e.g., low-income students, Hispanic students, and special needs students). For the first time, gaps that were hidden in schools where the majority of students were from advantaged, historically high-performing groups would be exposed. Yet these advantages carried with them inherent and serious drawbacks. The interventions set forth in the law for schools’ and districts’ failure to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) on test scores were, for instance, themselves subject to failure. That is, they were grounded in unproven assumptions about the best ways to increase achievement – most notably, assumptions about the benefits of school

26 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

choice. The assumption that public schools would improve if faced with losing students to charter schools proved to be an ineffective lever for improvement. In addition, requiring all schools to eventually reach 100 percent proficiency for all students (with minimal exceptions) by the end of the 2013 to 2014 school year was a politically popular but unrealistic goal (see Welner, 2005). A decade of NCLB implementation has shown both of these to be major weaknesses in the law. We contend, however, that the most serious drawback to the NCLB approach is even more fundamental: the changes in instruction and curriculum that result when policy-makers elevate the consequences of test scores, commonly referred to as high-stakes testing policies, are counter-productive to the goal of equitable and excellent schooling for all students. NCLB’s incentives and disincentives forced school leaders to focus attention on tested subjects, on the specific elements and skills within those subjects that were, in fact, tested, and on the testing skills likely to raise the crucial scores. As a result, the nation saw steadily increasing scores on the high-stakes tests but little if any improvement in the trends measured by the non-high-stakes National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). In some cases, most notably New York State, the increases on states’ high-stakes tests resulted in large part from manipulation of the cut scores (Medina, 2010). In other cases, instances of adult cheating occurred (Jonsson, 2011). Nichols and Berliner (2007) discuss these changes in the context of Campbell’s Law: when quantitative measures such as test scores are used for social decision-making, the measures themselves are subject to corruption pressures and, in addition, the high stakes distort and corrupt teaching and student learning. By the time candidates were gearing up for the 2008 presidential election, NCLB’s popularity had considerably waned. Parents, students, and teachers were particularly frustrated with the excessive focus on tests and the unfair and inconsistent labeling of schools as failing. Candidate Obama joined in the criticism of NCLB. Here’s how he responded to two questions from the Washington Post:1 Do you support the No Child Left Behind program? Why or why not? Candidate Obama: The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is the right one – ensuring that all children can meet high standards – but the law has significant flaws that need to be addressed. However, unfulfilled funding promises, inadequate implementation by the Department of Education, and shortcomings in the design of the law itself have limited its effectiveness and undercut its support among many people who care deeply about our schools and our students. The shortcomings of NCLB, however, shouldn’t end the conversation. They should be the start of a conversation about how we can do better. One of the greatest troubles of No Child Left Behind is that we have spent too much time preparing students for tests that do not provide any valuable, timely feedback on how to improve a student’s learning. We need tests and measurements, but we should ensure that they are useful to improve student learning. As President, I will support the

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 27

creation of testing models that will: provide educators and students with timely feedback about how to improve student performance instead of arriving with too little too late; measure readiness for college and success in an information-age workplace by testing reading comprehension, writing skills, and other critical thinking skills; and indicate whether individual students are actually making progress toward reaching high standards. Good teachers with the tools to do their jobs should not have to teach to the test. They should be able to teach a rich curriculum. What changes, if any, would you attempt to implement in national education policy? Candidate Obama: As President, I’d launch a campaign to recruit and support hundreds of thousands of new teachers across the country, because the single most important factor inside the school building for a student’s achievement is the person standing in front of the classroom. I will treat teachers like the professionals they are, making sure they get the pay they deserve, while working with them to develop the high standards we need. We need to create real career opportunities that reward successful teachers, motivate them to stay in the profession, and take advantage of their skills to help mentor new teachers. Teachers and educators need time to plan lessons and learn. That time should be made available each week and in the summer time. And teachers and principals should be paid for this additional work. We can’t ignore that the achievement gap is a problem across the country. To tackle this problem, the first thing we have to do is close the gap that exists between children before they enter kindergarten by providing high-quality preschool opportunities to all children. Far too few Latino and African-American children are enrolled in early childhood education programs, despite the proven successes of such programs. As president, I will increase funding for Head Start and expand access to Pre-K. My plan to attract and retain high-quality teachers in high-needs districts will also go a long way toward closing this achievement gap. I have proposed grant funding for prospective teachers to serve residencies with school districts similar to training in other professional fields like medicine. Prospective teachers will learn from mentor teachers, with stipends provided to teachers-in-training in exchange for a commitment to teach in that district once they complete the program. This will provide effective training of new teachers in high-needs districts. Once elected, the president took some action consistent with some of these statements, but he fell short on others. Through the 2009 stimulus spending (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA), the administration did, for example, provide additional funding to the states, albeit temporarily. And through the 2011 to 2012 waiver process, the administration removed from some states the most onerous burdens of AYP sanctions, as well as the most unrealistic expectations.

28 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

Yet the use of students’ standardized exam scores has evolved during the Obama administration in ways that do not address the problems that arose in the wake of NCLB. In fact, the administration’s policies shift the specific nature of incentives and sanctions in ways that actually exacerbate some of the most serious problems. This has placed those policies in tension with candidate Obama’s statement above: “Good teachers with the tools to do their jobs should not have to teach to the test. They should be able to teach a rich curriculum.” In this chapter, we explain these issues and also outline why we think current policy regarding the use of student test scores – particularly policy related to the Race to the Top initiative – undermines best practices in the nation’s public schools and results in the reproduction and even the acceleration of societal inequality. After a brief overview of NCLB’s accountability system and of research concerning the effects of that system, we detail the ways in which the Obama administration has continued or altered the policies put in place by the administration of George W. Bush. We focus on the administration’s Race to the Top policy, but we also note its School Improvement Grant (SIG) policy, its Teacher Incentive Fund policy, and its NCLB waiver policy. We conclude that the direction of policy has been toward an intensification of the problems that candidate Obama – among many others – articulated years ago: attaching high stakes to students’ test scores is an effective way to shift practice, but those shifts are often in destructive directions, undermining the very goals of equity and excellence that the policies hope to support.

No Child Left Behind Beginning in the late 1980s, education policy in the US has embraced what’s commonly known as the “standards movement” (Smith and O’Day, 1990). States adopted curriculum standards and performance standards, which then guided policy in other areas. Teacher preparation, curriculum, professional development, and assessment were all brought into alignment with the state standards. Students were expected to meet those standards, and schools were expected to prepare students to do so. These policies grew out of a concern that misalignment in these areas was inefficient and confusing. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush advocated these standards and standards-based assessment policies. Upon reaching the White House, he proposed the No Child Left Behind legislation, which sailed through both houses of Congress. By combining standards with accountability provisions, and by requiring the disaggregation of assessment results, NCLB endeavored to challenge what he called the “soft bigotry of low expectations” (Bush, 2004). Under the law, if a school does not make its adequate yearly progress (AYP) targets after four previous years of being designated as “in need of improvement,” it must implement a fundamental restructuring plan. Five restructuring options are set forth in the law:

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 29

1 2 3 4

Turn school operations over to the state. Turn those operations over to a private company. Reopen as a charter school. Reconstitute the school by replacing some or all of the teachers, staff, and administrators. 5 “Any other” fundamental school restructuring. Perhaps not surprisingly, most schools have opted for the “any other” option (Mathis, 2009). The NCLB system of escalating sanctions against schools and school districts had the predictable effect of generating test-focused policy and practice (Nichols and Berliner, 2007). While this sometimes took the form of outright cheating (Jonsson, 2011), the more common and pervasively destructive response was to teach in ways designed to increase test scores, even if at the expense of engaging learning (see Baker et al., 2010; Cuban, 2009; Perlstein, 2007). Sometimes this has taken the form of lessons about how to take tests. Sometimes it has taken the form of squeezing out non-tested subjects such as art, music, social studies, or – in most grade levels – science. Sometimes it has taken the form of dry, formulaic presentation of material in ways designed to mimic the form of test questions – resulting in learning that is far less non-transferable to other contexts than learning through contextualized, engaging projects. Evidently, the above practices were what led candidate Obama to assert, “Good teachers with the tools to do their jobs should not have to teach to the test. They should be able to teach a rich curriculum.” Yet, as we explain below, the new administration’s policies have intensified the same perverse incentives that the president had criticized as a candidate.

Race to the Top Race to the Top was designed by the Obama administration as a contest initially funded by US$4.35 billion dollars of ARRA money. Its purpose is to enact K-12 educational reform at both the state and district level. In order to win the funding, states2 prepared applications that met initiatives consistent with a vision of good reform as adopted by the US Department of Education. The stated goal of the program was to spur significant changes to educational policy, which would result in substantial gains in student achievement; closing achievement gaps; improving high school graduation rates; and ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers (US Department of Education, 2009). Although none of these four goals was unique or new, two features distinguished Race to the Top from other federal reform initiatives. First, it was extremely prescriptive – even more so than No Child Left Behind. Rather than allowing states or districts to adopt locally envisioned plans, Race to the Top was narrow in its expectations of what reform should be. Although it claimed to spur

30 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

innovation, the initiative promoted a cookie-cutter approach to reform. Second, it required states to compete for the funding. As a result, many states that made changes pursuant to the federal wish-list were on the losing end of the race competition. Thus, the initiative cleverly prompted some of its preferred policies even in states that received no additional federal funding. In order to win a Race to the Top grant, states were expected to take the following four steps (US Department of Education, 2009): 1 Adopt common standards and assessments linked to college and career readiness. 2 Create data systems designed to measure individual student growth and guide educators on how to improve instruction. 3 Create systems to recruit, develop, reward, and retain effective teachers and principals, especially in low-performing schools. 4 “Turn around” low-achieving schools. In order to ensure that specific reform objectives were being met, a point system was put in place (see US Department of Education, 2009, p3). The review process thus rewarded those who best met the vision of what the Department of Education considered to be effective reform. The department hired vetters to score each state’s application for consistency, capacity for delivery by the state, and accuracy (Brill, 2010a). The criteria were specific so that only those states who committed to the Race to the Top recipe for reform would be successful. For example, states could not design their own standards and tests linked to college readiness; rather, they could only earn points by working jointly in a national consortium. Only states that agree to participate in a “consortium of States that … is working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice) that are supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked and build toward college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation” could earn the points in this category. Notwithstanding the prescriptive nature of the reforms that shifted the control of schooling to the federal government and away from school districts and states, the vast majority of states attempted to compete. This was due, in part, to very tight state budgets, and in many states there was also a substantial policy alignment with the federal goals. Four states, however, refused to participate in both the first or second rounds of the competition: Alaska, North Dakota, Texas, and Vermont. Framing his refusal to compete as an issue of local control of schooling, Governor Rick Perry of Texas stated, “we would be foolish and irresponsible to place our children’s future in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and special interest groups thousands of miles away in Washington, virtually eliminating parents’ participation in their children’s education … If Washington were truly concerned about funding education with solutions that match local challenges, they would make the money available to states with no strings attached” (Perry, 2010). On the other end of the political spectrum, Vermont did not apply because it

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 31

did not want to make the required policy changes that included evaluating teachers by student test scores and creating charter schools (Dillon, 2010).

Origins of Race to the Top Although Race to the Top took many public educators by surprise, it emerged from nearly two decades of work from a network group of self-styled reformers who, for the most part, did not come from the traditional ranks of public school education or from the university-based educational research community. Often the self-styled reformers fulfilled their two-year commitment to teaching for Teach for America and then left the classroom to run a charter school or to run a group advocating policies such as charter schools, teacher evaluation by student scores, merit pay, testing, and data-driven instruction. Others came from the world of politics or policy (Brill, 2010a). One of the authors of Race to the Top was Jon Schnur, the co-founder of New Leaders for New Schools and – more recently – the executive chairman and co-founder of America Achieves, a new reform group which appears to have as its mission the dissemination of the common core curriculum. New Leaders for New Schools, Schnur’s first venture, is a non-traditional program to train principals and other school leaders that believes that 70 percent of a principal’s evaluation should be based on student and teacher “performance” (this has played out as performance defined in terms of students’ standardized test scores). According to Steve Brill (2010b), Schnur: … sits informally at the center of a network of self-styled reformers dedicated to overhauling public education in the United States. They are working in key positions in school districts and charter-school networks, legislating in state capitals, staffing city halls and statehouses for reform-minded mayors and governors, writing papers for policy groups and dispensing grants from billion-dollar philanthropies like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Brill (2010b) credits Schnur with originating both the concept and name of the Race to the Top contest: Schnur never taught nor led a school. A Princeton graduate, he worked in the Clinton presidential campaign and, after the election, worked for the administration in educational policy. When Barack Obama ran for president, he once again joined a political campaign, this time as a policy advisor. After the election, he became a counselor of Arne Duncan, and as such he helped design and name the Race to the Top competition. He then left to return to New Leaders before launching America Achieves.

32 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

The director of Race to the Top is Joanne Weiss (US Department of Education). Prior to joining Duncan’s team as his chief of staff, she was partner and chief operating officer at New Schools Venture Fund, a venture philanthropy firm working to transform public education by supporting education entrepreneurs and connecting their work to systemic change. At New Schools, she gave investment advice and assistance to charter management organizations, as well as designers of academic products, systems, and “human capital solutions” (US Department of Education). In short, Ms. Weiss, whose degree from Princeton was in biochemistry, manages and promotes the “reform” agenda with little or no education or experience to fall back on. Like Arne Duncan, Joel Klein and so many others, few if any of those who created and directed the Race to the Top agenda – which promotes the creation of charter schools, data systems, and evaluation and compensation of teachers and principals by student test scores – ever studied the history or research concerning schooling, or had experience teaching public school students or serving as a principal. In short, the current reform movement, which is a continuation of policy approaches begun over two decades ago and which is legislated most pointedly by Race to the Top, was created by self-styled, enthusiastic reformers who share a common vision of how to “fix” public schools. In addition to government funding, their ideas have been well funded by philanthropists who have an intense belief in testing, data, and data-guided instruction. The express goals of Race to the Top are important and outline a desire for equitable learning experiences and outcomes, such as the closing of achievement gaps, the preparation of all students for college and career, the improvement of student achievement, and an increase in the numbers of students who graduate high school. But the narrow pathway prescribed by Race to the Top has not been shown to be an effective way to achieve those goals. In fact, the evidence generally points in the opposite direction. In the following section we return to the above-stated reform ideas that drive the Race to the Top program. In particular, we focus on the push to adopt common standards, the push for school “turnarounds,” and the push for new evaluation systems for teachers and principals in schools with poor test results. While these initiatives could be considered from a variety of perspectives, our approach here is to consider the ways in which they mitigate, alter, or intensify the high-stakes uses of students’ test scores – the NCLB approach in place when Obama took office.3

Common Core State Standards Our students should be college and career ready, meaning that they should leave our high schools with the knowledge and skills they need whether they enter college, a technical school, or the world of work. Although students’ skills and ambition will vary, every high school graduate has the right to learning

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 33

opportunities allowing for later choices between college and career. Schools, therefore, have an obligation to make sure students are prepared to freely choose (Burris and Garrity, 2012). To prepare students for such success, it is reasonable to assume that we need a common set of standards to define what we mean when we say a student is ready for college and for her career. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were recently created by educational experts and others, and they have been adopted in 45 of our 50 states (CCSS, 2010). Race to the Top did not require adoption of these particular common core standards, but states were pushed in that direction. No other feasible alternative was available. The Common Core State Standards in English language arts and mathematics attempt to communicate what students should learn in the K-12 grades in order to be prepared for the first year of college, for post-secondary job training, or for a highly skilled job that will earn more than a minimum wage. The creation of such common standards for learning is not new. In the years since the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, standards have been drafted and adopted at the state level, and these standards have guided the testing programs developed under NCLB. Indeed, the creation of standards, along with aligned changes in areas such as curriculum and textbooks, has been central to almost all major reform efforts of the past 30 years – yet there is little indication that they have affected educational improvement (Loveless, 2012). What differentiates the CCSS from such standard-setting in the past is the rapidity of implementation driven by policies such as Race to the Top as well as the high-stakes consequences for both schools and individual educators that arise from the testing regimes being put in place to enforce the implementation of the standards. New York State’s experience, described below, offers one illustrative example. The draft of the CCSS appeared in March 2010 for public comment, with the final standards released in June of the same year (Mathis, 2010). New York State adopted and refined the CCSS in January 2011. The state’s schools were directed by New York’s Commissioner of Education to develop and teach a unit aligned with the CCSS during the 2011 to 2012 school year. All assessments, however, were still aligned to the 2005 New York State Standards. Yet during the very next school year, 2012 to 2013, all exams in grades 3 to 8 were to be aligned to the CCSS, with grades 9 to 12 exam alignment to follow the next year (2013–2014). And in 2014 to 2015, all assessments are scheduled to change once again, with New York State students taking computer-based exams now being developed by the PARRC consortium (New York State Education Department, 2012). There’s an advantage to quick change – when the change is positive and doable in a short period of time. But there are also disadvantages when broad changes with unpredictable results are quickly implemented. “All good initiatives are time sensitive,” said Carol Conklin-Spillane, principal of Sleepy Hollow High School in New York State; “the pressure to implement change needs to be measured against an institution’s ability to respond in healthy and robust ways to

34 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

focus on the goal of improvement” (Conklin-Spillane, 2012). Similarly, Sharon Fougner, the principal of an elementary school in Long Island, New York, noted the problems already appearing (Fougner, 2012). Errors in test booklets and on answer keys, poorly worded directions, missing information, inaccurate answer choices, and misleading questions are just a few of the significant problems with hastily designed tests. Even more significant – and more destructive – is that tests are being designed and prepared when no curriculum has been written for the Common Core State Standards. It is always unwise to put the cart before the horse; to do so at high speed invites certain disaster. These cautionary notes are particularly important given the larger reform agenda linked to the CCSSs. As we discuss in the next two subsections of this chapter, layered on top of the standards and assessments are a variety of high-stakes consequences. Again, Conklin-Spillane (2012): In my opinion, the move to Common Core is a good initiative that is unfortunately mired in the multiplicity of political agendas that is [Race to the Top]. Unfortunately, schools all over NYS and our country are distracted by the attack on our profession and a governmental immediacy to link quantitative accountability for student achievement to teacher performance without regard to the readiness of educational institutions to respond. The rapidity of implementation, driven by Race to the Top and other federal pressures, exacerbates these concerns because the process of curriculum examination and revision by teachers – which in the past was seen as part of sound professional practice – is being bypassed, with private foundations and vendors filling in the gaps (Gewertz, 2011).

School Turnarounds As noted above, NCLB set forth five restructuring options, including turning school operations over to a private company; reopening as a charter school; and reconstituting the school by replacing some or all of the teachers, staff, and administrators. The evidence to support these options was lacking at the outset, and the implementation of NCLB has not yielded rosy results (Mathis, 2009). Some school turnaround efforts have undoubtedly resulted in improvements (see Tomassini, 2012). But the disruption caused by closing and re-opening a school or by moving from one set of educators to another is inherently harmful (see Kirshner et al., 2010; Ronfeldt et al., 2012). The NCLB school turnaround structure was nonetheless largely kept in place by the Obama administration’s Race to the Top program as well as its School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. These competitive grant programs have required districts and states to use one of four specified turnaround models on

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 35

their lowest performing schools (in a nutshell, the lowest 5 percent of all schools nationally, as judged by standardized test scores and/or graduation rates): 1 2 3 4

turnarounds;4 restarts;5 transformations (which are by far the most popular option);6 and closures.7

Note that all four models dismiss the principal, and the teaching staff is also generally at risk.8 Accordingly, given the disruption caused not just to the students but also to teachers and principals, there is an extraordinary incentive put in place by these programs: focus intensely on the high-stakes outcome – typically the students’ scores on standardized exams. While these test scores do reflect important learning goals, they do so in a narrow and flawed way. As candidate Obama recognized, teaching to the test is a problem; yet his administration’s policies are creating strong incentives to do just that.

Evaluating Teachers and Principals The “Great Teachers and Leaders” component of Race to the Top awarded points (in the competition) based on several factors, the largest – by far – of which was “Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance.” The key component of this was set forth as follows: “Design and implement rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers and principals that … differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating categories that take into account data on student growth … as a significant factor” (US Department of Education, 2009). In other words, states were pushed to commit to changing their laws to evaluate teachers and principals using student growth (specifically test-score growth) as a significant factor, in some cases up to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation. The first Race to the Top evaluation system to be implemented state-wide was the Tennessee Evaluator Acceleration Model (TEAM), which bases 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation on student performance. Thirty-five percent is based on value-added measurement (VAM) scores. In the case of teachers whose students do not take a test that results in a VAM score, they are to choose which subject score they would like to use for their evaluation. In other words, 35 percent of their evaluation is based on other teachers’ work, leading to oddities such as the physical education teacher picking writing scores because he heard they were the school’s best scores. In addition, the demand that each teacher, no matter her skill level, be observed four times a year has left principals both frustrated and exhausted (Winerip, 2011a). Other resulting laws, such as SB 191 in Colorado and Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) in New York, have similarly placed students’

36 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

standardized test scores at the center of educator evaluations. Further, other federal initiatives, most notably the Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF), have promoted school district policies that provide teachers with financial incentives (e.g., merit pay) based in large part on increasing students’ standardized test scores. These policies predictably have the same effect as the school turnaround policies described above: the incentives are pushing teachers and principals to concentrate their instruction on test scores. As we saw with the less intense incentives provided by NCLB, this will narrow curriculum and result in teaching to the test. In New York State, worries of the negative effects of using student scores to evaluate teachers prompted principals from across the state to sign a letter of opposition to APPR as it is currently fashioned. The letter, which was referred to as “the principals’ rebellion” (Winerip, 2011b), has been signed by more than 1,500 New York State principals and thousands of parents and teachers (New York Principals, 2011).9 In addition, worries over the effects of the evaluation resulted in school districts hesitating to negotiate and implement the system. Governor Cuomo, in an attempt to force districts to quickly implement the policy, then tied increases in state aid to APPR adoption (Woodruff, 2012). This is a powerful illustration of how influential the federal policy push has been when aligned with the desired approaches of like-minded state-level policy-makers. (Similar stories could be told about Tennessee and Colorado, mentioned earlier, as well as at least a dozen other states.)

The Administration’s Flexibility (Waiver) Initiative In 2011, the US Department of Education offered states what it called “flexibility” on key Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requirements, including AYP-related sanctions. To be eligible to receive such a waiver, states were required to commit to their own federally approved plans – that is, the Department laid out a reform recipe that states must follow, a recipe which looks a lot like Race to the Top (US Department of Education, 2012):  Adopt college and career standards and assessments in English language arts and mathematics (i.e., adopt the CCSS).  “State-Developed Differentiated Recognition, Accountability, and Support” (i.e., school turnarounds).  Develop teacher and principal evaluation systems (i.e., pass legislation such as SB 191 or APPR).  As necessary, revise the state’s “administrative requirements to reduce duplication and unnecessary burden” on schools and school districts. As of July 19, 2012, 32 states and the District of Columbia had been granted waivers (three applications were still pending). Combined with the SIG program, Race to the Top, and other federal initiatives, the leverage exercised through the

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 37

waiver process has left very few holdouts. The federal push for these reforms has brought unprecedented pressure on states, and they have overwhelmingly fallen into line.10 The waiver system has further institutionalized the Race to the Top reform agenda.

Conclusion There are three possible outcomes for school change: improvement, declination, or the status quo. Because the policies promoted by Race to the Top do not find support from the overall body of research evidence, it is very doubtful that they will result in more equitable and excellent outcomes for students. Perhaps most worrisome is the lack of serious consideration of other reforms with an established record. Decades of research on the effects of racial and socioeconomic isolation and segregation are, for example, not included in the Race to the Top reform conversation (see National Coalition on School Diversity, 2012). There is no allowance for “excuses,” such as the effects of poverty, racially and socio-economically segregated schooling, or inequitable funding. Attaching high stakes to students’ test scores is an effective way to shift practice, but those shifts are often in destructive directions, undermining the very goals of equity and excellence that the policies were designed to support. Our conclusion that NCLB’s test-focused consequences have been intensified under the Obama administration is due primarily to evaluation approaches targeted at teachers and principals. These approaches have been promoted by Race to the Top as well as other key initiatives. They lie at the core of the administration’s school reform efforts, and the incentives and disincentives that they create will almost surely top even NCLB’s negative effect on classroom practice. Specifically, the incentives created by this high-stakes use of test scores have the effect of driving teaching practices that focus intensely on tests as opposed to broader learning, higher-level thinking, arts education, project-based learning, or social-emotional goals. The additional pressures that now tie teachers’ jobs, status, and compensation to student scores will inevitably alter the student–teacher relationship and undermine collaboration among teachers (Burris and Welner, 2011). The measurement allure of concrete scores has combined with the policy allure of competitions for federal money to result in a narrowed school reform agenda to match the narrowed curriculum and narrowed vision of schooling.

Notes 1 See http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/issues/candidates/ barack-obama/. 2 The fourth Race to the Top funding phase, announced in May 2012, provides funds to school districts (i.e., districts, as opposed to states, can compete for the funding). 3 On March 10, 2010, the Obama administration released its Blueprint for Education, which set forth a framework for reauthorizing NCLB. The Blueprint generally mirrored

38 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

4

5 6

7 8

9 10

the Race to the Top approach, its goals, and its initiatives. For a review of the Blueprint, see Mathis and Welner (2010). “Replace the principal and rehire no more than 50 percent of the school’s staff; adopt a new governance structure; provide job-embedded professional development; offer staff financial and career-advancement incentives; implement a research-based, aligned instructional program; extend learning and teacher planning time; create a communityorientation; and provide operating flexibility” (Kutash et al., 2010). “Transfer control of, or close and reopen, a school under a school operator that has been selected through a rigorous review process. A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any former student who wishes to attend” (Kutash et al., 2010). “Replace the principal (no requirement for staff replacement); provide job-embedded professional development; implement a rigorous teacher-evaluation and reward system; offer financial and career advancement incentives; implement comprehensive instructional reform; extend learning- and teacher-planning time; create a community-orientation; and provide operating flexibility and sustained support” (Kutash et al., 2010). “Close the school and enroll students in other, higher-achieving schools” (Kutash et al., 2010). Some models have been deemed to be violations of labor contracts, causing additional disruption and confusion (Baker, 2012). Moreover, the US Government Accountability Office (2012) has determined that turnaround and transformation models are undermined by the reality that school districts struggled to find and retain high-quality staff at low-performing schools. Carol Burris, co-author of this chapter, is a high school principal in New York State, and has been one of the leaders of this effort. The US Supreme Court’s decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. (2012) may prompt legal challenges to NCLB and to the Department of Education’s policy of attaching conditions to NCLB waivers. The basic argument is that, pursuant to the US Constitution’s Spending Clause, conditions can be placed on federal spending; but those conditions cannot become so coercive that states really have no choice but to accept the federal money (and conditions). A nice discussion of this issue, from Benjamin Riley, is found here: http://www.edsource.org/today/2012/ john-roberts-on-health-care-jerry-brown-on-nclb-similar-logi/16829.

References Baker, A. (2012) “Mediator halts city’s plan to overhaul 24 schools.” In Schoolbook, http:// www.nytimes.com/schoolbook/2012/06/29/city-loses-arbitration-on-staffing-for-24turnaround-schools/. Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch, D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., and Shepard, L. A. (2010) Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. Economic Policy Institute, http://www. epi.org/publication/bp278/. Brill, S. (2010a) “Scoring race to the top: A look behind the curtain,” Education Week, 29(32), 18 May, http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/05/18/32race-judges.h29.html? tkn=SUSFlYb7SleV%2BGWwu7vg3FWogJauXXaKIhMW&cmp=clp-edweek Brill, S. (2010b) “The teacher’s union’s last stand,” New York Times Magazine, 23 May, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref= magazine. Burris, C. C. and Garrity, D. T. (2012) Opening the Common Core: How to Bring All Students to College and Career Ready. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Burris, C. C. and Welner, K. G. (2011) “Conversations with Arne Duncan: Offering advice on educator evaluations,” Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2): 38–41.

NCLB’s Intensifying Makeover 39

Bush, G. W. (2004) President’s Remarks in Minneapolis, Minnesota, http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/10/20041030–8.html. CCSS (Common Core State Standards) (2010) Common Core State Standards, http://www. corestandards.org/in-the-states. Conklin-Spillane, C. (2012) Email correspondence with Carol Burris, June 25, 2012. Cuban, L. (2009) Hugging the Middle: How Teachers Teach in an Era of Testing and Accountability. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Dillon, J. (2010) “Vermont won’t apply for Race to the Top Funds,” Vermont Public Radio, http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/87874/vermont-wont-apply-for-race-to-top-funds/. Fougner, S. (2012) Email correspondence with Carol Burris, June 25, 2012. Gewertz, C. (2011) “Gates Pearson partner to create common core curricula,” Education Week, 30(30), http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/27/30pearson.h30.html. Jonsson, P. (2011) “America’s biggest teacher and principal cheating scandal unfolds in Atlanta,” The Christian Science Monitor, 5 July, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/ Education/2011/0705/America-s-biggest-teacher-and-principal-cheating-scandal-unfoldsin-Atlanta. Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., and Pozzoboni, K. (2010) “Tracing transitions: The effect of high school closure on displaced students,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(3): 407–429. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., and Tallant, K. (2010) Federal Funding and the Four Turnaround Models – The School Turnaround Field Guide. New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation, http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/schoolleadership/district-policy-and-practice/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-FieldGuide.pdf. Loveless, T. (2012) “Does the common core matter?” Education Week, 31(28), http:// www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/04/18/28loveless_ep.h31.html. Mathis, W. J. (2009) NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, http://nepc.colorado. edu/publication/nclb-ultimate-restructuring. Mathis, W. J. (2010) The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/ common-core-standards. Mathis, W. J. and Welner, K. G. (eds) (2010) The Obama Education Blueprint: Researchers Examine the Evidence. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Medina, J. (2010) “On New York school tests, warning signs ignored,” New York Times, 11 October, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/education/11scores.html. National Coalition on School Diversity (2012) Federal Support for School Integration: A Status Report, June, http://www.school-diversity.org/pdf/DiversityIssueBriefNo4.pdf. New York Principals (2011) APPR Paper, http://www.newyorkprincipals.org/appr-paper. New York State Board of Regents (2005) The State Board of Regents Approves Moving to 65 As Regents Exam Passing Score, Adding Appeals Process, http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/ documents/RegentsExamsat65.pdf. New York State Education Department (2012) Common Core Implementation Timeline, http://engageny.org/resource/common-core-implementation-timeline/. Nichols, S. L. and Berliner, D. C. (2007) Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Perlstein, L. (2007) Tested: One American School Struggles to Make the Grade. New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company. Perry, R. (2010) Gov. Perry: Texas Knows Best How to Educate Our Students. Texas: Office of the Governor Rick Perry, http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/14146/. Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2012) How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. CALDER Working Paper no 70, http://air-648404989.us-east-1.elb. amazonaws.com/upload/Ronfeldt-et-al.pdf.

40 Kevin G. Welner and Carol C. Burris

Smith, M. and O’Day, J. (1990) “Systemic school reform,” in Politics of Education. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 233–267. Tomassini, J. (2012) “Denver Turnaround Initiative showing achievement gains,” Education Week, 31(33), 8 June: 10. US Department of Education (2009) Race to the Top Program Executive Summary, http:// www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf. US Department of Education (2012) ESEA Flexibility, 7 June, http://www.ed.gov/esea/ flexibility/documents/esea-flexibility.doc. US Department of Education (undated) Joanne Weiss, Chief of Staff: Biography, http:// www2.ed.gov/news/staff/bios/jweiss.html. US Government Accountability Office (2012) School Improvement Grants: Education Should Take Additional Steps to Enhance Accountability for Schools and Contractors. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office. Welner, K. G. (2005) “Can irrational become unconstitutional? NCLB’s 100% presuppositions,” Excellence and Equity in Education, 38: 171–179. Winerip, M. (2011a) “In Tennessee, following the rules for evaluations off a cliff,” New York Times, 7 November, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/education/tennesseesrules-on-teacher-evaluations-bring-frustration.html?pagewanted=all. Winerip, M. (2011b) “Principals protest role of testing in evaluations,” New York Times, 28 November, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/education/principals-protest-increaseduse-of-test-scores-to-evaluate-educators.html. Woodruff, C. (2012) “Cuomo’s tough love links evals, state aid,” New York States School Boards Association, 23 January, http://www.nyssba.org/index.php?src=news&subme nu=on_board&srctype=detail&category=On%20Board%20Online%20January%2023% 202012&refno=2016.

3 EXAMINING TEACHER QUALITY, EDUCATIONAL POLICY, AND ENGLISH LEARNERS IN LATINA/O GROWTH STATES Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

Over the past several decades the United States has witnessed a dramatic growth of culturally and linguistically diverse students (e.g., García and Frede, 2010). From 1980 to 2011, the percentage of students speaking a language other than English at home has doubled from 10 to 20 percent (US Department of Education, 2011). As the English learner (EL) population has grown, the gap between ELs’ academic achievement and that of their English proficient peers remains stubbornly static across numerous indicators, including achievement scores (NCES, 2010) and high school completion rates (NCELA, 2011). Extant policies (López et al., 2012) and teacher preparation programs (e.g., DarlingHammond, 2010) alike are failing to address the pressing need to ensure equitable educational opportunities for ELs. In other words, “policy initiatives or legislative mandates” that constrain or forbid bilingual programs, “inadequate resources,” and a lack of “institutional will” (Garcia et al., 2009, p12) are obstacles preventing educators from entering the classroom adequately prepared to meet the needs of ELs. For example, ELs continue to be disproportionately taught by less qualified teachers then their English-speaking peers (Ballantyne et al., 2008; Darling-Hammond, 2010). Over half of all ELs are concentrated in just three states: California, Texas, and Florida (Vasquez Heilig, 2011). However, many other states, such as Alabama and Arkansas, have experienced rapid growth rates in their EL populations (see Table 3.1). Despite this growth, educational policy research related to ELs tends to be restricted to states with the largest populations of ELs. Considering together the lack of qualified teachers trained to enhance the educational experiences of this population with their growing representation in all US states, it is imperative to address the paucity of research in these contexts. In this chapter, we focus on teacher quality in five southern states that have experienced some of the largest growth of EL students within the public school

42 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

TABLE 3.1 US states’ English learner (EL) population growth (2000–2010)

State

EL 2000

Percentage population 2000

EL 2010

Percentage population 2010

EL percentage growth 2000–2010

Latino/a percentage growth 2000–2010

Alabama Arkansas Kentucky South Carolina Tennessee

7,226 11,850 4,030 5,121

1% 2% 2% 1%

19,497 29,752 14,244 34,685

3% 6% 2% 5%

+37% +40% +28% +15%

+145% +114% +122% +148%

12,475

1%

27,550

3%

+45%

+134%

Source: Compiled with data from the NCES Common Core of Data (http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/).

system (Payan and Nettles, 2006). We conducted this mixed method research in the wake of the controversial anti-immigrant laws that were passed in Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and proposed in Arkansas and Kentucky. This anti-immigrant legislation has erupted in response to the dramatic growth of the Latina/o population in those states (Flores and Chapa, 2009). In the midst of the demographic and political contexts for ELs in these states, we seek to answer the following research question: How has the educational policy context changed in response to the changing demographics within EL growth states?

EL Teacher Quality Domains Although the impetus behind using instruction that is empirically supported for ELs has been in place since the Equal Education Opportunity Act, prior to 2001 the needs of ELs in states where they represented less than 1 percent of the total student population were not prioritized (NCES, 2004). To fulfill requirements outlined by Titles I and III of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, schools must demonstrate that ELs have made adequate yearly academic progress. It has now been over a decade since these policies have been in place, but more than 70 percent of teachers still lack the necessary training to be effective with ELs (Ballantyne et al., 2008). In this review we seek to examine several of the current issues in the literature related to teacher quality for EL students.

Teacher Education Programs Some researchers have called for teacher education programs to prepare “all teachers to teach ELs” (for a review, see Lucas et al., 2008, pp361–362). This body of literature, however, “does not attempt to fully articulate the knowledge base incorporated into the approaches being discussed” (Lucas et al., 2008, p362). In contrast, researchers who assert that teachers require specialist training have

Latina/o Growth States 43

contributed to a robust body of literature describing teaching practices that are effective in improving academic outcomes for ELs (Collier and Thomas, 2004; Krashen, 1985, 1991, 1997; Rumberger and Gándara, 2004). We review these practices as the foundation for pre-service teacher training for teachers who will teach ELs in the sections that follow.

Teaching Methods Children develop language skills commensurately with the degree to which they are exposed to quality language (Hoff, 2003). Among ELs, linguistic interactions are further enriched when teachers use students’ native language (August et al., 2005). Although some researchers have expressed concerns that using students’ native language in instruction may hinder English language development (e.g., Rossell, 2005), the body of research supporting the use of native language to assist in second language acquisition is robust (see Rolstad et al., 2005). A review of 15 methodologically sound studies by the National Literacy Panel found that: Children in the bilingual programs not only developed facility with English literacy to the same extent as their peers taught in English, but also developed literacy skills in their native language. Thus, they achieved the advantage of being bilingual and biliterate. August et al. (2008, p140) The literature examining the effectiveness of different language instructional models is vast (for a review, see Thomas and Collier, 1997). Nevertheless, across different models, research tends to favor approaches that incorporate students’ native language (albeit to different degrees) as well as English (Valdés et al., 2005).

Professional Development The curriculum is “the place where learner and content meet” (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p82). As such, alongside pedagogical approaches, the extant literature describes dimensions of curriculum that are relevant to educating ELs. One key component of professional development involves the reduction of linguistic barriers. Importantly, ELs need to be “taught through the use of challenging material that does not get ‘watered down’ merely because students are not fluent in the language of instruction” (Gersten and Baker, 2000, p461). Thus, access to a rigorous curriculum for ELs means that teachers must be able to pull from their knowledge base about reducing linguistic barriers along a continuum (given the variability among ELs in their English proficiency), while ensuring their students access the same content as English proficient students.

44 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

Assessment Assessment of student learning is critical for improving achievement outcomes. Teachers who use formative assessments to determine the degree to which students have mastered a given skill can re-teach concepts that have not been mastered (Bloom, 1969). However, the degree to which teachers actually use assessments formatively is dismal (Black and Wiliam, 1998). In part, the paucity of formative assessment practices in the classroom is not surprising because most teacher preparation programs do not require an educational measurement course (Stiggins, 2002). When teacher preparation programs do require coursework on assessment, they tend to focus on summative assessment that indicates what a student has learned as opposed to formative assessment that can inform future instruction based on students’ current abilities (Stiggins, 1988). Considering the domains of teaching methods, professional development, and assessment in the research literature, this chapter seeks to examine how EL growth states are altering these domains in their states in response to high growth in EL populations.

Methods This chapter first establishes teacher quality contexts in each growth state by using a framework developed by Menken and Antunez (2001) for requirements of teachers who teach ELs, updated with recent information from the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) roundtable report (Ballantyne et al., 2008), as well as with current information from each state education agency. This heuristic assesses methods, curriculum, and assessment practices relative to educating ELs in a particular state. The framework reflects the stringency of requirements for addressing the needs of ELs in teacher training and certification. Menken and Antunez (2001) analyzed state mandates for teacher certification, scoring states on a scale of 0 (no requirement) to 4 (entire course required) on 12 dimensions related to the training of teachers of EL students in the areas of teaching methods, curriculum, assessment, and practice. In addition, Menken and Antunez rated states on one dimension related to the level of training regarding EL issues that is required of all certified teachers, not only ESL teachers (see the 12 teacher quality realms in Table 3.2). This dimension was scored 0 (no requirement) to 3 (specific coursework or certification is required). Codes for state-level licensure requirements were verified with the Title III Office contact listed on the NCELA website for each state. The pre-service teacher requirements for teachers of ELs were coded as follows: 0 = not required; 1 = elective; 2 = demonstrated competence; 3 = required course topic; and 4 = required course. Given the very small number of states coded across all categories developed by Menken and Antunez (2001), we modified the categories to reflect the presence or absence of a state requirement for all teachers to

0 0 0 4 2

AL AR KY SC TN

2 2 0 4 2

2.44 1.39

ESL/ELD

0 0 0 0 3

0.69 1.10

Content in native language

0 0 0 0 2

1.00 1.60

Bilingual methods

2 2 0 1 2

1.09 1.28

Materials adaptation

0 0 0 0 2

0.50 1.05

Bilingual curriculum

Curriculum

0 0 0 0 0

0.33 0.97

Content in native language or English

EL teachers

2 0 0 0 0

0.64 1.24

English literacy

0 0 0 0 0

0.10 0.40

Native language literacy

Assessment

2 2 0 1 2

1.43 1.42

Limited English proficient

3 0 0 1 4

0.47 0.50

CLD setting

0 0 0 0 0

0.61 0.49

Bilingual education

Practicum

Notes: CLD = culturally and linguistically diverse; EL = English learner; ELD = English literacy development; ESL = English as a second language. States: AL = Alabama; AR = Arkansas; KY = Kentucky; SC = South Carolina; TN = Tennessee.

1.44 1.43

M SD

Native language literacy

Methods

TABLE 3.2 Teacher quality requirements in EL growth states

1 0 0 0 0

All teachers

0 0 0 0 0

State requires specialist certification

46 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

have training in educating ELs. This dimension was dichotomously coded as follows: 0 = states where there is no requirement that all teachers have expertise or training in working with ELs; 1 = states where knowledge of second language acquisition and strategies to support ELs and/or strategies or accommodations for ELs must be demonstrated via assessment or successful coursework completion. The last category was state licensure requirements, which reflects whether certification that is specific to the education of ELs is not required (this included states where professional development leading to an additional endorsement is required or certification that is specific to the education of ELs is required, but can be waived under certain circumstances), coded as “0,” or certification that is specific to the education of ELs is required, coded as “1.” The second step in the research involved informally interviewing each of the five states’ Title III coordinators regarding their public duties to probe state and local policy enactments. The Tennessee Department of Education website describes Title III in this way: Title III is the portion of No Child Left Behind that serves English as a Second Language Students. Through Title III, students who have a primary language other than English receive instruction in English in a specialized setting.1 Title III coordinators interviewed for this chapter described their responsibilities as providing guidance to districts and acting as a liaison for technical assistance. They primarily train district staff and monitor compliance. The coordinators also approve grants from Title III funds and follow federal mandates and guidance. In addition, they often keep track of the number of students in the state for federal reporting purposes. Using census data we identified Kentucky, Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, and South Carolina as the five states experiencing the highest growth among Latinos from 2000 to 2010. We then contacted and conducted semi-structured phone interviews with the Title III coordinators from each of these states. Interviews were then analyzed to pull out emerging themes pertaining to the way in which the political context of each state related to changes in state-wide teacher credentialing and EL policy. In the qualitative portion of the study, to protect the identity of the respondents, we assigned the Title III coordinators and their state a pseudonym from the alphabet A to E.

Findings

Teacher Quality Context Analysis We find that South Carolina has much more rigor in terms of teacher certification requirements for ELs than the other growth states we studied (see Table 3.2).

Latina/o Growth States 47

Although Alabama does require all teachers who teach ELs to have at least some professional development, the quality and rigor is unclear. Tennessee is rated “2” across several domains delineated by Menken and Antunez (2001); but the state only requires that teachers demonstrate competency in most of the domains, a requirement that could be fulfilled by correctly answering a few items on the state-mandated teacher certification test. South Carolina is the only growth state in this analysis that requires that pre-service teachers take courses in native language development and English language development – constructs that are key in achievement for ELs (Valdés et al., 2005).

Responses to Changing Demographics During his interview, the Title III coordinator from State E related that the changing demographics in the state brought with it a new set of challenges to districts that have been “monolingual for a very long time.” He explained that the effect has been multifaceted and has had social, cultural, financial, educational, and political implications. His state is an “English only state,” so they have no bilingual education, but instead have an ESL framework. He noted that earlier in the state’s history they had problems with racial integration; now they are having challenges with “cultural and linguistic integration … Just as they had growing pains with racial integration, there are growing pains in the schools and the greater community … which controls these public schools.” There are now new faces, new constituencies, and new requirements for equity. For example, there is an increasing concern about the need for appropriate and adequate representation of these communities on those school boards where school policies are made. The changing demographics affect the school districts in State E because they are situated in the context of the greater community. The changes in policy and practice required to educate ELs brings challenges to the school administrators and teachers. The coordinator proffered that the impact is also financial as “there are all kinds of questions related to financial requirements to serve this population.” He explained that there are people in communities saying, “why should we spend tax money on these children whose parents are not here legally and all that type of thing.” In State A, the Title III coordinator argued that the issues around immigration “certainly have not been at the same levels as some other states … Here we don’t have the kinds of laws that Arizona does.” She relayed that the state has had a relatively long history of working with migrants and farm workers, many of whom are EL students. The Title III coordinator from State A explained that they have one large urban area where one third of EL students reside and that the rest are scattered around the state. However, overall they have seen “450 percent growth” in the number of ELs since 1999, which has primarily affected districts where ELs had never enrolled before. Most districts are rural and did not have

48 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

systems in place for refugee families and immigrant students, and the influx of these students has created “quite an impact.” In State C, the Title III coordinator related that the growth in the EL population “got our attention” because they had “3,000 kids for the longest time; then it burst open from 2004 until now where we now have about 40,000.” She related that they have been one of the fastest growing states in terms of the number of EL students in the nation over the past several years. She thought that the focus on ELs in the state “is a lot better than it was.” She proffered that if the ELs were located just in metropolitan areas, the state would not have refocused so quickly, but since ELs are scattered across the state, the state rapidly pivoted to try to address the changing population and increase “cultural sensitivity.” They are also focusing on “slicing and dicing assessment data,” transitioning to the common core standards, and preparing for the next generation of tests. In State D, the Title III coordinator related that some of their schools are getting very “heavy” with English learners. She told a story of an EL student arriving in a rural district with nothing but a pencil. The district “felt helpless.” She explained: They did not know the student’s name or how to communicate with him. This was a little one. The parents had gotten him there somehow. The child was in school and ready to learn … the school district did not have a system in place to educate him because the child spoke another indigenous language from Mexico, not Spanish. To address the influx of students, the state reduced the number of students required to fund a single ESL teacher by five to address the increasing number of ELs in the school. They also began researching policies addressing teacher certification, cultural sensitivity, differentiating instruction, and using data. They are still searching “for the best programs for a school that has 15 versus 200 ELs.” In State B, while the Title III coordinator didn’t specifically address the political context, anti-immigrant legislation has recently been passed. As might be expected from the current political approach towards immigrants in the state, State B experienced a decline in their state populations of ELs “for the first year in several years.” She explained that the responsibility for providing resources to districts to educate ELs in the state has largely fallen to the state education agency (SEA) because undergraduate programs and districts in the state don’t include or require methods for teaching ELs. Despite the reduction in ELs in the state, she related that districts in State B are “finally realizing now” that they have to “change” the way in which they teach.

Evolution of Teacher Certification? Questions about teacher certification yielded the least amount of data from the Title III coordinators in each of the states. For example, when the Title III

Latina/o Growth States 49

coordinator was asked to discuss certification changes in State D, she replied, “Really, I am not sure that I can” because it had been passed a few years ago and she had not reviewed it “in over a year.” The Title III coordinators from State B said there were no recent changes for EL teachers in the area of certification despite the growth of the population in the state and doubts that new requirements for certification or professional development “will happen in the near future.” The Title III coordinator from State D relayed that her state was thinking about changes in certification relative to the transition to Common Core Standards. She proffered that they were really “struggling” with deepening core content skill development for all students in addition to content area literacy. They were unsure of what “this is going to look like.” State C has an add-on certification in place, but the certification is not required to teach ELs – only “recommended and encouraged.” In the past some teachers had gained the English as a second language (ESL) certification, but in the Title III coordinator’s view these teachers were not fit for the classroom. She posited that it was a “disaster” because they were otherwise “unemployable.” The Title III coordinator from State A related that her state has not been able to produce ESL teachers fast enough to meet the needs of the growing populations of EL students, so they have focused instead on training general education teachers. The state also does not house the certification board, as it is a separate entity from the SEA. She did note that as a result of Obama’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility process, State A is now considering value-added models to assess ESL teacher quality. The Title III coordinator from State E related that a new certification requiring a Praxis test for EL endorsement is “in the works” but had not yet been approved by the state board of education. Currently, a candidate for the endorsement could receive it by passing other required Praxis tests and successfully completing four ESL courses. The coordinator from State E was concerned that this policy change might “send a signal” to universities to prepare their students solely to pass these tests. He stated, “We don’t know if this means there will be more teaching to the test going on.” In his view, what ESL teachers really need is hands-on model teaching on “how this is done with the child in the classroom.” He emphasized that he is “not sure how the Praxis would measure classroom practice” and that he believes that the new Praxis requirement should “complement not dominate” the credential process.

SEA-Provided Professional Development The Title III coordinators from States C and D did not report as extensive professional development efforts as the other growth states. The coordinator from State C explained that they provide professional development when they are “asked” by districts. Professional development includes training in local districts, as well as educational television shows that teachers can watch on their computers

50 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

for continuing education credits. In State D, the coordinator related that they focus on regional professional development rather than training at the district level. She related that usually districts in a region get together and decide what training they need, such as training on educating “special ed ELs” or “gifted ELs.” Then they contact the state and the SEA “does their best to provide it.” Title III or ESL directors are usually the individuals in the district who reach out to the state. The coordinator related that she tries to develop “different strategy workshops and keep them up to date on the research.” The Title III coordinator in State A related that her state is unique among growth states because they require districts and schools to create individual learning plans for every EL student. The state and a private vendor provide training for districts in the collection and analysis of data specifically related to ELs and immigrants. The state deemed the vendor training to be “insufficient,” so now the SEA provides face-to-face comprehensive training for the data system. Anyone who enters data for the students is expected to attend the training. The state also has piloted an online academy for 80 ESL teachers, partnered with local universities and research consortiums, and hosted an annual conference with Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) in order to buttress the professional development of teachers of ELs. The Title III coordinator in State B related that “some districts are further along than others” in terms of professional development for teachers of ELs. She related that it “has to do with how long they have had an EL population there.” For the last two to three years, the SEA has provided coaches for teachers of ELs in districts that did not meet state targets for EL achievement. They also have regional in-service centers where general education teachers can procure strategies to add to their “tool box” and better “understand English learners.” They have offered trainings in different regions over a three-day period four times per year for the last three years. She reported that they had about 1,000 participants at each training session. The programs attract teachers, administrators, and others because “there is not a lot of professional development in that area” unless teachers hold an ESL degree. The Title III coordinator in State E related that they round up the “usual suspects” in their professional development efforts, such as “sheltered instruction, immersion, hybrid versions of pullout – which are new for [teachers that haven’t taught ELs before].” They also provide an intensive two-week EL academy over the summer which more than 200 administrators from urban and rural schools typically attend. They bring in university faculty from “all over the nation and world” to cover topics within the four core content areas that teachers need to master in their state in order to obtain the ESL endorsement. It is not full certification, but complements existing certificates. The four content areas that are covered are how to support language acquisition in theory and practice, theories of second language acquisition, methods of assessment, and the role that culture plays in the classroom for ESL learners. They also seek to form resource and support groups

Latina/o Growth States 51

to function at the district level in order to assist schools during the year. The local resource groups also often bring some of the university faculty who teach at the ESL academy back to districts.

What Should be Required to Teach ELs? When asked the question “What ideally would be required in your state for teachers to be prepared to teach ELs?” the majority of Title III coordinators expressed that they were content with teacher quality requirements for ELs in their state. For example, the Title III coordinator from State C posited, “We have risen to the challenge. I am real proud of our state. I like bragging on us.” The coordinator from State D believed “what they have in place is quite adequate,” but added that all teachers in her state do need training in “cultural sensitivity and cultural differences.” Regardless, she related that her state “[is] up with or ahead of the game” as her state has some of the “most talented ESL teachers around.” Despite the hostile political context in State B, the Title III coordinator explained, “There are lots of great things happening in State B. We are proud of what we do.” The Title III coordinator in State B related that although they don’t have a “definite” plan, they intend to implement a “needs assessment” of undergraduate programs in order to assess how to improve university-level teacher pre-service preparation regarding strategies for teaching ELs. She believed they need more “general” knowledge related to ELs, such as knowledge of WIDA (World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment) standards. They believe this would assist districts by providing professional development ahead of time and making new teachers from higher education institutions more marketable. The coordinator from State C would also like to see universities include information regarding some of the legal aspects of serving ELs, such as the implications of the Plyer v. Doe decision. Plyer v. Doe is the US Supreme Court case that struck down a Texas state statute denying funding for education to illegal immigrant children and forbade the Tyler Independent School District from charging them a US$1,000 tuition fee. Coordinators want their state universities to include more strategies for parental engagement and involvement. The dean from one of the state’s colleges of education was not enthusiastic about including EL strategies in the teacher-training curriculum. He framed the inclusion of ELs in the teacher training curriculum as a zero-sum game when he opined to State C’s Title III coordinator, “What do I have to take out to put that in?” The Title III coordinator from State A related that it was her view that teachers with certain roles and duties should be required to have the ESL endorsement. In a similar vein, the coordinator from State E related that his state should require training for teachers who work with ELs to receive a “teacher license of any sort” so that they “already come prepared with some background.” He relayed that individual districts have their own priorities related to EL students. For example,

52 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

in large districts, teachers are typically required to get an ESL endorsement within two to three years. He believed it would be “very helpful” if ELs would become a bigger priority in all districts serving them; for example, he would like to see training on how to educate ELs included in the annual required professional development (PD) for teachers. He did conclude on a positive note and emphasized that his state has “stepped up to the plate” by providing three times as much funding for ELs as the federal government provides at the local level.

Conclusion In conclusion, this study is important because although many districts and schools may not have been compelled to consider the educational needs of ELs in the past (NCES, 2004), there is now a demographic imperative in the high EL growth states we studied and beyond. To be in compliance with Titles I and III of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001, schools must demonstrate adequate yearly academic progress among ELs and must utilize instruction and pedagogy that is effective. The interviews with the Title III coordinators seem to suggest that states have pivoted to address the needs of EL students regardless of political contexts. Considering that the respondents are employees of SEAs speaking about their public duties, these findings are to be expected. Although the majority of Title III coordinators expressed that they were content overall with the teacher quality requirements for ELs in their state, the variability in both the achievement for ELs (see Table 3.3) and teacher certification requirements (see Table 3.2) for the states suggest differences in teacher quality requirements that merit further attention. Compared to Arkansas and Tennessee (states with few if any pre-service training requirements aimed specifically at the needs of ELs), South Carolina has stringent

TABLE 3.3 NAEP reading achievement in growth and density states (2002–2011)

2011 2009 2007 2005 2003 2002

Alabama Arizona

Arkansas California Kentucky South Carolina Tennessee Texas

‡ ‡ 196 ‡ ‡ ‡

201 195 191 206 ‡ 203

177 174 170 177 178 173

190 187 187 186 186 180

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

213 210 204 ‡ ‡ ‡

178 182 ‡ ‡ ‡ 221

199 199 200 197 190 191

Notes: ‡ Reporting standards not met. The NAEP reading scale ranges from 0 to 500. Some apparent differences between estimates may not be statistically significant. Source: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 1992, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011 Reading Assessments.

Latina/o Growth States 53

requirements in methods for native language literacy and English language development, and currently performs higher than any other growth state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). For example, South Carolina’s NAEP reading scores for 2011 were approximately higher than Arkansas by a mean standardized difference of .40. Additionally, the mean standardized difference in scores between South Carolina and Tennessee was 1.16. Another important issue is whether these states have improved the achievement of their students over the past decade as the growth in ELs has accelerated. Table 3.3 shows that the traditional EL density states of California, Texas, and Arizona did, in fact, increase the NAEP reading scores over the past decade. Of the three growth states that have valid NAEP scores over the past decade, South Carolina has seen a three-point increase, while Tennessee and Arkansas have experienced drops in EL achievement. So while the majority of the Title III coordinators were satisfied with their states’ performance, the NAEP achievement does give pause to the respondents’ contentment. Thus, despite the consensus among Title III coordinators regarding, first, a lack of recent changes in terms of certification requirements and, second, satisfaction in terms of teacher quality requirements, it is important to consider their collective expressed need for teachers to have some knowledge (whether it is cultural sensitivity or ESL training) to work with ELs. In conclusion, despite the seemingly positive reports from the Title III coordinators, the unfortunate fact remains that a vast majority of teachers – over 70 percent – still lack the training to be effective with ELs (Ballantyne et al., 2008). Considering that “states, through policies and regulations, continue to exert significant influence on the pre-service training teachers receive prior to entering the classroom as the teacher of record” (Loeb and Miller, 2006, p8), it is not surprising that scholars have urged state-level policy-makers to set higher standards for institutions of higher education for preparing teachers to meet ELs’ needs (Lucas et al., 2008). State licensure agencies are in a position to drive programming decisions at institutions of higher education for training teachers to educate ELs (see also Ballantyne et al., 2008). One way to improve programming decisions is by examining the body of literature supporting specialist training (e.g., certification in bilingual education or English as a second language), which has robust evidence describing effective teaching practices for ELs (Collier and Thomas, 2004; Krashen, 1985, 1991, 1997). Indeed, researchers have demonstrated improvement in ELs’ academic outcomes when the professional preparation of their teachers focused explicitly on the needs of these students (Rumberger and Gándara, 2004). This study expands the research in the field by providing an understanding of current policies relative to EL teacher quality and how growth states are addressing teacher quality for EL students in the midst of their evolving political contexts. The qualitative interviews, descriptive analysis of teacher quality, and NAEP achievement data in this chapter ultimately demonstrate that in the midst of anti-immigrant legislation in the high-growth states, policy-makers and school leaders still have a ways to go to adequately address teacher quality for ELs.

54 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

Note 1 See http://www.tn.gov/education/fedprog/fpesl.shtml.

References Abedi, J. (2002) “Assessing and accommodations of English language learners: Issues, concerns and recommendations,” Journal of School Improvement, 3: 83–89. Abedi, J., Hofstetter, C., and Lord, C. (2004) “Assessment accommodations for English language learners: Implications for policy based research,” Review of Educational Research, 74: 1–28. August, D. and Hakuta, K. (1997) Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. August, D. and Shanahan, T. (eds) (2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., and Snow, C. (2005) “The critical role of vocabulary development for English language learners,” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20: 50–57. August, D., Beck, I. L., Calderón, M., Francis, D. J., Lesaux, N. K., Shanahan, T., et al. (2008) “Instruction and professional development,” in D. August and T. Shanahan (eds) Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 131–250. Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., and Levy, J. (2008) Educating English Language Learners: Building Teacher Capacity Roundtable Report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998) “Assessment and classroom learning,” Educational Assessment: Principles, Policies and Practices, 5: 7–74. Bloom, B. S. (1969) “Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation,” in R. W. Tyler (ed) Educational Evaluation: New roles, New Means: The 63rd Yearbook of the National Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., and Levy, J. (2008) Educating English language learners: Building Teacher Capacity Roundtable Report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. Collier, V. P. and Thomas, W. P. (2004) “The astounding effectiveness of dual language education for all,” NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 2: 1–20. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006) Powerful Teacher Education: Lessons from Exemplary Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010) The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future. Amsterdam, NY: Teachers College Press. Flores, S. M. and Chapa, J. (2009) “Latino immigrant access to higher education in a bipolar context of reception,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 8(1): 90–101. García, E. and Frede, E. C. (eds) (2010) Young English Language Learners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. García, E., Jensen, B. T., and Scribner, K. P. (2009) “Supporting English language learners: The demographic imperative,” Educational Leadership, 66: 8–13. García, G. E., McKoon, G., and August, D. (2008) “Language and literacy assessment of language-minority students,” in D. August and T. Shanahan (eds) Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 251–274. Genesee, F., Geva, E., Dressler, C., and Kamil, M. (2008) “Cross-linguistic relationships in second-language learners,” in D. August and T. Shanahan (eds) Developing Reading and Writing in Second-Language Learners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 61–94. Gersten, R. and Baker, S. (2000) “What we know about effective instructional practices for English language learners,” Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.

Latina/o Growth States 55

Harper, C. and de Jong, E. J. (2009) “English language teacher expertise: The elephant in the room,” Language and Education, 23: 137–151. Hoff, E. (2003) “The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech,” Child Development, 74, 1368–1378. Krashen, S. (1985) Insights and Inquiries. Hayward, CA: Alemany Press. Krashen, S. D. (1991) Bilingual Education: A Focus on Current Research, ERIC database (ED337034). Krashen, S. D. (1997) Why Bilingual Education? ERIC database (ED403101). Loeb, S. and Miller, L. C. (2006) A Review of State Teacher Policies: What Are They, What Are Their Effects, and What Are Their Implications for School Finance? IREPP Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. López, F., McEneaney, E., Nieswandt, M., and Geronime, L. (2012) Language Acquisition Policies as Bridges into Science for ELs. Paper presented the 2012 Annual Meetings of the American Educational Research Association, April, Vancouver, BC, Canada. Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., and Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008) “Linguistically responsive teacher education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners,” Journal of Teacher Education, 59: 361–373. MacSwan, J. (2000) “The Threshold Hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic minorities,” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22: 3–45. MacSwan, J. and Rolstad, K. (2006) “How language tests mislead us about children’s abilities: Implications for special education placements,” Teachers College Record, 108: 2304–2328. Mahoney, K. S. and MacSwan, J. (2005) “Re-examining identification and reclassification of English Language Learners: A critical discussion of select state practices,” Bilingual Research Journal, 29: 31–42. Menken, K. and Antunez, B. (2001) An Overview of the Preparation and Certification of Teachers Working with Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. Washing, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. NCELA (National Center for English Language Acquisition) (2011) NCELA State Title III Information System, http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/t3sis/. NCES (National Center for Education Statistics) (2004) English Language Learner Students in U.S. Public Schools: 1994 and 2000. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. NCES (2010) The Nations Report Card: Reading 2009. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf. Payan, R. M. and Nettles, M. T. (2006) Current State of English-Language Learners in the U.S. K-12 Student Population. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., and Glass, G. (2005) “The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness research on English language learners,” Educational Policy, 19, 572–594. Rossell, C. (2005) “Teaching English through English,” Educational Leadership, 62: 32–36. Rumberger, R. and Gándara, P. (2004) “Seeking equity in the education of California’s English learners,” Teachers College Record, 106: 2032–2056. Stiggins, R. (1988) “Make sure your teachers understand student assessment,” Executive Educator, 10: 24–30. Stiggins, R. J. (2002) “Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning,” Phi Delta Kappan, 83: 758–765. Thomas, W. and Collier, V. (1997) School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. US Department of Education (2011) The Condition of Education 2011. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

56 Julian Vasquez Heilig, Francesca López, and Daniela Torre

Valdés, G., Bunch, G., Snow, C., Lee, C., and Matos, L. (2005) “Enhancing the development of students’ language(s),” in L. Darling-Hammond and J. Bransford (eds) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, National Academy of Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 126–167. Vasquez Heilig, J. (2011) ”Understanding the interaction between high-stakes graduation tests and English language learners,” Teachers College Record, 113(12): 2633–2669.

4 CULTURAL WORK AND DEMOGRAPHICALLY CHANGING SCHOOLS New Opportunities for Transformative Leadership1 Camille M. Wilson

As demographic change alters the cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic make-up of US school populations, students need leaders and advocates who are prepared to be cultural change agents – educators with the knowledge, strategies, support, and courage to make curriculum, instruction, student engagement, and family partnerships culturally responsive. This partly entails educational leaders rejecting ideologies and practices steeped in blatantly biased or colorblind traditions in order to transform schools. US public schools have long played an instrumental role in attempting to assimilate culturally and linguistically diverse students via educational structures, policies, and practices. In doing so, school systems have mostly valued Anglocentric, middle-class norms. This phenomenon has resulted in schools failing to recognize and affirm the knowledge, experiences, and assets of culturally diverse populations (Banks, 1996; Larson and Ovando, 2001; Nieto, 1999; Valenzuela, 1999). This has also contributed to the marginalization and disengagement of students and families of color in schools, even as racial and ethnic “minorities” are on the cusp of becoming the nation’s majority. Indeed, the nation’s white population declined from 76 percent in 1990 to 69 percent in 2000, and together, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latino Americans are projected to comprise over half the US population by 2042 (Trounson, 2012). The United States, and its schools, are therefore more racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse than ever before. Demographic shifts, deepening cultural chasms in schools, and large numbers of culturally diverse students and families who are disengaged from the schooling process reveal the need for educational leaders to regard cultural and linguistic diversity as an educational resource rather than a detriment (Riehl, 2000; Shields, 2000; Shields and Sayani, 2005). Research shows that even well-intentioned

58 Camille M. Wilson

educators who regard themselves as caring about ethnic and linguistic minority students can devalue and unwittingly denigrate students’ culturally relevant knowledge, home culture, and language (Hidalgo et al., 2004; Moll, 2005; Nieto, 1999). Furthermore, educators who consciously exude a “colorblind” approach typically do not understand how white privilege operates in schools; thus, they fail to recognize and stop discriminatory practices (Evans, 2007; Rosenburg, 2004; Shields, 2000; Shields and Sayani, 2005). In this chapter, I consider how educators can draw upon philosopher Cornel West’s conceptualization of “cultural worker” to serve as transformative leaders amidst demographic change. Findings from my comparative case study of two North Carolina schools that have experienced rapid demographic change inform the discussion.

Literature on Transformative Leadership While the US public education system espouses to offer all children equal educational opportunity and high-quality schooling, academic and social inequities pervade public schools. Without the intervention of strong leaders who strive to counter marginalizing forces, these inequities are perpetuated (Larson and Ovando, 2001; Shields and Sayani, 2005; Zhou, 2003). Transformative educational leadership involves one engaging in self-reflection, systematically analyzing schools, and then confronting inequities regarding race, class, gender, language, ability, and/or sexual orientation. Upon doing so, one works toward the social transformation of schooling (Brown, 2004; Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy, 2005; Dantley, 2003; Marshall and Oliva, 2006; Quantz et al., 1991; Theoharis, 2007). As Cooper and Gause (2007, p200) explain, transformative leadership constitutes a form of “liberatory political praxis” whereby: … leaders use their positional power to promote democracy, redress inequities, and empower various stakeholders, including marginalized students and families. Through collaborative methods, leaders then develop inclusive governing structures and communities. Dantley and Tillman (2006) further clarify that such leadership is activist oriented, morally transformative, and done with the intent of enacting social justice. Over the past several years, the scholarship regarding transformative leadership for social justice – largely informed by various strands of critical theory – has grown. Scholars generally agree that this form of transformative leadership requires self-awareness, ideological clarity, passion, courage, commitment, and risk-taking (Dantley and Tillman, 2006; Marshall, 2004; Marshall and Oliva, 2006; Pounder et al., 2002; Shoho et al., 2005; Theoharis, 2007). Such virtue and willingness are needed because leading for social justice entails challenging others’ deficit thinking and opposing inequitable educational practices that are widely

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 59

implemented and under-scrutinized. Thus, transformative social justice leaders understand that leadership, like teaching, is a political and value-laden endeavor that either hinders or advances equity-oriented aims (Pounder et al., 2002). While critical education scholars acknowledge that transformative leadership is difficult, they also emphasize that it is doable, particularly when it is approached with a collaborative ethos (Lopez et al., 2006, Riehl, 2000; Shields, 2000; Shields and Sayani, 2005). Given the difficulty and risk-taking involved in transformative leadership, it is crucial that current educational leaders, scholars, and activists draw from an array of relevant sources – philosophical and practical – to further their understanding. There is, however, a dearth of literature – conceptual and empirical – that ties transformative leadership to the complexities and conflicts that demographic change presents. I strive to make such connections in the remainder of this chapter.

Cultural Work and the “New Cultural Politics of Difference” Looking to a philosophical framework outside of education that addresses cultural difference can help the educational community to identify important epistemological notions to enhance the conception and implementation of transformative leadership. West’s (1999) explication of the new cultural politics of difference and the role of cultural workers is particularly valuable. West first applied this framework to the art world. He offered it as an innovative approach to aesthetic criticism by urging artists and critics to employ a deeper level of socio-cultural critique via their work. His call for a new cultural politics of difference is grounded in historical, social, cultural, and political arguments. It is also informed by the cultural studies discipline that has a long history of interrogating conceptions of race, identity, cultural politics, and difference (Appiah, 2006; Hall, 1996; McCarthy, 1993; Omi and Winant, 1993). West’s framework is salient to educational practice given the socio-cultural and political contexts of schooling, and the tendency of US educators (like US artists) to exalt Anglocentric norms. Linking West’s framework to discussions of demographic change in schools can help one to understand how exclusive educational practices, even when unintentional, are part of a broader social phenomenon that can be improved, in part, by changing educators’ consciousness, meaning-making, and praxis. For instance, West (1999) underscores the need to respond to cultural diversity in a way that one understands and appreciates the nuances of difference and rejects deficit-based perspectives. He advocates embracing a new cultural politics of difference that advances “freedom, democracy and individuality,” rather than assimilation or division (West, 1999, p120). This constitutes one recognizing power inequities and making them explicit; aligning oneself with marginalized and oppressed groups; promoting collective action; striving to empower

60 Camille M. Wilson

oppressed groups, and being straightforward about one’s agenda while remaining open to new ideas and constructive critique. Engaging in these efforts constitutes serving as a cultural worker. In addition, a cultural worker is a “prophetic” critic who analyzes the dominant structures within a community and seeks to understand others’ political interests and motives. She or he creates change, but resists completely dismantling mainstream structures, standards, and canons and transforms them instead. West (1999, p136) also states that the cultural worker “stays attuned to the best of what the mainstream has to offer – its paradigms, viewpoints, and methods yet remains grounded in affirming and enabling subcultures of criticism.” For educational leaders, this can mean supporting public education and the democratic ideals upon which it was founded, yet recognizing inequity and developing inclusive and reform-minded school communities with the help of students, teachers, families, and staff. Indeed, cultural workers are guided by an inclusive collaborative ethos and they shun separatist politics. Hence, they counter binary oppositional logic that constructs one group or standard as wholly right or wrong. They also reject overgeneralized dichotomies of good–bad, normal–deviant, black–white, etc. West (1999) explains that discarding this type of logic is especially needed when considering racial matters. He urges one to resist oversimplifying social and cultural identities (gender, sexual orientation, political status, etc.) and, instead, understand that identities – along with knowledge, norms, and canons – are complex and dynamic social constructions. West (1999) further explains that separatist politics have always been linked to the cultural biases, ignorance, and misunderstandings that are prevalent at any given historical moment, and the ways in which communities conceptualize notions of “difference” are always changing. Nevertheless, patterns of exclusionary behavior remain the same and they are socially reproduced. The new cultural politics of difference framework calls upon cultural workers to disrupt this social reproduction cycle. Cultural workers appreciate cultural difference, recognize the intra-diversity of cultural groups, and acknowledge that people have varied attributes, challenges, and ways of knowing. Cultural workers do not perceive “difference” as negative or deficit-based; nor do they emphasize difference to perpetuate social division. They do, however, understand that one’s race and ethnicity can position them differently in society’s social and political structure. I draw upon both transformative leadership literature and West’s conceptual framework to examine findings from my empirical study of two demographically changing schools in North Carolina.

Methods and Data Sources North Carolina, like the southern region of the United States, has experienced dramatic shifts in demographics as a result of urbanization, immigration, and an influx of refugee populations over the past several years (CNNC, 2007). The

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 61

state’s immigration rates nearly tripled between 1990 and 2000, and North Carolina also has one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the nation (CNNC, 2007; Johnson, 2002; Kitchen, 2002). Still, the rising cultural and linguistic diversity of southern public schools is regarded as a new phenomenon to which most educators and school systems have been ill prepared to respond. Moreover, much of the research and discourse about cultural difference in the US South still focuses on relationships and racial inequality between African Americans and Whites. These two groups have historically composed the vast majority of the South’s population, and ramifications of slavery, segregation, and civil rights struggles in the region linger. Demographic change, however, is challenging the black–white binary often reinforced in southern political thought. This has tremendous implications for educational reform and cultivating positive relationships among diverse groups in schools. To explore the effects of demographic change in schools, I designed a comparative case study that examined two schools in Central North Carolina. Both schools had experienced rapid cultural shifts in their school populations within five years. I purposely sampled the schools based on my review of their demographic data and preliminary conversations with the schools’ principals. The study’s guiding research question asked what successes and challenges educators and families face in developing school–family partnerships that are democratic, culturally responsive, and beneficial to student learning in light of their schools’ increasing diversity. Data revealed that key impediments to the schools’ partnership building related to cultural tensions among educators and families in the school. Data further indicated that the schools lacked leaders who were working to address such tensions and adequately foster cultural inclusion. Thus, my continued data analysis led me to question how educational leaders can promote equity-oriented reform that would strengthen demographically changing school communities. With regard to data collection, 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted for this study, including 22 with educators and staff, and 14 with parents. Ten ethnographic observations at events such as parent–teacher group meetings, cultural festivals, and faculty and leadership meetings were also conducted at both sites. Numerous documents pertaining to the schools’ student population, schoolfamily policies, and relationships with local church and civic agencies were also collected. I, along with two student research assistants, visited each school 12 to 15 times over the course of three academic semesters.2 In addition, four datasharing meetings were held at each school, including individual meetings with both principals and group meetings with both faculties. Preliminary findings were discussed at these meetings, and participant feedback was invited. These meetings served as member checks – a suggested data verification technique in qualitative research (Merriam, 1997). The first school in the study, Violet Elementary School, serves grades K-5. It has a student population of nearly 600 students that is approximately 50 percent

62 Camille M. Wilson

Latino, 35 percent White, 15 percent African American, and 2 percent Asian. The second school, Appleton Elementary School, serves pre-kindergarten to third grades. It has a student population of nearly 400 students that is approximately 25 percent White, 35 percent African American, 30 percent Latino, and 10 percent Asian. Both schools are in industrial, working-class, and politically conservative towns. The towns, like the schools, have experienced rapid demographic change and severe economic decline.

Findings The new cultural politics of difference framework addresses one’s epistemology, approach to critique, and socio-political actions (West, 1999). Thus, the discussion of this study’s findings is framed by data-based profiles of the principals and their school communities to indicate how their epistemology, critique, and actions pertain to demographic change.

“Well I’m not prejudiced against Mexicans but … ”: Demographic Change and Cultural Difference at Violet Elementary School Violet Elementary School is in a large town whose economy is closely connected to the textile industry and tourist recreation. The town’s most affluent residents live in the hills of Violetville, and its poorest residents live in the valley. Violet Elementary School is situated in the valley. Violetville was generally described as a “close-knit” community – one that is historically White, devoutly Christian, and politically conservative. Over 70 percent of Violet Elementary School’s student body receives free and reduced lunch, and, at the start of this study, the school’s nearly 50 percent Latino student population had increased by 7 percent from the prior year.

Overview of Principal Jacobs Principal Jacobs is a White female who has been the principal of Violet Elementary School for several years, and she is a former recipient of a Principal of the Year Award. Teachers, staff, and parents described Ms. Jacobs as a businesslike leader who is no-nonsense, yet kind and caring. Over the past several years, she has led Violet Elementary School as it has transitioned from a school serving a vastly White middle- and working-class population to one that serves a student population that is nearly half Latino and poor. Principal Jacobs characterized Violet Elementary School as being a peaceful and positive place. She said educators and families who are resistant to cultural change are a small minority. Principal Jacobs also explained that there was a sense of alarm a few years ago when the school’s Latino population started to significantly increase, but the school community is becoming more “accepting.”

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 63

Cultural inclusion goals and segregation effects. When it comes to responding to demographic change, Principal Jacobs stressed that it is important that “we teach the same values – we preach the same things.” She emphasized the need to maintain a welcoming school climate that is inclusive and affirming of all children and families regardless of race, culture, or class. She further emphasized her instructional priorities when discussing ways to accommodate demographic change, such as providing teachers with professional development related to teaching English as a second language (ESL). With regard to culturally relevant instruction, Principal Jacobs leads the school in implementing a celebratory approach to multicultural education that highlights distinct cultural customs, differences, and contributions, rather than using a more critical approach that also integrates a culturally relevant curriculum and addresses power, privilege, and agency (Nieto, 1999). For instance, Violet Elementary School has a culture committee, which a few teachers organize. The committee is charged with planning multicultural social activities and sharing culturally relevant materials with teachers who are then free to use or disregard them. When asked to comment on how involved and accepting Violet teachers are of the committee, Principal Jacobs stated: Unless I’m being fooled, I think that across the board they are very comfortable with it. The music teacher every year has a program where she has songs or dances from every dominant culture. We have a huge bulletin board in the main hall there that’s done by the culture committee – you know, celebrating different cultures. At Christmas time they study about Christmas around the world … We always visit (a school where) they have an international day, and (the culture committee members) send a busload of school kids there. I think (the committee has) been around long enough that the teachers buy into it and the new ones know that that’s just sort of an expectation – we honor all cultures. Principal Jacobs’s efforts to “honor all cultures” further include ensuring that the school library has a culturally diverse collection and planning classes that are numerically inclusive. Along these lines, Principal Jacobs noted that though the school has a relatively small African American population (approximately 15 percent), she wants to ensure that teachers and staff are culturally sensitive to African American students. She described the staff trying to make class assignments that pair black students together in a class – preferably boys with boys and girls with girls. She stated, “We want to make sure every class is diverse. And so, we want to have a black child in every class, but we want that black child to have a buddy too.” She added that achieving this can be difficult and “Black parents complain that their children don’t have enough Black friends in the class. Yet, how do you do it if you don’t have enough kids to go around?” This data indicates a well-intentioned but problematic approach to cultural inclusion that is technical and segmented,

64 Camille M. Wilson

rather than substantive, coherent, and linked to school-wide initiatives. Furthermore, addressing cultural diversity issues was not part of the school’s three-year strategic plan. Principal Jacobs, however, did emphasize her desire to increase Latino families’ involvement and their sense of connection to the school. She expressed general concern about the difficulties Latino immigrant families face in transitioning to new residential and school communities, citing their inequitable access to healthcare, their “timid” disposition, and the likelihood that they, particularly those who are undocumented, are “intimidated” by US social systems and policies. Consequently, Principal Jacobs hired the school’s first Spanish-speaking parent coordinator, a Latina woman, to serve the Latino population – a resource few North Carolina schools have. Data from teachers and parents confirmed that the coordinator is a valuable addition to Violet; still, the coordinator said she wished she was charged with serving all parents, not just those who are Spanish-speaking. Her comment pertains to larger issues of social division and cultural segregation at Violet Elementary School. For example, the school’s leadership team, which does not have a Latino parent representative, chose to start organizing separate student orientations and parent meetings for English-speaking and Spanish-speaking parents. Teachers and administrators explained that conducting separate meetings has proven to be more efficient. They said it makes the Latino parents “more comfortable” and has led to increased Latino parent attendance at school activities. The school’s parent coordinator (who is not on the leadership team) said she thought the English-speaking parents felt it was “unfair” that the integrated meetings were so long given the use of Spanish interpreters, and that this sentiment prompted the meeting changes. Despite some valid benefits that holding separate meetings may offer, doing so clearly and intentionally segregates students and families. When Principal Jacobs was asked if this was a point of concern, she explained: Well, my feeling when we first started it was I sort of was worried that it would really reinforce that separation of the Latino community versus the other community – you know, the other community. I’m not sure to what extent that is true. I have found that we’ve had an increase in attendance at our (parent) meetings since we’ve tried to go to separating. In Principal Jacobs’s view, creating separate English-speaking and Spanish-speaking meetings represents a culturally responsive leadership decision that most teachers and parents have supported. Nevertheless, the data points to contradictions between an inclusive intent and segregating effects that may end up doing more harm than good. On the one hand, she professes to want a welcoming school in which all students are well educated and valued; on the other, she makes structural decisions that divide students and families along ethnic and linguistic lines. Moreover, the principal’s language that characterizes Latinos as the “other”

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 65

suggests she may unconsciously buy into the oppositional ideologies that West (1999) warns against, thereby failing to promote the unity and partnership building that he and transformative education leadership scholars recommend (Lopez et al., 2006, p67; Riehl, 2000; Shields, 2000; Shields and Sayani, 2005). Fear-based biases and tensions. While Principal Jacobs regards Violet as a welcoming and inclusive school, some data suggest that Violet teachers and parents perceive the school as being divisive due to demographic change and some school community members’ negative attitudes about cultural difference. Teachers and parents expressed the type of oppositional binary thinking and deficit-based views that West (1999) and other critical scholars admonish (Lopez et al., 2006; Shields and Sayani, 2005). These biases were specifically linked to the school’s Latino population. For instance, one Violet teacher, a White male, explained that many of the White parents and longtime residents of the greater community view the area’s demographic change as a cultural “invasion.” He explained: … some families feel threatened just because simply not knowing. Their kids are being educated in the different … Mexican lifestyles or Mexican culture. The kids are fine with it, but the parents who only know anything about Latin America from movies, you know, or from other stereotypical avenues – they don’t know what to expect and they only know what they heard through the grapevine. And I think that really hurts a lot. I think it hurts not only the school but the community itself. In line with the teacher’s observation, a disgruntled, White female parent at Violet stressed: I think they [Latinos] outnumber us, to be honest with you. I’m not trying to be mean or nothing, but I’m like totally serious. Like if you watch the school bus and watch kids get off, you’ll see 2 Black kids, 2 White kids and 15 Hispanic kids! You know what I’m saying? And I just think that it’s not fair to my child because they’re having to speak more Spanish. Such comments affirm the idea that Latinos are often socially constructed as a problem and a drain on resources who serve to threaten the “American” way of life (Murillo, 2002): White parents and educators often link this threat to language issues. Indeed, both White parents and educators pointed to the “language barrier” – meaning Spanish-speaking – as the key obstacle to developing positive cross-cultural school–family relations. Threats of White flight. Several parents, including the president of the school’s parent organization, discussed the increasing rates of White flight from Violet Elementary School given the stigma it has among many local White families. Another White parent said additional parents warned her not to enroll her daughter in the school, and they said things like, “Well I’m not prejudiced against

66 Camille M. Wilson

Mexicans but there’s a lot of them there,” and then suggested that the presence of Latinos is hurting the educational quality of the school. I shared general themes from the data that pertained to cultural conflict and bias with Principal Jacobs toward the end of the study. She conceded that some hostility surrounding the growth of Violet’s Latino population exists. The principal associated this more with parents than with teachers, staff, or students. She further remarked: As far as the White parents, I’ve heard the same thing that you have … I’ve heard some parents who celebrate the diversity, who want their kids to be here because this mirrors – this is real life, and they think that their kids need to learn to get along in a diverse society. I’ve also, you know, I’ve had the occasional [White] parent – and more often than not it’s a poorly educated person – who has said that, “You know, the Latino population just needs to go back where they came from … this was a better school before they ever came.” … I have had parents who said they want to come and visit the school and have a tour, and they want me to justify why their [White] child would do well in my school. Principal Jacobs stressed that she does not accommodate such parents with detailed justifications, but rather explains that Violet’s educators serve all kids well and the same. Basic care versus transformative leadership. While Principal Jacobs conveyed equityoriented intentions in discussing the effects of demographic change at Violet, she did not discuss taking any proactive efforts to address the negative, sometimes xenophobic, attitudes expressed by the faculty and families. She was, in fact, a bit dismissive of these attitudes and the brooding tensions at the school. She simply associated this with parental ignorance or with teachers who may grow more “accepting” in time. Thus, Principals Jacobs’s epistemological orientation regarding cultural change and difference does not reflect an understanding of the cultural complexities and social tensions affecting her school community. She did not express alarm; nor did she (or most interviewees) offer a systemic critique of the school’s social climate and school–family relations. Hence, her culturally responsive leadership efforts represented a basic or “aesthetic” approach to caring for culturally diverse groups (Valenzuela, 1999, p61). Basic care alone in the midst of cultural change, segregation, and conflict is not adequate or transformative for schools. This approach depoliticizes inequity and promotes a colorblind and culture-blind school that perpetuates social division (Shields and Sayani, 2005). At the same time, Principal Jacobs explained that she did not receive any diversity training in either her teacher education or leadership preparation programs; thus, she may arguably be doing the best she can to lead a demographically changing school based on a limited, multicultural knowledge base and little professional development training.

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 67

“This is not a country club school”: Demographic change and cultural difference at Appleton Elementary School Appleton Elementary School has served a large percentage of White and African American students for decades, the parents of whom mainly work in local factories and in retail and service industries. The surrounding community experienced the resettlement and migration of Cambodian refugees in the late 1960s, so a small percentage of Asian students have also attended the school for decades. During recent years, the Latino student population has rapidly grown, and the Asian population has increased as well. The vast majority of Appleton’s students, across cultural groups, are from working-class and low-income families. Two different principals served Appleton Elementary School during the data collection phase of this study. The first principal, Ms. Austin, is a White female in her second year of the principalship when this study began. The next school year, Ms. James, who had served as Appleton’s assistant principal for several years, became the principal. Ms. James is an African American woman and she is a generation older than Ms. Austin. Appleton’s educators and parents perceive the principals as having starkly different leadership styles. Ms. Austin was characterized as straightforward, authoritarian, and primarily focused on raising academic test scores, and Ms. James was characterized as warm, approachable, collaborative, and focused on improving school relationships. Both principals had received little professional development that explored diversity issues, though Ms. Austin was beginning a doctoral program that she anticipated would emphasize diversity and equity. Parents generally expressed satisfaction with Appleton Elementary School. With regard to the school’s demographics, both African American and White parents tended to note that the school “has a lot of Hispanic kids,” and they varied in whether they thought Latino presence positively added to Appleton being a “multicultural school” or detracted from its quality. Moreover, the president of the school’s parent organization, who is a White female and a staff member, stressed that she feels that Whites outside the school community perceive working or attending Appleton Elementary School as “dirty work” given the diverse, low-income population it serves. Still, the parent leader affirmed that Appleton is a good school. Both Principals Austin and James also alluded to the tendency of some, particularly outside community members and other teachers in the district, to perceive the diversity of Appleton Elementary School as a negative trait. The principals, however, emphasized their commitment to serving the school well and to recruiting and retaining teachers who would embrace Appleton’s demographic makeup.

Overview of Principal Austin Principal Austin described Appleton Elementary School as a “high-pressure place” given that the school has significantly increased its test scores in recent

68 Camille M. Wilson

years. She felt the school had to maintain, if not raise, the academic bar for future years. With regard to her general leadership philosophy, she stated, “My standards are high.” Principal Austin added, “One priority is that this place be orderly … and operate from a moral and ethical place.” She explained that test score data “drives” her leadership decisions and concluded, “I have absolutely no complaints academically … for the demographics and students we serve I think we do incredibly well.” Principal Austin said hiring competent teachers who are tolerant and enthusiastic about serving poor and culturally diverse children is the most important way she tries to respond to demographic change. When interviewing teachers, she stresses that “This [Appleton Elementary School] is not a country club school,” and teaching at the school means extending care and respect to students “no matter what color they are, or what they’re wearing, or how they smell.” She further informs teacher candidates that they will play many roles in students’ lives, such as nurse and social worker. Essentializing cultural difference. In light of the school’s diversity, Principal Austin explained that her toughest challenges are handling discipline problems among African American students and accommodating English language learners. She emphasized an equity-oriented stance regarding Appleton’s student population overall. Yet Principal Austin characterized some of the children (mainly African American boys) as having no respect for authority. On the other hand, she expressed sympathy for the many Spanish-speaking Latino students who arrive at the school from out of the country every week. Principal Austin also referred to her effort to not equate these students’ lack of English speaking skills with them having a learning disability, and she noted her desire to be sensitive since many new immigrant students arrive at Appleton “traumatized” by their immigration experience. She stated that these situations present “totally new ground” for the school. When asked about the strengths, challenges, and needs of Appleton’s culturally diverse families, Principal Austin said that engaging parents, overall, was difficult because some families are in “survival mode,” and they are coping with drugs, alcohol, and violence. She then expressed strong opinions that varied according to the families’ cultural background. The principal described African Americans as demonstrating “nearly no parent involvement.” She further explained that most African American families have had poor experiences with school; thus, they do not request help from the school or offer help. To the contrary, Principal Austin said Latino families “don’t seem to be afraid to come to school,” and she noted, “We’re very welcoming.” She mentioned the staff’s effort to translate all the information that is sent home in Spanish, frequently call Latino parents to keep them informed and collect community donations for them, and offer immigrant families clothing and housing assistance. Appleton Elementary School also has a partnership with a nearby Catholic church that many Latino families attend. Efforts to comparably engage and assist other groups of students and families were

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 69

not mentioned. In fact, Principal Austin characterized Asian families as being selfsufficient and not needing school outreach. She said Cambodian families, specifically, are more educated and fluent in English, and this population “seems to be more private, with better income, higher test scores, with fewer parent needs, and some presence at the school.” Overall, Principal Austin strongly asserted general equity-oriented stances by stressing the need to care for all children regardless of their cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. However, she also tended to essentialize the various cultural groups that Appleton Elementary School serves by characterizing African Americans as confrontational and Asians as cooperative. Essentializing difference entails clinging to and perpetuating fixed notions of others, which inhibits one’s ability to understand others within a broader social context and appreciate the complexity of their identities and experiences (Giroux, 2005; West, 1999). Contrary to the new cultural politics of difference framework that West (1999) proposes, Principal Austin mainly associated cultural difference with challenges and deficits.

Overview of Principal James Principal James’s perspectives about school–family relations were similar to Principal Austin’s, yet she appeared to be more proactive in her efforts to engage Appleton Elementary School’s demographically changing population. Principal James set improving school–family relations and increasing family engagement as two of her top priorities when she assumed the principalship. She initiated a grandparent–student mentoring program, sponsored family literacy events that targeted all cultural groups, increased community partnerships, and conducted parent surveys during her first year in the position. Still, as with the other principals, data pertaining to Principal James’s leadership reveal equity-oriented contradictions. Class and culture clashes between families and educators. Principal James expressed sympathy toward some of the school’s families and criticism of other families. She, an African American administrator, most harshly assessed poor, African American families. Principal James explained that, as an assistant principal, she often mediated conflicts between African American parents and Principal Austin. She said African American parents were more hostile with Ms. Austin because she is White, and further commented: Sometimes I think the Black men – Black parents – tend to intimidate the White teachers and White administrators. And Black ones [educators], myself included, we just don’t take that junk! … You know they try to throw their weight around … And that’s why sometimes I think it’s good that they [parents] get one of each [an African American and White administrator] … because it gives the parents someone to identify with.

70 Camille M. Wilson

Data from Principal James further suggests that notions of cultural difference are inextricably tied to class. She particularly pointed to the clashes that emerge between Appleton Elementary School’s middle-class White teachers and its low-income African American students and families. She explained: … some of them [African American parents] – I think it’s the way they dress, the way they come across – they have loud voices and they don’t mind using the foul language, and that just sorta bothers them – bothers the teachers. ’Cause if you think about it, most of our White teachers come from your middle-class families. They have totally different values … We have one teacher here, in particular, who said, “Children here are so different from when I first started teaching. I just think that I’m not cut out to work with this type of child.” And we [the administration] said, “It’s probably best, then, that you look somewhere else, because this is it. And if you don’t feel you can work with these type of children, then, yeah, you do need to [go].” When asked about the best ways to decrease the tensions between families and educators at the school, Principal James emphasized the need for teachers to better communicate with families and demonstrate concern for all students. She stated that regardless of a student’s background, teachers are “still gonna have to love that child.” Complex contradictions are evident in Principal James’s data given that she asserts a strong critique of African American families, characterizing them as willfully hostile and threatening. She does not seem to be aware of her biased stance – yet she recognizes and admonishes the prejudiced attitudes of others. Principal James’s tendency to recognize cultural bias but not her own is also evident in data pertaining to Latinos. When discussing the clashes between Latino students and the school’s White and African American teachers, Principal James stated: You do have some teachers on staff, mostly teacher assistants, who say things like, “Why does everything have to be translated. Why do we have to learn Spanish?” We don’t hear that a lot, but we hear it – and they have a point. If we went to their country, they wouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate us. Indeed, both Appleton principals shared contradictory views that reflect a complex epistemological orientation. On the one hand, this orientation is informed by equity-oriented intentions and strong convictions that educators should equally serve all children well. On the other, both principals separate poor African Americans out as problems compared to other students and families. Moreover, Principal James’s comment about accommodating Spanish speakers indicate that the oppositional ideologies and separatist politics that have long juxtaposed Black

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 71

and White Americans can also cast two marginalized groups against each other – namely, African American and Latinos – thereby cementing an “us versus them” mentality. Data from the principals, overall, indicate that they, like other school community members, wrestle with accepting and equitably responding to cultural and social change. The principals at both schools emphasized the importance of acceptance, caring and inclusion when talking about their school communities. These leaders, however, have not moved beyond rudimentary strategies, such as organizing celebratory multicultural events, to promote cross-cultural understanding and inclusion. They are not addressing the social divisions, hostility, and the discriminatory attitudes of teachers and parents in their schools. Moreover, data indicate that the principals lack sufficient understanding of how cultural biases and social tensions can fundamentally undermine the effective operation of a culturally diverse learning community. Nevertheless, the demographics and social dynamics of the schools present the principals many opportunities to exude transformative leadership and put more of their inclusion rhetoric into practice.

Discussion: Cultural Work as Transformative Leadership According to the new cultural politics of difference framework, one advances social justice by serving as a cultural worker who affirms rather than fears cultural difference. The cultural worker also rejects separatist politics; appreciates the complexity of diversity and cultural identities; strives to recognize, reveal, and combat inequity; and works to empower marginalized groups via collaborative strategies. West (1999) explains that there are three major challenges to serving as a cultural worker, which are intellectual, existential, and political in nature. Intellectually speaking, one must accept diverse ways of knowing that are not merely based upon Anglocentric canons or other privileged norms. Existentially speaking, one must enact progressive change while maintaining the “selfconfidence, discipline, and perseverance necessary for success” (West, 1999, p135). One must also gain the cultural capital and collegial support to thrive. Politically speaking, one must develop cross-cultural alliances among those who are like minded. In all, the cultural worker is constantly negotiating mainstream systems and subcultures while drawing upon the interconnectedness of people and their convergent interests. Thus, striving to be a “freedom fighter” and coalition builder at once is the ultimate challenge of this work (West, 1999). These objectives also align with critical and transformative leadership theories that urge educators to cross cultural borders in their thinking and actions, and work for social justice (Giroux, 2005; Lopez et al., 2006; Shields and Sayani, 2005). Accomplishing these objectives is essential when leading culturally diverse and demographically changing schools. The principals of Violet and Appleton Elementary Schools are committed, equity-oriented educators striving to serve their diverse populations well. They

72 Camille M. Wilson

have each guided their school in achieving academic progress for all students, while also making some culturally responsive decisions. For instance, Principal Jacobs intentionally hired a Spanish-speaking parent coordinator at Violet Elementary School and supported the formation of a culture committee; and at Appleton Elementary School, Principal Austin forged the community partnership with the local church that many Latino families attend, while Principal James strengthened partnerships with other diverse community groups. The principals’ leadership, however, falls short of exemplifying cultural work. They are not doing enough to bridge their schools’ internal divides. The principals perceive their schools as peaceful and inclusive; yet data indicate that their schools are becoming tense and separatist. Educators and families are distancing themselves from those are who culturally different – namely, Latinos and, in many instances, African Americans. Educators’ and parents’ acceptance of Spanish-speaking as a “language barrier” to learning, instruction, interaction, and relationship-building is one of the strongest signifiers of a cultural divide (Cooper et al., 2009). Although language differences can bring forth legitimate communication challenges, they also become barriers that English speakers socially construct (Cooper et al., 2009; Villenas, 2002). Moreover, the idea that speaking Spanish is “unfair” functions as a type of legitimizing belief – a belief some school community members draw upon to make meaning and to justify exclusion (Evans, 2007; Riehl, 2000). As the new cultural politics of difference framework would predict, this has led to reproducing social inequality. While some of the data from both schools are disturbing, they point to new opportunities for the principals to perform cultural work as a form of transformative leadership. Rather than just tolerating or celebrating cultural diversity, the principals can lead their school communities in implementing culturally relevant instruction across grade levels. Ensuring greater representation of diverse families within the leadership and governance structures is also warranted. In addition, staff members, teachers, and the principals would gain from participating in activities that prompt them to critically reflect on their biases and express their concerns, needs, and reform ideas. Developing professional learning communities that use intergroup dialogue, collaborative inquiry, and critical multicultural education strategies would be a good starting point for this work (Cooper et al., 2009). Finally, the principals should commit to hiring and retaining a more culturally diverse faculty, which both schools lack, and nurture conscientious teacher-leaders. In total, transformative leadership amidst demographic change requires one to first uncover their blind spots in order to view, understand, and counteract inequity. One can then inspire and mobilize others to cross or deconstruct borders that keep school community members divided. This involves working within the social and cultural chasms that physically and ideologically present themselves to forge bridges so that public education is democratic and emancipatory rather than marginalizing and oppressive.

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 73

Notes 1 This chapter is excerpted and adapted from Cooper, C. W. (2009) “Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5): 694–724. Thank you to Taylor & Francis for allowing the article to be partially reprinted. 2 I thank Romy Allen and Marcia Smith-Fischer for their research assistance, and Love Crossling for her early contribution to the study.

References Appiah, K. A. (2006) “The politics of identity,” Daedulus, 135(4): 15–22. Banks, J. A. (1996) “The historical reconstruction of knowledge about race: Implications for transformative teaching,” in J. A. Banks (ed) Multicultural Education, Transformative Knowledge, and Action: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 64–87. Brown, K. M. (2004) “Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy,” Education Administration Quarterly, 40(1): 77–108. Cambron-McCabe, N. and McCarthy, M. (2005) “Educating school leaders for social justice,” Educational Policy, 19(1): 201–222. CNNC (Center for New North Carolinians) (undated) General website, http://cnnc.uncg. edu, accessed 1 June 2007. Cooper, C. W. and Gause, C. P. (2007) “Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf? Confronting identity politics and student resistance when teaching for social justice,” in D. Carlson and C. P. Gause (eds) Keeping the Promise: Essays on Leadership, Democracy and Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang, 197–216. Cooper, C. W., Allen, R., and Bettez, S. (2009) “Forming culturally responsive learning communities in demographically changing schools,” in C. A. Mullen (ed) The Handbook of Leadership and Professional Learning Communities. London: Palgrave, 103–114. Creswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dantley, M. (2003) “Principled, pragmatic, and purposive leadership: Reimagining educational leadership through prophetic spirituality,” Journal of School Leadership, 13(2): 181–198. Dantley, M. and Tillman, L. C. (2006) “Social justice and moral transformative leadership,” in C. Marshall and M. Oliva (eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 16–30. Evans, A. E. (2007) “Changing faces: Suburban school responses to demographic change,” Education and Urban Society, 39(3): 315–348. Giroux, H. A. (2005) Border Crossings: Cultural Workers and the Politics of Education, second edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Hall, S. (1996) “New ethnicities,” in D. Morley and K.-H. Chen (eds) Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, 441–449. Hidalgo, N. M., Siu, S.-F., and Epstein, J. L. (2004) “Research on families, schools, and communities: A multicultural perspective,” in J. A. Banks and C. A. M. Banks (eds) Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 631–655. Johnson, J. H. (2002) “Immigration-driven demographic change in NC: Issues and challenges,” North Carolina Political Review, March–April, http://www.ncpoliticalreview. com, accessed 1 September 2003. Kitchen, J. (2002) “The Hispanic boom,” Hispanic Magazine, 15 February, http://www. puertorico-herald.org, accessed 1 September 2003. Larson, C. and Ovando, C. (2001) The Color of Bureaucracy: The Politics of Equity in Multicultural School Communities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.

74 Camille M. Wilson

Lopez, G. R. (2003) “The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory perspective,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1): 68–94. Lopez, G. R., Gonzalez, M. L., and Fierro, E. (2006) “Educational leadership along the U.S.–Mexico border: Crossing borders/embracing hybridity/building bridges,” in C. Marshall and M. Oliva (eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 64–84. McCarthy, C. (1993) “After the canon: Knowledge and ideological representation in multicultural discourse on curriculum reform,” in C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow (eds) Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York, NY: Routledge, 289–305. Marshall, C. (ed) (2004) “Social justice challenges to educational administration,” Special issue of Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1): 3–13. Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (eds) (2006) “Building the capacities of social justice leaders,” in C. Marshall and M. Oliva (eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 1–15. Merriam, S. B. (1997) Qualitative Researcher and Case Study Applications in Education: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Moll, L. (2005) “Reflections and possibilities,” in N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, and C. Amanti (eds) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Murillo, Jr., E. G. (2002) “How does it feel to be a problem? ‘Disciplining’ the transnational subject in the American South,” in S. Wortham, E. G., Jr. Murillo, and E. T. Hamann (eds) Education in the New Latino Diaspora: Policy and the Politics of Identity. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 215–239. Nieto, S. (1999) The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2004) Affirming Diversity: Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education, fourth edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Omi, M. and Winant, H. (1993) “On the theoretical status of the concept of race,” in C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow (eds) Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York, NY: Routledge, 3–10. Pounder, D., Reitzug, U., and Young, M. D. (2002) “Preparing school leaders for school improvement, social justice and community,” in J. Murphy (ed) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for the 21st Century. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 261–288. Quantz, R., Rogers, J., and Dantley, M. (1991) “Rethinking transformative leadership: Toward democratic reform of schools,” Journal of Education, 173(3): 96–118. Riehl, C. J. (2000) “The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration,” Review of Educational Research, 70(1): 55–81. Rosenburg, P. M. (2004) “Color blindness in teacher education: An optical delusion,” in M. Fine, L. Weis, L. P. Pruitt, and A. Burns (eds) Off White: Readings on Power, Privilege, and Resistance, second edition. New York and London: Routledge, 257–272. Shields, C. M. (2000) “Learning from difference: Considerations for schools as communities,” Curriculum Inquiry, 30(3): 275–294. Shields, C. M. and Sayani, A. (2005) “Leading in the midst of diversity: The challenge of our times,” in F. W. English (ed) The Sage Handbook of Educational Leadership: Advances in Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 380–406. Shoho, A. R., Merchant, B. M., and Lugg, C. A. (2005) “Social justice,” in F. W. English (ed) The Sage Handbook of Educational Leadership: Advances in Theory, Research, and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 47–67.

Cultural Work and Demographically Changing Schools 75

Theoharis, G. (2007) “Navigating rough waters: A synthesis of the countervailing pressures against leading for social justice,” Journal of School Leadership, 17(1): 4–27. Trounson, R. (2012) “U.S. reaches historic demographic tipping point,” Los Angeles Times, 18 May, http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/18/local/la-me-census-births-20120518. Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive Schooling: U.S.–Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Villenas, S. (2002) “Reinventing educacíon in new Latino communities: Pedagogies of change and continuity in North Carolina,” in S. Wortham, E. G., Jr. Murillo, and E. T. Hamann (eds) Education in the New Latino Diaspora: Policy and the Politics of Identity. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 17–35. West, C. (1999) “The new cultural politics of difference,” in C. West (ed) The Cornel West Reader. New York, NY: Basic Civitas Books. Zhou, M. (2003) “Urban education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children,” Teachers College Record, 105(2): 208–225.

This page intentionally left blank

PART II

Affirming Multiple Dimensions of Diversity in Schools

This page intentionally left blank

5 RELIGIOUS DIVERSITY, MULTICULTURALISM, AND REPRESENTATION The Challenge of Facing Islam in the Classroom Liz Jackson

Although controversy over religious and multicultural difference in education is hardly new in the United States, the terms of the debate have changed over time. Today, among other ongoing battles over sexual diversity, race, and language in education, the representation of Islam and Muslims is under scrutiny in schools and textbooks. For many teachers, Islam is an abstract aspect of the curriculum, rather than something they are knowledgeable about and face every day. Less than 1 percent of Americans are Muslims, and most Muslim children attend private or home schooling (MacFarquhar, 2008). Yet, after the September 11, 2001 (9/11) terrorist attacks in the US, a new need to know about the religion and its followers emerged. At the same time, the topic became highly politicized, leaving educators and textbook companies uncertain whether Islam should be taught and, if so, how Islam and Muslims should be represented. In this context, it becomes difficult for educators to share facts and multiple perspectives with students, and increase students’ ability to critically analyze information, essential components of education within a democratic society. In this chapter I will first shed light on the roots of today’s debate over teaching about Islam by exploring some key issues and events in American educational history and political philosophy. I will then consider some different perspectives on what should be taught about Islam in US schools and emphasize why it is important to teach youth about Islam and Muslims in a fair and balanced way. Here I envision a multicultural education that does not just focus on the minority student, but focuses on the broader goal of supporting informed democratic citizenship. The final section will emphasize the role of media literacy in teaching about crucial and controversial multicultural issues, and provide recommendations and examples for teachers facing the challenge of educating students about Islam.

80 Liz Jackson

Strangers in Our Midst It is nothing new that many Americans find themselves today uncertain about a social group who was previously thought of as foreign to US society, now as strangers in our midst. For instance, during the founding of the United States, a central concern of many philosophical and political thinkers was whether “free White men” was too broad a category for granting political rights and equality, and who was “White” among European “races” (Akam, 2002). With the concept of difference typically comes subjective judgments of good or bad, better or worse; and consideration of what to do with those “others” of society: whether and/or how to welcome, tolerate, or reject them (Akam, 2002). Such questions have also been at the heart of American education debates since the founding of common schools. Assimilation was the traditional solution in the first centuries of US history (Akam, 2002). Zangwill’s 1908 play The Melting Pot mythologized the United States as a land of cultural smelting, promising financial and cultural rewards to those who would let go of their traditional norms, customs, and beliefs to become part of a greater whole, which also represented a wealthier, more politically empowered mainstream society (Akam, 2002). Historically, one was also held with suspicion if he or she appeared unwilling to smelt, especially if any national danger or threat was perceived. As President Woodrow Wilson expressed in the years leading to World War I, the “hyphenated” American who was, say, “Italian-American,” rather than simply “American,” constituted a threat, with the hyphen symbolizing “a dagger … ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic” (Akam, 2002, p47). In the early 21st century, pluralism emerged as a critical response to the perceived excesses of the “smelting-pot” approach. That America should be held not as an ever-homogenizing stew but as a rich tapestry of bold, yet harmonizing pieces was held by pluralists as fundamental to both the thriving of American society and its protection from enemies. In Horace Kallen’s view, “Jews or Poles or AngloSaxons, in order to cease being Jews or Poles or Anglo-Saxons, would have to cease to be” (Akam, 2002, p59). Thus a dialogue emerged between those who argued that everyone’s interests were aligned by assimilation (see, for example, Thomas and Znaniecki, 1999) and those who argued for celebration or toleration of difference in society (Akam, 2002; Bourne, 1997). Three facets of these early debates about multiculturalism remain important to the debate about Islam in education today. The first hinges on religious difference. Religious difference has always been a concern in US educational contexts. For instance, early common school curriculum was often Protestant in orientation, and teachers used resources such as the King James version of the Bible (Tozer et al., 2006). Horace Mann saw this as a common or unifying element necessary for creating homogenous culture within the United States, but most Catholics saw it as exclusionary and discriminatory. This started one of the first debates over

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 81

separation of church and state in US education. John Stuart Mill was particularly vocal in this context, arguing that “The Jew and the unbeliever would be excluded from it though they would not the less be required to pay for it” (Tozer et al., 2006, p66). In Mill’s view, the only truly common school was a secular one. Today debates continue regarding whether the nation is sufficiently Christian (or should be) for the inclusion of Christian elements in public schools, such as prayer times, or if it is unreasonably offensive to those who are not part of the mainstream religion. The religious character of the United States is at question here. Educators will not find an easy answer to such questions in the near future. The next interesting facet to reflect on when considering the roots of today’s multicultural debate is the focus on pragmatic reasons for assimilation or toleration. By “pragmatic” I mean here the instrumental, practical utility of a multicultural orientation for immediate classroom practice. On the one hand, as we will see in the next section, many assimilationists of early and more recent times tie their agenda not to the threat of difference (like the concerns expressed by President Wilson), but to the necessity of people speaking a common language to understand each other and succeed in employment. In this framing, to enable equal footing, creating greater commonalities between different groups is a necessity. On the other hand, throughout US history, multiculturalists have also argued about identity at the pragmatic level, suggesting that it psychologically upsets a student to take away something vital to their identity, such as their cultural characteristics and unique personal background (Akam, 2002). The third important facet of the ongoing multicultural debate, which has been briefly mentioned, is the theme of threats to the nation. One sees both in historical writings on US diversity and in contemporary debates over Islam in the classroom issues of difference treated as fundamental to the survival of the United States. Thinkers such as Samuel Huntington (1993) fit this mold today, suggesting the US faces a “clash of civilizations” of West and Islam, which politicians must respond to in order for our society to continue. Such ideas influence educators who believe that tolerating or celebrating Islam is anti-American, thereby threatening mainstream social order. Earlier in US history, the education of African slaves was controversial, as it was viewed as potentially dangerous to others in society (Gutman, 1989, p387). On the other hand, “civilizing” Native Americans was a government project in the late 19th and early 20th century, as government and church leaders saw assimilation as the only way for peaceful coexistence given that it would discourage rebellion (Ballantine, 1993, p131). Even linguistic difference has been held as a dire concern for the nation-state at various times. As Congressman Steve King recently argued in introducing an act to make English the official language of the US, “common languages have created cohesive cultures and have helped prevent division” (Fox News, 2012). Multiculturalism is thus linked to debates about US national strength and security in various ways today as it has been in the past.

82 Liz Jackson

Overall, the three aspects of the multicultural education debate, pertaining to religious difference, pragmatism, and national security, have been prominent throughout US history, and remain important to the consideration of teaching about Islam. As the next section will consider, Islam is difficult to teach in the United States today partly because it is a religious tradition, in a country where the separation of church and state and the religious character of the nation are essentially contested. The pragmatic educational needs of students, many of whom are Christian, are also a source of confusion as educators move forward from 9/11. Finally, as Islam is often conflated with terrorism today, many critics of multicultural education view religious recognition as anti-American.

To Recognize or Not To Recognize Politically, America has evolved dramatically over the last century when it comes to minority civil rights, and with these changes have come significant educational implications. The definition and rights of American citizenship have expanded to a higher level of inclusivity. Generally speaking, all races, religions, and ethnic groups (of citizens) are formally accepted into public schools. The terms of the debate over difference and multiculturalism in education have changed, and different questions have emerged as fundamental to the task of teaching in and for a democratic society. Arguably, US education today is characterized more by goals for multicultural recognition than for assimilationism; yet, themes from earlier eras in US history still emerge. An important event in 20th-century US education was the Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, which ruled that racial separation in schools was inherently unequal. Compelling testimony in the case focused on the psychology of Black children (Anderson and Byrne, 2004). Brown legal proponents successfully demonstrated that Black children could not possibly see themselves as equal to White children in segregation, and that segregation thus disabled them in climbing the social ladder, resulting in the denial of the equality guaranteed by US civil rights laws. As an alternative, then, to segregation, what emerged after Brown was an approach to multicultural education focused on recognition. This shift sought to respond to the need for minorities to feel good about themselves while facing their minority status in society. A leading figure in US educational multiculturalism, Banks (2004, p6) has noted that in the 1960s the first trend in US multicultural education involved hastily developed curriculum on “holidays and other special days, ethnic celebrations, and courses that focused on one ethnic group.” From there, Banks (1993) worked in the 1970s and 1980s, to today, to improve education for minority children by advocating an approach where teachers instruct minority youth and their classmates about the unique contributions and characteristics of the minority groups to society. This approach includes an ever-broadening viewpoint when it comes to the roles of women, people with disabilities, and various other social minorities.

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 83

In a more recent text by Banks (2004), Muslims were entered into the fold of multicultural education for the first time in his discussion of religious diversity and education. Banks (2004, pA-1) writes that such discussion aims at: … helping Muslim students to function in the traditional cultures of their parents and their American peer culture [and to] also serve as a departure point for teaching students to know, to care, and to act against discrimination directed toward Muslims and other religious, cultural, ethnic, and language groups. Banks focuses here on Muslims who are not terrorists, but ordinary citizens and students. He emphasizes the practical need to educate Muslims and to educate others about them. America is not alone in witnessing the rise of multicultural “recognition” education. In Canada, Taylor (1994) is best known for putting forward the argument, both within and outside the sphere of education, that it does psychological harm to minorities to not recognize their distinctions. Taylor echoes pluralists from a century earlier in suggesting that one ceases to be who they are if they must be stripped of recognition of some part of their essence and uniqueness. Not everyone agrees with the view, however, that one’s individuality in education or elsewhere should or must hinge on certain categories of difference over others. This politics of recognition has been criticized on two counts. First, some critics of multiculturalism contend that teaching students what to be proud of, or what to view as most salient to who they are, is not educationally productive if education’s purpose is to release minds from boundaries and maximize opportunities to learn, explore, and create (Appiah, 1994; Feinberg, 1998; Ravitch, 1990; Strike, 2003). A distinction is made in such critiques between providing a nondiscriminatory treatment versus a celebratory treatment of minority cultures and identity: Should education build minority students’ self-esteem, or should it merely avoid harming minority students’ self-esteem? It is further argued that the articulation of cultural distinctiveness of minorities creates artificial barriers, emphasizing differences that may be less important than other things in educational contexts, such as ambition, talent, or interest in science. One can see the similarity of this argument to the assimilationism agenda of earlier times. This argument places emphasis on a need to create commonality around the dominant White majority mode or identity, enhance the stability of majority culture, and not enlarge rifts by focusing on statuses of racial, ethnic, or cultural difference. Although some of the most vocal critics in this context are conservative White scholars, they are not alone in fearing that multicultural recognition has an outer limit to its usefulness. As Appiah (1994, pp159, 163) argues: The large collective identities that call for recognition come with notions of how a proper person of that kind behaves; it is not that there is one way

84 Liz Jackson

that gays or blacks should behave, but that there are gay and black modes of behaviour. … If I had to choose between the world of the closet and the world of gay liberation, or between the world of Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Black Power, I would, of course, choose in each case the latter. But I would like not to have to choose. I would like other options. Similarly, Parekh (2000, p343), another scholar of color, has written that “cultural self-esteem cannot be developed and sustained in a vacuum and requires appropriate changes in all the major areas of life,” indicating a strategic reason not to practice a multicultural education despite its noble intentions. Second, there are critics of multiculturalism who ask what is wrong with the majority (smelted American) culture, in relation to ethnic minority cultures, questioning: Is it is not proper to focus on America as an exceptional country, and Western culture as a model cultural tradition? Such critics further ask: Should the White, middle-class, Anglo-Saxon Protestant child not also feel pride, or is multiculturalism an exercise in anti-Americanism? As Schlesinger (1998, p127) understands it, Western Europe remains “the source – the unique source – of those liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and cultural freedom,” and “there is surely no reason for Western civilization to have guilt trips laid on it by champions of cultures based on despotism, superstition, tribalism, and fanaticism.” Critics such as Schlesinger emphasize education’s purpose of nation-building and assimilating youth to a common (majority White) culture. Such arguments about the uniqueness or exceptionalism of a country or tradition, however, are hard to justify empirically. For instance, there are strands within Islam, among other religions and traditions, that have focused on the ideas of cultural freedom, rule of law, and the rights of all people in society. At the same time, one can identify instances where members of Western civilization have been despotic, superstitious, and tribal, even within US history. Thus, a stance such as Schlesinger’s creates a highly imbalanced representation of Muslims in relation to the West or European civilization that would lead to highly negative, stereotypical views of Muslims (and other ethnic and religious minorities) the world over. One case in point that reveals controversial representation of Islam/Muslims: In 2010, the Texas State Board of Education criticized several textbook publishers for taking a comparatively more positive spin on Islam than Christianity. The board argued that texts with such content were offering a biased representation of Muslims bordering on Islamic propaganda. As the resolution from this debate states, commonly used textbooks were found to improperly:  discuss (neutrally – not negatively) Muslim beliefs, practices, and writings in greater detail than Christian ones;  “sanitize” the word jihad to “exclude religious intolerance or military aggression against non-Muslims – even though Islamic sources often include these

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 85

among proper meanings of the term – which undergirds worldwide Muslim terrorism”; and  “treat non-judgmentally, minimize, sugarcoat, or censor in Islam” practices negatively associated with Christianity – for instance, calling Christian Crusaders “violent attackers” or “invaders,” while referring to similar Muslim groups as “empire builders” (Texas State Board of Education, 2010). In sum, the textbooks were accused of having an exaggerated multicultural attitude toward Islam and Muslims in history because they focused on positive aspects of Islam, while board members felt the books neglected positive aspects of Christianity. The board apparently wanted texts to provide a more balanced depiction of different faiths, particularly given that more students in US schools are Christian than Muslim. As mentioned earlier, multiculturalism is often considered as a pragmatic issue of hindering or building up minority students’ self-esteem. Yet in the case of Islam, this issue is usually not identified as being of fundamental importance because most US public school classrooms do not have Muslim students (MacFarquhar, 2008). However, there are other reasons for using a multicultural approach to teaching about Islam in public schools that relates to the general need for students to know and understand information about Islam in a diverse world, and within a nation that has highly biased media.

The Challenge of Facing Islam When we consider the social and philosophical levels of analysis, there can be no doubt that Muslims face a challenge of representation in our society (Jackson, 2010), as do other groups traditionally associated with a multicultural approach in US public schools, such as different ethnic and/or racial groups, women, and people with disabilities. What makes this religious tradition unique from more common multicultural subjects such as race, ethnicity, or gender, however, is that the focus when dealing with Islam in education is not primarily on the student – such as her educational and other opportunities, or self-esteem. Of course, the issue of Muslim students’ rights in US public schools is important (CAIR, 2006; Elnatour, 2005; Holcomb, 2012; Rizvi, 2005). However, as mentioned in the introduction, for most school teachers, Islam still remains an abstract aspect of their class, rather than something they face every day. Thus, Islam is different from other multicultural issues in that a broader justification is needed than nurturing Muslim students’ self-esteem. One other significant justification is the need to counter prevailing media bias. Of course, media bias is a justification for most multicultural initiatives as many groups face representational challenges in society. But in the case of Islam, it is not for the benefit of Muslims primarily that challenging media bias is important here. Rather, challenging bias is important to the development of informed mainstream society as a whole.

86 Liz Jackson

For instance, linking back to the Texas State Board of Education (2010), the resolution states that the concept of jihad “undergirds worldwide Muslim terrorism,” suggesting that this should be discussed in the schools and texts. Yet the vast majority of Muslims – as the vast majority of Christians and members of other faith systems – are disinterested in violence, cultural conflict, and disharmony (Shaheen, 2001). So why should this be emphasized? Relatedly, in a recent poll most Americans claimed to have never heard of any American Muslim leader condemning terrorism; yet all American Muslim leaders (as recognized by American Muslim groups) have done so (CAIR, 2006; see also Braiker, 2011). The simple explanation for this gap in our knowledge is that Muslims advocating peace is not newsworthy according to mainstream news journalists, while references to terrorism – often associated with Islam – are viewed as keeping audiences tuned in (Jackson, 2010). News media teaches – as the classroom does – by giving selective information to audiences (Schrag and Javidi, 1997) and suggesting that certain attitudes and viewpoints are legitimate (such as Muslims are commonly terrorists) over other ones (such as most Muslims are against terrorism). Against this backdrop, the Texas resolution’s concern with “chronic partiality to one of the world’s great religions (Islam), and animus against another (Christianity),” is overstated (Texas State Board of Education, 2010, p 2). First, their overview has ignored evidence that textbooks as a whole just as often say negative things about Muslims in history, and positive things about Christians (Jackson, 2011). Second, the Texas resolution fails to consider the purposes of education within social context. There is not a reasonably identifiable problem with bias against Christians in mainstream US society, or with misunderstanding of Christianity as a whole in the public sphere (such as might be found through surveying or polls), while these are problems faced by Muslim Americans (Braiker, 2011; CAIR, 2006). Furthermore one can identify mainstream media bias against Islam and hate crimes against Muslims in the United States, though it is difficult to identify the same facing Christians (Jackson, 2010) – and certainly not on the same scale. There is a related problem with representation of religion in schools, and here it gets undeniably tricky. Many view religion as a taboo topic for the classroom. There is a fear of propagandizing, rather than teaching information about religions and groups (Noddings, 1993; Nord, 1995). For this reason many parties interested in the fair and substantial dissemination of information about various religious groups in society have long found US curricula sorely lacking. As Nord (1995, p378) states, to “exclude some voices from the conversation is to disenfranchise people … Public education has, in effect, disenfranchised religious folk.” From such a perspective, it cannot be denied with facts or by interreligious comparisons that Christianity has also been overlooked and minimized in public school texts, to the reasonable dissatisfaction of many Christian Americans. Nonetheless, the issue is not simply one of bias or lack of substantial representation of religions in US public school classrooms and textbooks, but of bias and lack of balanced representation of one religion, Islam, in US society as a whole. It has

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 87

been extensively observed how Islam has been misrepresented in news media and popular culture in the United States (Jackson, 2010; Karim, 2002; Said, 1979; Schrag and Javidi, 1997; Shaheen, 1984; Shaheen, 2001). Islam has been linked consistently over time in news media and in Hollywood films to violence, sexism, and intolerance (Jackson, 2010), which are the very links that Texas finds lacking in the texts. At the same time, we see the US public continues to have its doubts whether peaceful Muslims or Muslim Americans exist, or how many they are, lacking representations of such individuals and groups on televisions, movie screens, or in their neighborhoods, given that Muslim Americans make up such a small percentage of the whole. In this case, it is the responsibility of educators to counter myths and unbalanced portrayals with facts and positions that run counter to the dominant script of Islam as enemy, violent, and intolerant. How to best teach about Islam in the classroom has demanded the attention of educators in recent years, as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 clearly and dramatically connected Islam with terrorism. It is not unnatural in this case that children (and adults) would make the connection between Islam and terrorism. Still, the obvious conclusion is not the most precise or reasonable one in this case, as one educator recalls a dialogue with her students in the days following the attacks: They said, “ … we need to take some military action.” I said, “Against whom?” And they said “Muslims … the Middle East.” Then I pulled down the map. … ”Oh, why don’t we just bomb any country out there?” And I was like, “Whoa, you know it’s like there are people there.” [Some kids were like,] “Yeah, yeah, they killed 5,000 of ours let’s kill 10,000 of theirs.” And I said, “Okay, so what if they retaliate and they kill 20,000 – what are you going to do? Wipe out the whole Middle East?” And they’re like, “Yeah, we could do that. We got the bombs.” Oh, my god! Lowenstein (2006, p167) In such situations, which were not uncommon following September 11, teachers had no choice but to “deal with” Islam (Hochman, 2006; Kaviani, 2007). However, today, as time goes on and memories fade, it is less likely that teachers are devoting as much time to Islam and Muslims as they were in the aftermath of this event. So far, I have considered the roots of today’s debate over Islam in US history. Multiculturalists and assimilationists have considered both pragmatic and philosophical rationales for dealing with difference in particular ways in the classroom, whether in an inclusive, celebratory way, or in a silent, difference-blind way. The case of Islam is interesting in this context because it is a religious identity, which is seen to threaten the status quo, compete with mainstream religions in the classroom, or even support terrorism. At the same time, Islam is not always a pressing multicultural issue in the classroom.

88 Liz Jackson

The misrepresentation of Islam is not primarily a problem for US Muslims, but for society as a whole, as a democratic society cannot be supported by people who know only stereotypical rather than representative facts and information about Muslims, a significant large-scale group in this world (CAIR, 2006). So, the solution for multicultural educators should be to challenge what is predominant in the media and thus what becomes common, informal knowledge. The importance of media literacy in teaching about Islam is of utmost importance, and may well be applied in other instances where groups perceive a media bias that precludes their fair educational treatment.

What to Do? Incorporating Comparative Media Literacy Media literacy is typically discussed in the context of citizenship education and English education (Schwarz and Brown, 2005), but is less likely to be considered in multicultural education in public schools, where it is of unique utility. What the Texas debates and relative ignorance about Islam across the US reflect is that one should not rely upon textbooks alone to give information on religious groups, or other important and controversial social and/or political issues in our world today. Indeed, when formal school knowledge is portrayed as unrelated to knowledge taken from other venues, such as news media, students can fail to see the former, rather than the latter, as important to their everyday lives. To both buffer the worst effects of the news media, and to enable students to think for themselves rather than accept media messages as facts, media literacy should be a part of social science education. Media literacy is especially important when dealing with multicultural and/or stigmatized groups in society, such as Muslims (Jackson, 2010; Schrag, 1991). Media literacy can mean different things in various contexts (Schwarz and Brown, 2005), so it is important to refine its meaning according to one’s purposes. To start, the approach should be comparative, across and among media forms. Messages and methods should be compared in the way they contrast among different sources. “Sources” here include anything from the textbooks used in the classroom to newspaper articles, advertisements, movies, television shows, books, music, pictures in newspapers, and the like. What the message is and how it is promoted should be analyzed (Jackson, 2010). Different messages can be compared, as can the treatment of different groups or the method for putting forward a message. Below I suggest four activities and strategies for enhancing students’ media literacy.

1 Media Activity: News and Popular Culture Analysis In the following case study, a middle school educator (“Hilda”) emphasizes multiple perspectives through the use of media, inviting students to analyze messages as diverse in content and form.

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 89

For her contemporary world problems class, Hilda used newspaper and magazine articles and surfed the internet for news that “pushed the button.” She looked for current high-profile controversial issues that had graphic images and made a deliberate effort to include them in her lessons. She believed that images were really important in telling a story because students could “grasp easily” what was going on. Her students visited a photo bank of images on the internet showing Muslim women in various degrees of body covering, and they compared those images to clothing for traditional Catholic women and explained how traditions influenced fashion; in turn, Islamic fashion could be seen as a form of political statement (Kaviani, 2007, p116). Here, online images are simply used to compare different head coverings both within and among different religious traditions, as well as to compare various reasons why women would wear coverings, from cultural to political. One could complicate this activity for more advanced students simply by examining pictures of women wearing head coverings in relation to the subjects or titles of the accompanying articles. What the message is and how the image supports the message can thus be clarified. This creates a fuller awareness that the media is not impartial even if it aims to provide factual information. Replacing one image with another in an article, or retitling an article, can also be found to influence interpretation. Asking students to reflect on the meanings they understand to be present and lacking in a piece of news or popular media can empower them in the future to recognize media bias, and rely less on initial messages within information sources as ultimate sources for knowledge and understanding. Such media literacy approaches are critical rather than passive because they require a comparison of sources and/or viewpoints rather than acceptance of any single framing.

2 Media Activity: Photoanalysis The following activity exemplifies this comparative, analytical approach that encourages students to recognize how the method or means of the message becomes part of its content, thereby affecting the viewer and his or her reception more subtly than words. This assignment is extracted from a journalism studies media literacy lesson, but could apply in this case to analyses of world or community events involving Muslims. The students are clustered in small groups. Each group is given a different black-and-white still image to study. All of the photos relate to the topic they are exploring. The students study their photo and jot down everything they notice. They are asked to consider such characteristics as the type of shot (close-up, medium shot, long shot); the angle (high angle, low angle); light and shadow; and placement of elements (objects, people, etc.) in the picture (foreground, background, juxtaposition). Then they describe how the images make them think and feel:  Who do you think took the picture?  How are the people in the photos represented?

90 Liz Jackson

 What caption would you write for that photo?  What kind of message is the photographer trying to convey?  How do the different elements in the image contribute to get that message across?  How might the message of the photo change if it were taken from a different angle, or cropped differently?  Who might be the intended audience for the photo?  How might different audiences respond to the photo?  Where do you think the picture appeared? (Goodman, 2005, pp212–213) This activity could be added as an extension to the aforementioned photo-bank task in order to incorporate a comparative analytical viewpoint, or two or more articles about the same event can be considered side by side in performing the above analysis in order to clarify that media represents subjects in diverse ways.

3 Media Activity: Analyzing Different Perspectives A related method for increasing media literacy, particularly in social studies education, is to assign projects that require the use of resources which rely upon different perspectives (Kaviani, 2007). This sort of lesson requires students to research alternative perspectives on an issue, such as that hijab harms women, or that Muslims are terrorists. Such projects, while time-consuming, promote media literacy as they require students to more independently analyze different points of view in the public sphere. Even considering the claims of those involved in the Texas debates about Islam in the texts (or some other point of contention) could broaden student perspectives and enable them to reach better-informed viewpoints, additionally teaching the invaluable lesson that there is not always one obvious, simple solution, and that authorities themselves are often clashing in their understanding and interpretation of the same ideas and events.

4 Media Activity: Creating Media A final way in which students can develop media literacy for understanding controversial ideas and groups such as Muslims in the classroom is for them to try their hand at creating media. Creative arts, English, and social studies/citizenship education can work hand-in-hand in projects where (similar to a school newspaper) students are asked to tell their own stories through the creation of media: a commercial, a short story or short film, or a newspaper-style or web article. Students can work in groups to produce three stories which give the same facts, but present them as good news, bad news, and neutral. Alternatively, an assignment could require that a social or political group, or even an animal group (say, hyenas in Walt Disney’s animated version of The Lion King), be portrayed as victim, aggressor, and as reasonable. In this way, those teachers who are nervous or

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 91

uncomfortable exploring relevant controversies in the class can still enable students to understand how media works, even at a young age, without discussing a particularly serious topic, and without fear of pushback from sensitive parents, colleagues, or administrators. Yet, students still discover from such a project that bias of perspective occurs naturally when we are learning and taking in information, and that they can become creative, active thinkers rather than passive receptacles of mediated data.

Conclusion This chapter has given an overview of the history of the controversy in dealing with difference, especially religious difference, in US public schools. It explored the practical, philosophical, and social dimensions of the issue, and some reasons why educators continue to be split today over cases such as whether Islam should be portrayed in a positive light compared to other religions in our schools and textbooks. Unlike other multicultural subjects in the curriculum, the issue is not primarily one of student self-esteem, but reveals, rather, how media bias can dramatically hinder understanding. Consequently, I have advocated for a media literacy that is comparative, critical, and creative rather than passive, which emphasizes to students that media messages are not simply objective but often reflect subjective viewpoints. I also recommended some simple ways in which teachers can discuss Islam and other issues in the classroom with an eye to increasing media literacy, encouraging students to learn more about Islam than what is available simply in textbooks or on television.

References Akam, E. H. (2002) Transnational America: Cultural Pluralist Thought in the Twentieth Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Anderson, J. and Byrne, D. N. (2004) Unfinished Agenda of Brown v. Board of Education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Appiah, K. A. (1994) “Identity, authenticity, survival: Multicultural societies and social eproduction,” in A. Gutmann (ed) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ballantine, J. H. (1993) The Sociology of Education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Banks, J. A. (1993) Multiethnic Education: Theory and Practice. Upper Saddle, NJ: Allyn & Bacon. Banks, J. A. (2004) “Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals,” in J. Banks and C. A. McGee Banks (eds) Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bourne, R. (1997) “Trans-national America,” in W. C. Fischer et al. (eds) Identity, Community, and Pluralism in American Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Braiker, B. (2011) “Newsweek poll: Americans are mixed on U.S. Muslims,” PR Newswire, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newsweek-poll-americans-are-mixed-onus-muslims-52756242.html. CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) (2006) American Public Opinion about Muslims and Islam. Washington, DC: Council on American-Islamic Relations, http:// www.cair.com/cairsurveyanalysis.pdf.

92 Liz Jackson

de Leon Mendiola, A. (2007) Traditionalists versus Multiculturalists: Discourses from the 2003 U.S. History Textbook Adoption in Texas, PhD thesis. San Antonio, TX: University of Texas. Eastman, C. A. (1997) “Ohiyesa,” in W. Fischer, D. Gerber, J. Guitart, and M. Seller (eds) Identity, Community, and Pluralism in American Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elliott, J. (2011) “Fear of a Republican Muslim,” Slate, http://www.salon.com/2011/09/ 08/florida_muslim}gop/. Elnatour, M. (2005) Perceptions of Muslim Students’ Needs and Challenges in a Public High School in the Midwest, PhD thesis. Aurora, IL: Aurora University. Feinberg, W. (1998) Common Schools/Uncommon Identities: National Unity and Cultural Difference. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fox News (2012) “Rep Steve King announces hearing on English as official language,” Fox News Latino. Goodman, S. (2005) “Teaching critical media literacy at the educational video center,” in G. Schwarz and P. U. Brown (eds) Media Literacy: Transforming Curriculum and Teaching. Malden: Blackwell. Griswold, W. J. (1975) The Image of the Middle East in Secondary School Textbooks. New York, NY: Middle East Studies Association of North America. Gutman, H. G. (1989) Who Built America? Working People and the Nation’s Economy, Politics, Culture and Society. New York, NY: Pantheon. Gutmann, A. (ed) (1994) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hochman, D. (2006) “Hominid development: On being a social studies teacher during September 11,” in Teachers College Press with M. Grolnick (eds) Forever After: New York City Teachers on 9/11. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Holcomb, S. (2012) Muslims in America: When Bullying Meets Religion. National Educational Association, http://www.nea.org/home/42528.htm. Huntington, S. (1993) “The clash of civilizations?” Foreign Affairs, Summer, http://www. foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/the-clash-of-civilizations. Huus, K (2010) “Texas school board debates ‘pro-Islamic’ bias in textbooks,” MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39311882/ns/today-education_nation/t/texas-schoolboard-debates-pro-islamic-bias-textbooks/#.T8tYXLCtInM. Jackson, L. (2010) “Images of Islam in U.S. media and their educational implications,” Educational Studies, 46: 3–24. Jackson, L. (2011) “Islam and Muslims in U.S. public schools since September 11, 2001,” Religious Education, 106: 162–180. Kamalipour, Y. R. (ed) (1997) U.S. Media and the Middle East: Image and Perception. Westport, CT: Praeger. Karim, K. A. (2002) “Making sense of the ‘Islamic peril’: Journalism as cultural practice,” in B. Zelizer and S. Allan (eds) Journalism after September 11. London: Routledge. Kaviani, K. (2007) Teachers’ Gatekeeping of the Middle East Curriculum, PhD thesis. Washington, DC: University of Washington. Lowenstein, E. (2006) “Voices from the crossroads,” in Teachers College Press with M. Grolnick (eds) Forever After: New York City Teachers on 9/11. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. MacFarquhar, N. (2008) “Many Muslims turn to home schooling,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26muslim.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1338708487-wqbikmGOjBp5wVCo014vFA. Morgan, H. (2002) The Portrayal of the Middle East in School Textbooks from 1880 to the Present, PhD thesis. Camden, NJ: State University of New Jersey. Noddings, N. (1993) Educating for Intelligent Belief or Unbelief. New York, NY: Teachers College. Nord, W. A. (1995) Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Religious Diversity, Multiculturalism, and Representation 93

Parekh, B. (2000) Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Ravitch, D. (1990) “Multiculturalism: E pluribus plures,” American Scholar 59: 337–354. Rizvi, F. (2005) “Representations of Islam and education for social justice,” in C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow (eds) Race, Identity, and Representation in Education. New York, NY: Routledge. Said, E. W. (1979) Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage. Schlesinger, Jr., A. M. (1998) The Disuniting of America: Reflections on a Multicultural Society. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Schrag, R. L. (1991) “Narrative rationality and ‘first stories’: Pedagogical implications for children’s television,” Communication Education, 40: 313–324. Schrag, R. L. and Javidi, M. N. (1997) “Through a glass darkly: American media images of Middle Eastern cultures and their potential impact on young people,” in Y. R. Kamalipour (ed) U.S. Media and the Middle East: Image and Perception. Westport, CT: Praeger. Schwarz, G. and Brown, P. U. (eds) (2005) Media Literacy: Transforming Curriculum and Teaching. Malden: Blackwell. Shaheen, J. G. (1984) The TV Arab. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green University Press. Shaheen, J. G. (2001) Reel Bad Arabs. Brooklyn, NY: Olive Branch Press. Strike, K. A. (2003) “Pluralism, personal identity, and freedom of conscience,” in K. McDonough and W. Feinberg (eds) Citizenship and Education in Liberal Democratic Societies: Teaching for Cosmopolitan Values and Collective Identities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, C. (1994) “The politics of recognition,” in A. Gutmann (ed) Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Texas State Board of Education (2010) Resolution. Austin, TX: Texas State Board of Education. Thomas, W. I. and Znaniecki, F. (1999) “Disorganization of the Polish immigrant,” in C. Lemert (ed) Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. Boulder, CO: Westview. Tozer, S. E., Senese, G., and Violas, P. C. (2006) School and Society: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

6 MARGINALIZED SEXUALITIES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS The Need for Activist Educators James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

Given their professional socialization, which shapes apolitical neutrality and thus places limitations on their sense of being civically engaged, educators frequently are underestimated or marginalized as agents of change in the academic literature, often presented as pawns of the dominant culture and reproducers of the status quo. Marshall and Anderson (2009, p11)

How do progressive educators address the complex social issues concerning marginalized sexualities in public schools? Can school leaders and teachers foster climates in which sexual minorities experience not only safety but opportunities in which they might flourish? And how do they do this in the context of multiple conflicting political ideologies that characterize public education in the United States? In this chapter, we explore some of the key contextual elements that affect the decisions and actions of school leaders, teachers, and policy-makers as they relate to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ)1 issues in public schools. We also provide practical recommendations for educators who wish to learn more about what they can do to improve their school climates, to create more equitable conditions for LGBTIQ persons, and to develop a vision of inclusion for their schools. We hope also to create a sense of urgency for educators to be the social activists who will heed the call to become leaders for change.

Contextual Influences In 2010, Koschoreck and Slattery wrote of “the persistent failure of public schools to address the needs and concerns of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) students” (p156). After calling attention to the decades of both research-based and moral appeals to reform public schools in order to create

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 95

more inclusive climates, they interrogated the possible reasons that so many educators might have to resist change. They puzzled over the intransigence of this resistance even when resources that might guide educators along the path of progressive change were so widely available. They concluded that the overdetermination of the social and political contexts – both public and personal – to maintain a hetero-normative status quo precluded the establishment of substantive support for LGBTIQ persons. Amongst the many reasons they identified as key to this resistance on the part of educators were:        

fear of losing their jobs; denial of the importance of the issues; the need to uphold community values; their own lack of knowledge about LGBTIQ issues; religious beliefs; discomfort with any sort of discussions regarding sexuality; the conflation of sex with sexuality; and the desire to maintain the rigid boundaries between the public and private spheres.

The fear of losing one’s job for speaking about issues concerning sexual minorities is pervasive amongst both LGBTIQ and non-LGBTIQ educators. In one recent study (Schneider and Dimito, 2008), for example, the researchers noted that despite persistent beliefs and assumptions that one might experience negative consequences for revealing one’s sexuality and/or talking about LGBTIQ issues in public schools, no one involved in conceptualizing the research had ever known anyone actually to be dismissed. Schneider and Dimito (2008, p52) admit that this state of affairs might be limited to the localized context of their work; however, they did suggest that the overwhelming fear of negative consequences might be “disproportionate to reality.” In fact, many of the participants in their study resolutely disagreed with the assumption that there would be negative consequences associated with raising LGBTIQ issues with students. The researchers suggest, however, that the power of the “unexamined assumption” (Schneider and Dimito, 2008, p68) is so great that its effect on many educators is to silence them even if they were inclined to speak in support of LGBTIQ issues. This silence – from teachers, administrators, staff, parents, and other students – is one of the most significant ways in which the importance of LGBTIQ issues is denied (Mayberry, 2006). Basing her consideration on Quinlivan and Town’s (1999) previous work that found the use of silence to be “the key schooling practice that sustained the climate of denial and avoidance” (Mayberry, 2006, p262), Mayberry goes on to state that “avoidance, denial, and reactivity are key heteronormative practices that reinforce a culture within which LGBT youth find no sites schoolwide to articulate their identity” (p263). Another important mechanism in the collusion to maintain silence with regard to LGBTIQ issues in schools is the oft repeated excuse that one needs to uphold

96 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

the values, attitudes, and beliefs of the community. Certainly, communities do exert political and cultural pressures on teachers and administrators within schools, either directly or indirectly. As Macgillivray (2004a) reminds us, however, we must not assume that communities represent a monolithic block of like-minded individuals. Although some individuals and groups might, in fact, be intransigent in their resistance to establishing greater equity in the schools for LGBTIQ persons, savvy activists can often find ways to build coalitions amongst various different groups based on mutually beneficial goals and objectives. Oftentimes, the concern is raised – particularly by non-LGBTIQ persons – that the responsibility for dealing with the issues of sexual minorities properly falls to those who identify as LGBTIQ. Such individuals claim that a lack of experiential knowledge precludes their engagement as effective advocates for LGBTIQ persons. In 2010, for instance, Watson et al. reported that one of the key factors that determined why heterosexually identified gay–straight alliance advisors feel inadequate as advocates is precisely due to their lack of knowledge and skills. The most common reasons for avoiding or refusing to take a position of advocacy for LGBTIQ issues – certainly within the United States – are the strongly held conservative religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and that the duty of an educator is to help guide individuals away from such an unhealthy lifestyle. Although it might seem at first glance that the positions of the religious conservatives are wholly irreconcilable with those of progressive advocates of LGBTIQ rights, recent studies suggest that mediation might serve to move beyond the polarization that frequently occurs between the parties who hold such diametrically opposed worldviews (see, for example, Brown, 2010). It is important to point out, however, that just as communities are not monolithic in their beliefs, values, and attitudes toward sexual minorities, neither do religious individuals represent only one way of thinking about sexuality. It is equally important to contextualize the relationship between religion and democratic education in public schools. In 2011, James argued “because public school teachers are responsible for the democratic education of other people’s children, they must be able to engage competently in and model mature democratic citizenship” (p29). She further stated that: … such competence involves: “ … listening as well as talking, striving to understand points of view different from one’s own, challenging ideas and proposals rather than persons, admitting ignorance, slowing the rush to decision so as to clarify or reframe the problem or gather more information … even appreciating the principle attributed to Voltaire: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’ (Parker, 2003, pp87–88).” James (2011, pp29–30) This is no easy task in a society in which civil discourse is often trumped by ideological obduracy.

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 97

Yet another reason teachers and administrators give for being reluctant to engage in conversations about LGBTIQ issues is that they simply are too uncomfortable to talk about sexuality in any form. DePalma and Atkinson (2006) found that teachers’ discomfort around sexuality is well documented in the literature. Furthermore, they discovered that the silence that results from such discomfort is actually multileveled and complex. They identified these additional layers of silence as resulting from “the perception of children as asexual beings, the sexualisation of homosexuality, and a tendency to separate the public and private domains” (DePalma and Atkinson, 2006, p333). These multiple layers of complexity point to the implacable force of hetero-normativity to maintain its dominant position. The “sexualisation of homosexuality” (DePalma and Atkinson, 2006, p333) results from a common tendency to conflate the notions of sex and sexuality. This gives rise to the familiar allegation that discussing anything about sexuality necessarily conjures up images of the distasteful and/or titillating, thereby allowing the dismissal of the topic for reasons of propriety. How often are accusations made of “shoving one’s lifestyle and/or sexuality down someone’s throat” for simply having mentioned a same-sex boyfriend or girlfriend? The corollary statement that “what you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody’s business” is a perfect example of sexualizing sexuality. This leads to the final category of key reasons for resistance on the part of educators to discuss LGBTIQ issues: the desire to maintain strict boundaries between the public and the private spheres. Hetero-normative patriarchal societies in the West have a long history of regulating gender and sexuality by adhering to the public versus private dichotomy. Just as second-wave feminists troubled the public versus private binary regarding gender with the slogan “the personal is political” (Hanisch, 2006), postmodernists, deconstructionists, and queer theorists have interrogated the appropriateness of maintaining the dichotomy with regard to sexuality. Hence, the taken-for-granted hierarchical ordering of the binary oppositions male/female, heterosexual/homosexual, and public/private in which male, heterosexual, and public are granted dominant status through custom is troubled and overturned. Whereas once there was a commonsensical association of the dominant elements of the binaries such that male, heterosexual, and public seemed “naturally” to fit with each other and to be more highly valued, the naturalness of these hegemonic associations has now been called into question. Authors over the years have written extensively about the hegemony of hetero-normativity both in society at large and in public schools in particular (see, for example, Koschoreck and Slattery, 2010; Rich, 1980; Rofes, 2005). This is neither new nor surprising. What is truly astounding, however, is that despite the overwhelming pressures for individuals to conform to a well-prescribed sexual regime, we still find considerable slippage between the dominant, acceptable expressions of sexuality and the multiple resistant forms that exist at the margins. How these slippages manifest themselves from time to time depends both on the

98 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

historical moment and the spatial location. Cultural images of alternate sexualities have certainly become much more commonplace than in decades past; and the public discourse on the rights of same-sex individuals to marry, to adopt children, or to serve in the military has certainly escalated to levels previously unknown. It is with these slippages in mind and the subsequent potentiality for change, then, that we call on educational leaders to resist reproducing the status quo in public schools. In the next section of this chapter, we discuss the need for creating coalitions across interest groups in order to carry out the social responsibility of creating more equitable conditions for LGBTIQ individuals within schools. Additionally, we provide specific recommendations for practice that are intended as a starting point for those progressive educators who seek to become more actively involved in the issues of marginalized sexualities.

Recommendations for Practice In this section, we introduce six practical recommendations for educators who want to become leaders for change in their school in support of LGBTIQ issues: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Create a coalition for LGBTIQ issues. Gather data about LGBTIQ matters in your school. Update the school or district non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies. Support and encourage school-wide activities that focus on LGBTIQ issues. Facilitate the integration of LGBTIQ content within the curriculum. Support Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) or other LGBTIQ clubs.

Create a Coalition for LGBTIQ Issues The first recommendation is to create a coalition of diverse school and community leaders who are interested and willing to participate in working on LGBTIQ issues. Encouraging the right school leaders, teachers, staff, parents, and even students to join the coalition is a critical first step in addressing local LGBTIQ issues. Inviting individuals from a local university, the local chapters of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) or Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), or other agencies in the community will also help to create a broad and diverse membership for carrying out this important work and these members could provide valuable resources for moving forward. Once the coalition is formed, a first step would be to have a conversation around the creation of a LGBTIQ mission for the school. In a general sense, a mission is the “intangible forces that inspire teachers to teach, school leaders to lead, children to learn, and parents and the community to have confidence and faith in their school” (Deal and Peterson, 2009, p61). In creating a mission that focuses on LGBTIQ issues, one school decided to create a “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 99

Transgender Students’ Bill of Educational Rights” (Saint Paul Public Schools, undated, cited in Campos, 2005, p293):  The right to fair and accurate information about sexual orientation in textbooks and other classroom materials.  The right to unbiased information about the historical and continuing contributions of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in all subject areas, including art, literature, science, sports, and history/social studies.  The right to positive role models, both in person and in the curriculum; the right to accurate information about themselves, free of negative judgment, and delivered by trained adults who not only inform lesbian, gay, and bisexual students but affirm them.  The right to attend schools free of verbal and physical harassment where education, not survival, is the priority.  The right to attend schools where respect and dignity for all students, including lesbian, gay, and bisexual students, is a standard set by the state superintendent of public instruction, supported by state and local boards of education, and enforced by every district superintendent, principal, and classroom teacher.  The right to be included in all support programs that exist to help teenagers deal with the difficulties of adolescence.  The right to legislators who guarantee and fight for their constitutional freedoms, rather than legislators who reinforce hatred and prejudice.  The right to a heritage free of crippling self-hate and unchallenged discrimination. This document could serve as a catalyst for starting the conversation and lead the coalition in developing a unique mission for addressing local LGBTIQ issues. The formation of the coalition and the development of an LGBTIQ mission is an important first step in improving school climate and creating more equitable conditions.

Gather Data about LGBTIQ Matters in Your School The second recommendation is to conduct a school-wide LGBTIQ equity audit (Capper et al., 2006; Skrla et al., 2004). An equity audit will help to identify strengths and weaknesses relative to LGBTIQ matters, such as school policy issues, curriculum, school safety, and community relations. A taskforce of key stakeholders could be formed to plan for and carry out this important work. The audit questions could include the following (Capper et al., 2006, p149):  Does your district have any policies that address sexual orientation and gender identity? Does your school or district anti-harassment policy include sexual orientation and gender identity?

100 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

 How and to what extent does your district’s curriculum provide instruction related to sexual orientation and gender identity?  If a group of gay students approached your building principal and requested to begin a Gay–Straight Alliance (see www.glsen.org), how would your principal and district respond, given that opposing such a request is illegal?  Assess your school’s library and media holdings related to sexual orientation and gender identity. To what extent do students in your school have access to information about sexual orientation and gender identity, and what is the nature of this information?  If you are at the elementary level, to what extent are same gender families addressed in the family units that occur in the early elementary grades, and what books and other resources are available to do so?  To what extent do school enrollment forms and other school forms recognize same gender parents (i.e., do the forms only include reference to “mother” and “father”)?  How are same gender families respected and appreciated at parent–teacher functions and in the life of the school?  How are staff members with same gender partners or romantic relationships included on staff social invitations – that is, is reference made to significant others?  What school data are collected on harassment associated with sexual identity? What do these sexual orientation data mean? Once these data have been collected, the taskforce would analyze the strengths and areas for improvement and then develop an action plan for moving forward. This process “is a powerful strategy for raising consciousness about LGBT inequities” (Capper et al., 2006, p150). In addition, a survey could be conducted to investigate details of what was uncovered in the equity audit. For example, The Local School Climate Survey from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN, undated a) could be conducted with (or by) students, faculty, and community members to uncover other major issues that need to be addressed in the school environment. The data collected from the equity audit and/or survey(s) would help school personnel, students, parents, and community members to better understand critical issues within the school environment and could serve as the springboard for crafting an action plan for making positive change.

Update the School or District Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies The third recommendation is to create, modify, or update the school or district non-discrimination policy and anti-harassment policies to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Such an update will send a clear and supportive message that

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 101

LGBTIQ students, parents, and their families are welcomed and supported in the school community. Key components should include the following:    

All students must have an equitable opportunity to earn an education. Respect for one another is critical. Prejudicial behavior against personal attributes is not tolerated. Discriminatory and hate-motivated behaviors are discouraged (Campos, 2005, p299).

There are a number of organizations and agencies that can provide guidance and support in the development or revision of such policies. GLSEN (undated b) has a Model School Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy and a Public Policy Department that can help schools and districts to create, update, and implement appropriate policies. The organization stopbullying.gov (undated) provides information from various government agencies (Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and others) on policy development and training strategies designed to help schools and districts evaluate and improve their current policies and procedures. Additionally, the Cyberbullying Research Center (undated) offers suggestions on policy development about cyberbullying and other forms of electronic harassment. While updating the policies is a critical step, further work on training and educating students, staff, and community members will be needed so that all students are fully included and supported in all aspects of the school community. This inclusiveness can have a positive impact upon the culture of the school and school leaders should ensure the following: … that GLBTIQ students, employees, and families are covered by nondiscrimination policies; that teachers are given adequate training and resources to be able to implement the nondiscrimination policy; that teachers feel comfortable enough to neutrally discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with their students; and that students are given the opportunity to form gay-straight alliances. Macgillivray (2004a, p78) Macgillivray (2004a, p78) goes on to state that “school districts that have adopted and implemented nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation and have offered training to teachers, students, and parents on GLBTIQ issues have shown success in creating safer places for GLBTIQ students and staff.”

Support and Encourage School-Wide Activities that Focus on LGBTIQ Issues The fourth recommendation is to implement school-wide educational activities aimed at educating the school community about LGBTIQ issues. It is extremely

102 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

important that all members of the school community understand and become committed to a safe, supportive, and inclusive school for all students and families. There are numerous tools, resources, and programs available for schools and community members to utilize:  Day of Silence (GLSEN, 2012). First initiated in 1996, this student-led activity encourages students to take a vow of silence to call attention to anti-LGBT bullying and harassment. This national youth movement has brought attention to the silence faced by LGBT students and last year 9,000 schools across 70 countries participated. Participants typically hand out “speaking cards” to let others know why they are being silent: Please understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of Silence, a national youth movement bringing attention to the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies in schools. My deliberate silence echoes that silence, which is caused by name-calling, bullying and harassment. I believe that ending the silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to end the silence? Day of Silence (2012)  No Name Calling Week (GLSEN, 2012). No Name Calling Week is an annual event with educational activities aimed at ending name-calling of all kinds and provides schools and communities with the tools necessary to engage in dialogue to eliminate bullying and name-calling.  Ally Week (GLSEN, 2012). Ally Week is a student-led series of activities and events to identify and celebrate LGBT allies who take a stand against anti-LGBT teasing, harassment, and bullying in schools. Students are encouraged to sign a pledge of support to not use anti-LGBT language and slurs and to safely intervene in situations where students are being harassed and bullied.  LGBT Pride Month (GLSEN, 2012). Developed by GLSEN, The Educator’s Guide to Pride Month offers teachers and school leaders five practical strategies to celebrate LGBT pride during the month of June (and throughout the school year).  Allies/Safe Zone Program (Human Rights Campaign, 2012). The Allies/Safe Zone Program is a network of individuals (usually within a school or university) who create an atmosphere of safety and support for LGBT students. Typically, the network forms a mission, develops common language, offers training and education to other allies, and provides resources about LGBT issues and concerns.

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 103

Facilitate the Integration of LGBTIQ Content Within the Curriculum Integrating LGBTIQ issues within the curriculum is the fifth recommendation. There are a variety of ways that teachers and school leaders can incorporate LGBTIQ content into the curriculum:  GLSEN’s Ready, Set, Respect (2012) is an evidence-based curricular toolkit for elementary teachers. Developed in partnership with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the kit includes standalone lesson plans along with suggestions for incorporation of existing curricular content and school-wide activities.  Unheard Voices (GLSEN, 2012), produced by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), and StoryCorps, is an oral history and curriculum project for middle and high school students.  Respect for All Project (Groundspark, 2012) is a series of award-winning films and curriculum guides for K-12 educators to promote diversity and anti-bias education. One of the newest films, It’s Still Elementary, revisits the students and teachers from the original Its Elementary: Talking about Gay Issues in School and documents the impact the film has had since it was released in 1996. A detailed curriculum guide is included. Other curricular resources include the following:  GLSEN Book Link (GLSEN, 2012);  GLSEN K-12 curricula and lesson plans (GLSEN, 2012);  Back To School Guide for Creating LGBT Inclusive Environments (GLSEN, 2012).

Support Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) or other LGBTIQ clubs The sixth recommendation is to support or help develop a Gay–Straight Alliance (Gay–Straight Alliance Network, 2011). The Equal Access Act of 1984, provides, in part, that “it shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” A GSA can play a crucial role in creating a positive and inclusive school climate for LGBTQ students by combating homophobia and educating members of the school community. Support from a school leader or a faculty advisor is a critical component to the existence and survival of the club and student

104 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

participants. According to the Gay–Straight Alliance Network (2011, p1), “a student’s ability to name just one supportive staff member is directly related to missing less school due to feeling unsafe, greater academic achievement, higher future academic aspirations, and a greater sense of belonging at school.”

Conclusion In this chapter, we explored many of the elements that affect the decisions and actions of school leaders, teachers, and community members as they relate to LGBTIQ issues in schools. Additionally, we provided some practical ideas for educators who want to become advocates for change to improve their school climates, to create more equitable conditions for LGBTIQ persons, and to develop a mission of inclusion for all students in their schools. Moreover, we hope the ideas in this chapter will provide practical guidance for educational scholars and researchers responsible for the preparation of future teachers and leaders. To move forward, “educators need the strategies, revolutionary ones in some contexts, for rethinking and taking school practices to better meet diverse students’ needs” (Marshall and Oliva, 2010, p4).

Note 1 In order to be as inclusive as possible regarding marginalized sexualities, we have opted throughout this chapter in our own writing to refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer (LGBTIQ) persons. We acknowledge that not all authors include these same groups of people in their writings. When citing or referring to others’ works, therefore, we have tried to honor the authors’ preferences. We hope with this explanation to avoid any confusion.

Suggested Readings Campos, D. (2005) Understanding Gay and Lesbian Youth: Lessons for Straight School Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Just the Facts Coalition (2008) Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. Washington, DC: Just the Facts Coalition. Koschoreck, J. W. and Tooms, A. K. (2009) Sexuality Matters: Paradigms and Policies for Educational Leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Letts, W. J. and Sears, J. T. (1999) Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Lipkin, A. (2004) Beyond Diversity Day: A QandA On Gay and Lesbian Issues in Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Macgillivray, I. K. (2004) Sexual Orientation and School Policy: A Practical Guide for Teachers, Administrators, and Community Activists. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (2010) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education, second edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Perrotti, J. and Westheimer, K. (2001) When the Drama Club Is Not Enough: Lessons from the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 105

Rofes, E. (2005) A Radical Rethinking of Sexuality and Schooling: Status Quo or Status Queer? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Sears, J. T. (2005) Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Issues in Education: Programs, Policies, and Practices. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

TABLE 6.1 Recommended resources

Bully Police U.S.A. Cyberbullying Research Center Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) Gay–Straight Alliance Network Groundspark (Respect For All Project) Human Rights Campaign National Federation of State High School Associations National School Boards Association – Students on Board National Safe Schools Roundtable Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) Safe Schools Coalition Stomp Out Bullying Stopbullying.gov The Trevor Project Welcoming Schools (A project by the Human Rights Campaign)

http://www.bullypolice.org/ http://www.cyberbullying.us/ http://www.glsen.org http://www.gsanetwork.org/ http://groundspark.org/ http://www.hrc.org/ http://www.nfhs.org/hazing.aspx http://www.nsba.org/StudentsonBoard http://www.safeschoolsroundtable.org/ http://community.pflag.org http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/ http://www.stompoutbullying.org/ http://www.stopbullying.gov/ http://www.thetrevorproject.org/ http://www.welcomingschools.org/

References Brown, J. G. (2010) “Peacemaking in the culture war between gay rights and religious liberty,” Iowa Law Review, 95(3): 747–819. Campos, D. (2005) Understanding Gay and Lesbian Youth: Lessons for Straight School Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Capper, C. A., Alston, J., Gause, C. P., Koschoreck, J. W., López, G., Lugg, C. A., and McKenzie, K. B. (2006) “Integrating lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender topics and their intersections with other areas of difference into the leadership preparation curriculum: Practical ideas and strategies,” Journal of School Leadership, 16: 142–157. Cyberbullying Research Center (undated) Cyberbullying Legal and Policy Issues, http:// www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_legal_and_policy_issues.php. Day of Silence (2012) “Speaking cards,” http://www.dayofsilence.org/PDFs/dos_ palmcard.pdf. Deal, T. E. and Peterson, K. D. (2009) Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, and Promises, second edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. DePalma, R. and Atkinson, E. (2006) “The sound of silence: Talking about sexual orientation and schooling,” Sex Education, 6(4): 333–349. Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. §4071 (1984).

106 James W. Koschoreck and James G. Allen

Gay–Straight Alliance Network (2011) GSA Advisor Handbook, http://www.gsanetwork. org/advisor-handbook. GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) (undated a) Local School Climate Survey, http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/library/record/1985.html?state=researchandtype= research. GLSEN (undated b) Model School Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy, http://www.glsen. org/binarydata/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/001/1713–3.pdf. GLSEN (2012) Tools and Tips for Educators, http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/ educator/index.html. Groundspark (2012) Respect for All Project, http://groundspark.org/respect-for-all/rfap-films. Hanisch, C. (2006) “The personal is political,” http://www.carolhanisch.org/CHwritings/ PersonalisPol.pdf. Human Rights Campaign (2012) Establishing an Allies/Safe Zone Program, http://www.hrc. org/resources/entry/establishing-an-allies-safe-zone-program. James, J. H. (2011) “When missions collide: Theological certainty and democratic education,” Phi Delta Kappan, 93(4): 28–32. Just the Facts Coalition (2008) Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators, and School Personnel. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html. Koschoreck, J. W. and Tooms, A. K. (2009) Sexuality Matters: Paradigms and Policies for Educational Leaders. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Koschoreck, J. W. and Slattery, P. (2010) “Meeting all students’ needs: Transforming the unjust normativity of heterosexism,” in C. Marshall and M. Oliva (eds) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education, second edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, 156–174. Letts, W. J. and Sears, J. T. (1999) Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Lipkin, A. (2004) Beyond Diversity Day: A QandA on Gay and Lesbian Issues in Schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Macgillivray, I. K. (2004a) “Gay rights and school policy: A case study in community factors that facilitate or impede educational change,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(3): 347–370, doi:10.1080/0951839042000204652. Macgillivray, I. K. (2004b) Sexual Orientation and School Policy: A Practical Guide for Teachers, Administrators, and Community Activists. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Marshall, C. and Anderson, A. L. (2009) “Is it possible to be an activist educator?” in C. Marshall and A. L. Anderson (eds) Activist Educators: Breaking Past Limits. New York, NY: Routledge, 1–30. Marshall, C. and Oliva, M. (2010) Leadership for Social Justice: Making Revolutions in Education, second edition. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Mayberry, M. (2006) “School reform efforts for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered students,” Clearing House, 79(6): 262–264. Perrotti, J. and Westheimer, K. (2001) When the Drama Club Is Not Enough: Lessons from the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Quinlivan, K. and Town, S. (1999) “Queer pedagogy, educational practice, and lesbian and gay youth,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5): 509–524. Rich, A. (1980) “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence,” Signs, 5(4): 631–660. Rofes, E. (2005) A Radical Rethinking of Sexuality and Schooling: Status Quo or Status Queer? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing. Schneider, M. S. and Dimito, A. (2008) “Educators’ beliefs about raising lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the schools: The experience in Ontario, Canada,” Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(4): 49–71, doi:10.1080/19361650802223003. Sears, J. T. (2005) Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Issues in Education: Programs, Policies, and Practices. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Marginalized Sexualities in Public Schools 107

Skrla, L., Scheurich, J. J., García, J., and Nolly, G. (2004) “Equity audits: A practical leadership tool for developing equitable and excellent schools,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1): 133–161. stopbullying.gov (undated) Set Policies and Rules, http://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/ at-school/rules/index.html. Watson, L. B., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., and Graybill, E. C. (2010) “Gay–straight alliance advisors: Negotiating multiple ecological systems when advocating for LGBT youth,” Journal of LGBT Youth, 7(2): 100–128, doi:10.1080/19361651003799700.

7 DISRUPTING DEFICIT VIEWS Latina/o and Native American Youth Constructing Cultural, Linguistic, and Learner Identities Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

Arizona policy-makers recently revealed their fears of the growing presence of Latinas/os1 and Native Americans2 by passing HB 2281,3 legislation that dismantles ethnic study programs, particularly targeting the Mexican American Studies program. While the Supreme Court overturned the legislation months later, the policy raises alarms about the destructive dominant discourse that silences the historical and contemporary contributions by communities of color while legitimizing a Eurocentric curriculum. The negative impact of these hegemonic policies upon the learning and academic achievement of Chicana/o and American Indian youth is extensive (Acosta and Mir, 2012; Cammarota and Aguilera, 2012). Such a racist view of curriculum and learning conflicts with culturally responsive models of education that increase the persistence rates of students of color in schools (Gay, 2000). These legislative initiatives come at a time when the Latina/o population has increased significantly, nearly doubling in the total US population between 2000 and 2010 (Ennis et al., 2011). By 2010, 16 percent of the total US population was Latina/o (Hummes et al., 2010), yet the educational attainment of Chicanas/os continues to be one of the lowest of any racial/ethnic group in the United States and the educational persistence rate of Chicanas/os reflects a dire need to (re)examine leakages in the educational pipeline. Yosso and Solórzano (2006) report that of every 100 Chicanas/os who start at the elementary level, only 46 graduate from high school. Similarly, American Indian youth’s graduation rate continues to be alarming. Approximately 51 percent of American Indian high school students graduate from high school (McKinley Jones Brayboy et al., 2012).4 Currently, there are 4.5 million citizens who identify as American Indian and Alaskan Natives constituting about 1.6 percent of the US population, yet about one in every four lives in poverty (US Census Bureau, 2007–2011). The achievement gap

Disrupting Deficit Views 109

between Latinas/os, American Indians and their White counterparts demonstrates a critical need to examine socio-cultural factors that affect the academic persistence of culturally diverse students in P-20 systems. It is important to point out that African American students face similar challenges; however, our research focuses on Latinas/os and Native Americans given that they have been understudied. As experienced educational researchers, we have studied the learning and development of Latina/o and American Indian youth. Lengthy discussions of our separate projects and recognition of overlapping themes led us to jointly reflect on these two populations, which are not often discussed together. We drew from two ethnographic projects, one centered on Latinas/os and the second focused on Native Americans. Data from both studies highlight the multiplicity of the voices, experiences, and identities of youth of color as viewed through socio-cultural frames. Socio-culturally responsive (SCR) education (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lee, 2011; Valdés, 2001) and identity theories (Gee, 2000; Holland et al., 1998) examine how Latina/o and Native American youth construct cultural, linguistic, and learner identities as they negotiate high school. Our data analysis revealed, first, that Latina/o and Indigenous students construct learner identities in relation to teachers who largely have negative views of them; and, second, that school curricula, policies, and practices police, limit, and control youth’s languages, bodies, and identities. The youth were aware of teachers’ perceptions but resisted these characterizations by drawing upon their homes and communities as resources for learning knowledge and skills which the schools did not offer, such as Native American history and Spanish language and literacy. Thus, youth displayed themselves to be competent learners and productive citizens. These findings lead us to offer recommendations for effective, culturally affirming practice as informed by our theoretical framework.

Theoretical Framework Critical scholarship on socio-culturally responsive education (Gay, 2000; LadsonBillings, 1994; Valdés, 1998, 2001) and work on identity and agency (Holland et al., 1998) illuminate the social, cultural, and political factors, which affect Native American and Latina/o youth’s education. These theories urge teachers to value the ways of learning and knowledges that are embedded in home and community cultural practices. Finally, these frameworks acknowledge and document the significance of youth-of-color’s agency and identity work.

Socio-Culturally Responsive (SCR) Education Scholars are utilizing a socio-culturally responsive education lens for studying and improving the achievement of students-of-color, arguing that SCR education is essential for responding to educational inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1994;

110 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

Valdés, 2001). SCR privileges a multicultural frame by centering on students’ ethnicities and cultures in pedagogy, curriculum, and relationships (Gay, 2000; Nieto, 1999). A classroom that espouses this approach fosters both students’ critical consciousness and inclusion of diversity because it urges students and educators to value all global communities and their citizens (Banks, 2008). At the core of the SCR approach is the transformation of academic knowledge, which can provide students with a sense of belonging at state, national, and international levels (Banks, 2008). This calls for rethinking pedagogy. Pedagogy based on SCR education integrates students’ lived experiences, home and community knowledges, and positive student–educator relationships (Belgarde et al., 2002; Lee and Quijada Cerecer, 2010). SCR education recognizes multiple influences on students-of-color, such as recognizing that Native Americans are shaped not only by their Native culture, but also by such social forces as mainstream media, socio-economic status and occupations, tribal economic development, and peer influences (Lee, 2011). Hence, educators must be sensitive to the heterogeneity of students’ cultures given that cultures are historically and contextually based. By espousing this framework, educators validate students’ home and community knowledges and experiences and allow students to actively participate in the production of knowledge in schools. Moreover, Latina/o and American Indians students who are taught by culturally responsive teachers are more likely to be academically successful (Gay et al., 2003) if teachers have higher expectations (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and legitimize the students’ funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992) and community cultural frames of reference (Monzo and Rueda, 2003). Hence, educators must gain cultural competency to incorporate students’ cultural and linguistic backgrounds within the classroom (Castagno and McKinley Jones Brayboy, 2008; Pewewardy, 1999; Quijada Cerecer, 2011) and to support youth’s identity work, which has great significance for student learning.

Identity and Agency We view identity as fluid, dynamic, and context-based (Gee, 2000; Holland et al., 1998; Ochs, 1993), disrupting traditional perspectives that focus on identity formation as an individual and internal phenomenon where a person strives toward a unified sense of self (Spencer and Markstrom-Adams, 1990). Gee (2000, p99) points out the importance of having others recognize the “kind of person” one is being at a particular time and place and that this identity may change depending on context. Other scholars focus on a “social identity” that is derived from the “relationship between the individual and the larger social world, as mediated through institutions” (Norton, 1997, p420). The relational nature of identity is particularly important to people-of-color. For people-of-color in the United States, identity involves an understanding of how “difference” is constructed in relation to a White, middle-class norm.

Disrupting Deficit Views 111

Leonardo (2000, p113) argues, “we achieve identity by being different from an ‘Other’.” Because race is invisibilized when applied to Whites, usually the “Other” refers to people-of-color who are “racially marked.” Discourses of race that intersect with language and culture influence the kinds of identities more powerful others assign to students-of-color. But students can also construct their own identities by enacting their agency. As actors engage in the various social practices that constitute their daily lives, they form identities; thus, people are able to create “new activities, new worlds, and new ways of being” (Holland et al., 1998, p5). Hence, everyone has the power to construct multiple identities by leveraging their resources. Gee (2000), for example, explains that an important type of identity for youth in schools is an institutional identity, which is created and legitimated by an institution. Powerful institutions can and often do assign essentialized, negative identities to youth of color. Moreover, institutions can validate certain identities while denigrating or negating others. The construction of identities in schools reflects hierarchical institutional structures and thus is not equitable. Youth of color have an understanding of how their identities are taken up and of how they are constructed by educators (Chavous et al., 2003; Ek, 2009; Fránquiz and del Carmen Salazar, 2004). For this chapter, we focus on how Latina/o and Indigenous youth construct “learner” identities. We follow the socio-cultural perspective that defines learning as acquiring competence through participation in the culturally valued practices of one’s community (Rogoff, 1990). “Learner,” then, is a culturally situated social identity. Focusing on learner identities allows us to examine how the youth acquire knowledge and skills in multiple contexts and not only in schools. To do so, we analyze data from two studies: a multi-year ethnography of Latina/o Pentecostal youth in California and a multi-year ethnographic study of Pueblo5 youth in New Mexico which we detail in the next section.

Methodology For the first study, Ek conducted a multi-phase ethnography of the language and literacy socialization of ten immigrant Central American and Mexican youth in their Pentecostal church youth class. Ek chose four focal youth of the ten for year-long case studies in their high schools. Data collection included participant observations, home visits, and interviews with the youth. In addition, Ek audio/video recorded interactions at home and church to capture linguistic communication. Data were analyzed throughout the data collection process and included several readings of the field notes and coding to identify salient themes, patterns, and relationships. Ek also analyzed typed and coded summaries and logs of the audio/video recordings. The second study was a five-year ethnography of 21 Pueblo students (11 females and 10 males) who resided on a tribal reservation and attended a public school in New Mexico named Hilltop High School. The corpus of data includes

112 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

semi-structured interviews, focus groups, participant observations, field notes, archival data, and analytical memos collected by Quijada Cerecer. Data analysis incorporated counter-storytelling methodological tools to identify themes from the Native youths’ narratives that challenged mainstream racialized constructions of Native identities and deconstructed deficit constructions of Native youths’ educational experiences (Delgado and Stefancic, 2000). Through storytelling, Native youth reflected on their school-based experiences, adult relationships at school, and how these relationships and experiences affected them. Storytelling is particularly insightful and empowering for Native youth because it legitimizes youths’ lived experiences and their Indigenous knowledge systems. Together, we identified findings from the two studies that reveal the various ways in which Latino/a and American Indian youth negotiated language, culture, and learner identities in their high schools. Our guiding questions for our analysis were: How are Latino/a and Native American youth’s culture, language, and learner identities perceived by educators in their schools? How are Latino/a and Native American youth active agents in the construction of their learner identities in the multiple spaces that make up their daily lives? It is important to note that for the California study, we focus primarily on Junior6 because he provides a compelling portrait of the themes that emerged from our analysis. Such themes were also evident in other participants involved in the California study.

Themes

Teachers’ Negative Views of Youth’s Language, Culture, and Learner Identities In order to contextualize the educational experiences of the Latina/o and Native American youth in our studies, we first include a discussion of teacher perceptions of the youth (although teachers were not the focus of our studies). During the year that Ek conducted observations, the students had teachers who were mainly White, a few Asian/Pacific Islanders, and even fewer Latina/o teachers. In the New Mexico study, the majority of the teachers at Hilltop High School were White, from other states, and recent graduates. There were a few Latina/o teachers and one Native teacher. The race/ethnicity of the teachers at the public high schools where we conducted our studies reflects the dearth of educators of color, which is significant given that studies show that students of color taught by teachers of color perform better academically (Boser, 2011). Teachers who share the same racial/ethnic or cultural background can serve as role models (Boser, 2011) for their students-of-color and often have greater knowledge and understanding of their students’ lived realities, which can have a positive influence on teacher–student relationships, student learning, and identities. Teachers are powerful actors involved in constructing students’ social identities in schools and classrooms. Youth of color may either accept or resist these

Disrupting Deficit Views 113

constructions (Ek, 2009; Midgley and Edelin, 1998; Ryan and Stiller, 1991). For high school students, the majority of their interactions at school are with their classroom teachers, who can yield much influence over how the youth perceive themselves (Midgley and Edelin, 1998). As research has established, deficit ideologies about students-of-color are deeply entrenched in the schooling system and these negative beliefs are communicated to students through various discourses (Steele, 2007; Valencia and Solórzano, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999). Moreover, because what it means to be a competent learner is socially and culturally constructed, teachers’ preconceptions of who can be a learner may be influenced by the race/ethnicity, culture, language, and class of the student. The majority of teachers at the schools where we conducted our fieldwork did not realize that Latina/o and Native American cultural and linguistic backgrounds were resources for their students’ learning. The first study found that several of the teachers held negative ideologies toward Spanish. For example, a Filipino English as a second language (ESL) teacher at the high school considered the Spanish language that his students spoke as a “disability.” Another teacher who was of Asian descent did not see the need for Latinas/os to maintain their Spanish even though she saw the necessity of having a foreign language requirement for university admission. At another school, the White bilingual coordinator equated student success with learning English and assimilating to US culture. Such negative views of immigrant students’ heritage languages abound in ESL classrooms and can have detrimental effects on students’ learning and achievement (Razfar, 2003), particularly because language and culture are inextricably connected and serve as key resources for identity construction (Anzaldúa, 2007; Ek, 2009; Zentella, 1997). The second study revealed that the majority of the White male and female Hilltop High teachers did not value the Native American students’ cultural practices. These teachers did not know or make efforts to ask about the students’ tribal histories or the traditional and contemporary practices of their communities. Warren, one of the Native students, critiqued the school for teaching “the White man’s education,” illuminating an awareness of how schools privilege a white Eurocentric worldview as the legitimate source of history. Students did not see the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in the classroom. For Warren, Katrina, Erin and several other students, the inaccurate construction of Native peoples’ history in textbooks was upsetting. Warren, Dawn, and other students frequently expressed how these pedagogical moments distanced them from forming relationships with their teachers. In another example, one of the White teachers did not understand why youth would participate in tribal educational events, such as the Head Start graduation on the reservation that conflicted with the high school’s academic schedule and caused youth to miss school. Rather than realizing the importance of youth celebrating a younger sibling’s first graduation or an opportunity to strengthen community–school partnerships, the teacher pegged the Native youth as irresponsible for not attending school. The question of participating in a

114 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

tribal educational event versus attending school is an example of the cultural conflicts that Native students experienced. Rather than understanding these cultural differences, this teacher’s narrative perpetuates deficit constructions of Native youth’s engagement in school and invalidates their community learning. In both studies, teachers largely questioned the youth’s motivation and dedication to their education, particularly when the students were not in the high-level college track. In fact, the majority of the youth in our studies were not on the college track. Students were acutely aware of teachers’ negative depictions of them and other students like them. Junior, a Mexican-American boy, stated that teachers thought that “everybody going to that school is, like, going nowhere, so they [teachers] don’t, you know, pay attention to you or what you need or what you think … they don’t show that they care.” When Ek asked the Asian biology teacher to assess Junior’s progress in her class, the teacher said Junior was “lazy and not working hard.” However, the teacher acknowledged that she found Junior to be “very capable,” but added that he was “not working to his true ability.” Hence, while the teacher recognized Junior’s intelligence, she blamed the individual student for not reaching a higher level of competence rather than realizing that students’ motivation is also socio-culturally constructed and developed (Rueda and Moll, 1994). Teachers’ expectations for the learning of students who were in the ESL tracks were even lower, as evidenced by the kind of teaching directed at these students. Laura, a Salvadoran girl, stated that she learned nothing from her science class given that her teacher just sat there and handed the students packets of worksheets. Ek also observed mostly teaching of decontextualized vocabulary and grammar in the ESL classrooms. In addition, teachers interacted with the ESL students primarily to give them directives or to ask simple questions about their work. Teachers at Hilltop High also missed opportunities to engage Native American students in higher-level learning. The Native youth were perceived by mainly White teachers as not being smart, as being “very passive,” and as not actively pursuing an education. Teachers’ perceptions manifested in lowered expectations of Native students. Dawn commented, “We do the same thing every day. We sit and write our research paper. … I wish Mr. Johnson would teach us … you know, talk to us about what we are doing and learning.” Teachers neglecting to talk to their students about their lives led them to make erroneous assumptions about their students’ identities. For example, another White teacher, Mr. Thompson, shared how “the recent removal of Native history from texts is [another] example of how these youth just don’t care. Half the world is protesting and these kids haven’t any desire to do so.” Mr. Thompson was referencing the national social studies curriculum debate whereby legislation was being proposed to eliminate key historical figures of color. What is central is how Mr. Thompson connected the youth’s disinterest in the national social studies curriculum debate as indicative of the youth’s disinterest in school and not being academically motivated. These narratives exemplify how

Disrupting Deficit Views 115

teachers internalize racial codes of Native students’ engagement in schools, which, in turn, is manifested in lowered expectations. Native students are constructed as a colonized group that perpetuated their own victimization by not taking advantage of the opportunities at school, and thus lack agency. Unfortunately, the teachers’ characterizations and descriptions of these youth form the institutional identities that are imposed on Native and Latina/o students and can negatively influence their engagement in their learning. Sadly, these negative characterizations of students may be so deeply entrenched that some teachers may even dismiss evidence to the contrary, such as when Edgar, a Mexican ESL student, correctly completed a class quiz and his White teacher suspiciously demanded, “Who gave you the answers?” Hence, teachers often negate the youth’s agency in their own learning.

Youth Identity, Work, and Agency We found that the Latino/a and Native American youth were not passive recipients of educators’ low expectations; rather, in the various contexts of their lives, youth engaged in agentive acts in which they constructed positive cultural, linguistic, and learner identities. In both studies, we found that the Latino/a and Native American youth worked hard to be good, productive citizens of their cultural communities, which also enriched their academic learning. In the California study, for example, Junior, the boy who was called “lazy,” was taking classes at the Instituto Bíblico (Bible Institute) at his Pentecostal church. During the week, in the evenings, he took three-hour courses, including classes on the history of the Christian Church, sermon writing, and Castilian grammar, which he said helped him to read and write better. Unlike some of his teachers, he understood the value of maintaining and developing his Spanish language and literacy. Edgar, too, was very engaged in church activities, including playing drums and the guitar in the church band, which required extra hours of practice. Another girl, Carla, wanted to be a Sunday school teacher so she volunteered to help teach the younger children at church. Hence, these Latino/a youth were becoming competent members of their religious community. In addition to their active engagement at church and at home, youth also strove to further their academic goals, often having to circumvent the school’s ineffectiveness. For instance, Junior, who saw himself as college bound, reported that he tried repeatedly to meet with his “really busy” counselor, to no avail. He said he needed to meet with the counselor because he had been placed in courses he had already taken and passed. After several attempts, counselors finally placed him in the correct classes. This was such a deeply frustrating experience for him that he mentioned it when he was interviewed in 2003 when he was in tenth grade and then again in 2006 after he had graduated high school. Junior also reported that high school counselors and teachers did not give him information about college admission exams or about the fee waivers for these exams that were available for

116 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

working-class youth like him. After high school, Junior enrolled in a community college after he heard about it on the radio and not because his counselors helped him. Carla had similar experiences with unresponsive counselors at her high school. She received almost no information about college from school; instead, the Sunday school teacher took her to visit the community college he attended. The Native American youth also enacted their agency to find ways of meeting their cultural, linguistic, and academic needs that the school neglected. As mentioned previously, the school taught a Eurocentric curriculum; and even when the teachers tried to teach Native American history, the critical thinking youth knew it was a misinformed history. Warren, for example, stated: … it is hard because sometimes I wonder why they [teachers] are teaching us some of the stuff they do, like some of the information they teach us in History. It just isn’t true so … Then when I ask too many questions about it they get mad. To remedy the exclusion of their history in the official school curriculum, some of the Native American youths had to seek out those Indigenous bodies of knowledge from parents, family, and community members. William stated: “If we aren’t taught about our history at home, we don’t even learn anything” and thus emphasized the invaluable contributions made by Native parents/families to their children’s education. Thus, in order to be members of their cultural group and to survive school, Native American youth oftentimes felt they had to do double the work to learn the traditional curriculum and the Indigenous epistemologies. In these ways, Latino/a and Native American youth worked hard to advocate for themselves and to supplement the mainstream assimilationist education that they received in public schools which privileges White middle-class mainstream students. While these youth cared deeply about their futures, they were unfortunately constantly reminded that their learning and well-being were not the schools’ priority unless they assimilated. The youth, however, resisted assimilation. Likewise, schools resisted the inclusion of both knowledge systems (i.e., “academic knowledge” and students’ cultural knowledge). Such curriculum conflicts and larger school structures and systems countered youth’s attempts to assert their learner identities.

Challenges to Youth’s Agency The Latina/o and Native American youth were powerful actors and agents in their own lives, but they still had to contend with their schools’ larger structures and systems that often circumscribed their learning and achievement. Rather than caring for and developing youth’s minds, often school policies and practices focused on regulating their bodies and thus signaled suspicion and mistrust of the youth. At the school the Native American students attended, administrators hired

Disrupting Deficit Views 117

a police officer without notifying the students and parents. Furthermore, the need for the officer was not clear given that the school only had approximately 190 students and the last student fight there had taken place three years earlier. The hiring of police served to construct the students as criminals or potential lawbreakers. Additionally, at the California schools that the Latino/a youth attended, there were no security officers; however, students could sense that school was not a place where they could be free and they believed they were being monitored. Edgar for example, described his first day of high school as being in a “prison.” Interestingly both Edgar and Laura always left their backpacks on in class as if they were ready to flee the high school’s restrictive environment. There were other examples of detrimental school structures and policies that emerged from the interviews with the Latina/o youth. Laura, for example, was misclassified and placed in the wrong ESL bilingual education program; but it took months for her to be moved to the correct courses. In addition, most of the youth reported that they had teachers who “didn’t do anything” to help them learn, were “terrible,” “didn’t care,” or “were mean.” Despite the students’ awareness of the imperfect school system and its teachers, the data from the two studies suggest that some youth began to internalize the ways in which the teachers perceived Latina/o and Native American students. After he graduated from high school, Junior stated: … many people [students] complain about schools not being fair, overpopulated, or not enough classrooms but I found out that if you really want to learn, like, the material is there. Teachers do their jobs and they teach. Like, I’ve noticed at my school all the kids that are complaining about that, I see them in classes, they don’t even care, they don’t even try, they don’t do work, they don’t do nothing. Junior’s words were surprising because he had never characterized his classmates in such terms. After he graduated, he even referred to the students and to himself as “slackers,” echoing the very teachers’ views that he had critiqued earlier. This demonstrates the strong school socialization where students begin to take on deficit institutional identities. Furthermore, students can begin to reinforce these deficit views of themselves and their fellow students. Junior’s changed stance on the reasons for students’ underachievement can be a cautionary note to educators that the ways in which they speak about, construct, and interact with students can continue to perpetuate damaging stereotypes about youth of color. Hence, an SCR education approach is needed to center the cultural experiences and identities of Latina/o and Native American youth in pedagogy, curriculum, and teacher– student relationships. Such an approach can move educators to view students as competent members of the school community who are active agents in the production of knowledge, the very transformational knowledge that can provide students with a sense of belonging.

118 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

Conclusion By examining Latina/o and Native American youth’s culture, language, and learner identities, we documented that these students have agency and rich sociocultural familial and community experiences. These students demonstrated their cultural competencies through their engagement in their communities’ social practices. The Latina/o participants developed their bilingualism and biliteracy in their church and home – a difficult feat given the hegemony of English in the United States. The Native American students learned Indigenous bodies of knowledge from their parents and family members, and by actively participating in tribal ceremonies and events. In carrying out these activities, both groups also maintained and developed their biculturalism, thus resisting the public school’s assimilationist thrust. The linguistic, cultural, and identity work that Latina/o and Native American youth do in their everyday lives attests to their motivation and dedication to their education. They are smart, engaged advocates for their learning and achievement. Yet, these culturally rich and meaningful experiences are not acknowledged in school settings due to educators’ and administrators’ lack of cultural competency. An SCR education calls for educators and administrators to gain cultural competency not only in their own, but also in their students’ cultures. By becoming aware of how learning and learners are socio-culturally constructed, educators can critically examine their own deficit representations of Latina/o and Native American students to better meet their learning needs. In addition, educators can recognize how they “other” youth of color, a process of deficit identity assignation that has detrimental consequences not only for their school success, but also for how they perceive themselves and other students like them. Furthermore, Latina/o and Native American youth must display their authentic identities in their relationships with teachers and administrators, rather than having to react to school structures, systems, and policies that seek to control and limit their voices and bodies. In turn, educators must dismantle their deficit thinking and build relationships with Latina/o and Native American youth. The next section includes our recommendations for achieving these goals.

Recommendations for Practice and Research An SCR education urges educators to practice effective culturally responsive teaching in order to enhance the educational experiences of Latino/a and Indigenous youth. We recommend that schools:  Provide institutional support to build family/community–school partnership programs that validate home and community knowledge systems, and the socio-cultural and linguistic experiences of students. This necessitates a shift in conceptualizing and forming the relationship. School administrators must have a long-term commitment to the communities, demonstrated by providing

Disrupting Deficit Views 119

institutional resources. Educational institutions and educators must also realize their role in transmitting and producing cultural knowledge. While the dominant cultural knowledge is communicated daily in schools, educators can demonstrate an understanding of and valuing of Indigenous and Latina/o cultural knowledge systems. For example, teachers of Indigenous and Latina/o students must learn that Spanish or Tribal language is not a disability, but an asset that is a resource for these students to construct identity, maintain their culture, maintain relationships with Spanish- or Native-speaking family and community members, and for some like the Latina/o participants of our study, to develop their spirituality.  Provide professional development opportunities for educators (both in-service and pre-service) to learn about SCR education and how to legitimize youth’s lived experiences in their pedagogical and leadership practices. At the school level, a long-term commitment from both administrators and educators is required for personnel to understand the covert ways in which power, inequality, racism, and colonization affect Latina/o and Indigenous youth today. At the post-secondary level, university education degree programs (e.g., teacher education, counseling, educational psychology, and school leadership) must provide courses on culturally responsive education geared toward deconstructing theories of development that promote a deficit understanding of academic achievement and identity formation for ethnic and racial groups. Such professional development must include opportunities to critically reflect on and move beyond oppressive racial codes that construct the “lazy” and “passive” identities about Latina/o and Native youth.  (Re-)Examine school policies and leadership practices to ensure that they are strengthening institutional relationships with students and their families by involving them in the creation of school policies and in decision-making processes. To do so, schools must schedule meetings that have clear objectives and facilitate activities that engage parents/families in discussions to legitimize their time and contributions. Schools must also be willing to schedule meetings during the times when Latina/o and Indigenous parents/families are available. In addition, the school must offer meetings in multiple languages and/or have translators so that educators can communicate with parents/families who do not speak English. In order to enhance the production of new knowledge on effective SCR practices with Latina/o and Indigenous youth, we recommend the following:  Explore Latina/o and Indigenous students’ lives outside of school in order to inform classroom curriculum and pedagogy.  Explore the impact of effective SCR educators (e.g., teachers, counselors, administrators) upon the persistence of Latina/o and Native youth in P-20 systems to create models of teacher activists and change agents.

120 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

These recommendations are particularly important to help educators in their understanding of how Latina/o and Native American students learn and achieve competence in ways that enrich their academic achievement. By taking up and taking on these recommendations, educators, administrators, and researchers can counter racist policies such as those in Arizona that seek to dismantle the very programs designed to develop Latina/o and Native American youth’s academic success and well-being.

Notes 1 We use the term “Latina/o” to represent individuals from Latin America. The terms Mexican American and Chicana/o are used interchangeably since these were terms used in the research cited and/or by participants of the study. 2 We use the term “Native American,” “American Indian,” “Native,” and “Indigenous” interchangeably since these terms are commonly used among Native peoples of the southwest. The terms Indigenous and Native are capitalized to respect and refer to Native communities throughout the nation who assert their rights as sovereign nations and peoples. The United Nations also uses these terms as proper nouns recognizing Indigenous peoples as the original inhabitants of the land. 3 HB 2281 is the House Bill 2281 introduced in the state of Arizona. 4 Data for American Indians includes Alaska Natives. 5 There are 19 Pueblo Nations in New Mexico. Each of the 19 nations is separately governed and considered a distinct community. The demographics for each nation range in size, language, and other characteristics. The names of the specific Pueblo Nation(s) are intentionally not provided to protect the anonymity of the youth. 6 Ek has provided in-depth portraits of the other focal students in other work (see Ek, 2008, 2009).

References Acosta, C. and Mir, A. (2012) “Empowering young people to be critical thinkers: The Mexican American Studies Program in Tucson,” Voices in Urban Education, 34: 15–26. Anzaldúa, G. (2007) Borderlands la Frontera: The New Mestiza, third edition. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books. Banks, J. A. (2008) “Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age,” Educational Researcher, 37(3): 129–139. Belgarde, M. J., Mitchell, R., and Moquino-Arquero, A. (2002) “What do we have to do to create culturally-responsive programs? A story about American Indian teacher education,” Action in Teacher Education, 24(2), Summer: 42–54. Boser, U. (2011) Teacher Diversity Matters: A State-by-State Analysis of Teachers of Color. Center for American Progress: Progress 2050, www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/ 22/pdf/teacher_diversity.pdf. Cammarota, J. and Aguilera, M. (2012) “‘By the time I get to Arizona’: Race, language, and education in America’s racist state,” Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4): 485–500, doi: 10.1080/13613321.2012.674025. Castagno, A. E. and McKinley Jones Brayboy, B. (2008) “Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature,” Review of Educational Research, 78(4): 941–993, doi: 10.&3102/0034654308323036.

Disrupting Deficit Views 121

Chavous, T. M., Bernat, D. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L., and Zimmerman, M. A. (2003) “Racial identity and academic attainment among African-American adolescents,” Child Development, 74(4): 1076–1090. Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (eds) (2000) Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Ek, L. D. (2008) “Language and literacy in the Pentecostal Church and the public high school: A case study of a Mexican ESL student,” The High School Journal, 92(2): 1–13. Ek, L. D. (2009) “‘It’s different lives’: A Guatemalan American adolescent’s construction of ethnic and gender identities across educational contexts,” Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 40(4): 405–420, doi:10.1111/j.1548–1492.2009.01061.x. Ennis, S. R., Rios-Vargas, M., and Albert, N. G. (2011) The Hispanic Population: 2010, 2010 Census Briefs. U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, www.census/gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf. Fránquiz, M. E. and del Carmen Salazar, M. (2004) “The transformative potential of humanizing pedagogy: Addressing the diverse needs of Chicano/Mexicano students,” High School Journal, 86: 36–53. Gay, G. (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gay, G., Dingus, J. E., and Jackson, C. W. (2003) The Presence and Performance of Teachers of Color in the Profession, Monograph. Washington, DC: Community Teachers Institute. Gee, J. P. (2000) “Identity as an analytic lens for research in education,” Review of Research in Education, 25: 99–125. Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. J., Skinner, D., and Cain, C. (1998) Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hummes, K. R., Jones, N. A., and Ramirez, R. R. (2011) Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010: 2010 Census Briefs. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/ c2010br-02.pdf. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994) The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass. Lee, T. S. (2011) “Teaching Native youth, teaching about Native peoples: Shifting the paradigm to socio-culturally responsive education,” in A. Ball and C. Tyson (eds) Studying Diversity in Teacher Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, 275–294. Lee, T. S. and Quijada Cerecer, P. D. (2010) “(Re)claiming native youth knowledge: Engaging in socio-culturally responsive teaching and relationships,” Multicultural Perspectives, 12(4): 199–205, doi: 10.1080/15210960.2010.527586. Leonardo, Z. (2000) “Betwixt and between: Introduction to the politics of identity,” in C. Tejeda, C. Martinez, and Z. Leonardo (eds) Charting New Terrains in Chicana(o)/ Latina(o) Education. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 107–129. Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., and Fontenot, K. (2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007–2011. American community briefs, survery briefs, US department of commerce, economics and statistics administration, US census bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf. McKinley Jones Brayboy, B., Fann, A., Castagno, A., and Solyom, J. A. (2012) Postsecondary Education for American Indian and Alaska Natives: Higher Education for Nation Building and Self-Determination. ASHE Higher Education Report, 37: 1–149. Midgley, C. and Edelin, K. C. (1998) “Middle school reform and early adolescent well-being: The good news and the bad,” Educational Psychologist, 33: 195–206. Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and González, N. (1992) “Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms,” Theory into Practice, 31: 132–141.

122 Lucila D. Ek, Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer, and Elsa Cantú Ruiz

Monzo, L. and Rueda, R. (2003) “Professional roles, caring, and scaffolds: Latino teachers’ and paraeducators’ interactions with Latino students,” American Journal of Education, 109(4): 438–471. National Center for Education Statistics (2010) National Achievement of Educational Progress (NAEP) (2003). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Nieto, S. (1999) The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Norton, B. (1997) “Language, identity, and the ownership of English,” TESOL Quarterly, 31(3): 409–429. Ochs, E. (1993) “Constructing social identity: A language socialization perspective,” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(3): 287–306. Pewewardy, C. D. (1999) “Culturally responsive teaching for American Indian students,” in E. R. Hollins and E. I. Oliver (eds) Pathways to Success in School: Culturally Responsive Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 85–100. Quijada Cerecer, P. D. (2011) “Power in community building: Learning from Indigenous youth: How to strengthen adult-youth relationships in school settings,” in A. F. Ball and C. A. Tyson (eds) Studying Diversity in Teacher Education. New York, NY: AERA, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 171–182. Razfar, A. (2003) “Language ideologies in ELL contexts: Implications for Latinos and higher education,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 2(3): 241–268. Rogoff, B. (1990) Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rueda, R. and Moll, L. (1994) “A sociocultural perspective on motivation,” in H. F. O’Neil and M. Drillings (eds) Motivation: Research and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 117–137. Ryan, R. M. and Stiller, J. D. (1991) “The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning,” in M. L. Maehr and P. R. Pintrich (eds) Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 115–149. Spencer, M. B. and Markstrom-Adams, C. (1990) “Identity processes among racial and ethnic minority children in America,” Child Development, 61: 290–310, doi: 10.1111/ j.1467–8624.1990.tb02780.x. Steele, C. M. (2007) “Stereotype threat and African American student achievement,” in D. Grusky and S. Szelenyi (eds) The Inequality Reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 252–257. US Census Bureau (2011) 2010 Census Briefs: The Hispanic Population: 2010, http://www. census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf. Valdés. G. (1996) Con respeto: Bridging the Distances Between Diverse Families and Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valdés, G. (1998) “The world outside and inside schools: Language and immigrant children,” Educational Researcher, 27(6): 4–18. Valdés, G. (2001) Learning and Not Learning English. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Valencia, R. and Solórzano, D. (1997) “Contemporary deficit thinking, in R. Valencia (ed) The Evolution of Deficit Thinking in Educational Thought and Practice. New York, NY: Falmer, 160–210. Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive Schooling: U.S.–Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Yeo, F. (1997) “Teacher preparation and inner-city schools: Sustaining educational failure,” The Urban Review, 29(2): 127–143. Yosso, T. J. and Solórzano, D. (2006) Leaks in the Chicano and Chicana Educational Pipeline: Latino Policy and Issues Brief. UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center. Zentella, A. C. (1997) Growing Up Bilingual: Puerto Rican Children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

8 TEACHER IDENTITIES IN TRANSITION Perspectives from ESL International Teachers Christine W. Nganga

As the push toward educating students who are informed on global perspectives increases, phrases such as “citizens of the world” and “global competency” have emerged in educational literature. Educators are being called to prepare students who “have the ability to compete, connect and cooperate on an international scale” as the future citizens who can thrive in the twenty-first century work force (Jackson, 2008, p58). In an effort to offer global perspectives to students in K-12 schools and to meet the shortage of teachers in subjects such as math, science, foreign languages and English as a second language (ESL), several school districts have utilized international teacher recruitment agencies to help them meet this need. According to the American Federation of Teachers’ (AFT’s) 2009 report, there were an estimated 19,000 international teachers in US public schools in 2007. Further, the AFT report indicated that there are 33 international recruiting agencies working in the United States, the largest one being the Visiting International Faculty (VIF). In this chapter, I draw from the narratives of three international ESL teachers – Naomi and Vera from Romania and Perla from Brazil – to explore the transitional identities of international teachers and provide an understanding of the connection between teacher identity and transitioning to work in an international setting. The larger narrative study consisted of five other narratives of international teachers from Argentina, Australia, the UK, Colombia, and Kenya who taught various content areas (Nganga, 2011). I used a teacher identity framework to conceptualize the interview data in order to provide a clearer picture of their journey of becoming international teachers, the transitional challenges they encountered, and the resources they utilized to overcome the challenges. I address the following two questions throughout the chapter: What challenges do international teachers face as they adjust from teaching in their home countries

124 Christine W. Nganga

to teaching in the United States? What can school leaders learn about creating culturally inclusive environments that take into consideration the diversity of students and teachers? I offer an overview of some of the current literature on international teachers in the US, Canada, and Australia to elucidate the existing trends related to international teaching experiences. I then point out various challenges that international teachers face when they go to teach in another country and how leaders can create inclusive school environments for all – students and teachers.

Recent Research on International Teachers Recent studies on international teachers have focused on varied themes concerning teaching in foreign countries. These themes include socialization and acculturation processes (Deters, 2009; Flores, 2003); teacher certification and entry into the host country’s educational system (Cruickshank, 2004; Ross, 2003); cross-cultural communication and pedagogical challenges (Hutchison, 2006; Hutchison et al., 2005), and mentoring international teachers (Hutchison and Jazzar, 2007; Peeler and Jane, 2005). In a study that examined the professional acculturation experiences of 33 international teachers in Canada who came from different continents, including Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, Deters (2009) found that participants faced constraints in their transitional process mainly in four areas: differences in language and culture; student classroom management and parent relationships; differences in teaching and learning style and curriculum; and discrimination. Language constraints included pronunciation differences and idiomatic expressions. Even for participants who spoke English fluently, they needed to be sensitive toward the Canadian cultural nuances while communicating with parents and students to avoid misunderstanding. The participants also mentioned a lack of motivation among the students and a lack of respect for a teacher’s authority. Acculturation processes often require learning new norms and behavioral patterns of the host culture. When international teachers face unmet expectations of who they perceive themselves to be as professionals, the experience can lead to frustration and negative emotions about one’s work. Peeler and Jane (2005) undertook a study among international teachers in Australia and investigated the impact of mentoring practices upon their transition and professional identity. In the case of an experienced teacher from Korea, the study revealed that her prior knowledge of education and teaching failed to equip her to teach in a new context, even after having studied in an Australian university. Additionally, the development of the professional self was heavily dependent upon the teacher’s ability to facilitate learning in the classroom, which included classroom management. One of the teachers also realized that the role assigned to the teacher in Korea was quite different from a teacher’s role in Australia. In Korea, the relationship between the student and the teacher was

Teacher Identities in Transition 125

more hierarchical. Sometimes international teachers face cultural conflict in the classroom, such as differences in teacher and student expectations of classroom behavior as some cultures have more hierarchical relationships between students and teachers. Mentoring relationships play a significant role in helping international teachers to negotiate their professional selves in the new environment. However, as in the case of two participants from Korea in Peeler and Jane’s (2005, p330) study, due to the micro-politics in the school, they felt powerless in accessing peer support and stated that “staff relationships within the school were competitive.” Fellow peers who are familiar with the professional expectations of a new workplace are invaluable in helping the newcomers understand the expectations in a new workplace. Education is not a culture-free endeavor – in fact, it is almost impossible for teachers to teach without their values coming across (Gudmundsdottir, 1990; Seah, 2002). Consequently, international teachers need to be aware of the values they attached to education, their subject content and classroom norms that may be different from their host country, and how they negotiate these differences. A teacher’s identity is closely related to their values and beliefs about teaching and learning. Schools of education in Australia and Canada have undertaken the task of creating bridging programs for trained teachers in other nations. However, these programs are not without their complexities. In relation to creating such bridging programs, Cruickshank (2004) sought to investigate the challenges faced by international teachers in upgrading their qualifications to attain Australian accreditation. Specifically, he examined if the issues were being addressed by the school of education at the University of Sydney, using data from participants who represented 27 language/ethnic backgrounds. The study revealed that international teachers are a heterogeneous group, and therefore “needs of the teachers depended on factors such as their individual teaching backgrounds, where they had taught and when they had completed their initial training” (Cruickshank, 2004, p130). Other needs ranged from knowledge of curriculum documents and examination requirements, to oral and written language proficiency. The results of the study also indicated that for the program to be effective, the university needed to be flexible because the needs of the international teachers ranged in scope. The above studies suggest that for international teachers to be successful in their teaching, they must take into consideration that their professional expertise in their home country may need to be adjusted to the context of the host country. Within the United States, although there has been a considerable rise in the recruitment of international teachers, there is a dearth of research about their experiences; but it is a growing field. In his dissertation work, Hutchison (2001) examined the pedagogical incongruences of four science teachers from the UK, Germany, and Ghana. In his study, he indicated that because of the differences in

126 Christine W. Nganga

pedagogical and institutional set-ups between international teachers’ home countries and the US system, the orientation should provide a clearer picture of the educational practices in the United States so that teachers can examine how their classroom practices may differ from those in the US and adjust their instructional methods accordingly. As the results of this study revealed, however, international teachers still struggle to adjust their instructional practices to the new setting.

Teacher Identity as a Conceptual Lens The term teacher identity is conceptualized in different ways in the literature on teaching. Several educational scholars, such as Rodgers and Scott (2008), Britzman (2003), and Danielewicz (2001), agree that the development of teacher identity is dependent upon and formed within multiple contexts, which bring social, cultural, political, and historical forces that inform how teachers understand who they are. Additionally, identity is formed in relation to others; it is shifting, multiple, and unstable (Beauchamp and Thomas, 2009; Beijaard et al., 2004). Olsen (2008, p139) views teacher identity as both a process and a product and asserts “as product, it is the collection of influences and effects on a teacher. And yet it is also a process – a way of viewing the continuous interaction among active variables that constitute teacher development.” Though variables such as school culture, student relationships, and pedagogical styles inform who a teacher is; teachers are yet agentive professionals who make choices about how they navigate and negotiate these variables, and in turn, how these variables impact their personal and professional selves. In this study, considering the above notions of teacher identity, I incorporated Day and Kington’s (2008) and Day, Kington, Stobart and Sammons’ (2006) framework of teacher identity that encompasses the personal, professional, and situated aspects of identity. These scholars view the personal dimension of identity as encompassing the life of the teacher outside of the normative school context in terms of other roles, such as family and social affiliations, that compete as sources of tension or support for the teacher. The professional dimension of teacher identity includes the social and political expectations of what a good teacher is, the teacher’s own educational ideals, and the influence of long-term policy trends such as standardized testing. Further, the professional aspect of identity encompasses knowledge, dispositions, values, beliefs, interests, and teachers’ orientation toward educational change (Spillane, 2000). The situated dimension of teacher identity is located in a specific context and is affected by local conditions such as school pupil behavior, school leadership, collegial support, and relationships (Day and Kington, 2008; Day et al., 2006). Indeed, teacher identity is not context free but is related to the social, cultural, and political milieu of the institution and the larger society (Duff and Uchida, 1997). The contextual power dynamics in schools play a role in how relationships and identities among students and teachers are constructed (Pennycook, 1994), which, in turn, affect how teachers view themselves (teacher identity).

Teacher Identities in Transition 127

Particularly in the United States, teaching and learning English as a second language is laden with complexities, such as identity eradication of learners (Cummins, 1996) due to the relationship between language and acculturation within US society and inequitable testing practices (Solano-Flores and Trumbull, 2003). Identity eradication refers to how culturally diverse students experience nonaffirming notions of themselves from school professionals and school structures. For instance, when linguistic minority students are expected to adopt cultural norms of the dominant culture that disaffirm their own cultural identity, in order to attain language competency skills they experience some level of cultural identity eradication. Because teacher–student relationships play a role both in the identity negotiation of the teacher and also the student, ESL teachers have an opportunity to incorporate affirming ways of learning English as a second language that still values strong identification with one’s culture and community. Such practices play a role in developing a positive sense of self both for the diverse student body and the international teachers who are also a minority in the school. In this chapter I define teacher identity as the teacher’s sense of self in the classroom and within the larger socio-cultural context in which they interact and are situated (Day and Kington, 2008; Day et al., 2006). Understanding the experiences of ESL international teachers, first in terms of their identities, is important in several ways. Teacher identity provides “a framework for teachers to construct their own ideas of ‘how to be’, ‘how to act’ and how to understand their work and their place in society” (Sachs, 2005, p15). Research, then, on teacher identities also serves as a means to better understand the job of teaching and what it is to be a teacher in different a professional environment (Day and Kington, 2008). Hence, understanding how international teachers negotiate their identities while teaching in the US is crucial for school leaders and teacher leaders in order to support teachers’ classroom instruction as they learn unfamiliar work traditions.

A Narrative Research Design From a narrative research point of view, human beings lead storied lives, and the sense of who they are is constituted in their stories (Connelly and Clandinin, 1999). Narrative is also a portal through which human beings make meaning of their experience (Bruner, 2004; Polkinghorne, 1988). In fact, “stories, as lived and told by teachers, serve as the lens through which they understand themselves personally and professionally and through which they view the content and context of their work, including any attempts at instructional innovation” (Drake et al., 2001, p2). Therefore, a narrative research design offers a holistic way of studying and understanding the experiences of ESL international teachers and their identity negotiations. In order to understand the international teachers’ transitions, I conducted two semi-structured interviews with eight participants lasting 60 to 90 minutes each, with follow-up emails that served to clarify the data. The questions asked in the

128 Christine W. Nganga

interviews consisted of personal aspects of the teachers’ identity pertaining to background, biography, schooling experiences, and teachers’ motivations to teach in the US. Questions concerning their professional aspects included their teaching experiences, values and beliefs about teaching, and the challenges entailed in the transition. Situated aspects of their identity were conveyed through questions about school structure, culture, student relationships, leadership, and professional collegiality. In order to access the participants, I engaged in a purposeful selection (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 2002) by identifying “information rich” participants from whom I could learn “a great deal of issues of central importance to the purpose of the research” (Patton, 2002, p246). Participants in this study were international teachers in their mid-30s who had taught in the US for one to five years. These teachers received their teacher education training in their home countries and entered the US on a temporary cultural exchange visa. J-1 visa recipients are deemed to be on a cultural exchange mission through their temporary employment in the United States. Each of the teachers taught English as a foreign language for several years in their respective countries. The participants were hired in one school district in a southeast US state for a three-year contract with the possibility of having the contract extended for a further two years. Naomi, Perla, and Vera taught in three different high schools, in the same school district. Of the 28,000 students, 13.6 percent were considered ESL during the 2010 to 2011 school year. The demographics of the three schools they taught ranged from 63 to 68 percent White; 20 to 25 percent Black; and 6 to 11 percent Hispanic. Economically disadvantaged students in the three schools ranged from 24 to 35 percent, while the district average was 40.6 percent. In the larger study, I coded the interview transcripts using categories within the personal, professional, and situated aspects of identity. I then constructed narratives after feedback from the participants to increase accuracy of their reporting while engaging in “a process of collaboration involving mutual storytelling and restorying” as an ongoing process during the research (Connelly and Clandinin, 1990, p4). The individual narratives included how each participant became an international teacher, challenges and successes in the transition process, and the resources they drew upon to ease their transition. These narratives included moments when teachers felt that they needed to change their approach to teaching due to different professional and contextual demands. In the detailed stories, I paid attention to the three common sites of narrative inquiry: temporality, sociality and place (Connelly and Clandinin, 2006). In terms of temporality, I examined how the teachers’ former teaching practices informed their teaching in the US and their aspirations for their future career. Sociality involved attending to the social conditions surrounding the events in their stories, such as the schools and the relationships that they encountered within the school communities. I also examined how my own relationship and experiences as an overseas born and trained educator informed the stories. Additionally, I was cognizant of the fact

Teacher Identities in Transition 129

TABLE 8.1 Participants’ profiles

Name

Credentials

Country of origin

Vera

BA in History and English

Romania

Naomi

BA in English and German, MA in British Cultural Studies, MA in Curriculum and Instruction

Romania

Perla

BA in Language and Literature (English and Portuguese); BA in Psychology; MA in Curriculum and Instruction

Brazil

Years taught in the US

Year of arrival

School demographics

2

4

2006

63% White, 25% Black, 10% Hispanic, 35% Eligible for free and reduced lunch

7

2

2008

68% White, 20% Black, 6% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 24% Eligible for free and reduced lunch

20

3

2007

66% White, 21% Black, 11% Hispanic, 2% Asian, 25% Eligible for free and reduced lunch

Years taught before the US

that the stories they told occurred in specific geographic and structural places, and I needed to pay attention to the impact of each of the places upon their stories. Paying attention to these three sites of narrative inquiry was important in the retelling and telling of the research text because the teachers’ identity negotiation was informed by their past professional experiences, their relationships, and the places in which events had occurred.

Lessons from International Teachers Below I focus on specific details from major themes that emerged within the personal, professional, and situated aspects of identity, as narrated by the three ESL international teachers, Naomi and Vera from Romania and Perla from Brazil.

Personal Transitions and Challenges The personal transitions and challenges that the ESL teachers faced acclimating to US schools included logistical issues such as acquiring a car, a driver’s license and

130 Christine W. Nganga

the process of renting a place to live. Vera recounted her fear of driving and the fact that during her first six months in the US, she only went to school and the grocery store and avoided highways. International teachers were expected to take a driving test during the first week of their arrival. Other personal transitions entailed dealing with loneliness due to being away from their families. Naomi expressed her struggle in trying to make new friends: I was also at an age when it’s not so easy [to make new friends]. You cannot make friends so fast and easily. I mean, it’s not like when I was a teenager and I could meet so many people, we could hang out and go to a bar or club or whatever and then just have fun. Perla shared how she would cry while driving home from school and the fact that her apartment did not feel like home: At the end of the school day after work, I’d be like, oh I’m going … [she could not say the word “home”] and there were days when I would drive home and I would cry my eyes out on my way, because Brazilians are very family oriented. You know. We live with our parents until we get married. We are very close. My family, in particular, we are very, very close. We’re very close. So that was really hard for me. I got really homesick. Indeed, data from all the teachers indicated that international teachers sometimes undergo a loss of their sense of place as they begin to attach meaning to a new personal and professional location. In her story, Perla shared that she eventually began to make her new place “like a home.” Although personal transitional challenges are not directly related to one’s work, they affect how a person is able to adjust to the new life in a different country. Day and Kington (2006) assert that the personal and professional conditions in which teachers live and work are integral to one another. All three teachers were living with their parents and siblings before coming to the US. Hence, their transition entailed having to live away from their families for the first time, a shift most Americans in their mid-30s have experienced.

Professional Transitions and Challenges Professional transitions and challenges for the international teachers consisted of navigating the expectations of what it means to be a teacher in the US from both the students and the school community. A major theme that emerged in relation to professional transitional challenges was in relation to classroom practice. This included adjusting teaching styles and meeting the distinct demands of ESL programs.

Teacher Identities in Transition 131

Naomi initially had to adjust her teaching style from a teacher-centered focus to a more student-centered approach where she did “not just stand there and present a lesson but have all these other different activities”: As far as my teaching goes, that really changed because in the past I used to have a very teacher-centered class. That was my teaching in the past. Everything was focused on me. There were no group activities, no pairing up of the student, so it was a boring class … We did not have the student-centered class where everything has to be about the student. Teaching a 90-minute block, which is how the high schools were structured in this particular school district, was also a challenge as the international ESL teachers had to learn how to engage students for an extended length of time, which they were not accustomed to. Vera described her struggle with the 90-minute schedule: It killed me because I was like, what am I supposed to do with the kids? It’s too much … I’d get bored, they’d get bored. It seemed a challenge because it kind of kills you and you have to come up with interesting activities. But you have to come up with interesting things and let the students do their thing … Now I feel that it’s not enough. It’s not enough because I realize that actually I need to teach more than the curriculum … so I have so many things to teach them. Perla related her teaching approach to her love for learning multiple languages. She talked of motivating her students to learn by sharing part of her own biography as a bilingual teacher to enhance her student relationships and keep them motivated as she felt as though she “had been in their shoes”: I think my background then helps a lot because I feel we connect a little bit more and it just shows them that, okay, look, you are at an advantage … You are gonna speak English and Spanish, or English and Chinese, or English and French. See, you’re gonna be a bilingual person, isn’t that great? So just little things that I feel like the kids need because I think it’s all about, if you feel good about yourself at school, learning has a better chance of happening. Additionally, Perla utilized the international component of her class composition to engage her students: “OK, let me share something from Brazil. How does it work in your country? What about your country? And it’s interesting to see that. They are so open to that.” She saw the diversity of her students who came from different countries, including China, Cuba, and Mexico, as an avenue to enrich her classroom in terms of motivating her students to open up by engaging them to talk about their respective countries.

132 Christine W. Nganga

Vera’s professional transitions and challenges included dealing with the additional workload and paperwork that the ESL program entailed. She talked of a secretarial background as a plus in helping her to cope with the paperwork and related the value of doing the paperwork to the continuous funding of the ESL program: It’s crazy but I love doing paperwork probably because my secretarial background kicks in, you know, and I love it. I am not good at keeping up with it but I love doing it … I had no idea that being a teacher requires so much paperwork. That can be pretty overwhelming, especially because you are accountable for that and if you don’t have that paper, it’s the end of the world because they won’t get federal money for every student, and they have to justify all the money we get from the federal government. So they need the paperwork and the pressure is on us. Teaching in the United States also added the challenge of helping students with other subjects, not just learning English. Vera explained: My students come to me with any subject and I help them. I am not a science guru or anything but I read to them and explain to them in a simpler language they can understand … So teaching in my content area wasn’t difficult because it was the same thing as I did back home – grammar and literature, but teaching other subjects, that was a challenge … although I knew about the topics … but how do you explain them in English, what are the words? … I didn’t know the words in English. So I can understand my students very well. I can understand the language barrier … absolutely. Vera also related part of her struggle in teaching to the fact that most of her students had not learned their native language. She therefore had to adjust her teaching strategies to encompass language skills: My biggest problem was … even when I was teaching English to Romanians, my students knew how to speak their native language perfectly, read and write, because it was their native language. The thing that shocked me here was that these kids could not even speak Spanish. So I did not have to teach them English, but language too. Like, what’s a noun, what’s an adjective, what’s a verb, how to put words together in a sentence. As the stories of the ESL teachers indicated, teaching English as a foreign language in one’s country is different from teaching English as a second language in the United States. This is partly because language is socially and historically constructed and the relationship between language, teaching practices, and teacher identity is complex (Duff and Uchida, 1997). The teachers’ linguistic values needed to be negotiated so that they could cater for the needs of their students, who were different from

Teacher Identities in Transition 133

those in their home countries. The students they taught in their home countries were not a linguistic minority, such as those in US schools.

Situated Transitions and Challenges Situated transitions and challenges included language and communication barriers that the international teachers encountered within their schools and larger communities. Although all three international teachers were experienced in teaching English as a foreign language in their home countries, they still encountered certain language barriers in the US. While Naomi mentioned that language was not an issue for her, she expressed that she was self-conscious while speaking in the presence of Americans and “had this fear inside … what if I say a word wrong and mispronounce it?” Hence, when she was with Americans, she did not want to talk much because she disliked having to be asked “five times” what she said. Similarly, Vera struggled to adjust to different language and communication styles with her students and colleagues in the school. She spoke of “feeling like the worst English speaker ever” and wondered if she “had learned anything in college.” However, the struggle with the different way of speaking English in the new setting helped her to empathize with her students, who experienced similar language barriers in the schools and communities. Vera shared how the language and communication barrier affected her sense of self: This changed my opinion about myself – it was a battle with myself every single day and it still is. It’s not as intense like at the beginning but it still is because I want people to see who I am and if I can’t verbalize my thoughts they don’t know who I am. Vera further related this struggle to feeling “invisible in school for the first two years … Nobody would talk to me. It was pretty hard. But I had my kids and that was enough to find my place.” Culture is embedded in the manner in which people express themselves. In addition to variations of accents, the local language conventions used may not be familiar to people from a different culture. Thus, though international teachers were English language speakers, they had to become familiar with the local mannerisms of speech. The struggles of international teachers in terms of language revealed the complexities involved in speaking a similar language in a different cultural space. All of the teachers commented on the inadequate communication channels in the schools. Vera spoke of how she felt “out of the loop” during the first two years of teaching in the US: At first I didn’t know what was going on in the school because nobody was telling me anything and I didn’t know that here if you don’t ask, nobody tells you anything. I didn’t know that. So that’s the rule I learned here. At

134 Christine W. Nganga

home everybody is like, you know what happened there, but here you have to ask. The first two years, I didn’t know what was going on in the schools. The teachers also found that sometimes the school had an “acronym language” that they did not understand and colleagues commonly used words such as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), EC (exceptional children), and AP (advanced placement classes), whose meanings they did not know. As the data suggest, communication barriers can lead to feelings of isolation within a school community and it takes time for newcomers to learn the cultural expressions and idioms of that community. Language is culturally determined, and certain words and phrases may differ in meaning from one cultural group to another. Hence, a teacher’s identity – the sense of who a teacher is – can be confronted with feelings of uncertainty when one fails to comprehend the messages conveyed by colleagues and school leaders.

Transitional Resources The three ESL international teachers utilized certain transitional resources in order to help them adjust to the new teaching context. I use the term transitional resources to refer to the sources of support that the international teachers drew from in the process of transition and the recruiting agency. Such resources included relationships with other colleagues and assistance from the recruitment agency. A notable transitional resource was other international teachers. All three mentioned the support they drew from one another, whether those who had arrived earlier or those teachers who had arrived at the same time. The ability of individuals to negotiate and reconstruct who they are is regulated by the extent to which the international teachers have access to certain professional and cultural resources that are valued by the new school community. While relating the transitional resources that she utilized to overcome some of the challenges Perla expressed her appreciation for the collegiality that the assistant principal in charge of instruction extended to her. She commented: You need somebody … you know who has got your back when something goes wrong … I don’t need to be friends with all of them [the administrative team]. … We have a great relationship. She’s always doing things for me; whatever I need she’s there. She’s always coming and saying: how do I do this? What should I do? You know, about the ESL, because she’s the ESL contact. So, yeah, she’s my highlight. The other ones are, you know, are friendly and nice, but nothing like sit and talk about this, you know. Perla expressed mixed feelings about her relationships with other teachers: You know people have their own groups or they have their own worlds … they’re not out there, if you go and ask for help they will help

Teacher Identities in Transition 135

you. But nobody is gonna be knocking at your door and offering help. If they see you struggling, nobody is gonna offer, you have to ask. She then learned that she needed to take the initiative to ask for help from her colleagues when she needed it. Although Naomi thought that the agency clarified on certain expectations about teaching in the US, she expressed their inadequacy in being more explicit about aspects of teaching, such as the block schedules and impact of test scores upon teachers’ jobs: I think the agency did a good job of telling us what to expect. I definitely can say that. They sent us a bunch of emails telling us about the cost of living, about all the expenses that we’d have here, about the salaries, telling us about the taxes that we’d have to pay, about the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] and everything, so they did a good job with that. What I would have liked to know more was about the US educational system. They didn’t tell us so much about it. The recruitment agency offered the international teachers a three- to five-day orientation, which seemed inadequate for the level of change and adjustment that the international teachers experienced. Adjustment to a new living and working environment takes time.

Identities in Transition All the teachers experienced personal transitional challenges. Although such challenges, that include being far from their families and learning to drive, are not directly related to teaching, they complicate the process of settling into a new job. The personal experiences of teachers interact with the social, cultural, and institutional environments in which teachers work on a daily basis (Goodson, 1994). Day et al.’s (2006) work on teacher identity indicates that personal aspects of a teacher’s life affect how they feel about themselves, thus influencing their commitment and effectiveness in their professional roles. Results of the study revealed that the manner in which teachers reconstruct and negotiate their identities varies as they draw upon different professional and life experiences. However, teachers continue to rely on their understanding of themselves as teachers in terms of their knowledge, beliefs, language, and their sense of self, as researchers such as Olsen (2008) and Spillane (2000) have also found in their studies on teacher identity. A successful international teaching experience is navigated when teachers view themselves as learners, interrogating their values and beliefs about teaching and how these fit in the new context. The three teachers frequently referred to themselves as learners and their stories illustrated this.

136 Christine W. Nganga

Implications for School Leadership and Teacher Leaders A school climate that takes into consideration the diversity of cultures represented not only by the students but also by the teachers is conducive for effective teaching. Incorporating cultural variations in leadership practices can help to advance a favorable teaching and learning environment for students and US and international teachers (Walker, 2007). The ESL international teachers and those in the larger study referenced school leaders more from an administrative standpoint and less as a transitional resource. For instance, many of them had not encountered the process of formal evaluations from principals. Authentic leadership requires engaging in a continuous learning process that incorporates complex understanding of how globally motivated educational reforms interact with “traditional” values of schools – reforms such as those that necessitate recruitment of international teachers (e.g., internationalizing curriculum, filling teacher shortages). Schools have their own traditions and cultures that are unfamiliar to newcomers and are certainly integral to the daily running of the school. In order to understand the impact of taken-for-granted assumptions, such as communication channels, developing relationships where international teachers feel at ease in clarifying expectations can minimize transition challenges. Additionally, leaders need to develop a more deliberately relational approach to leading (Uhl-Bien, 2006). A relational leadership approach serves as a “two-way influence between leaders and followers” where leaders understand the professional background of international teachers and international teachers also understand the school leaders’ expectations (Uhl-Bien, 2006, p257). Building relationships with international teachers thus facilitates their adjustment to the school culture and eases their uncertainty as they seek to fit into the school community, offering them a positive sense of self as individuals and professionals. Other international teachers were an essential element in helping the newer international teachers to negotiate the personal and professional transitions in the new settings. However, the international teachers did not seem to receive a similar level of support from US teachers. For international teachers to become adequately socialized in terms of teaching in US schools, they need the support from both other international teachers and US teachers. Having a more definitive mentoring process in the schools that involves new and more experienced international teachers with other US teachers could offer the necessary support needed for international teachers to have a successful teaching experience. On mentoring international teachers in Australia, Peeler and Jane (2005, p334) argue that frequent interactions within a mentoring relationship help to bridge the gap between the “newcomers’ former ways of knowing and current practice.” Schools are organizations that share a common set of features, such as structures, policies, values, and norms (Deal and Peterson, 2009), of which international teachers may not be aware. Furthermore, learning is an “integral and inseparable aspect of social practice, which involves the construction of identity” (Lave and

Teacher Identities in Transition 137

Wenger, 1991, p53). Thus, schools as organizations support professional development as a vital process of identity negotiation among international teachers. Participation within the school involves not just engaging in the daily duties of school, but building and maintaining connections, which helps teachers to feel a sense of belonging within the school community (Wenger, 1998). Hence, building relationships within the school community is a part of the identity negotiation process.

References AFT (American Federation of Teachers) (2009) Importing Educators: Causes and Consequences of International Teacher Recruitment, http://www.aft.org/pdfs/international/importinge ducators0609.pdf, accessed December 10, 2010. Beauchamp, C. and Thomas, L. (2009) “Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education,” Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2): 175–189. Beijaard, D., Meijer, P., and Verloop, N. (2004) “Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 20: 107–128. Britzman, B. P. (2003) Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Bruner, J. (2004) “Life as narrative,” Social Research, 71(3): 691–710. Connelly, F. M. and Clandinin, D. J. (1990) “Stories of experience and narrative inquiry,” Educational Researcher, 19(5): 2–14. Connelly, F. M. and Clandinin, D. J. (eds) (1999) Shaping a Professional Identity: Stories of Educational Experience. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Connelly, F. M. and Clandinin, D. J. (2006) “Narrative inquiry,” in J. L. Green, G. Camilli, and P. Elmore (eds) Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research, third edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 477–487. Creswell, W. J. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cruickshank, K. (2004) “Towards diversity in teacher education: Teacher preparation of immigrant teachers,” European Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2): 125–138. Cummins, J. (1996) Negotiating Identities: Educating for Empowerment in a Diverse Society. Los Angeles, CA: California Association of Bilingual Education. Danielewicz, J. (2001) Teaching Selves: Identity, Pedagogy and Teacher Education. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Day, C. and Kington, A. (2008) “Identity, well-being and effectiveness: The emotional contexts of teaching,” Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 16(1): 7–23. Day, C., Kington, A., Stobart, G., and Sammons, P. (2006) “The personal and professional selves of teachers: Stable and unstable identities,” British Educational Research Journal, 32(4): 602–616. Deal, T. E. and Peterson, K. D. (2009) Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes and Promises. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Deters, P. (2009) Identity, Agency and the Acquisition of Professional Language and Culture: The Case of Internationally Educated Teachers and College Professors in Ontario, PhD thesis. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto. Drake, C., Spillane, J. P., and Hufferd-Ackles, K. (2001) “Storied identities: Teacher learning and subject matter content,” Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(1): 1–23. Duff, P. A. and Uchida, Y. (1997) “The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms,” TESOL Quarterly, 31: 451–486.

138 Christine W. Nganga

Echevarria, J., Short, D., and Powers, K. (2006) “School reform and standards-based education: A model for English-language learners,” The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4): 195–211. Flores, M. R. V. (2003). The Road to Socialization: A Descriptive Study of the Filipino Immigrant Teachers’ Search for Their Place in the Hawai’i Department of Education. PhD thesis. University of Hawai’i, Hawai’i. Gollnick, D. and Chinn, P. (2009) Multicultural Education in a Pluralistic Society, eighth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Goodson, I. F. (1994) “Studying the teacher’s life and work,” Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(1): 29–37. Gudmundsdottir, S. (1990) “Values in pedagogical content knowledge,” Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3): 44–52. Hutchison, C. B. (2001) Pedagogical Incongruences Facing International Teachers When They Immigrate to Teach in the United States High Schools. PhD thesis, Georgia State University. Hutchison, C. B. (2006) “Cross-cultural issues arising for four science teachers during their international migration to teach in U.S. high schools,” School Science and Mathematics, 106 (2): 74–83. Hutchison, C. B. and Jazzar, M. (2007) “Mentors for teachers from outside the U.S.,” Phi Delta Kappa, 88(5): 368–373. Hutchison, C. B., Butler, M. B., and Fuller, S. (2005) “Pedagogical communication issues arising during international migrations to teach science in America,” Electronic Journal of Science Education, 9(3). Jackson, A. (2008) “High schools in the global age,” Educational Leadership, 65(8): 58–62. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Nganga, C. W. (2011) A Narrative Study of International Teachers’ Transitional Identities in U.S. High Schools. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Olsen, B. (2008) Teaching What They Learn, Teaching What They Live: How Teachers’ Personal Histories Shape Their Professional Development. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, third edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peeler, E. and Jane, B. (2005) “Mentoring: Immigrant teachers bridging professional practices,” Teaching Education, 16(4): 325–336. Pennycook, A. (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London: Longman. Polkinghorne, D. E. (1988) Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rodgers, C. R. and Scott, K. H. (2008) “The development of the personal self and professional identity in learning to teach,” in M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, and K. E. Demers (eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, third edition. London: Routledge and Association of Teacher Educators, 732–755. Ross, F. (2003) “Newcomers entering teaching: A program created for recent immigrants and refugees to become certified teachers,” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Chicago, IL. Sachs, J. (2005) “Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be a teacher,” in P. Denicolo and M. Kompf (eds) Connecting Policy and Practice: Challenges for Teaching and Learning in Schools and Universities. Oxford: Routledge, 5–21. Seah, W. T. (2002) “The perception of, and interaction with, value differences by immigrant teachers of mathematics in two Australian secondary classrooms,” Journal of Intercultural Studies, 23(2): 189–210. Solano-Flores, G. and Trumbull, E. (2003) “Examining language in context: The need for new research and practice paradigms in the testing of English-language learners,” Educational Researcher, 32(2): 3–13.

Teacher Identities in Transition 139

Spillane, J. P. (2000) “Constructing ambitious pedagogy in the fifth grade: The mathematics and literacy divide,” Elementary School Journal, 100(4): 307–330. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) “Relational Leadership Theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing,” The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6): 654–676. Walker, A. (2007) “Leading authentically at the cross-roads of culture and context,” Journal of Educational Change, 8(3): 257–273. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

This page intentionally left blank

PART III

Fostering Collaboration and Partnerships

This page intentionally left blank

9 ATTENDING TO URBAN TEACHER DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A SCHOOL–UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP The Case of South Kilbourne Elementary School Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith1

Introduction Collaborations between universities and urban schools that aim to support teachers have great potential for viable solutions in transforming public schools. Such collaborations underscore the importance of providing teacher education students with field/clinical placements in diverse urban schools and communities (McKinney et al., 2008; Murrell, 2001; Whipp, 2003). Providing teacher education students with experiences in urban schools can avoid culture shock that many new teachers experience in urban schools and may contribute to urban teacher recruitment and retention (Freedman and Appleman, 2009; Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2004; Weiner, 2006). Furthermore, scholars (Delpit, 2006; Sachs, 2004) have posited that effective teachers in urban schools have developed particular attributes, attitudes, perspectives, and practices necessary for effective teaching and positive achievement outcomes. Because learning to teach is a continual process, professional development opportunities for urban teachers to continue developing their practice are imperative. For example, Hollins et al.’s (2004) work suggests that self-sustaining learning communities where teachers engage in ongoing teacher-directed collaboration focused on improving classroom practice can lead to positive achievement outcomes for African American children in urban schools. As the research base on teacher learning in urban schools continues to grow, there exists a lack of knowledge and expertise in our understandings of how to provide experiences that result in professional growth for both practicing and pre-service teachers (Wilson et al., 2001). Despite the widespread attention and recommendations from a variety of educational and non-educational constituencies alike, there remains a need for clinical models of teacher educators working with practicing teachers and pre-service teachers in culturally and linguistically diverse urban school sites.

144 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

This chapter addresses this need and answers calls for more research on urban teacher education (Andrews and Donaldson, 2009; Oakes, et al., 2002; Weiner, 2002) and urban teacher professional development (Anderson and Olsen, 2006) by documenting the efficacy of a successful school–university partnership at an urban elementary school in the South. To contextualize this study, we first explore key ideas from the literature on urban teacher development (focused on urban teacher preparation and urban teacher professional development) relevant to our work. We then describe the conceptual framework, research method, and implementation process for the work we have engaged in over the past four years. We present key findings from our school–university partnership focused on the process of urban teacher development for both pre-service and practicing teachers. We conclude with implications of school–university partnerships for raising student achievement and recruiting and retaining culturally responsive teachers in urban schools.

The Teacher Development Crisis in Urban Schools Throughout the United States, there is a lingering and pressing need to address the academic needs of culturally and linguistically diverse student populations (Cuban and Usden, 2003; Garcia and Cuellar, 2006). Demographically, nearly half of the students enrolled in the nation’s schools are students of color (Ball, 2006; US Department of Education, 2003–2004). In some of the nation’s largest cities and greater metropolitan areas, students of color make up at least half of the school population (Ball, 2006). Specifically, Morris and Monroe (2009) suggest that the US South has been understudied and under-theorized in the literature on addressing the academic needs of African American students. They contend that “the geographical U.S. South is critical to understanding the dynamics of the achievement gap facing Black students” (Morris and Monroe, 2009, p21). For the first time in history, public schools in the South no longer enroll a majority of White students (Southern Education Foundation, 2010). Multi-racial and African, Latino, Asian-Pacific Islander, and Native American students now constitute slightly more than half of all students attending public schools in 15 southern states. For example, in South Carolina, although students of color make up a significant proportion of the student population (46 percent), large percentages of African American, Latino American, and Native American students continue to fare less well than their European American counterparts. During the five-year period of 2005 to 2009, the percentage of African and Latino American students who scored below basic on the state-mandated Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) was consistently higher than White students (at a rate nearly two or more times higher). Discrepancies also existed on the passing rates between students of color and Whites who met the standard for the high school exit examination (South Carolina Department of Education, 2010).

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 145

US urban schools have characteristics (e.g., higher student, teacher, and administrator mobility; larger populations of culturally and linguistically diverse students; inadequate funding, etc.) that present particular challenges for teachers (Steinberg and Kincheloe, 2004; Weiner, 2006). Although such characteristics can also be found in rural and suburban school settings, urban schools have unique institutional histories based upon their location in cities where there are high concentrations of poverty in close proximity to affluence. Such characteristics are the result of socio-historical and political measures (e.g., White flight, low-income public housing development, gentrification, etc.) germane to urban centers (Tyack, 1974). Nearly half of all new teachers in urban public schools quit within five years; approximately 20 percent leave within the first three years (Nieto, 2003). Since preparing effective teachers for urban schools and retaining them is a key component of addressing the national crisis of underachievement of students of color and those living in poverty, there has been a growing body of research on how to prepare and sustain urban teachers (Anderson and Olsen, 2006; Murrell, 2001; Oakes et al., 2002; Quartz and the TEP Research Group, 2003). Inclusive in the growing body of research on urban education reform (Anyon, 1997; Noguera, 2003) is reform focused on critically thinking about how to prepare and sustain urban teachers (Anderson and Olsen, 2006; Oakes et al., 2002). Preparing effective teachers for urban contexts and retaining them is a salient component of addressing the national crisis of underachievement of students of color and those living in poverty. Research on the preparation and retention of urban teachers points to the significance of diverse clinical placements and sustained, ongoing professional support (Freedman and Appleman, 2009; Hollins et al., 2004). Much of the literature on developing school–university partnerships in urban contexts focuses on professional development schools (Leonard et al., 2004; Murrell, 1998). The premise of professional development schools (PDSs) as conceptualized by Goodlad (1990) and the Holmes Group (1990) (later renamed Holmes Partnership) is for colleges and schools of education to better prepare teachers and improve the practice of teaching by drawing upon the expertise of practicing teachers and university researchers in a collaborative manner. While PDSs receive a great deal of attention in the literature as examples of formal university–school partnerships (where districts and universities sign contracts and make financial commitments with each other), informal school–university partnerships also occur. This chapter describes such an informal partnership and its components; however, it is important to note now that a school principal and university teacher educator largely coordinated this effort.

Research Methods Socio-cultural theory views the learner and learning as situated in a social plane where learning emerges within cultural practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991;

146 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

Rogoff, 1995; Tharp and Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978). People learn as they interact with (and interpret their world within) their culture and their social group. The environment and purpose surrounding individuals provide the sociocultural context within which they construct meaning. When considering learning within the practice of teaching, socio-cultural theory allows us to look specifically at the context of learning and the tools used that enhance cognition and performance (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Putnam and Borko, 2000). For this particular study, we were interested in what is learned in the context of a school–university partnership where learning for both pre-service and in-service teachers takes place in the larger context of the school and the micro-contexts of classrooms and study groups. We were also interested in what knowledge is gained from the use of particular tools for learning within these contexts. The work presented in this chapter is derived from a larger longitudinal project documenting the development of an on-site professional development model working with pre-service and in-service teachers at an urban elementary school in the South. The participants in the larger project include the school principal (Sarah), classroom teachers, university students, and a university professor (Tambra) who taught courses on-site at the school as well as supervised student teacher interns. Ethnographic methods and data sources have been used in the investigation of the larger study (e.g., interviews, field observations, report cards, pre- and post-teacher surveys, exit slips, staff meeting minutes, district and school artifacts, practicing teacher work products, and pre-service teacher work products and course evaluations).

The University and School Context The University of South Carolina is located in the southeastern region of the US and is the flagship research university of the state. African Americans constitute almost 30 percent of the state’s population and Latinos represent 3.5 percent. The activities of this partnership are with the main campus, which is located in the heart of a mid-size urban city. The main campus has an enrollment of more than 27,000 students at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The racial/ethnic demographics for undergraduate students at the main campus are: 12.5 percent African American; 2 percent Hispanic/Latino; 3 percent Asian; 1 percent American Indian; 72 percent White. On average, the College of Education enrolls 1,800 students in undergraduateand graduate-level teacher preparation programs with 18 percent being students of color. Additionally, faculty members of color roughly make up 10 percent of the instructional staff. In 2011, the College of Education was featured on the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) website in “Stories from the Field” for its high commitment to school–university partnerships. The school is a predominantly Black, urban elementary school. The district in which South Kilbourne Elementary is located is the state’s sixth largest with

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 147

approximately 23,000 students. District demographics are 78 percent Black/African American, 17 percent White, and 5 percent other, with 65 percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch. Over the past four years, South Kilbourne Elementary school has had an average enrollment of 300 students in grades pre-K though grade 5 and is a designated Title One school. Seventy-nine percent of the students receive free or reduced lunch. The demographics for the student population at the school are 92 percent African American, 6 percent White, and 2 percent Hispanic/Latino. Despite the fact that the school is located less than 4 miles from the university’s campus, there had been no previous partnerships with the university’s teacher education programs. Tambra has been working with South Kilbourne Elementary in a school–university partnership for four years. Her research has chronicled the partnership efforts of developing a clinical site where both practicing and preservice teachers are simultaneously afforded opportunities for professional growth (see Jackson, 2010, 2011). Tambra teaches undergraduate courses to pre-service teachers onsite, and she also supervises student teacher interns during their year-long internship at the school.

Partnership Components and Outcomes From the beginning, we (Sarah and Tambra) shared a mutual understanding that a school–university partnership should be beneficial for all involved. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, especially for urban schools. Universities rely on local schools for clinical placements of student teachers and are often the sole beneficiaries of such placements since, in the end, they view themselves accountable only to their students and not the K-12 students attending the schools. Colleges/ schools of education often overlook schools such as South Kilbourne for clinical placement sites and partnership work because of perceived, stereotypical notions that such schools are not engaging in effective teaching practice. Our partnership goals are threefold: 1 Better prepare teacher candidates to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students in urban schools effectively. 2 Close the achievement gap for low socio-economic students and students of color at South Kilbourne Elementary. 3 Develop a clinical model where both practicing and pre-service teachers are simultaneously afforded opportunities for professional growth. The three major components of the partnership center around a teacher study group, teaching courses to pre-service teachers onsite and hosting student teacher interns. While we deem the overall partnership to be successful, it was not without glitches and setbacks. Such dilemmas are discussed, as well as the successes of our work.

148 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

Teacher Study Group: A Space for Resistance, Collaboration, and Centering Teacher Practice In our initial conversations, Sarah (the school’s principal) described her vision for improving student achievement at the school. She felt as though teachers needed to purposely reflect upon their teaching and to question how and why particular strategies were effective or not. She wanted to build community and collegiality amongst the teachers and support staff, so she felt strongly about having them engage in collaborative work. As we talked about Tambra’s (university professor) areas of expertise and the courses she would teach onsite, we agreed to focus the study group work with the teachers on developing their understanding of integrated curriculum and culturally responsive teaching. Since Tambra would begin teaching an undergraduate course onsite and ask the teachers to open their classrooms as laboratories to pre-service teachers, the teachers read the three main texts2 for the course as part of their responsibilities for the study group. The books focused on teachers’ roles in enacting and ensuring instructional and curricular practices aimed at improving educational outcomes for diverse students. Thus, they served as important tools for the teachers’ learning opportunities around the intersections of race, instruction, curriculum, and access. For the initial year, Sarah asked the entire school staff (including the resource teachers, special area teachers, school counselor, speech therapist, etc.) to participate in the study group. The study group met bi-weekly across the course of an academic year for 1.5 hours. As we studied integrated curriculum and culturally responsive teaching, teachers were asked to plan units that they would actually teach during the third grading period. They worked in grade-level teams to ease the work load and to foster collaboration. This proved to be challenging for some teams. It was clear that some teachers regularly collaborated and others did not. It was also clear that some teachers had completed the readings and developed deep understandings of the concepts, while others simply relied upon our discussion. At the end of each study group meeting, Tambra asked the teachers to complete exit slips and provide feedback about what they learned, what worked well, what they needed more information on, and suggestions for improvement. These assessments were very informative and were subsequently used in planning forthcoming discussions and activities. Mid-way through the year, Tambra asked the teachers for feedback up to that point. The feedback from the teachers was split as to whether or not they felt they were benefiting from the study group. The feedback was also reflective of the frustration Tambra felt at that point. In some ways, she felt as though she had taken on too much for the first year of the project. Building relationships and gaining the teachers’ trust was key to this kind of effort. Attempting to build relationships with everyone in the school went beyond 1.5 hours every two weeks. Tambra spent many hours visiting classrooms and having conversations with teachers during their planning periods.

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 149

As teachers taught the integrated units they had planned, the study group discussions transitioned from being focused on theory and external case studies to internal student work and outcomes. This transition was a turning point in the teachers’ learning. The teachers began to see, in a very concrete manner, how their practice connected to the readings. They also began to perceive themselves as models and coaches for the undergraduates enrolled in the courses taught onsite. A letter given to Tambra at the end of the year by one of the teachers reflects the evaluation data from the majority of the group: I would like to thank you for giving South Kilbourne Elementary School this wonderful experience. But I will have you know that I did not always feel this way. On that first day when you introduced yourself and told us that you would be working with us, I was all for it. After looking at the syllabus, I went into teacher mode. I said to myself, “What has Ms. Smith gotten us into now?” Like many others, I was not interested. After seeing your dedication and commitment to us, I was all for it … Since completing the unit, my mind has been in a whirlwind trying to figure out other themes that I can integrate across the curriculum. I will spend this summer reviewing the template and developing units that can be implemented next school year. Although I was a bit hesitant at first, I am so glad that the classes at South Kilbourne Elementary were able to participate in this learning experience. In the end, the teachers acknowledged their initial hesitancy and resistance, as well as the impact the study group had upon their teaching practice. The teachers noted how the study group space gave them an opportunity to literally work together. It also centered their practice as texts for learning. Thus, they were able to implement and receive feedback on new ideas and strategies along the way.

Courses Taught Onsite: Context, Observations and Dialogue as Learning Tools Tambra taught two required courses (“Integrated Curriculum in Elementary Schools” and “Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in Early Childhood Classrooms”) for the early childhood education and elementary education programs onsite at the school. Both courses focus on teaching for social justice and stand on the beliefs that teacher candidates should be reflective, responsive teacher-leaders who address the inequities of policies, practices, and achievement related to race, gender, class, and linguistic difference. The courses also purport that teacher candidates should interweave knowledge of standards, assessment, pedagogy, and their unique population to create dynamic and engaging academic learning environments that ensure high levels of achievement for all students. The purpose of teaching courses onsite is so pre-service teachers have an opportunity to utilize the school as a resource in their learning. Three weeks into

150 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

the course(s), pre-service teachers are assigned classrooms where they spend 30 minutes of class meeting time each week. The pre-service teachers observe teaching practice and engage with elementary students in classrooms. They then come back together and debrief their observations and engagements through the frameworks of the course readings. The debriefing is structured by first discussing examples of effective practice and then missed opportunities. Through the observations, the pre-service teachers come to a more complex understanding of teaching pedagogy and practice in urban schools. They also have the opportunity to see how theory informs practice and vice versa. Other important assignments for these courses are “Cultural Autobiography/Memoir,” “Inquiry into Culture,” and “Teaching Rounds.” (See Appendix A at the end of this chapter for an abstract of each assignment). Teaching the courses onsite involves both the practicing and pre-service teachers. The practicing teachers plan for the consistent additional assistance of the undergraduates each week. The teachers allow them to assist and work with small groups or individual students for a variety of tasks. The pre-service teachers gain more experience in schools and classrooms, and have the opportunity to put real faces to the theory from the texts. The “Teaching Rounds” assignment requires the pre-service teachers to step out of their weekly roles as classroom participants and become observers and learners of others’ teaching practice. For the “Teaching Rounds” assignment, in particular, the pre-service teachers have the opportunity to engage in conversation with the teachers about their practice. These conversations are a critical component of both the pre-service and practicing teachers’ development. Since the pre-service teachers do not hold back with their questions, the conversations require the practicing teachers to be able to articulate the rationale for their decisions and actions in the classroom. It also provides the pre-service teachers with an opportunity to ask real teachers about the everyday challenges and possibilities of urban teaching. Initially, there was some resistance on the part of the pre-service teachers. Since the courses had not been previously taught onsite and they did not know what to expect, they were hesitant and unsure of coming to “a school like South Kilbourne.” There were several students who opted out and changed to other sections of the course during the first year. Additionally, the racial implications of this experience were new and different for many of the mostly White, female pre-service teachers. They were at a predominantly Black school with a Black principal and a Black professor. To say that this was not the norm for their teacher preparation programs is an understatement. However, the evaluation data show that most students learned a great deal from being in the school and appreciated the time they had in classrooms with teachers. The school context provided opportunities for them to broaden their understandings of culture, language, and urban settings. It also offered them the chance to see a counter-narrative to mainstream notions of urban schools as places of dysfunction (i.e., low expectations, low academic performance, and poor teaching). For instance, though the school and the

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 151

students fit the mainstream narrative of “at-risk” students, the pre-service teachers saw how the school community promoted an ethic of academic excellence. The students often questioned why such expectations were not the norm in all urban schools. They also questioned why they were not given more examples of and experiences within urban schools such as South Kilbourne.

Student Teacher Interns: Building Relationships for Bi-Directional Learning During the second year of the partnership, we began to host student teacher interns from the university’s elementary and early childhood programs. Since Tambra served as the university supervisor for the elementary education interns, the data collection and findings focus on those particular pre-service teachers. The structure of the internship is that student teachers are placed at one school for the duration of one academic year between two 14-week semesters. During the school year, they have two different classroom placements. In their first classroom placement, they are with a coaching teacher for two full days per week with a two-week immersion experience. They are in the second classroom placement with a different teacher and grade level full time (all day, every day). Over the past three years, we have had 12 student teacher interns from the elementary program complete practicum in grades 2 to 5. There were nine White females, two African American females, and one African American male. Although students are not permitted to request specific schools for their internships, they can request districts. Most interns placed at South Kilbourne reported that they purposely chose to complete their internship in the school district because they wanted an urban school experience. Over the past three years, we have had eight teachers in grades 2 to 5 serve as coaching teachers for the student teaching internship. There were five African American females, two White females, and one African American male. South Kilbourne Elementary has had the highest percentage of coaching teachers of color than any other school site used for the student teaching internship in the elementary program. The notion of cross-racial mentoring in teacher preparation is understudied and, within the profession, teacher educators know very little about the value and/or limitations of such relationships for urban teacher development. Tambra and several former interns have begun working to explore the individual narratives and experiences of the interns, as well as to illuminate key themes common across their experiences with cross-racial mentoring (Jackson et al., 2012). For some of the White pre-service teachers, they recognized how the coaching teachers of color educated them in ways they would not have otherwise experienced. Their narratives explore what they learned, how they learned, and the ways in which they were challenged. Through their collaboration with their coaching teachers of color, the White pre-service teachers developed understandings of the value of cultural knowledge and cultural ways of communicating,

152 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

and embraced notions of community germane to effective teaching for diverse learners. Sarah, Tambra, and the coaching teachers approached the mentoring of the pre-service teachers from a collaborative perspective. Although we all had different roles in the process, our ultimate goal was to ensure that the student teacher interns were successful in learning how to teach diverse students. The interns knew they were being mentored by everyone, not just their assigned coaching teacher. Interns were encouraged to go beyond the assignments required of the field experience and to position themselves as learners of the students, their families, and the surrounding community. Several interns became involved in after-school programs where they tutored and mentored students. Some interns also assisted teachers who were not serving in the role of their coaching teacher with special events and projects (i.e., Family Math Night). As the principal, Sarah had regular meetings with the interns to inquire about their learning and the kind of administrative support they may have needed. The coaching teachers also reported positive experiences with regard to their learning with the interns. They noted that having interns gave them the opportunity to receive critical feedback on their own practice, as well as to garner new ideas and strategies. As their university supervisor, Tambra required the interns to observe their coaching teachers with the same observation tool used for them. Afterwards, interns had discussions with their coaching teachers. The coaching teachers reported that these observations were helpful because the interns would often inquire about practices, which caused the coaching teachers to reflect upon them to a greater extent. Along these same lines, the coaching teachers also noted that the student teacher interns made them “constantly think” about their teaching. They viewed their roles with great responsibility and wanted to set a good example for the interns. In general, learning to teach in an urban school and working alongside experienced urban teachers positively affected the interns’ choice of where they chose to start their careers. As of this writing, 11 out of the 12 former interns have teaching jobs. Three of them work in the same district as South Kilbourne, with one teaching at the school. Furthermore, 10 out of the 11 with teaching jobs teach at schools with proportionately high populations of students of color.

Student Outcomes When Tambra first began working with South Kilbourne, their overall school performance was relatively sound. The school was meeting its annual yearly performance (AYP) goals in math and English language arts, and experiencing a decline in students who were scoring below basic proficiency on the state achievement test. At the beginning of the partnership, the school was ranked as sixth highest in the district (out of 29 elementary schools) for math test scores and seventh highest for English language arts test scores on the statewide achievement

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 153

exam. Most recently, the school ranked second for math and third for English language arts (see Table 9.1). Sarah attributes some of the success to the partnership work. As the principal, she feels that teaching the courses onsite has helped the teachers to reflect more often and deeply about their practice. Classrooms are used as texts for the pre-service teachers, and the in-service teachers are mentors in the learning process. Additionally, the student teacher interns have had a positive effect on student achievement. Recent achievement test data show that classrooms with student teacher interns fared better overall than those without (see Tables 9.2 to 9.4). TABLE 9.1 South Kilbourne’s rise in rank within the district for math and English language

arts (ELA) Year

2008–2009 2009–2010 2010–2011

Math

ELA

Percentage and rank (% scoring met and above)

Percentage and rank (% scoring met and above)

77.0% 79.0% 86.5%

81.8% 86.6% 87.4%

#6 #5 #2

#7 #4 #3

TABLE 9.2 2011 Achievement data for third grade without student teachers

Math

Rank

Writing

Rank

Numbers and operations Algebra Geometry Measurement Data analysis and probability

#5 Content and development #1 Organization #6 Voice #12 Conventions #11 (–) Students did not test

Reading

Rank

–

Literary text

#4

– – –

Informational text Vocabulary Research

#21 #5 #6

TABLE 9.3 2011 Achievement data for fourth grade with student teachers

Math

Rank

Writing

Rank

Reading

Rank

Numbers and operations Algebra

#1–100%

–

Literary text

#1–100%

#1–100%

Content and development Organization

–

#4

Geometry Measurement Data analysis and probability

#1–100% #2 #2

Voice – Conventions – (–) Students did not test

Informational text Vocabulary Research

#5 #2

154 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith TABLE 9. 4 2011 Achievement data for fifth grade with student teachers

Math

Rank

Writing

Rank

Reading

Rank

Numbers and operations Algebra Geometry Measurement Data analysis and probability

#2

Content and development Organization Voice Conventions

#2

Literary text

#4

#1–100% #3 #1

Informational text Vocabulary Research

#3 #3 #2

#2 #6 #5 #1–100%

Discussion and Implications In this chapter we have described the major components of a school–university partnership between a predominantly White institution and a predominantly Black urban elementary school. The goals of the partnership were to: 1 Better prepare teacher candidates to teach culturally and linguistically diverse students in urban schools effectively. 2 Close the achievement gap for low socio-economic students and students of color at South Kilbourne Elementary. 3 Develop a clinical model where both practicing and pre-service teachers are simultaneously afforded opportunities for professional growth. Drawing upon theoretical concepts of socio-cultural theory, we will briefly review how we met the goals of the partnership and offer concluding thoughts and implications of our work. The pre-service teachers’ learning was mediated through their engagement with teachers, students, the school environment, discussions, readings, and assignments. The macro- and micro-contexts of the school and tools included in the coursework and assignments provided rich opportunities for pre-service teachers to learn how to teach diverse students in an urban school. The school’s context was a living text for the pre-service teachers. They were able to engage with the text of the school through their experiences in classrooms, observations of practice, and conversations with teachers. In line with socio-cultural theory, therefore, we suggest that the development of effective teachers for urban schools requires that prospective teachers actually learn how to teach in the context of urban schools with and from in-service teachers and students who attend these schools. The social environment of an urban school as learning context cannot be simulated in a sterile university classroom or from reading a book about urban teaching, nor can it be generalized within “best practices” for “all students” rhetoric.

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 155

There was a shift in practice for the in-service teachers at this school as well. For those teachers who opened their classrooms for observations and for those who served as coaching teachers, language was an important tool of mediation in their learning process. The presence of the pre-service teachers increased their dialogue and reflection about their teaching practice, which in turn strengthened their practice, an outcome that further aligns with socio-cultural learning theory. The undergirding rationale for improving teacher learning is that by doing so student learning is also improved. The academic outcomes obtained by the students at South Kilbourne indicate that teaching consistently improved at this school over the course of the partnership. The genesis of the partnership work was guided by two African American women: a school principal and a university professor. This study provides a counter-narrative to the discourses of failure and fear that not only pervade popular culture, but also informed our pre-service teachers, many of whom had not yet worked in predominantly African American contexts or with women of color in positions of power. Through this work, pre-service teachers were asked to talk about race, to talk with teachers of color, to confront their own biases, and to consider the possibilities of what this school could offer their developing teacher practice. Overall, school–university partnerships offer great possibilities for urban teacher development. Based on the work reported in this chapter, we offer three points of promise. First, urban schools do work. Despite the challenges faced by urban communities and families who reside within them, there are urban schools that are teaching urban youth of color effectively. Second, if we are serious about creating real change in academic outcomes for urban youth of color, we have to do it in the schools they attend. Colleges and schools of education cannot stand by idly and wait until the schools fit their vision of a worthy clinical site. Colleges and schools of education have to reach out to urban schools and be willing to struggle through the process of reform with them. Finally, school–university partnerships such as this have the potential to be vital recruitment and retention tools for urban schools. While the former interns are still within the novice stage of their career, and it is yet to be seen whether they stay in the profession past their fifth year, the majority of them chose to begin their career teaching diverse learners. They exited their internship feeling prepared and ready to be part of the solution for increasing academic achievement among students of color.

Appendix A: Assignment Abstracts

“Cultural Autobiography/Memoir” Good teaching is built on self-awareness. You must know yourself and understand how your cultural and educational experiences shape your beliefs, values, and the many decisions you will make as a teacher. Early in the semester you will be expected to write about the cultural experiences and identities that have made

156 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

you the person you are today. You will explore and identify how multiple cultural constructs have advantaged and disadvantaged you in your development. The purpose of this assignment is to initiate reflection about your cultural identities and experiences according to the themes we discuss in this course. The autobiography/ memoir will provide you with a means to examine critical incidents in your own life and to begin to consider how these experiences are shaping your own philosophy of education, your images of teaching, and your decision to become a teacher.

“Inquiry into Culture” You will work in pairs or groups of three to investigate the cultural lives of people in a racial/ethnic group other than the one you self-identify with. The purpose of this inquiry is to explore the cultural, historical, and political lived experiences of people racially categorized and (a) analyze school experiences and academic achievement, as well as (b) use your new knowledge to inform your developing teaching practice. A part of this assignment will require you to present your findings to the class.

“Teaching Rounds” Teaching rounds are a type of extended classroom observations where pre-service teachers have the opportunity to observe master teachers at work. Teachers host students for a one-time visit and discussion. Participating in rounds encourages reflection and self-evaluation from both pre-service teachers and experienced teachers. Students in this course will conduct a two-hour observation of teaching practice, engage in a debriefing conversation with the observed teacher, and submit a written report on the experience.

Notes 1 The authors would like to thank Kimberly Spivey for gathering and organizing the achievement data presented in this chapter. 2 Classroom Diversity (McIntyre et al., 2001); Un-Standardizing Curriculum (Sleeter, 2005); and Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design (Tomlinson and McTighe, 2006).

References Anderson, L. and Olsen, B. (2006) “Investigating early career urban teachers’ perspectives on and experiences in professional development,” Journal of Teacher Education, 57(4): 359–377. Andrews, D. J. C. and Donaldson, M. L. (2009) “Commitment and retention of teachers in urban schools: Exploring the role and influence of urban-focused preservice programs: Introduction to this special issue,” Equity and Excellence in Education, 42(3): 249–254. Anyon, J. (1997) Ghetto Schooling. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Attending to Urban Teacher Development through a School–University Partnership 157

Ball, A. F. (2006) Multicultural Strategies for Education and Social Change: Carriers of the Torch in the United States and South Africa. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. and Usden, M. (2003) Powerful Reforms with Shallow Roots: Improving America’s Urban Schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Delpit, L. D. (2006) “Lessons from teachers,” Journal of Teacher Education, 57(3): 220–231. Freedman, S. W. and Appleman, D. (2009) “‘In it for the long haul’: How teacher education can contribute to teacher retention in high-poverty, urban schools,” Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3): 323–337. Garcia, E. E. and Cuellar, D. (2006) “Who are these linguistically and culturally diverse students?” Teachers College Record, 108(11): 2220–2246. Goodlad, J. (1990) Teachers for Our Nation’s Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L.R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K.S., and Towner, A. (2004) “Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher development,” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2): 247–264. Holmes Group (1990) Tomorrow’s Schools: Principles for the Design of Professional Development Schools. East Lansing, MI: Holmes Group. Jackson, T. O. (2010) “Reflections on developing a clinical site for teacher learning at a predominantly black, urban elementary school,” April. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Jackson, T. O. (2011) “Positionality, context and design: Clinical site development at an urban elementary school,” April. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Jackson, T. O., Larkin, M., and Moore, E. (2012) “Reflections from white preservice teachers on learning from coaching teachers of color,” April. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, British Columbia. Ladson-Billings, G. and Tate, W. F. (2006) “Toward a critical race theory in education,” in A. D. Dixson and C. K. Rousseau (eds) Critical Race Theory in Education. New York, NY: Routledge, 11–30. Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Leonard, J., Lovelace-Taylor, K., Sanford-DeShields, J., and Spearman, P. (2004) “Professional development schools revisited: Reform, authentic partnerships, and new visions,” Urban Education, 39(5): 561–583. McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A., and Gonzalez, N. (eds) (2001). Classroom Diversity: Connecting Curriculum to Students’ Lives. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. McKinney, S. E., Haberman, M., Stafford-Johnson, D., and Robinson, J. (2008) “Developing teachers for high-poverty schools: The role of the internship experience,” Urban Education, 43(1): 68–82. Milner, H. R. (2007) “Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen,” Educational Researcher, 36(7): 388–400. Morris, J. E. and Monroe, C. R. (2009) “Why study the U.S. South? The nexus of race and place in investigating black student achievement,” Educational Researcher, 38(1): 21–36. Murrell, P. C., Jr. (1998) Like Stone Soup: The Role of Professional Development Schools in the Renewal of Urban Schools. New York, NY: AACTE Publications. Murrell, P. C., Jr. (2001) The Community Teacher: A New Framework for Effective Urban Teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nieto, S. (2003) What Keeps Teachers Going? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noguera, P. A. (2003) City Schools and the American Dream. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Oakes, J., Franke, M. L., Quartz, K. H., and Rogers, J. (2002) “Research for high-quality urban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it,” Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3): 228–234.

158 Tambra O. Jackson and Sarah G. Smith

Putnam, R. T. and Borko, H. (2000) “What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about learning?” Educational Researcher, 29(1): 4–15. Quartz, K. H. and the TEP Research Group (2003) “‘Too angry to leave’: Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools,” Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2): 99–111. Rogoff, B. (1995) “Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship,” in P. M. J. Goodnow and F. Kessel (eds) Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–164. Sachs, S. K. (2004) “Evaluation of teacher attributes as predictors of success in urban schools,” The Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2): 177–187. Sleeter, C. E. (2005) Un-Standardizing Curriculum: Multicultural Teaching in the Standards-Based Classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. South Carolina Department of Education (2010) School and District Report Cards, http://ed. sc.gov/agency/Accountability/Data-Management-and-Analysis/ReportCardPortal.html, accessed 12 February 2009. Southern Education Foundation (2010) “A new diverse majority: Students of color in the South’s public schools,” Atlanta, GA, www.southerneducation.org, accessed 20 January 2009. Steinberg, S. R. and Kincheloe, J. L. (2004) 19 Urban Questions. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tharp, R. G. and Gallimore, R. (1988) Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomlinson, C. A. and McTighe, J. (2006) Integrating Differentiated Instruction and Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Tyack, D. (1974) The One Best System: A History of American Urban Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing Survey (2003–2004) Public School, BIA School, and Private School Data Files, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass_2004_02.asp), accessed 1 February 2009. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weiner, L. (2002) “Evidence and inquiry in teacher education: What’s needed for urban schools,” Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3): 254–261. Weiner, L. (2006) Urban Teaching: The Essentials. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Whipp, J. L. (2003) “Scaffolding critical reflection in online discussions: Helping prospective teachers think deeply about field experiences in urban schools,” Journal of Teacher Education, 54(4): 321–333. Wilson, S., Floden, R., and Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001) Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations. A Research Report Prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

10 REDUCING ACHIEVEMENT GAPS AND INCREASING THE SCHOOL SUCCESS OF CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS USING THE COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT MODEL Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn It has been almost 60 years since the monumental Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, which ruled that the principle of “separate but equal” was unconstitutional. Symbolically, this was a major feat for all United States students and, more specifically, African American children and youth. It sparked the idea that no matter what an individual’s cultural or ethnic background is, he/she would be afforded a sound education that would grant access to previously uncharted territories. The premise and promise of Brown v. Board of Education ought to be the standard for any multicultural society; however, documented mandates have since revealed some lack of success since those responsible for ensuring their enforcement have not followed through (Obiakor and Utley, 2004). Since Brown v. Board of Education, the educational landscape has changed dramatically. An educational system that had a predominately White student population is now on the verge of being populated mostly by students who come from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds (Snyder and Dillow, 2011). Who are these CLD students? These are students who are culturally, racially, and linguistically different. They mostly live in urban areas where they endure traditional urban malaise such as poverty, unemployment, high drop-out rates, drug-infested neighborhoods, racism, teen pregnancy, high incidence of health impairments, police brutality, higher levels of incarceration, and disempowering socio-political activities (Obiakor and Beachum, 2005). In general and special education, CLD students particularly endure consistent misidentification, misassessment, miscategorization, misplacement, and misinstruction because they look, act, learn, and talk differently (Obiakor, 2001, 2007a, 2007b; Obiakor and Utley, 2004). Put another way, they are disproportionately represented in special education programs (e.g., programs for students with behavior disabilities/disorders) because they have different learning styles, linguistic abilities that are intertwined

160 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

with the interference of mother-tongue, and behavioral patterns (Obiakor, 2008). With the institution of the 1975 Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act (EHA), later reauthorized in 1990 as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was also later reauthorized as the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), special education was supposed to buttress the education of all at-risk students. Based on legally mandated foci of IDEA, special education services was supposed to involve team work and encompass non-discriminatory assessment, least restrictive environment (LRE), confidentiality of information, and procedural safeguards, to mention a few. As it appears today, special education is not doing what it is supposed to do for many CLD students who live in urban communities and go to schools in urban school districts (Obiakor, 2001). Hussar and Bailey (2011) noted that by the year 2019, it is estimated that CLD students will account for 50 percent of the public school population. With such a dramatic shift in the student population, there is a dire need to recalibrate the United States’ educational system to ensure that proper adjustments are made to meet the unique needs of those being served, even when they have special needs. Interestingly, despite an overall increasingly diverse student population, many school districts are just as segregated now as prior to Brown v. Board of Education (McArdle et al., 2010). The unequal access to an effective education, in general, and special education can be seen along racial and economic lines. For example, findings from the Nation’s Report Card revealed that achievement gaps between White and African American students persist in critical areas of reading and math (Vanneman et al., 2009). There are multiple factors that play into the incessant underachievement of CLD students; therefore, a “silver bullet” approach is naive, unrealistic, and wastes valuable time that CLD children and youth can ill afford to lose. Furthermore, reform efforts to increase academic achievements of CLD students cannot ignore the contextual factors that many of them are situated in and confronted by. It is therefore necessary to adopt a holistic approach that meets the needs of CLD students at their current level of functioning and to increase their social and academic skill competencies on multiple fronts. Such an approach requires the use of the Comprehensive Support Model (CSM) that takes advantage of the energies of students, families, schools, communities, and government agencies (Obiakor, 2001, 2008). To a large measure, the CSM is a developmental educational approach that is primarily focused on fostering collaboration, cooperation, and consultation to benefit all students, including CLD learners with special needs (Obiakor et al., 2002b). In this chapter, we discuss the CSM as an interconnected approach that proactively and strategically reduces achievement gaps and enhances the life chances of CLD learners. Embedded in this discussion are the roles of the learner, family, school personnel, community members, and government agencies in upholding the legal imperatives of general and special education.

Reducing Achievement Gaps 161

Using the Comprehensive Support Model As indicated, the CSM provides a collaborative and consultative structure that brings together multiple entities to create multifaceted intervention systems that address the needs of CLD learners in all educational settings (Obiakor, 2001, 2008; Obiakor et al., 2002b). For example, in special education, identification is done before assessment; and students must be known by their teachers before they are identified to prevent prejudicial identification. By government law, families must be contacted before students are assessed, categorized, placed, and instructed; and collaboration, consultation, and cooperation are required to institute instructional paradigms, such as the Response-to-Intervention (Rtl), Individual Education Plan (IEP), Individual Family Support Program (IFSP), Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs), Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP), and the Individual Transition Plan (ITP) for students with special needs. The government’s role is visible and inevitable in all of these accountability processes. For instance, Hehir et al. (2005) led a study sponsored by the New York City Department of Education that focused on the Comprehensive Management Review and Evaluation of Special Education, where they concluded that a comprehensive support system was in place and inevitable in making sure that special education does what it is supposed to do for at-risk urban New York City students. Clearly, to reduce achievement gaps of these students, no one entity in the educational process can make the decision alone: this is the same premise that upholds the integrity and fidelity of the CSM as a tool which incorporates the essential components of:     

self-(learner); family; school; community; and government.

It posits the fundamental belief that there must be mutually inclusive interactional relationships to foster educational quality and equity of all learners, especially CLD learners who are traditionally disenfranchised and disadvantaged because of their special needs.

The Role of the “Self” Schools in the United States are filled with CLD students who have “the deck stacked against them” and “go against all odds.” Perhaps the most common obstacle that they are faced with is poverty; in fact, one in three Black and one in three Hispanic children in the United States are living in poverty (Children’s Defense Fund, 2011). Poverty affects children in many ways (i.e., from health to

162 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

housing to other traditional urban malaise). However, it is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it hampers educational equity; on the other, it is an abused construct that has been used as an alibi for dehumanizing treatment of CLD learners with and without special needs. Consider, for example, the myth of socio-economic dissonance which assumes that poverty leads to “poor” self-concept, “poor” zest for knowledge and life, to mention a few. Indeed, despite life’s adversities, there are many CLD learners who have persevered and succeeded. For example, some students have been surrounded by goalless individuals or individuals without hope, yet they have worked very hard to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps,” hold themselves accountable, and do whatever it takes to better their situations (R. Smith, pers. comm., November 20, 2011). In fact, some of them who have had shaky beginnings, through maturation and guidance, have come to achieve educationally through self-discipline, self-dedication, and self-empowerment (Obiakor and Beachum, 2005). The problem here is that even when CLD learners try to “pull themselves up by their own boot straps,” there is the tendency to add stumbling blocks in their ways and ignore their efforts to survive life’s adversities. For example, many strong CLD students, scholars, and educators are victimized because they refused to have their voices silenced. This is in consonance with countless stories of doctors, lawyers, educators, and other professionals who survived being labeled as having special needs in their early years and who were stopped on highways in their later years because they were driving expensive cars – this is what is now popularly known as “Driving while Black.” In many situations, there are students who never come to a reckoning to adopt the self-responsibility necessary for them to take advantage of opportunities afforded to them. Yet, there are students who take charge and ownership of their own learning. To a large measure, this behavior is due to self-empowerment (Obiakor and Beachum, 2005). Based on this intrinsically motivating behavior, self-motivated students tackle life’s rough edges, respect their teachers, respect the laws of the land, are resilient in tackling school works, remain in school, and complete their education. Do these not behoove educational institutions to value what CLD learners with and without special needs bring to the table?

The Role of the Family Aside from the student, the most critical component of the CSM is the family. After all, prior to formal education, the family serves as the first set of teachers any child will encounter (Cartledge et al., 2009). Moreover, researchers (e.g., Sheldon, 2003) have found that active parental participation is paramount and has a positive effect on student achievement. The CSM highlights the invaluable role that the family must play to create a solid foundation for the student and to ensure that he/she is well prepared for school, remains in school, and graduates from school. For example, reading can be started at home; and as it is commonly known, effective reading is critical to the overall academic success of any student (Yawn, 2012). It also

Reducing Achievement Gaps 163

ensures that a student, whether he/she has special needs or not, can readily engage in reading instruction and not be “behind before getting started.” Clearly, a student must possess certain prerequisite skills, such as letter identification, phonological awareness, and basic vocabulary (Carnine et al., 2010; Ehri, 2004; Hart and Risley, 1995). Therefore, family members are important in preparing their child for school by doing simple exercises, such as reading to their child, playing rhyming games, and constantly engaging in two-way conversations (Ambruster et al., 2006). It is common knowledge that the family is indispensable during the general and special education processes. In special education, it is actually required by law that family members get involved, especially in supporting the intricate processes. The family has an obligation to keep pathways of communication open and reinforce skills learned at school within the home. However, when school members feel that the CLD family is not engaged enough, they should not cast judgments about parenting quality or the level of care that parents have for their child. Instead, school members should view a family’s lack of engagement as an opportunity to teach them new skills that may not be in their repertoire. Some families come from cultures that hold professionals to such a high standard that it is considered disrespectful if they cross into the professionals’ realm of expertise (Prater and Terrell, 2007). In these instances, schools should respectfully communicate to parents that it is safe for them to ask questions and to collaborate because, in turn, it will help them better perform their job of educating the child. Clearly, the family is an extremely important component of the CSM; and, when support is needed, the school has an obligation to equip CLD family members with the resources and knowledge necessary to make good decisions regarding the graduation and educational success of their CLD child despite his/her abilities or needs (see Prater and Terrell, 2007).

The Role of the School Data reveal that the student population annually increases in diversity, yet the diversity of the teacher population remains constant (Snyder and Dillow, 2011). The teacher population has begrudgingly remained majority White, middle class, and female (Talbert-Johnson, 2001). The purviews of the teacher and student populations are worlds apart and both parties seem cognizant of that. In a study conducted by Bakari (2003), pre-service teachers revealed their bias and lack of desire to work with CLD students with or without special needs. Unfortunately, when entering the field, these same attitudes are carried over and communicated to the CLD students whom they are charged with educating. In a set of interviews conducted by Gardner et al. (2007), CLD adolescents who dropped out of school remarked that while they were enrolled, teachers often held low expectations of them and continuously disrespected them. In fact, they felt that the overall school environment had too many teachers who “didn’t give a damn.” The responses

164 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

from these adolescents beg the question: Would they have dropped out had their teachers demonstrated that they truly cared? Although the “good” school phenomenon has been tremendously politicized (Obiakor, 2001), most would agree that the level of learning and teaching that takes place within a school validates its designation as a “good” school or not. Annually, large amounts of quantitative data are gathered to render judgments upon schools; not so available are qualitative data about the level of satisfaction that families have toward the school that their child attends. Relationships between teachers and CLD students are often primary sources of contention, but often transcends from the teacher–student relationship to the family. In other words, the same disrespect and non-caring attitude that CLD students reveal they are subjected to (Gardner et al., 2007) is inevitably directed at the parents. Therefore, the “good” school conceptualization requires refinement and the inclusion of other measures to contemplate if a school is truly “good” or not (Obiakor, 2001). Schools can no longer have a manufacturing plant mentality that provides the same input for all students, regardless of their background, and expect the same outcomes. This type of approach has not been working for years; and by all standards, our schools are failing a significant number of CLD students and their families, and something must be done about it (Obiakor, 2007a, 2007b). Schools must actively engage CLD students and connect what they learn in the classroom to real life (Orthner et al., 2010). This will motivate them to stay in school and be dedicated to tasks. Schools have an obligation to provide instruction and curriculum that will prepare them to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Far too often, secondary CLD students are ill prepared for college and are subjected to remedial courses before they are permitted to enroll in college-level coursework (Moore et al., 2010). Aside from depleting financial resources, low morale and/or time constraints prevent many CLD students from completing college (Seidman, 2005). School professionals must understand that the provision of quality curriculum and instruction is intertwined with culture, and that cultural relevance must be present in all aspects of teaching and learning to help bridge barriers between CLD students and teachers, and families and schools. Furthermore, Beachum et al. (2012, p307) stated that “[school] leaders should envision a school environment that promotes both intellectual engagement as well as moral astuteness. These leaders should have a heightened understanding of the moral mission of schools; this mission helps to support American democracy.” Such an environment has the potential to stimulate critical thinking, empower CLD students, in general, and special education programs, and inspire their families to advocate for themselves and stand up for social equality, narrow overall achievement gaps of students, and motivate them to complete school. Additionally, this type of school leadership has multilayered positive aspects. Put another way, it creates a well-rounded student body who, in turn, become community leaders who can conjure up support from the community for the school.

Reducing Achievement Gaps 165

The Role of the Community The reality is that many CLD students, especially those with special needs, and their families are faced with tremendous challenges. For example, they need communities that are safe (i.e., communities that provide social services and venture into social arenas once never imagined). Schools must engage in out-of-the-box thinking if they are to meet the demands of urban CLD students and their families. De facto, many schools are already acting as social service centers for their consumers, in this case, students (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010). Families are excited about schools that look like communities where services ranging from dental care to child care are provided. These schools understand that in order for CLD students to achieve academically, their community needs must be met. Even when schools can provide multiple services, there are still an abundance of resources that are within the community that can be tapped to support the growth of CLD students with and without special needs. Clearly, in spite of a child’s needs, his/her community cannot be divorced from him/her, especially if the goal is to help him/her succeed in school and survive life’s adversities. Churches, mosques, and synagogues are all community entities that have moral imperatives to serve children and youth, especially those with special needs in their communities. The community from which CLD students come must be included in any discussion pertaining to academic achievement. It is common knowledge that the community is an extension of the family; this is particularly important for at-risk CLD learners. Evidently, this offers a way for schools to mutually benefit from resources which can be used to promote student achievement (Obiakor et al., 2002a). For example, churches are community staples that offer trainings such as computer literacy, writing workshops, and General Education Development (GED) preparation for students at risk of dropping out of school. Therefore, teaming with such organizations will:    

compound resources so that a greater impact is made in the community; present opportunities for collaboration on grant procurement; give schools greater exposure; and send the message that schools are a part of the community as opposed to apart from it.

Any school reform efforts for CLD learners must incorporate the community if longterm changes will occur, especially in narrowing achievement gaps; preventing school dropout; and increasing school completion and graduation.

The Role of the Government Any initiatives set out to close the achievement gap will require the help of the government; and most laws that govern special education regulations are

166 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

instituted by the government. Either way, general and special education cannot be functional without the impact of the government. Without government cooperation, the push for educational reform and/or equity aimed at closing the achievement gap will stagnate and never amount to much (Fusarelli, 2011). Furthermore, it is important that local, state, and federal governments be in sync, or be faced with situations where legislation is not enforced due to bureaucratic issues that revolve around jurisdiction. For example, Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case that ignited the movement to end segregation; however, immediately following the court’s ruling, many states refused to comply or take action until the federal government stepped in and attached monetary penalties to states found to be non-compliant with the federal mandate. This lack of compliance affects expectations and what is done to truly educate disadvantaged and disenfranchised students or students with special needs. Most government decisions frequently have socio-political ramifications. However, for the CSM to flourish, the government must be included without the political baggage. For instance, too often, political campaigning, as opposed to research, shapes popular opinion about the state of education. Hence, many jump on “political bandwagons” and the “hottest new trend” instead of utilizing research to guide reform efforts. This current mode of thinking is extremely dangerous because it eventually translates into instructional tricks that are not grounded in pedagogical theory or commonsense. Sadly, this does not help CLD students to acquire foundational knowledge that they can build upon to remain in school or graduate from school. Though high stakes testing has been around for years, the current standardized testing movement, brought about by the No Child Left Behind Act and maintained by Race to the Top funding, is extremely political. The “test ’em, and keep testing ’em mantra” is not going to equip students with the necessary skills to be successful in school and in life. In other words, testing in and of itself does not make CLD students smarter; providing effective, evidence-based instruction does. However, if no government funding is provided for school districts to offer professional development and/or subsidized coursework for teachers, then they will only operate with the limited tools they were given (Obiakor and Utley, 2004). Additional funding is also needed to provide researchers with more educational grants. And, most importantly, additional funding is needed from the government to increase the number of enrichment programs and extracurricular activities offered to CLD students; after all, these are the types of activities that make all students feel engaged and “buy in” to school (Shernoff and Vandell, 2007).

Putting It All Together to Practicalize the CSM Consider the case of Ahmad, his family, his school, his community, and his governmental support! He was a fourteen-year-old African American male who was diagnosed with a learning disability. Going to school never topped his list of

Reducing Achievement Gaps 167

favorite things to do; and he would use class time to draw and daydream about someday becoming a famous actor. His teachers would nonchalantly tell him to pay attention and make sure he was following along with the class. Ahmad doubted the sincerity of his teachers because he told them on numerous occasions that he did not understand the material and needed help. All of his teachers, except one, responded by telling him that if he paid attention in class and did not spend all of his time drawing and daydreaming he would understand the material. Conversely, Ms. Royce, the one teacher who was willing to help, offered to stay after school and even meet Ahmad on the weekends at the community library. Already discouraged by his grades and the responses of his other teachers, Ahmad intentionally scheduled meetings with Ms. Royce and did not show up. Before Ahmad knew it, he failed the eighth grade. Even though Ahmad’s mother knew his grades were dismal, she did not realize it was bad enough for him to be retained. Ahmad’s mother was not neglectful or a bad parent, she was simply overwhelmed with all of her other obligations. For example, Ahmad’s older brother, who dropped out of school, had just come home from prison and was stretching an already constrained household budget. Additionally, Ahmad learned that his father was living on the streets and that he was suspected of early stage dementia. Ahmad’s mother and father had been divorced for years; however, their relationship, which had been amicable, was now fractured because his father was becoming increasingly combative. In sum, Ahmad and his family were struggling to keep it together and needed help. No matter what was going on, church was always a consistent mainstay for Ahmad and his family. Hence, one day, Ahmad’s mother met with their pastor. She discussed her family situation, but placed a particular focus on Ahmad because she worried that he was going down the same path that landed his older brother in prison. After listening, the family pastor reminded her about the difficulties she had with Ahmad’s school when his older brother went there. He told her about a school in the community that he worked closely with. He went on to tell her that the school had a unique approach because its staff were a part of the community and took proactive steps to understand the benefits and needs of its members. The following fall semester, Ahmad was enrolled in the school his pastor spoke of. He immediately noticed a completely different atmosphere. His teachers took an interest in his drawings and asked him what he was daydreaming about. Initially, Ahmad withdrew, afraid that he would be chastised; however, after his teachers assured him it was okay and made him feel safe, he showed off his drawings and told them he wanted to be an actor. Thereafter, Ahmad’s teachers capitalized on his gifts and used his interests to help him better understand his coursework. For example, Ahmad was a struggling older reader; therefore, he vaguely understood concepts in science because he could not read the science text. His teacher incorporated peer tutoring strategies and, at times, would allow him to use his acting skills to demonstrate scientific processes for the class (e.g., he was given permission to act out and infer the thinking of a molecule bonding

168 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

with another molecule to create a chemical bond). For the first time, Ahmad began to feel valued by his teachers and that he was part of the school community. Furthermore, he even took responsibility for his learning and began voluntarily going to an afterschool study hall program that was subsidized by the school district through Title 1 funds, made available by the state. Ahmad’s mother could see a change in his behavior and attitude toward school. She was extremely happy with her decision to transfer Ahmad to the school her pastor recommended. Furthermore, the school provided services to address other family stressors. For Ahmad’s brother, the school offered free GED preparation courses and vocational training – he eventually passed his GED and enrolled in a community college in the city. For Ahmad’s father, the school provided free mental health services that screened him for mental illness, and subsequently referred him for placement in a residential mental health facility. For Ahmad and his family, everything seemed to finally come together. The above case study provides a glimpse of the CSM in action. The efficacy of the CSM is that all factors affecting a student’s learning are considered. When effective communication, cooperation, and consultation occur, CLD students experience positive school and life outcomes, such as improved academic achievement and employment. Clearly, the workability of the CSM has future implications for what individual students, families, school personnel, communities, and government agencies can do to solve traditional and contemporary problems facing CLD students in schools and society.

Conclusion As educators and service providers, we come across CLD students with and without special needs who are faced with the direst of circumstances, and we find ourselves amazed at their resiliency and question our own fortitude. They teach us the lesson that we are not to feel sorry for them and that it is our job to provide the supports necessary to ensure their success. Too often, CLD families are viewed as the cause of any shortcomings presented by at-risk students. As educational professionals, we blame the families of our students; and they, in turn, blame us for not doing a good job with their children. Sadly, while the blame game is going on, our students, especially those with special needs, suffer, drop out of school, and become societal problems. In reality, the proper perspective is to empower or make the family to be our accountable ally. Having a solid collaboration with families can ensure that academic and social skills are learned, maintained, and generalized in school, community, and life. Furthermore, a mutual benefit of empowerment can be reached when a solid bond with the families of CLD at-risk students has been achieved. Bringing constant attention to the issue of achievement gap is imperative – in some fashion, it speaks to the broader issue of the opportunity gap for the CLD population. Longitudinally speaking, if there are fewer CLD students receiving an

Reducing Achievement Gaps 169

adequate education, it means that we can expect more of these students to experience negative life outcomes, such as dropping out of school, imprisonment, and unemployment (Newman et al., 2011). As a nation, we can ill afford to have such a large cadre of our population fall victim to these unfortunate circumstances. Therefore, the CSM is a mutually inclusive mechanism that collaboratively and consultatively encourages our hands to be on deck as we tackle the school completion and life success of CLD students with and without special needs.

References Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H. A., Iachini, A., Flaspohler, P., Bean, J., and Wade-Mdivanian, R. (2010) “Emergent evidence in support of a community collaboration model for school improvement,” Children and Schools, 32: 160–171. Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., and Osborn, J. (2006) A Child Becomes a Reader: Proven Ideas from Research for Parents, third edition. Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy, www. nifl.gov. Bakari, R. (2003) “Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching African American students: Contemporary research,” Urban Education, 38: 640–654. Beachum, F. D., Yawn, C. D., McCray, C. R., and Obiakor, F. E. (2012) “Multidimensional leadership in urban schools,” The National Journal of Urban Education and Practice, 5(3): 300–316. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., and Tarver, S. G. (2010) Direct Instruction Reading, fifth edition. New York, NY: Pearson. Cartledge, G., Gardner, R., III., and Ford, D. Y. (2009) Diverse Learners with Exceptionalities: Culturally Responsive Teaching in the Inclusive Classroom. Columbus, OH: Pearson. Children’s Defense Fund (2011) The State of America’s Children, http://www.childrens defense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-2011.pdf. Education of All Handicapped Children’s Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94–142. Ehri, L. C. (2004) “Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analysis,” in P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (eds) The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes, 153–186. Fusarelli, L. D. (2011) “Reform in a vacuum: Demographic change, social policy, and the future of children,” Peabody Journal of Education, 86: 215–235. Gardner, R., III, Yawn, C.D., and Lovelace, T. (2007) “Keeping minority males in school,” Paper presented at the 7th Biennial International Conference on Children and Youth with Behavioral Disorders, October, Dallas, TX. Hart, B. and Risley, T. R. (1995) Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Hehir, T., Figueroa, R., Gamm, S., Katzman, L. I., Gruner, A., Karger, J., and Hernandez, J. (2005) Comprehensive Management Review and Evaluation of Special Education. New York, NY: New York City Department of Education. Hussar, W. J. and Bailey, T. M. (2011) Projections of Education Statistics to 2019 (NCES 2011-017). Washington: DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–456. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446. McArdle, N., Osypuk, T., and Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2010, September) Segregation and Exposure to High-Poverty Schools in Large Metropolitan Areas: 2008–09, September, http://www.diversitydata.sph.harvard.edu/Publications/school_segregation_report_pdf.

170 Festus E. Obiakor and Christopher D. Yawn

Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S. L., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2010) “High school students and their lack of preparedness for college: A statewide study,” Education and Urban Society, 42: 817–838. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., Wei, X., Cameto, R., Contreras, E., Ferguson, K., Greene, S., and Schwarting, M. (2011) The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities Up to 8 Years After High School, Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011–3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–10. Obiakor, F. E. (2001) It Even Happens in “Good” Schools: Responding to Cultural Diversity in Today’s Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Obiakor, F. E. (2007a) Multicultural Special Education: Culturally Responsive Teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Obiakor, F. E. (2007b) “Multicultural special education: Effective intervention for today’s schools,” Intervention in School and Clinic, 42: 148–155. Obiakor, F. E. (2008) The Eight-Step Approach to Multicultural Learning and Teaching, third edition. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Obiakor, F. E. and Beachum, F. D. (2005) “Developing self-empowerment in African American students with the comprehensive support model,” The Journal of Negro Education, 74: 18–29. Obiakor, F. E. and Utley, C. A. (2004) “Educating culturally diverse learners with exceptionalities: A critical analysis of the Brown case,” Peabody Journal of Education, 79: 141–156. Obiakor, F. E., Grant, P. A., and Dooley, E. A. (2002a) Educating All Learners: Refocusing the Comprehensive Support Model. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Obiakor, F. E., Utley, C. A., Smith, R., and Harris-Obiakor, P. (2002b) “The comprehensive support model for culturally diverse exceptional learners: Intervention in an age of change,” Intervention in School and Clinic, 38: 14–27. Orthner, D. K., Akos, P., Rose, R., Jones-Sanpei, H., Mercado, M., and Woolley, M. E. (2010) “CareerStart: A middle school student engagement and academic achievement program,” Children and Schools, 32: 223–234. Prater, L. P. and Terrell, S. R. (2007) “Family empowerment and multicultural special education,” in F. E. Obiakor (ed) Multicultural Special Education: Culturally Responsive Teaching. Columbus, OH: Pearson, 224–233. Seidman, A. (2005) “Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners,” New Directions for Institutional Research, 2005(125): 7–24. Sheldon, S. B. (2003) “Linking school–family–community partnerships in urban elementary schools to student achievement on state tests,” The Urban Review, 35: 149–165. Shernoff, D. J. and Vandell, D. L. (2007) “Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality of experience from the perspective of participants,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36: 891–903. Snyder, T. D. and Dillow, S. A. (2011) Digest of Education Statistics 2010 (NCES 2011–15). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Talbert-Johnson, C. (2001) “The quest for equity: Maintaining African American teachers in special education,” The Journal of Negro Education, 70: 286–296. Vanneman, A., Hamilton, L., Baldwin Anderson, J., and Rahman, T. (2009) Achievement Gaps: How Black and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2009–2455). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Washington, DC. Yawn, C. D. (2012) “Effects of gifted peers tutoring struggling reading peers,” Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 1(1): 1–11.

11 POLICY INTERSECTIONS IN “REAL LIVES” Families Experiencing Homelessness and School-Related Matters Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

Introduction

Trends in Family Homelessness Family homelessness is on the rise. According to the 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, between 2007 and 2010 the number of homeless persons in families increased 20 percent (HUD, 2011). Families now compose a larger percentage of the total sheltered population than they ever have before, a trend attributed to the recent economic downturn (HUD, 2011). Student homelessness has also spiked; according to the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), in the 2009 to 2010 school year there were 939,903 students experiencing homelessness enrolled in schools, an 18 percent increase from 2007 to 2008. Compared to the 2008 to 2009 school year, 79 percent of US states and other reporting entities experienced increases in their total number enrolled (NCHE, 2011). Even though many schools and communities are struggling to respond to homelessness (Miller, 2010), too often, scholars overlook these students and their families (Shields and Warke, 2010). Despite how it is commonly perceived by scholars and popular media alike, homelessness is not a homogenous experience. Students experiencing homelessness spend their nights in diverse contexts; at the time of identification during the 2009 to 2010 school year, 71 percent of students experiencing homelessness were doubled up (living with friends or family out of necessity), 19 percent were in shelter, 5 percent were in motels/hotels, and 4 percent were unsheltered (NCHE, 2011). While historically considered an urban problem, recently, poverty has increased in the suburbs at a faster rate than in central cities (Kneebone and Garr, 2010; Murphy, 2010). Influenced by multiple factors, there has also been a rise in the proportion of people (singles and families) using homeless programs in both

172 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

suburban and rural areas (HUD, 2011). Today, in nearly every US school, educational leaders are confronted with student and family homelessness (Miller, 2012).

Family Homelessness and Education It is difficult to separate the effects of homelessness from those of poverty, as most children experiencing homelessness are also living in poverty (Buckner, 2008). On average, however, children experiencing homelessness are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes (Cunningham et al., 2010). Compared to the general population, research suggests they have high rates of asthma (Grant et al., 2007; McLean et al., 2004) and developmental and mental health problems (Coker et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2007; Lively and Kleine, 1996). Generally, students experiencing homelessness have poor attendance and school participation (Kennedy, 2007; Stronge, 1993), low grades and test scores (Masten et al., 1997; Obradovic´ et al., 2009; Rafferty et al., 2004), and high rates of grade retention and dropout (Rafferty et al., 2004). Compared to residentially stable low-income students, they are distinct in their high rates of school mobility (Rafferty et al., 2004; Tierney et al., 2008) and social isolation (Miller, 2011), both of which are commonly cited risk factors for school failure (Anooshian, 2003; Burkham et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2009). The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act) reauthorized by Title X, Part C, of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) addresses school mobility and other barriers. This federal policy defines which students are homeless, provides these students with a set of rights, and creates supports. While the McKinney-Vento Act is laudable, many schools still find it challenging to serve homeless students effectively, an increasingly important concern given the recent spike in homelessness. Not only can identification be problematic, but coupled with a lack of awareness on the part of some school staff and families, the act is woefully underfunded, hindering its potential power. Furthermore, the service of homeless students and families is more than a school endeavor; it is fundamentally dependent upon coordinated action between and among diverse sectors such as schools, social service agencies, and faith-based organizations. Although coordinated action is vital to effective support, it can be a particularly challenging endeavor due to the complex policy environments in which action must be situated. This chapter argues that in order to meet needs effectively, schools and communities must first understand the relevant policy environments and how these environments affect the daily lives and schooling experiences of homeless and highly mobile families. In addition to increasing awareness about homeless and highly mobile families, our objectives are to:  examine education policy on student homelessness at its intersection with federal rehousing strategies;  explore how these policy intersections affect the daily lives of families; and

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 173

 outline general implications of these policy intersections for schools and communities. We turn first to education policy.

The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

Framing McKinney-Vento In 1987, Congress adopted what was originally called the Stewart B. McKinney Act, creating the Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program (EHCY) and mandating state homeless coordinators in an effort to address educational barriers. The act was amended a number of times over the years, extending services and providing states with funding for redistribution to school districts via grants (Jozefowicz-Simbeni and Israel, 2006). Reauthorized under the NCLB, the McKinney-Vento Act establishes that children and youth without a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence are homeless. This includes:  doubling up (sharing housing) due to housing loss, economic necessity, or similar reasons;  awaiting foster care placement or abandoned in a hospital;  sleeping in a shelter, motel/hotel, or abandoned building; staying in any public or private space not meant for regular sleeping accommodations; or staying at a campground or trailer park due to lack of alternatives; and  any children who are migratory and residing in these places (McKinney-Vento Act, 2001). The act protects the rights of students experiencing homelessness by mandating equal access to educational services, prohibiting segregation by housing status, and requiring schools to immediately enroll students irrespective of documentation. Importantly, it aims to minimize school mobility by requiring school districts or Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to retain students, to the extent possible and unless parents/guardians request otherwise, in the school where the student was last enrolled or enrolled when permanently housed, referred to as the “school of origin.” At the request of parents/guardians, students experiencing homelessness must also be provided with transportation to and from the school of origin. By its nature, the McKinney-Vento Act mandates coordinated action. The act requires each LEA to designate a local homeless education liaison. Local liaisons have many duties, such as ensuring that children are identified, that families are informed of their rights, that children have full and equal access to educational opportunities, and that relevant stakeholders (school personnel, service providers, and advocates) are aware of a liaison’s duties. To make this possible, local liaisons must coordinate and collaborate with State Coordinators for Homeless Education,

174 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

as well as school and community staff who provide education and related services to children experiencing homelessness (NCHE, 2008). While robust evaluations are wanting, the act is credited with increasing identification and awareness, and improving access to educational supports and supplies for students (Wong et al., 2009). A study by Larson and Meehan (2011) found that homeless and highly mobile students experienced declining attendance rates before being identified as homeless, but their attendance rates increased the following year. A number of limitations or challenges, however, hinder the realization of the act’s fullest potential.

Limitations and Challenges Identifying students can be challenging because there can be a subjective element to determining the status of a child’s nighttime residence (James and Lopez, 2003). Often, identification requires the child or parent to reveal his or her status; while there may be warning signals that a student may be homeless (e.g., he or she wears the same clothing for multiple days), such signs are no guarantee (Larson and Meehan, 2011). Many families, however, may not consider themselves homeless (Larson and Meehan, 2011), may not know about McKinney-Vento, or may feel stigmatized, hindering self-identification. Identification may also depend on funding; according to the Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness, for every US$65.69 of federal dollars invested, another student experiencing homelessness is identified and served (Nunez and Adams, 2011). While all LEAs are required to follow the McKinney-Vento Act, only some receive state funding to offset costs, posing challenges to successful implementation (Wong et al., 2009). The McKinney-Vento Act requires states to award competitive sub-grants to LEAs based on need and application quality. The minimum amount of federal funding a state can receive is US$150,000, one quarter of 1 percent of the overall appropriation, or the amount that the state received in fiscal year 2001. If states receive more than the minimum amount of funding, then 75 percent of their allotment must be distributed in sub-grants, otherwise only 50 percent must be distributed (NCHE, 2008). Yet, although Congress authorized appropriations of US$50 million in EHCY grants each year, it was not until 2002 that appropriations actually reached $50 million (Wong et al., 2009). In the 2009 to 2010 school year, only 19 percent (3,046) of 15,906 LEAs who reported to the Department of Education received sub-grants (NCHE, 2011). Together, these LEAs served 852,881 students experiencing homelessness and provided a range of educational supports; over 80 percent provided staff development/awareness, transportation, inter-organizational coordination, material goods, and referrals (NCHE, 2011). While, historically, funding has been quite low, a recent influx of stimulus funds increased the act’s potential but did not quell funding concerns (Tanabe and Mobley, 2011). While EHCY funding only increased 6 percent between the 2007 and 2010 federal fiscal years, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 175

of 2009 (ARRA) provided an additional US$69.9 million that was scattered over 2009 to 2011 (Nunez and Adams, 2011). According to a National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth/First Focus Survey (2010), ARRA funds more than doubled the number of districts receiving assistance through EHCY. Miller (2012, p21) proclaims, “post-ARRA cuts in McKinney-Vento funding, coupled with spiking rates of student homelessness, look to be decreasing the policy’s power.” As funding decreased, districts were left scrambling to respond. On a related note, local liaisons are often part time (Wong et al., 2009) and hold multiple positions, limiting the time they can devote to homelessness (Miller, 2012). Miller (2009b, 2012, p18) found that over half of 157 sheltered parents reported that they knew not much or nothing about their children’s educational rights when homeless, while only 38 percent of family-serving homeless agency staff members strongly agreed that they knew about the implications of McKinney-Vento for students’ rights. Multiple roles and lack of awareness may hinder the act’s power, yet even training may prove fruitless in the face of high turnover rates among not only homeless liaisons, but also community-based homeless agency staff (Miller, 2012). In its call for coordinated action, McKinney-Vento also reveals persistent tensions inherent in the relationships between various actors who historically worked in silos (Miller, 2009a). Acquiring sub-grants requires collaboration and coordination among numerous actors, and the inability to engage effectively in coordinated action is certainly a hindrance (Miller, 2009a). Even school enrollment and identification requires collaborating with former schools and community agencies (NCHE, 2008). Similarly, arranging transportation may require a liaison to coordinate with the relevant parent/guardian, a representative from a shelter, transportation department directors, and actors from the other districts (Miller, 2009a). Perhaps because of both funding and coordination challenges (James and Lopez, 2003), for the past six school years LEAs with sub-grants have cited transportation as the most frequent barrier to the education of students experiencing homelessness (NCHE, 2011).

Federal Approaches to Addressing Homelessness

Linear Approach Versus Rapid Re-housing Before the late 1980s, local charities provided most homeless services (Culhane et al., 2010). With the Continuum of Care Policy in 1995, the federal government encouraged community collaboration (Culhane et al., 2010; HUD, 2002) and promoted a linear model (Kertesz et al., 2009; Ridgway and Zipple, 1990) of homeless assistance. In the linear model, people move from streets to shelter, from shelter to transitional housing – and eventually when “housing ready,” from transitional housing to independent accommodations. A service-enriched shelter system thus developed (Culhane, 2011).

176 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

In contrast to this linear approach, Housing First (HF), otherwise known as “rapid re-housing,” became popular as a way to address chronic homelessness, or consistently homeless, single disabled adults (HUD, 2009). In the HF model, people move directly from the streets to housing (scatter-site or program based), and afterwards other needs (e.g., mental health and/or addiction) are addressed through voluntary support services. Over the last two decades, federal policy has shifted toward rapid re-housing models for chronic homelessness; more recently, this approach has been applied to families. Increasingly, families with school-aged children are living in rapid re-housing contexts as opposed to traditional shelters. As a result, schools need to understand the unique obstacles and opportunities that are often associated with these different residential contexts.

Federal Policy Shift Toward Rapid Re-housing In February 2009, President Obama allocated US$1.5 billion for a homeless prevention fund called the Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program (HPRP) under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Then, in May, a bill was signed to reauthorize HUD’s McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance programs, with provisions identical to two earlier bills known as the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act (NAEH, 2009). The HEARTH Act expanded prevention, emphasized rapid re-housing for families, and continued the focus on permanent supportive housing for chronic homelessness. Signaling this policy shift, the Emergency Shelter Grants (ESGs), which fund emergency shelters and transitional housing, were renamed Emergency Solutions Grants (NAEH, 2009). Reauthorized by the HEARTH Act, the US Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) released a federal strategic plan in 2010 that set a goal of ending family homelessness in ten years and advocated HF approaches for both singles and families (USICH, 2010). Potentially, rapid re-housing approaches could usher in educational benefits (by, for instance, encouraging family housing stability, improving school-related experiences, or raising academic achievement for students). However, to date, research is scant and many questions remain unanswered. While the limited research suggests that HF may be effective at increasing housing stability for some chronically homeless individuals (Waegemakers Schiff and Rook, 2012), little is known about its impact upon families. Beyond housing stability, even less is known about its effects on other outcomes such as education.

Research on Rapid Re-housing and Service Needs

Housing Stability and Chronic Homelessness Not only does the majority of HF research address chronic homelessness, but most of it also focuses on the programs of one organization, Pathways to

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 177

Housing, pioneered by Dr. Tsemberis (Waegemakers Schiff and Rook, 2012). Tsemberis et al. (2004) found that among homeless individuals with mental health issues, those who participated in the HF program obtained housing earlier, remained housed, and reported higher perceived choice at 24 months than the control group (where housing was based on treatment and sobriety). Furthermore, no differences were found between the control and experiment group in substance use or psychiatric symptoms. Other work suggested positive outcomes at 48 months (Padgett et al., 2006) and decreased costs over linear models (Culhane, 2008; Gulcur et al., 2003; Tsemberis, 2010). An exploratory study of three HF programs (including Pathways) found that 84 percent remained enrolled a year later (Pearson et al., 2009), while another revealed that 68 percent of all of those enrolled in either of two HF programs (including Pathways) in a suburban county were still in housing after four years (Stefancic and Tsemberis, 2007).

Housing Stability and Families We must not only ask “what works?” but also “what works for whom?” (Caton et al., 2007, pvii; Kertesz et al., 2009, p497). While results on HF appear promising for certain subpopulations of chronically homeless singles, it is important to not “over-reach” in applying findings (Kertesz, et al., 2009, p496). Waegemakers Schiff and Rock (2012, p18) highlighted that “there is no ‘best practice’ evidence in the form of randomly assigned, longitudinal studies on families, youth, those with primary addictions, those coming from a period of incarceration, and those with diverse ethnic and indigenous backgrounds.” Others found that no family studies have comparison groups (Bassuk and Geller, 2006) and that evaluations of family housing interventions were often limited to descriptive accounts (Rog and Buckner, 2007). Despite a paucity of robust research evidence and great diversity in programs, some local communities who have implemented HF-type models for families report positive outcomes (such as a reduced duration of homelessness in a pilot in Richmond, Virginia, and cost savings in Alemeda County, California) (NAEH, 2006, undated). Internal data from the Beyond Shelter program in Los Angeles reveals that 427 families were enrolled in 2009 to 2010, of which 397 moved into permanent rentals; of those, 90 percent remained stable at six months with case management (Beyond Shelter, undated; USICH, undated).

Education and Other Outcomes While housing stability is a crucial outcome, it is not the only important one (Bassuk and Geller, 2006). Only a few studies on the role of housing and services in reducing family homelessness examine more than just housing stability (Bassuk and Geller, 2006), such as mother’s mental health, employment, and economic situation, as well as family stability and child wellbeing (Nolan et al., 2005).

178 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

Importantly, there has been no work that looks specifically at the implications of rapid rehousing for children’s educational experiences (Miller, 2010). While longterm permanent housing is likely to reduce school mobility, bringing with it educational advantages, types and levels of services and distinct settings may matter. We need to know how rapid rehousing models may affect access and use of educational services and whether schools and community organizations have differentiated ways of working with students and their families (Miller, 2010). Now that it is embedded in federal policy, rapid re-housing is likely to be playing a larger role in shaping the school-related assets and needs of families and their children in ways that we are only beginning to understand.

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives”

Biographical Vignettes While McKinney-Vento’s EHCY program is largely understood as a school-related policy, and the linear approach and rapid re-housing policies (such as HPRP and HEARTH) are often discussed in housing contexts, a broad cross-section of homeless and highly mobile families live at the intersection of these policies. As communities shift toward permanent, independent housing philosophies, schools may also need to change the ways in which they identify and serve families. Our longitudinal investigation of homeless education policy and practice in “Midtown” – a pseudonym for a Midwestern city – focused on such intersections. We gathered wide-ranging data, including interviews with 98 key community stakeholders in the schooling of students who experience homelessness (parents, social workers, case workers, and others). We draw from these data in presenting two brief “biographical vignettes” aimed at solidifying our discussion of these intersections. The stories and experiences of the families we describe (whose names we changed to protect their identities) are depicted for illustrative rather than generalizing purposes. In other words, while they are not necessarily aligned with those of all other homeless and highly mobile parents and families, they lend contextualized, “real-life” insights into the daily realities of policy-shaped lives.

The Linear Approach and the Ford Family Danielle Ford’s family had a modest, yet relatively stable lifestyle until a year ago when her ex-husband left town and stopped providing financial support. Danielle’s income from a local fast food restaurant was not enough to provide for herself and her three school-aged children, so when she missed two months of rent payments, she was evicted. After doubling-up with various relatives and friends for several months, the family found space in a Midtown shelter program. Danielle was thankful to have found a warm and relatively safe place for her family, especially during the cold winter months; but she noted that living in a

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 179

shelter was difficult. Danielle wanted to keep things as “normal” as possible for her kids as she looked for an affordable apartment and a higher-paying job, but the shelter’s confined spaces and lack of privacy challenged everyday routines, such as preparing meals, doing laundry, playing, and completing homework together. Further complicating matters, Danielle experienced significant health problems for several weeks, sapping her energy and leaving her with chronic pain in her lungs. She said it was “awful” to be in a shelter when going through such physical discomfort. Altogether, the Fords’ days in the shelter were stressful and difficult. However, when we talked about school-related matters, Danielle was quick to identify several ways that being in the shelter had actually benefitted her family. Even though the shelter was several miles away from their old apartment, the family’s case manager collaborated with the Midtown School District to ensure that the Ford children would be allowed to remain in their same elementary school. The case manager was also an invaluable resource for Danielle in her attempts to find housing, better employment, and educational opportunities for her children. In fact, they touched base with each other just about every day, which Danielle deeply appreciated, and the case manager linked two of the Ford children with an after-school program that Danielle described as “amazing.” Additionally, the shelter’s central location in Midtown and its close proximity to a bus stop made getting around town relatively easy for the family. Danielle mentioned that it was “a snap” to get to the kids’ school on the bus, and that she had already made the trip several times in order to talk with teachers and the school social worker.

Rapid Re-housing and the Allen Family Like the Fords, Latoya Allen and her two children (a 5-year-old and a 14-month-old), never anticipated being homeless; but when violent crime overtook their neighborhood in a nearby large city, they fled to Midtown. The Allens spent several weeks doubling-up with friends and then some weeks in a local shelter before securing their own apartment on the far north side of town through the support of local HPRP funding. Latoya described their new apartment as a welcome change after having to put up with “all the drama that goes on” in shared living spaces. She said that being able to come and go as she pleased and having places to put kids’ toys and other belongings were among the best parts of independent living. Also, Latoya did not want her children to think of themselves as “homeless” or to be stigmatized by other kids for living in a shelter, so she was deeply appreciative of the support she received to get the apartment. The Allens’ benefits of independence were tempered, however, by several factors. First, and most prominently addressed by Latoya, their new surroundings (both the neighborhood and actual apartment) were perceived to be unsafe and disconnected. Latoya claimed that “thuggin’” teenagers regularly occupied their

180 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

street and that she and her children even witnessed a late night shooting that left them too rattled to set foot outside after dark. She also noted that their location on the far north side of town (about 5 miles from downtown, surrounded by other low-income housing) made “getting things and getting to places” more challenging than was the case in their previous places of residence. For example, no grocery stores or after-school programs were in close proximity to the neighborhood, and public transportation options were minimal. The location also made it challenging for Latoya to meet with her eldest child’s teachers. And the actual apartment in which they lived was in utter disrepair. The heating system and kitchen appliances barely worked and the walls between units were seemingly paper thin. Such neighborhood and apartment conditions left Latoya, a 22-year-old single mother with previous connections to the larger community, feeling isolated and alone.

Implications for Schools and Communities The Fords and Allens live within 5 miles of each other and have each struggled through periods of residential instability; but their most recent places of residence – a Midtown shelter and an independent apartment space supported by HPRP, respectively – influence their daily lives quite differently. As the United States pivots policy away from shelter-based services and toward more scattered, independent arrangements, schools and communities will be charged with serving more “Allen-like” than “Ford-like” families. We conclude this chapter with a few specific recommendations for educational practice and research amid this evolving policy arena.

Recommendation 1: Increase Organizational Learning Capacities Schools and relevant community-based organizations should develop infrastructures for learning about how policy changes at federal, state, and/or local levels affect homeless and highly mobile families. This includes both school-focused policy such as the McKinney-Vento Act and broader housing-focused policy such as the HEARTH Act. These policies unfold and interact differently within and across communities; yet it is evident that most key actors are unaware of and/or lack the systemic capacity to learn about and respond to them. Organizational learning should not occur solely through particular individuals’ extraordinary initiative (e.g., teachers who take it upon themselves to attend community forums), but through more centralized and sustainable means. For example, district in-services that delineate multilevel changes in housing and homeless education policy can be held biannually for school social workers and principals. These ongoing learning sessions would clearly link “the macro with the micro” – that is, beyond merely deepening understandings of policies, the in-services would highlight implementation considerations in the local organizational and/or community contexts,

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 181

addressing, for example, how to best serve families such as the Fords and the Allens.

Recommendation 2: Fine-Tune Cross-Sector Action Perhaps more than ever, schools and communities must work in collaborative and coordinated fashions. Implementation of the McKinney-Vento Act, which delineates students’ rights and opportunities during periods of homelessness, can, in fact, only occur when schools, shelters, and other social service providers are on the same page. Many communities, such as Minneapolis, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh, have been lauded in recent years for their well-articulated interorganizational plans for serving students experiencing homelessness; but even these progressive models are to be recalibrated at the dawn of the HEARTH era. Spatial matters are paramount in this cross-sector action, for decentralizing housing initiatives draw a range of schools and organizations that were previously on the periphery of (or altogether uninvolved with) joint action targeting homeless and highly mobile families to the core of community responses. Existing relationships, such as those between the Ford family’s shelter case manager and their local school, will remain critical. But new ones must also be forged between after-school programs, childcare centers, landlord associations, and a range of other stakeholders in and beyond cities. Even as families secure independent housing and are no longer technically homeless (like the Allens), many of their broader life circumstances ensure that they will still need significant social and institutional supports that can only come from strategic and innovative cross-sector collaboration.

Recommendation 3: Research Students Experiencing Homelessness in Different Contexts Finally, although organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth and the NCHE have provided important contributions in tracking the growth of student homelessness, examining issues related to state- and district-level McKinney-Vento policy implementation, and, broadly, disseminating information about how the issue affects families and communities, there is a dearth of empirical work examining the intersection of organizations, policies, and education experiences in contexts of homelessness and residential instability. Both cutting-edge methods – such as geospatial information systems tools (GIS) and social network analysis tools (SNA), and well-parsed theories (such as social capital theory, social/organizational learning theory, and democracy theory) – should be employed in this work. For example, beyond tracking students’ academic outcomes during their experiences of homelessness, researchers need to use GIS and SNA to consider this and other data as it relates to and/or is associated with their specific places of residence (at both neighborhood levels and housing unit levels). Such work should be initiated across

182 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

different macro-housing policy contexts, including both those that are progressively embracing and implementing HEARTH-related policy and those that are still operating within linear frameworks. Ideally, a national network of inter-disciplinary researchers, policy-makers, educators, and advocates should collaborate to conceptualize and carry out this work in a systematic and intentional fashion.

Conclusion Given the upward trend in homelessness, as well as the recent federal rehousing shift, it is more important than ever that schools and communities increase their organizational learning capacities. Fine-tuned, cross-sector action can engage the diverse needs of families in strategic, socio-policy responsive manners. And while the frontline collaborative efforts among and between schools and communitybased organizations are central to this action, so too is the role of researchers. Notably, scholarly action in the area of student homelessness must move beyond school-centric foci upon McKinney-Vento implementation and instead consider the policy as it plays out in a wider social and public policy environment.

References Anooshian, L. J. (2003) “Social isolation and rejection of homeless children,” Journal of Children and Poverty, 9(2): 115–134. Bassuk, E. L. and Geller, S. (2006) “The role of housing and services in ending family homelessness,” Housing Policy Debate, 17(4): 781–806. Beyond Shelter (undated) Housing First Program (Rapid Re-Housing) Annual Report, http:// www.beyondshelter.org/aaa_programs/HousingFirstJuly2010NewReportFlyer.pdf. Buckner, J. C. (2008) “Understanding the impact of homelessness on children: Challenges and future research directions,” American Behavioral Scientist, 51(6): 721–736. Burkham, D. T., Lee, V. E., and Dwyer, J. (2009) School Mobility in the Early Elementary Grades: Frequency and Impact from Nationally-Representative Data. Commissioned by the National Research Council and presented at a workshop on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods, June, Washington, DC. Caton, C., Wilkins, C., and Anderson, J. (2007) “People who experience long term homelessness characteristics and interventions,” in Department of Health and Housing Services and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, 4–10. Coker, T. R., Elliott, M. N., Kanouse, D. E., Grunbaum, J. A., Gilliland, M.J., Cuccaro, P., and Schuster, M. A. (2009) “Prevalence, characteristics, and associated health and health care of family homelessness among fifth-grade students,” Research and Practice, 99(8): 1446–1452. Culhane, D. P. (2008) “The costs of homelessness: A perspective from the United States,” European Journal of Homelessness, 2(1): 97–114. Culhane, D. P. (2011) “Book review: How to House the Homeless,” Social Service Review, 85(2): 310–316. Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., and Byrne, T. (2010) A Prevention-Centered Approach to Homelessness Assistance: A Paradigm Shift? Unpublished manuscript.

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 183

Cunningham, M., Harwood, R., and Hall, S. (2010) Residential Instability and the McKinneyVento Homeless Children and Education Program. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center. Grant, R., Shapiro, A., Joseph, S., Goldsmith, S., Rigual-Lynch, L., and Redlener, I. (2007) “The health of homeless children revisited,” Advances in Pediatrics, 54: 173–187. Gulcur, L., Stefancic, A., Shinn, M., Tsemberis, S. and Fischer, S. N. (2003) “Housing, hospitalization, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in Continuum of Care and Housing First programmes,” Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13: 171–186. HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development) (2002) Evaluations of Continuums of Care for Homeless People: Final Report (Burt, M. R., Pollack, D., Sosland, A., Mikelson, K. S., Drapa, E., Greenwalt, K., Sharkey, P., Graham, A., Abravanel, M., and Smith, R.). Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD (2009) Chronic Homelessness, http://hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/chronic.cfm. HUD (2011) The 2010 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, http://www.hudhre. info/documents/2010HomelessAssessmentReport.pdf. James, B. W. and Lopez, P. D. (2003) “Transporting homeless students to increase stability: A case study of two Texas districts,” Journal of Negro Education, 72(1): 126–140. Jozefowicz-Simbeni, D. M. H. and Israel, N. (2006) “Services to homeless students and families: The McKinney-Vento Act and its implications for school social work practice,” Children and Schools, 28(1): 37–44. Kennedy, A. C. (2007) “Homelessness, violence exposure, and school participation among urban adolescent mothers,” Journal of Community Psychology, 35(5): 639–654. Kertesz, S. G., Crouch, K., Milby, J., Cusimano, R. A., and Schumacher, J. (2009) “Housing First for homeless persons with active addiction: Are we overreaching?” Milbank Quarterly, 87(2): 495–534. Kneebone, E. and Garr, E. (2010) The Suburbanization of Poverty: Trends in Metropolitan America, 2000 to 2008. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Metropolitan Policy Program, Metropolitan Opportunity Series. Larson, A. M. and Meehan, D. M. (2011) “Homeless and highly mobile students: A population-level description of the status of homeless students from three school districts,” Journal of Children and Poverty, 17(2): 187–205. Lively, K. L. and Kleine, P. F. (1996) The School as a Tool for Survival for Homeless Children. S. Bruchey (ed). New York, NY: Garland. Masten, A. S., Sesma Jr., A., Si-Asar, R., Lawrence, C., Miliotis, D., and Dionne, J. A. (1997) “Educational risks for children experiencing homelessness,” Journal of School Psychology, 35(1): 27–46. McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 2001, Title X, Part C of the No Child Left Behind Act. McLean, D. E., Bowen, S., Drezner, K., Rowe, A., Sherman, P., Schroeder, S., Redlener, K., and Redlener, I. (2004) “Asthma among homeless children: Undercounting and undertreating the undeserved,” Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158(3): 244–249. Miller, P. M. (2009a) “An examination of the McKinney-Vento Act and its influence on the homeless education situation,” Educational Policy, doi: 10.1177/0895904809351692. Miller, P. M. (2009b) “Leadership practice in service of homeless students: An examination of community perceptions,” Urban Review, 41: 222–250. Miller, P. M. (2010) “Families’ experiences in different homeless and highly mobile settings: Implications for school and community practice,” Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, April, Denver, CO. Miller, P. M. (2011) “A critical analysis of the research on student homelessness,” Review of Educational Research, 81(3): 308–337.

184 Alexandra E. Pavlakis and Peter M. Miller

Miller, P. M. (2012) “Educating (more and more) students experiencing homelessness: An analysis of recession-era policy and practice,” Educational Policy, doi: 10.1177/ 0895904812440500. Murphy, A. K. (2010) “The symbolic dilemmas of suburban poverty: Challenges and opportunities posed by variations in the contours of suburban poverty,” Sociological Forum, 25(3): 541–569. NAEH (National Alliance to End Homelessness) (2006) What is Housing First? November, http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/1425. NAEH (2009) Summary of the HEARTH Act, June, http://www.endhomelessness.org/ content/general/detail/2098 NAEH (undated) Rapid Re-Housing: Successfully Ending Family Homelessness, http://www. endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/4574. National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth/First Focus (2010) A Critical Moment: Child and Youth Homelessness in Our Nation’s Schools. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth. NCHE (National Center for Homeless Education) (2008) The McKinney-Vento Act at a Glance, http://center.serve.org/nche/downloads/briefs/reauthorization.pdf. NCHE (2011) Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program Data Collection Summary from the School Year 2009–10 Federally Required State Data Collection for the McKinneyVento Education Assistance Improvement Act of 2001 and Comparisons of the SY 2007–08, SY 2008–09, and SY 2009–10 Data Collection, www.serve.org/nche/ibt/sc_data.php. Nolan, C., Broeke, C., Magee, M., and Burt, M. R. (2005) “The family permanent supportive housing initiative: Family history and experiences in supportive housing”. Washington, DC, The Urban Institute. Nunez, R. and Adams, M. (2011) Federal Funding Essential to Finding and Aiding Homeless Students. New York, NY: Institute for Children, Poverty and Homelessness. Obradovic´, J., Long, J. D., Cutuli, J., Chan, C. K., Hinz, E., Heistad, D., and Masten, A. S. (2009) “Academic achievement of homeless and highly mobile children in an urban school district: Longitudinal evidence on risk, growth, and resilience,” Development and Psychopathology, 21: 493–518. Padgett, D. K., Gulcr, L., and Tsemberis, S. (2006) “Housing First services for people who are homeless with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance abuse,” Research on Social Work Practice, 16(1): 74–83. Pearson, C., Montgomery, A.E., and Locke, G. (2009) “Housing stability among homeless individuals with serious mental illness participating in Housing First programs,” Journal of Community Psychology, 37(3): 404–417. Rafferty, Y., Shinn, M., and Weitzman, B.C. (2004) “Academic achievement among formerly homeless adolescents and their continuously housed peers,” Journal of School Psychology, 42(3): 179–199. Reynolds, A. J., Chen, C., and Herbers, J. E. (2009) “School mobility and educational success: A research synthesis and evidence on prevention,” Paper presented at a workshop on the Impact of Mobility and Change on the Lives of Young Children, Schools, and Neighborhoods, June, Washington, DC. Ridgway, P. and Zipple, A. M. (1990) “The paradigm shift in residential services: From the linear continuum to supported housing approaches,” Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 13: 20–31. Rog, D. and Bucker, J. (2007) “Homeless families and children,” in Department of Health and Housing Services and US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, 5–10. Shields, C. M. and Warke, A. (2010) “The invisible crisis: Connecting schools with homeless families,” Journal of School Leadership, 20, 789–819.

Policy Intersections in “Real Lives” 185

Stefancic, A. and Tsemberis, S. (2007) “Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: A four-year study of housing access and retention,” Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(3–4): 265–279. Stronge, J. H. (1993) “Emerging service delivery models for educating homeless children and youth: Implications for policy and practice,” Educational Policy, 7: 447–465. Tanabe, C. S. and Mobley, I. H. (2011) “The forgotten students: The implications of federal homeless education policy for children in Hawaii,” BYU Education and Law Journal, 51: 51–74. Tierney, W. G., Gupton, J. T., and Hallet, R. E. (2008) Transitions to Adulthood for Homeless Adolescents: Education and Public Policy. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. Tsemberis, S. (2010) “Housing First: Ending homelessness, promoting recovery, and reducing costs,” in I. Gould Ellen and B. O’Flaherty (eds) How to House the Homeless. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 37–55. Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., and Nakae, M. (2004) “Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis,” American Journal of Public Health, 94(4): 651–656. USICH (United States Interagency Council on Homelessness) (2010) Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Washington, DC: United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. USICH (undated) Crisis Response and Systems Change: Community Profile (Housing First Program for Homeless Families, Beyond Shelter, Los Angeles, California), http://www.usich. gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/HousingFirstforHomelessFamilies}LA}Profile.pdf. Waegemakers Schiff, J. and Rook, J. (2012) Housing First: Where Is the Evidence? Toronto: Homeless Hub. Wong, J. H., Elliot, L. T., Reed, S., Ross, W., McGuirk, P., Tallarita, L., and Chouinard, K. (2009) “McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act Subtitle B – Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program: Turning good law into effective education (2008 update),” Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, XVI(1).

12 NEW HORIZONS FOR URBAN TEACHER PREPARATION AND PARENT ENGAGEMENT IN THE POST-CIVIL RIGHTS SOUTH Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning1

A formidable barrier to strengthening and enhancing parent and family involvement in US schools is the failure to prioritize investments in pre- and in-service teacher professional development (Weiss and Stephen, 2010). Although pre- and in-service teachers view working with parents as one of their greatest or anticipated challenges, many do not feel they have the necessary education and training to meet this challenge (Weiss and Stephen, 2010). When lacking well-conceived and implemented education and training, pre-service teachers are especially prone to rely on their personal biases about parents and families to guide their interactions with them and their students (Baum and McMurray-Schwarz, 2004; Milner, 2006). In response, education researchers are calling for university teacher education programs (TEPs) to place more emphasis on parent and family involvement, beginning well before the final stage of student teaching (Baum and McMurray-Schwarz, 2004). Our local response to this charge, in partnership with local school districts and organizations, has been to investigate home–school relations and prepare educators to work with urban parents and families through the Community and Schools Together (CAST) Project at the UAB Center for Urban Education (CUE). In addition, CUE’s cornerstone initiative, the Urban Teacher Enhancement Program (UTEP), has been preparing a new generation of teachers who are responsive to the needs and aspirations of urban students and families. UTEP has graduated 140 teachers since its inception. CUE faculty leaders are currently reflecting on and evaluating our track record for continuous improvement. In our experience working with UTEP’s pre-service teachers, we have learned that there is much work ahead of us to prepare them to engage effectively with urban parents and families. Similar to other TEPs (Flanigan, 2007), we have found that pre-service teachers have limited cultural knowledge and understanding

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 187

about parents and families. Consequently, they often approach them with preconceived and, too often, misinformed and distorted notions about race, class, and gender (C. W. Cooper, 2009; Cooper et al., 2010; Lightfoot, 2004; Voltz, 1998, 2000). This chapter documents our reflections on and experiences with preparing pre-service teachers in Birmingham to engage meaningfully with parents and families in urban schools by employing auto-ethnographic and qualitative research and evaluation. By engagement we mean helping pre-service educators close the cultural and power gap between themselves and urban parents and families (Warren et al., 2009). We define urban schools using several characteristics compiled by Joe Kincheloe and his contributors’ (2006) volume on urban education. These characteristics include schools and districts that have significantly large student populations; are racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse; operate in areas with high population density and are marked by profound socio-economic disparity; confront ongoing factionalized infighting on school boards; experience higher student, teacher, and administrator mobility; and are affected by macro-level municipal issues (e.g., transportation problems, housing decline, unemployment, etc.) (Kincheloe et al., 2006). Two auto-ethnographic vignettes, derived from the first author’s experiences with parent and family involvement in the cities of Birmingham and Chicago, are featured to introduce the main ideas, empirical questions, and data sources. We present our perspectives from the standpoints of current and former university faculty members and administrators, as well as community leaders charged with preparing pre- and in-service educators. This chapter contributes to three strands of literature related to parent and family involvement in and engagement with schools: first, conflicting perceptions and definitions of parent involvement held by parents versus school staff; second, inherent tensions and role conflicts between low-income and working-class parents and middle-class-oriented school staff; and, third, the importance of university, K-12 schools, and community partnerships in enhancing and improving home– school relations (Loder-Jackson et al., 2007). This chapter also addresses how Birmingham’s parent involvement and educational context has undergone striking demographic and social changes since the latter 20th-century Civil Rights Movement (CRM) (Loder-Jackson, 2011, 2012). These dynamics have important implications for the viability of home–school relations in modern-day Birmingham. Our central thesis is that innovative parental engagement approaches that are responsive to this new social context must be envisioned and enacted upon with urgency. These approaches must socialize pre-service teachers to become more reflective, culturally responsive, equitable, and politically relevant in their approach to working with urban parents and families (C. W. Cooper, 2009; Cooper et al., 2010). Although this chapter is grounded primarily in Birmingham’s social context, it also has relevancy to urban districts across the Southern region and the US.

188 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

This introduction is followed by sections that discuss Birmingham’s parent involvement and educational context, methodology, auto-ethnographic vignettes, and implications and conclusions.

Birmingham’s Parent Involvement and Educational Context Birmingham’s history as one of the pivotal centers of the CRM provides a unique context for examining parent engagement in urban schools. Arguably, the 1954 Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas Supreme Court case, which mandated the racial desegregation of US public schools, would not have been enacted had it not been for courageous parent activism. By all accounts, Birmingham’s Whitecontrolled educational establishment had no intention of heeding Brown – that is, until it confronted legal challenges brought by parents and children led by local civil rights icon Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth in 1957 (Spencer, 2011; White and McManis, 2000). Court cases initiated by Shuttlesworth and his own young children, along with other families, were critical to dismantling the wall of segregation separating White and African American children (Eskew, 1997; Dolgin et al., 2011; McWhorter, 2001; Spencer, 2011; White and McManis, 2000). Similar to other school districts in the South, once school desegregation mandates were finally underway in Birmingham, White parents withdrew their children from the city’s public schools in droves and set in motion the widespread development of suburban school districts (Frankenberg, 2009). In recent decades, middle-class African American parents have followed suit, enrolling their children in adjacent suburban and county schools (Hansen, 2011a; Hansen and Leech, 2006; Ray, 2007). Many families who remain vie desperately to enroll their children into a few coveted magnet public schools, which are remnants of a 1980 integration plan designed to meet desegregation mandates by circumventing citywide busing (Birmingham Board of Education, 1980; Fleming, 2012). Today Birmingham’s core population is 73.4 percent African American (US Census Bureau, 2009) and its municipal and school district leadership reflects this demographic. As is the case with many contemporary US urban school districts (Henig et al., 1999), the Birmingham City School (BCS) district is predominantly African American (96 percent) with White, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and “other” students constituting the remaining 4 percent of the population (Phi Delta Kappa International, 2011). Eighty-six percent of the students are in the federal free and reduced lunch program (Phi Delta Kappa International, 2011). The district is surrounded by a suburban ring of middle- to upper middle-class, predominantly White, well-financed school districts (Frankenberg, 2009). The BCS district’s student population has plummeted since the 1970s (from 70,000 to less than 26,000) due to White and African American middle-class flight (Alabama State Department of Education, 2012; Hansen, 2011a; Hansen and Leech, 2006; Phi Delta Kappa International, 2011). This steep and steady decline has resulted in the loss of state educational funds, prompting superintendents to close and demolish

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 189

several schools (Witherspoon, 2011) and to lay off unprecedented numbers of school personnel (Leech, 2012b). Many parents and community members have vociferously protested school closings (Stock, 2008). Notably, the Hispanic/Latino student population has increased although its percentage (2.7 percent) is still quite small compared to school district populations in the Southwest, Midwest, and Northeast (Phi Delta Kappa International, 2011). This population has been beset by the recent passage of Alabama’s controversial immigration law, which requires school districts to verify their students’ citizenship status (Chandler, 2011). The BCS district’s Hispanic/Latino population dipped tremendously after the law’s implementation last fall (Leech, 2011a; Wolfson, 2012). After a flurry of multiracial coalition and governmental protests (Bryant, 2011; Leech, 2011b; Velasco, 2011), and on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, Alabama’s law is currently being challenged in court by civil and legal rights organizations (Chandler, 2012). Examinations of home–school relations in the contemporary US South must take into account a dramatically altered post-Brown context (Fields-Smith, 2005; Loder 2006, Loder-Jackson 2011, 2012). Today’s urban students and their relatively young parents tend to be generationally distinctive from previous BCS clientele (Loder-Jackson, 2011, 2012) as more contemporary urban families are characterized by intergenerational, condensed-age structures, producing relatively younger familial networks of mothers, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers (Burton, 1996; Jarrett and Burton, 1999; Slaughter-Defoe, 1993). In addition, high proportions of African American children are being raised by a single parent, relative, or guardian and many are “school-dependent” for their academic learning (E. J. Cooper, 2009, p441). These dynamics require today’s educators to be more culturally competent about and responsive to urban students, parents, and families (Cooper et al., 2010; LoderJackson et al., 2007, Milner, 2006). It is within this dynamic and complex context that we examine the daunting challenges and promising opportunities associated with preparing new teachers for a new urban school context.

Methodology Four data sources inform this chapter’s content. These sources include two autoethnographic vignettes (using school pseudonyms) based on the first author’s personal and professional experiences with parent involvement in Birmingham and Chicago; and three CAST Project studies, which include parent focus groups (Loder-Jackson et al., 2007), school personnel interviews (McKnight et al., 2009), and a UTEP qualitative empowerment evaluation.

Auto-Ethnography Auto-ethnography is a qualitative approach that grants scholars more flexibility in integrating their personal and professional experiences with their research pursuits

190 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

using vignettes, multiple voices, reflexivity, and introspection (Ellis and Bochner, 2000; Ellis et al., 2011, p20). According to Ellis et al. (2011, p1), “this approach challenges canonical ways of doing research and representing others and treats research as a political, socially-just and socially conscious act.” This is an apt approach to use in a study that reflects on relationships between urban K-12 and higher educators and parents. Race, class, and gender must be examined within frameworks that acknowledge and give credence to the impact of oppressive structures such as racism, classism, and sexism in US society and schools (LadsonBillings, 2012). As we reflect on our respective experiences as current and former university faculty members and administrators with dual roles as community leaders, we recognize that our biography guides our thinking about pre-service teacher preparation in relation to parent and community engagement. The first author, in particular, has a unique background which informs her perspectives on this topic. Our experiences as scholars and practitioners working collaboratively for ten years are used to “illustrate how a community manifests particular social/ cultural issues” (Ellis et al., 2011, p21).

CAST Project Research and Evaluation Studies The objective of these three studies was to learn more about urban parents’, K-12 educators’, and teacher educators’ perspectives on parent involvement and how to improve home–school relations and teacher preparation. Across these studies, 83 urban parents, K-12 pre- and in-service educators, and university TEP faculty were interviewed individually or as a small team or “focus group” (Morgan, 1997) and/or surveyed. Participants were predominantly African American and female. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed by a professional transcriber. Data analysis took place during regular bimonthly face-to-face meetings coupled with email and telephone correspondence. To maintain the agreement of anonymity, the participants are not identified by name. The parent focus group study employed strategies to maximize parent engagement (e.g., partnering with local district parent organizations to advertise and conduct interviews; providing dinner meals and on-site child care; convening meetings in the neighborhood; reading Internal Review Board forms aloud and answering questions; reporting findings back to participants in parent-friendly venues) (Loder-Jackson et al., 2007; Morgan, 1998; Smalley and Reyes-Blanes, 2001).

Auto-Ethnographic Vignettes

Garden City School Parents: Birmingham Tondra’s earliest recollection of urban parent involvement dates back to elementary school in the early 1970s. At that time, the student body had transitioned from all-White to virtually all-Black from a mix of working-class and low-income

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 191

families. However, the school retained a middle-aged White male principal for a number of years as well as a few White teachers. Tondra’s father was actively involved in the Parent–Teacher Association (PTA) and served as its president for a number of years. He insisted that she be involved as well, often enlisting her to call parents to remind them about meetings. Only the faithful few showed up, but these small numbers did not deter her father from working tirelessly to advocate on their behalf. Her most vivid memory of her parents’ advocacy was their request for a teacher personnel change. Shortly after a young White female teacher joined the school’s staff, several parents noted a marked difference in their children’s behavioral assessments, especially among African American boys. They felt very strongly that there was a cultural mismatch between the teacher and their children. Tondra recalls a dedicated group of parents meeting at her family’s home to deliberate a course of action to address their concerns. After no immediate resolution, her parents petitioned the principal regarding their individual concerns. Although there was not an immediate personnel change, her parents were able to resolve concerns satisfactorily as they related to their own child. She learned from this experience that urban parents care very deeply about their children’s education, but they often encounter roadblocks when they attempt to make changes (C. W. Cooper, 2009). Principals are sometimes reluctant to make personnel changes if they do not believe they are warranted or, most likely, if such changes could trigger legal actions from school staff represented by teachers’ unions. In this instance, working-class African American parents challenging an old-guard White male principal’s personnel decisions was new and contested territory for home–school relations in the post-Brown era. When parents organize to effect change in their schools, yet do not see results, those with the fewest resources may resign themselves to accept the status quo, whereas those with the most resources may opt to exit. Tondra’s experience as a youth raises several questions that she, in collaboration with her colleagues, has gone on to explore as an educator and researcher. For example, how might school staff identify what urban parents desire both for their children and from their schools? What roadblocks might they encounter? How might schools create conditions conducive for empowering parents to overcome these roadblocks? We believe the CAST parent focus group study offers preliminary answers (Loder-Jackson et al., 2007). This study revealed that “parental involvement is inhibited (1) when parents do not feel that teachers and administrators are receptive to their meaningful involvement and concerns and (2) when teachers and administrators are not flexible regarding the schedules of parents who would like to be more involved but cannot be at the usual times or whose involvement would need to take new forms other than evening meetings” (Loder-Jackson et al., 2007, p371). This study also indicated that parents may be involved with their children’s education, or would like to be, in ways that are not always recognized

192 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

by schools as parental involvement, such as helping with homework; checking in with teachers by phone; or providing for the emotional and physical needs of their children. How might school district and university teacher educators use these findings to strengthen, enhance, and perhaps even revamp TEPs? Bridges of communication must first be established so that parents and educators can exchange their perspectives and experiences in a safe, supportive, and mutually respectful environment.

Fenwick High School Parents: Chicago Tondra pursued graduate study in Chicago in the 1990s and early 2000s. During her experience, she witnessed similarities between Birmingham and Chicago. Many Southerners, including a number from Alabama, migrated to Chicago during the Great Migration (Trotter, 1991). African Americans made up one third of the population during her time there and among them was an increasing population of the urban poor (Massey and Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1987). It did not take long for her to discover that African Americans in Chicago encountered a separate and unequal school system that resembled Birmingham’s system (Henig et al., 1999). During the early 1990s, Tondra worked for a non-profit educational organization whose board members aspired to create more opportunities for Chicago Public School (CPS) students to take advantage of college and career opportunities. Sociologist William Julius Wilson was one of the board members who advocated strongly for and provided resources from the University of Chicago to create a non-profit university and public school partnership to address educational barriers for poor urban youth (Wilson, 1987). This organization had been successful in meeting the resource needs of middle- to upper middle-class White college aspirants from suburban and private schools; but prior to this new initiative it had reached very few CPS students. Tondra was hired as a college and career counselor “on loan” to the school for five years. This meant that she immersed herself in the community and established offices on-site at the school. After the initial planning year, she was housed at the school full time and became fully integrated within its faculty. She, along with another staff person whom she hired, was responsible for working directly with 150 students from freshman year through their first year after high school graduation. Tondra and her program colleague provided individual and group counseling, academic skill-building seminars, college test preparation courses, internships, college field trips, and financial aid counseling and funding. They also served as liaisons between the program’s graduates and their freshmen college advisors. To launch the program, she modeled a few strategies her father taught her and devised some of her own. The guidance counselors and administrators at the high school were skeptical about her optimistic efforts to engage parents at their first orientation meeting. But she made an ambitious commitment to reach all parents

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 193

of the 300 incoming freshmen. Countless phone numbers were disconnected and some parents were wary about her calls. Yet an unprecedented 75 parents showed up for the orientation. The community center where she had arranged to convene the meeting was almost filled to capacity. This unusually large turnout challenged the thinking of her CPS high school colleagues, who had never imagined, let alone witnessed, this kind of turnout for a school-sponsored meeting. She shared her approach with them and admitted that it was very time consuming and frustrating to get through the long list. But her memories of the small group of concerned parents who gathered at her parents’ home instilled in her the belief that urban parents really do care about their children. Yet she was cognizant that her biographical experiences were very different from those of her middle-class African American and White high school colleagues. The lesson she learned is that school staff’s perceptions about urban parents and families are shaped by their deeply ingrained beliefs about race, class, and gender, and are often validated by self-fulfilling prophecies: Urban parents won’t show up, so why bother reaching out to them? In light of this reality, how can university TEPs help pre-service teachers examine, challenge, and, hopefully, rethink their personal biases about urban parents and families (Cooper et al., 2010)? In response to this question, the CAST school personnel study of Birmingham educators (McKnight et al., 2009) reveals that there is much work to be done. School personnel were fairly unanimous about the importance of parental involvement and their desire to see increased participation from parents. The participation they sought ranged from parents helping with homework, making sure their children were fed and well rested, showing up for PTA meetings, volunteering at the school, communicating with the teachers and administrators, assisting with behavioral discipline, and improving academic performance. Notably, some of these expectations are similar to those conveyed by parents in the focus group study; yet most expectations are school centric versus parent centric (Lawson, 2003; Voltz, 1994). Even more disconcerting are the biases that surfaced. Most typically verbalized were that urban parents did not care, had not been taught to care in their own upbringing, or were not in a socio-economic position to care about parent involvement due to work schedules, transportation, disability, and addiction. Additionally, many of the school personnel placed ultimate responsibility for parental involvement on the parents, and often lamented that parents do not utilize the resources available to them or visit the school on their own initiative. We are also learning from a recent empowerment evaluation of UTEP alumni teachers. Some of the results are heartening in the sense that our alumni, who are now teaching in urban schools, appear to recognize their need for more knowledge about and preparation to work effectively with parents and families. UTEP alumni are very supportive of the program, and they believe it has yielded positive results. They attested to the importance of UTEP’s emphasis on diversity, equity, culture, social class, and poverty. However, UTEP alumni call for a greater emphasis on parent involvement in TEPs and in-service professional development,

194 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

particularly exposing teachers to real-life experiences with parents as early as possible and consistently throughout the program (e.g., role playing, parent–teacher conferences, PTA, etc.). In addition, UTEP alumni would like to see more emphasis placed on sharpening their communication and conflict-resolution skills with parents (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2004).

Implications and Conclusions How might university TEPs collaborate with school districts and community partners to address the issues raised in the auto-ethnographic vignettes and associated research and evaluation data? A number of approaches have been used to prepare educators to engage more effectively with diverse groups of parents and families. We believe a few of these approaches attempt to shift the conversation about home–school relations from a parent involvement to a parent engagement model (Warren et al., 2009). For example, Kroth and Edge’s (2007) Mirror Model of Family Involvement is a framework that capitalizes on the diversity of strengths and needs parents and families often reflect. This model is based on three assumptions: all families have strengths; all families have needs; and these needs and strengths differ. The key is to be able to tap into the profile of strengths and needs each individual family presents. This is a skill that must be nurtured throughout TEPs (Chavkin, 2005; Norris, 2010; Warren et al., 2011). In order to be successful, TEPs must partner with school districts and community organizations in order to provide meaningful engagement in authentic contexts. Other innovative approaches in TEPs as it relates to parent engagement include service learning programs that link pre-service educators to school district family involvement personnel (Chavkin, 2005); enlisting parents and family members as co-teachers and speakers in courses (Chavkin, 2005; Norris, 2010); and incorporating video case studies and modules that present authentic issues and actual questions raised by real parents (Roushias et al., 2009). When implementing these approaches, it is recommended that diverse families be represented (i.e., two-parent and single-parent households, adoptive parents, foster parents, extended families, homeless families, parents of students with disabilities, bi-racial families, gay/lesbian parents, etc.). Diversity with respect to socio-economic status, race/ ethnicity, language, and gender issues (i.e, single fathers) also is recommended. We believe that now is an opportune time to capitalize on the aforementioned approaches in Birmingham. Recently, citizens have expressed more collective urgency about the status of BCS, due notably to the efforts of local stakeholders with a vested interest in urban schools (King and Caldwell, 2009; Warren, 2005). One such organization is the Birmingham Education Foundation (BEF), an outgrowth of a community engagement model called Yes We Can! Birmingham (YWC!B) initiated by the Community Foundation of Greater Birmingham (CFGB), all with full knowledge and support of Birmingham school officials (Hansen, 2011b). Borrowed from a Mobile, Alabama, model, the intent of YWC!B

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 195

was to represent and then leverage the voice of community residents who wanted to improve the schools and education their children were receiving. After convening 123 “Community Conversations” attended by 2,000 citizens (among which the co-authors were participants and/or conveners), YWC!B used citizen input to create a Community Agreement, which documented the community’s vision for its public school system. BEF was established in 2009 as an independent 501(c)3 non-profit foundation to carry forward and implement strategies conceived during YWC!B. Guided by citizen input, four initiatives rose to the top of the BEF agenda, among which parent involvement topped the list. BEF’s strategy for addressing this issue is the development of the Birmingham Parent University (BPU) based on a model from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools in North Carolina. BPU, still in its formative stages, will capitalize on existing parent training within Title I, individual school parent programming led by principals and PTA organizations, and organize them into an efficient and well-advertised set of activities (Cavanagh, 2012). It will add several innovations. First, there is a community-based advisory committee that will seek to use the parent and family voice to influence the curriculum. Second, there will be a separate curriculum advisory committee that will help to organize parent activities and keep them focused on a core set of categories approved by the advisory committee. This committee will provide an organization external to schools with a mechanism to access parents and offer the schools external resources they might not have garnered without this structure. Third, there is agreement that a notable shortcoming of many school-sponsored parent involvement programs is the assumption and requirement that parents come to school to be involved. Younger parents, some of whom had less than exciting schooling themselves, tend not to come back for school-sponsored activities; and yet our experiences with YWC!B demonstrated that they care about and desire to be part of their children’s schooling. In response, BPU is developing a creative alternative for those who cannot (or will not) come to schools by building an online electronic platform for “just in time” parent information and training that can be delivered by audio or video to computers, iPads, smartphones, or any electronic device. Parents who sign on to this free service will be able to track their involvement, repeat programming on demand, and interact with BPU staff. We believe the emergence of BPU presents a timely partnership opportunity for CUE. BPU parents desire to have their voices heard and respected in schools and CUE pre-service teachers believe they need more exposure to urban parents and families. We are putting our heads together now to consider how we might link CUE and BPU initiatives. Yet we recognize that the ghosts of Birmingham’s segregationist and racially violent past and their contemporary apparitions of interracial distrust and strife continue to haunt the success of progressive initiatives. Birmingham’s African American citizens are sometimes skeptical about the motives and agendas of historically White public universities (Loder et al., 2007).

196 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

Some are especially leery of local multiracial coalitions that include “over the Mountain” members (local color for White, middle- to upper-class suburbanites and their school districts, many of which were established post-Brown), who wield considerable power and influence in local political, economic, and civic affairs. There are also intra-racial tensions that exacerbate relationships between and among African American school personnel, elected school board members, and parents, all of whom are left behind to grapple with the fall-out of the post-Brown urban school context (Loder, 2006). Modern-day foes are no longer cast as White racist anti-integrationist. Today they are portrayed as school board members and bureaucrats who impede progress, resulting most recently in a state takeover of the BCS (Leech, 2010, 2012a). In addition, Birmingham’s small but emergent Hispanic/Latino population is confronting racist and ethnocentric concerns that have, frankly and unfortunately, been fairly invisible and muted until the recent immigration controversy. It will take sustained, strategic, and collaborative initiative mobilized by masterful leadership to address contemporary educational problems and challenges confronting the BCS district. Clearly, “we’ve got some difficult days ahead” (King and Washington, 1991, p286); yet we are optimistic that we can attain new horizons of opportunity to create a first-class school system for Birmingham’s students and families.

Note 1 Our longtime urban education collaborator and former Dean of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) School of Education, Dr. Michael J. Froning, died unexpectedly shortly before this chapter went to press. He dedicated nearly 50 years of public service to schools in Baltimore, Maryland, Amherst, Massachusetts, Birmingham, Alabama, Hawaii, and American Samoa. Dr. Froning never wavered from his belief that all children can learn and reach their highest potential.

References Alabama State Department of Education (2012) Alabama’s Education Report Card, 2010–2011, March. Montgomery, AL: Alabama State Department of Education. Baum, A. C. and McMurray-Schwarz, P. (2004) “Preservice teachers’ beliefs about family involvement: Implications for teacher education,” Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(1): 57–61. Birmingham Board of Education (1980) Minutes (April 1963–April 1983), 18 October. Birmingham Public Library Department of Archives and Manuscripts, Birmingham, AL, Birmingham City Schools Website, http://www.bhamcityschools.org. Bryant, J. D. (2011) “Birmingham city council condemns Alabama’s new immigration law,” Birmingham News, 28 June, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Burton, L. M. (1996) “Age norms, the timing of family role transitions, and intergenerational caregiving among aging African American women,” The Gerontologist, 36(2): 199–208. Cavanagh, S. (2012) “Parental engagement proves no easy goal,” Education Week, 31(27), 1, 3 April: 16–17, http://www.edweek.org. Chandler, K. (2011) “Alabama will check immigration status, but enroll all students,” Birmingham News, 29 September, www.al.com/birmingham.

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 197

Chandler, K. (2012) “Alabama immigration law faces new tests after Arizona ruling,” Birmingham News, 26 June, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Chavkin, N. F. (2005) “Strategies for preparing educators to enhance the involvement of diverse families in their children’s education,” Multicultural Education, 13(2): 16–20. Cooper, C. W. (2009) “Parental involvement, African American mothers, and the politics of care,” Equity and Excellence in Education, 42(4): 379–394. Cooper, C. W., Riehl, C. J., and Hasan, A. L. (2010) “Leading and learning with diverse families in schools: Critical epistemology and communities of practice,” Journal of School Leadership, 20(6): 758–788. Cooper, E. J. (2009) “Realities and responsibilities in the education village,” in L. C. Tillman (ed) The Sage Handbook of African American Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 435–449. Dolgin, G. (Director/Producer), Fryday, R. (Director/Producer), and Helfand, J. (Producer) (2011) The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement (Documentary film). US: Chicken and Egg Pictures, Interfaze Educational Productions and Purposeful Productions. Donaldson, S. I. and Scriven, M. (2003) Evaluating Social Programs and Problems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ellis, C. S. and Bochner, A. (2000) “Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher as subject,” in N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds) The Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 733–768. Ellis, C. S., Adams, T., and Bochner, A. (2011) “Autoethnography: An overview,” Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, North America, 12(1), http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095. Eskew, G. T. (1997) But for Birmingham: The Local and National Movements in the Civil Rights Struggle. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Fields-Smith, C. (2005) “African American parents before and after Brown,” Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20(2): 129–135. Flanigan, C. B. (2007) “Preparing preservice teachers to partner with parents and communities: An analysis of college of education faculty groups,” The School Community Journal, 17(2): 89–109. Fleming, N. (2012) “Magnets reimagined as school option,” Education Week, 1 May, http://www.edweek.org. Frankenberg, E. (2009) “Splintering school districts: Understanding the link between segregation and fragmentation,” Law and Social Inquiry, 34(4): 869–909. Fultz, M. (2004) “The displacement of Black educators post-Brown: An overview and analysis,” History of Education Quarterly, 44(1): 11–45. Hansen, J. (2011a) “Birmingham changes as Blacks move to the suburbs,” The Birmingham News, 27 March, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Hansen, J. (2011b) “Yes We Can! Foundation to report on Birmingham schools campaign progress,” Birmingham News, 13 August, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Hansen, J. and Leech, M. (2006) “City’s Black students leaving for the suburbs,” The Birmingham News, 6 August, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Henig, J. R., Hula, R. C., Orr, M., and Pedescleaux, D. S. (1999) The Color of School Reform: Race, Politics, and the Challenge of Urban Education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jarrett, R. L. and Burton, L. M. (1999) “Dynamic dimensions of family structure in lowincome African American families: Emergent themes in qualitative research,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30: 177–187. Kincheloe, J. L., Hayes, K., Rose, K., and Anderson, P. M. (eds) (2006) The Praeger Handbook of Urban Education: An Encyclopedia, vols 1 and 2. Westport, CT: Greenwood. King, M. L., Jr. and Washington, J. M. (1991) A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

198 Tondra L. Loder-Jackson, Deborah L. Voltz, and Michael Froning

King, S. H. and Caldwell, N. M. (2009) “Creating a new model of education for African American children: Mobilizing stakeholder partners in service to sustained academic success,” in L. C. Tillman (ed) The Sage Handbook of African American Education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 451–463. Kroth, R. L. and Edge, D. (2007) Communicating with Parents and Families of Exceptional Children. Denver, CO: Love Publications. Ladson-Billings, G. J. (2012) “Through a glass darkly: The persistence of race in education research and scholarship,” Educational Researcher, 41(4): 115–120. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (2004) The Essential Conversation: What Parents and Teachers Can Learn from Each Other. New York, NY: Random House. Lawson, M. A. (2003) “School–family relations in context: Parent and teacher perceptions of parent involvement,” Urban Education, 38(1): 77–133. Leech, M. (2010) “Efforts afoot to abolish Birmingham Board of Education,” Birmingham News, 21 August, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Leech, M. (2011a) “Hundreds of Hispanic students absent from Birmingham-area schools today,” Birmingham News, 12 October, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Leech, M. (2011b) “Birmingham Board of Education will condemn Alabama’s immigration law, members say,” Birmingham News, 8 November, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Leech, M. (2012a) “Alabama education department seizes control of Birmingham school board,” Birmingham News, 13 April, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Leech, M. (2012b) “Alabama Education Association vows legal fight over layoffs at Birmingham city schools,” Birmingham News, 26 July, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Lightfoot, D. (2004) “‘Some parents just don’t care’: Decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools,” Urban Education, 39(1): 91–107. Loder, T. L. (2006) “Dilemmas confronting urban principals in the post-civil rights era,” in J. L. Kincheloe, K. Hayes, K. Rose, and P. M. Anderson (eds) The Praeger Hndbook of Urban Education: An Encyclopedia, vol 1. Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp70–77. Loder, T. L., Sims, M. J., Coker, A. D., Collins, L., Brooks, M., Voltz, D., and Calhoun, C. (2007) “On becoming and being faculty-leaders in urban education and also being African American … Seems promising,” Advancing Women in Leadership, Special issue, 23 (Winter), http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/winter2007/Loder.htm. Loder-Jackson, T. L. (2011) “Bridging the legacy of activism across generations: Life stories of African American educators in post-civil rights Birmingham,” The Urban Review, 43(2): 151–174, doi:10.1007/s11256-009-0142-1. Loder-Jackson, T. L. (2012) “Hope and despair: Southern Black women educators across pre- and post-civil rights cohorts theorize about their activism,” Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, Special issue, 48(3): 266–295, doi:10.1080/00131946.2012.660665. Loder-Jackson, T. L., McKnight, A. N., Brooks, M., McGrew, K., and Voltz, D. (2007) “Unmasking subtle and concealed aspects of parent involvement: Perspectives from AfricanAmerican parents in the urban south,” Journal of School Public Relations, 28(4): 350–379. Massey, D. S. and Denton, N. A. (1993) American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Boston, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard College. McKnight, A. N., Loder-Jackson, T. L., and Brooks, M. (2009, April) “Perspectives on parental involvement in the urban South: Varied voices from school administrators and instructional staff,” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. McWhorter, D. (2001) Carry Me Home: Birmingham, Alabama, The Climactic Battle of the Civil Rights Revolution. New York, NY: Touchstone. Milner, H. R. (2006) “Preservice teachers’ learning about cultural and racial diversity: Implications for urban education,” Urban Education, 41(4): 343–375. Morgan, D. L. (1997) Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

New Horizons for Urban Teacher Preparation 199

Morgan, D. L. (1998) Planning Focus Groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. National Center for Education Statistics (2010) School District Demographic System. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sdds/2010/ index.aspx. Norris, K. E. L. (2010) “Beyond the textbook: Building relationships between teachers and diversely-structured families,” Multicultural Education, 18(1): 48–50. Phi Delta Kappa International (2011) Curriculum Audit of the Birmingham City Schools, April. Bloomington, IN: International Curriculum Management Audit Center, Phi Delta Kappa. Ray, T. (2007) “Desegregation order ended at Vestavia,” Birmingham News, 14 December, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Roushias, C., Barton, A. C., and Drake, C. (2009) “The design and development of a multimedia case-based environment on parental engagement,” Educational Media International, 46(1): 37–52. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T. (1993) “Home-visiting with families in poverty: Introducing the concept of culture,” The Future of Children, Special issue, 3(3), Winter: 172–183. Smalley, S. Y. and Reyes-Blanes, M. E. (2001) “Reaching out to African American parents in an urban community: A community–university partnership,” Urban Education, 36(4): 518–533. Spencer, T. (2011) “The Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth 1922–2011: Minister breathed life into civil rights story,” The Birmingham News, 9 October, pp124, 1A, 10A. Stock, E. (2008) “Birmingham parents quiz city school officials in range of issues in pending school closings,” Birmingham News, 12 May, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Trotter, Jr., J. W. (ed) (1991) The Great Migration in Historical Perspective: New Dimensions of Race, Class and Gender. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. US Census Bureau (2009) State and County QuickFacts, Data file. Washington DC: US Census Bureau, http://www.quickfacts.census.gov. Velasco, E. (2011) “Marchers silently protest new Alabama immigration law in downtown Birmingham,” 25 June, Birmingham News, http://www.al.com/birmingham. Voltz, D. L. (1994) “Developing collaborative parent-teacher relationships with culturally diverse parents,” Intervention in School and Clinic, 29(5): 288–291. Voltz, D. L. (1998) “Challenges and choices in urban education: The perceptions of teachers and principals,” Urban Review, 30(3): 211–228. Voltz, D. L. (2000) “Challenges and choices in urban teaching: Voices of general and special educators,” Multiple Voices, 4(1): 41–53. Warren, M. R. (2005) “Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform,” Harvard Educational Review, 75(2): 133–174. Warren, M. R., Hong, S., Rubin, C. L., and Uy, P. S. (2009) “Beyond the bake sale: A community-based relational approach to parent engagement in schools,” Teachers College Record, 111(9): 2209–2254. Warren, S. R., Noftle, J. T., Ganley, D., and Quintanar, A. P. (2011) “Preparing urban teachers to partner with families and communities,” The School Community Journal, 21(1): 95–112. Weiss, H. B. and Stephen, N. (2010) “From periphery to center: A new vision for family, school and community partnerships,” in S. Christenson and A. Reschley (eds) Handbook of School–Family Partnerships. New York, NY: Routledge, 448–472. White, M. L. and McManis, A. M. (2000) Birmingham Revolutionaries: The Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Wilson, W. J. (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Witherspoon, C. (2011) Birmingham City Schools: 2011–2012 Financial Realities, Projections and Considerations, PowerPoint presentation, Birmingham, AL. Wolfson, H. (2012) “Alabama immigration law has hurt children and teaching, educators tell conference,” Birmingham News, 10 February, http://www.al.com/birmingham.

13 CONCLUSION Sonya Douglass Horsford and Camille M. Wilson

In a 1963 “talk to teachers,” writer and social critic James Baldwin delivered a speech entitled “The Negro Child – His Self-Image” where he encouraged “those of you who deal with the minds and hearts of young people” to know that “in the attempt to correct so many generations of bad faith and cruelty, when it is operating not only in the classroom but in society, you will meet the most fantastic, the most brutal, and the most determined resistance.” He decided, “There is no point in pretending that this won’t happen” (Baldwin, 1963, p325). As we reflect on the chapters included in this volume, we also consider Baldwin’s warning. In some ways, this cautionary note is just as important as the contributing authors’ recurring calls for educators in America’s classrooms, schools, colleges, and communities to provide and advocate for equitable and excellent educational opportunities for all children and youth. This has never been, nor will it ever be, an easy charge. The high-stakes pressures facing those who deal with young people’s hearts and minds stem from the realities of demographically changing schools, an increasingly draconian federal education policy, and a public narrative that continues to suggest that our nation is at risk of being outdone by international competitors. While great disagreement and debate remain over whether or not America’s future and its people are in danger because of its ineffective schools, as noted in this book’s introduction, we reaffirm our belief that “without educational equity and equal opportunity provided to American youth of all backgrounds, the educational success of many children will be suppressed along with the growth of the nation.” This idea, in many ways, served as the overarching premise of this book. While the nation’s leaders seek ways to improve America’s competitiveness in the world, the nation’s educators must remind these leaders that our ability to compete is inextricably linked to the ways in which we understand, educate, and “see” our

Conclusion 201

children and youth and the richness of their backgrounds, experiences, potential, and promise. Our nation’s racial, ethnic, social, and cultural diversity yet serves as one of its greatest strengths, but only if perceived as such. If we choose to expect failure from some students based on their demographic characteristics and ignore the role public schools play in either affirming or rejecting the identities, cultures, and assets of all students, we will find ourselves in jeopardy. For as Baldwin (1963, p325) observed 20 years before the National Commission on Excellence in Education declared the nation at risk, “we are living through a very dangerous time. … The society in which we live is desperately menaced, not by Khrushchev,1 but from within.” We must be honest about the legacies of systemic inequality and oppression in the US and their consequences for the hearts and minds of today’s schoolchildren and their families. Like the self-image of the Black child Baldwin spoke of and his discovery of “the shape of his oppression,” which “begins when he is in school,” we must also be mindful of the messages we send all children – our English learners, Muslim students, Latina/o and Native American youth, LBGTIQ students, homeless children, and the growing number of students who feel “othered” or devalued because of the inability of adults to affirm these multiple dimensions of diversity. Baldwin (1963, p326) perceived these feelings “enter[ed] the child’s consciousness much sooner than we as adults would like to think it does.” He explained that adults “are easily fooled because we are so anxious to be fooled. But children are different. Children, not yet aware that it is dangerous to look too deeply at anything, look at everything, look at each other, and draw their own conclusions” (Baldwin, 1963, pp326–327). To what conclusions will the children representing the rich legacy of our nation’s diversity arrive at during and after their time in America’s schools? In our attempt to reframe America’s diversity as a value to be treasured, rather than a problem to be fixed, we hope this interdisciplinary project will serve as a tool for educators, researchers, and professors alike who are committed to advancing educational equity and achievement in ways that further “Americanize America” (Banks, 2013) and her cherished dream of opportunity for all who desire it. By acknowledging the political narratives that normalize achievement for some students and failure for others; highlighting the various social, political, cultural, demographic, and community contexts that inform gaps in educational opportunity and expectations; and addressing the needs of historically marginalized and underserved student populations in both theoretical and practical ways, we improve education overall. We further prepare US students to succeed among the globalizing post-American forces that political analysts say are at hand (Zakaria, 2009). In the conclusion of his speech to schoolteachers, Baldwin (1963, p332) explained that if he were a teacher, he would let his students know that they were living in an “enormous province.” That “America is not the world and if America is going to become a nation, she must find a way – and this child must help her to find a way to use the tremendous potential and tremendous energy

202 Sonya Douglass Horsford and Camille M. Wilson

which this child represents” (p332). Consequently, the chapters in this volume have looked beyond achievement scores and the accountability rhetoric of high-stakes testing mandates to consider how to fundamentally improve education and better nurture the talents and potential of which Baldwin speaks. Their collective attention to the influence of policy agendas; reform movements; transformative leadership practices; students’ identities and agency; identities, experiences, and strategies of diverse educators; and the workings of effective school partnerships with families, universities, and communities signals the authors’ hopes for current and future generations. The work has pointed to implications for correcting past wrongs by improving practice, policies, and research for the advancement of us all.

Note 1 Nikita Khrushchev served as first secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964, and led the Soviet Union during part of the Cold War.

References Baldwin, J. (1963/1985) “A talk to teachers,” in J. Baldwin (ed) The Price of the Ticket: Collected Nonfiction, 1948–1985. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 325–332. Banks, J. (2013) “Multicultural education leader James A. Banks to give 29th Annual Faculty Lecture,” http://www.washington.edu/news/2005/02/24/multicultural-education-leaderjames-a-banks-to-give-29th-annual-faculty-lecture/. Zakaria, F. (2009) The Post-American World. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

James G. Allen is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership in the Department of Counseling, Social Work, and Leadership at Northern Kentucky University. His research interests include social justice leadership, professional development for principals, and educational technology. He has served P-12 schools as a teacher, assistant principal, and acting principal. Carol C. Burris is Principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre, NY. She is co-author of two books (Detracking for Excellence and Equity and Opening the Common Core) and other publications on school equity. Her dissertation, which studied Rockville Center’s detracting reform, received the 2003 NASSP (National Association of Secondary School Principals) dissertation award. Lucila D. Ek is an Associate Professor in Bicultural-Bilingual Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio. She received her Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research centers on language and literacy of Chicana/os and Latina/os. She has published in Anthropology & Education Quarterly and Bilingual Research Journal. Michael Froning formerly served as the Executive Director of the Birmingham Education Foundation (www.edbirmingham.org). During his long career as an educator, he worked as a teacher and high school administrator before becoming Dean of the University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Education, where he was on the steering committee of the Council of Great City Colleges of Education. Julian Vasquez Heilig is an Associate Professor of Educational Policy and Planning at the University of Texas at Austin. His primary research focuses on how

204 List of Contributors

high-stakes testing and accountability-based reforms and incentive systems affect students of different kinds. For a wide-ranging discussion about education and public policy, visit his blog at CloakingInequity.com. Sonya Douglass Horsford is the Associate Professor of Education, College of Education and Human Development, at George Mason University, where she examines the history of educational inequality, schools and society, and communitybased education reform. She was formerly the Senior Resident Scholar of Education at The Lincy Institute at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. She is the author of the book Learning in a Burning House: Educational Inequality, Ideology, and (Dis)Integration. Liz Jackson is Assistant Professor of Education at the University of Hong Kong. Her research interests include international and global studies in education, philosophy of education, and citizenship and patriotic education. She has written broadly on the representation of Islam in media and education, among other areas of multicultural theory. Tambra O. Jackson is an Associate Professor in the Department of Instruction and Teacher Education at the University of South Carolina. Her research interests include teacher learning across the professional continuum specifically focused on culturally responsive pedagogy and teaching for social justice; the preparation and support of teachers of color; and urban education. James W. Koschoreck is an Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Educational Leadership Programs at Northern Kentucky University. His research interests include policy analysis and gay/lesbian issues in educational leadership. He has co-edited a book entitled Sexuality Matters: Paradigms and Policies for Educational Leaders. Tondra L. Loder-Jackson is an Associate Professor of Educational Foundations in the School of Education at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. She is also the Director of the Center for Urban Education. Her professional interests include life course perspectives on African American education, urban education, and parent and community involvement. Francesca López is an Assistant Professor in the Educational Policy and Leadership Department at Marquette University. Her research examines the ways in which state and federal policies, as well as teacher–student dynamics, inform the development of identity and achievement among Latino/a youth. Peter M. Miller is a former high school teacher who works in the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He focuses on issues of poverty, homelessness, and cross-sector reform.

List of Contributors 205

Christine W. Nganga is an Assistant Professor of Teaching, Learning and Leadership at South Dakota State University. Her research interests include the intersections of culture and identity among teachers and school leaders, multicultural and international education, and social justice. Prior to coming to the United States, Dr. Nganga was an English teacher in Kenya. Festus E. Obiakor is Chair and Professor, Department of Leadership and Special Education, City College of New York. His research interests are in self-concept development, multicultural psychology and special education, educational reform, and international special education. He is also the co-founder and co-executive editor of the journal Multicultural Learning and Teaching. Alexandra E. Pavlakis is a doctoral student in the Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is a former teacher and holds an M.S. in Social Policy from the London School of Economics. Her research interests include student homelessness and policy implementation in high-mobility schools. Patricia D. Quijada Cerecer is an Assistant Professor in Educational Psychology at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research explores identity formations of Indigenous youth and women in P-20 educational contexts by examining access and retention issues. She has published in Equity & Excellence in Education, Journal of School Leadership, and Journal of the Professoriate. Elsa Cantú Ruiz is an Assistant Professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research focus is the motivation of Latina/o students in mathematics, teachers’ notions of pedagogical strategies and their impact upon students’ motivation and achievement, and the teaching of mathematics with a social justice lens. Sarah G. Smith is an advocate for all students and currently serves as Principal of South Kilbourne Elementary School in Richland School District One, a 2012 National Blue Ribbon School. She believes that every child has the ability to succeed and uses all available resources to optimize teaching and learning to ensure high-quality education for her students. Daniela Torre is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in Education Policy at Vanderbilt University. Her research interests include school improvement, English learners, and school choice. She earned her B.A. from Washington University in St. Louis and her M.A. from American University in Washington, DC. Deborah L. Voltz is Dean of the School of Education and Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Alabama at

206 List of Contributors

Birmingham. She has engaged in an active research agenda related to teaching diverse learners and has published extensively in this area. Kevin G. Welner is Professor of Education and Director of the National Education Policy Center (http://nepc.colorado.edu), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He examines the use of research in policy-making and the intersection between education rights litigation and educational opportunity scholarship. His forthcoming book Closing the Opportunity Gap is co-edited with Prudence Carter. Camille M. Wilson is an Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Wayne State University. Her research is interdisciplinary in nature and chiefly explores school–family–community engagement and transformative leadership from holistic, critical, and culturally relevant perspectives. Dr. Wilson’s work has appeared in journals such as Teachers College Record, the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, and Educational Administration Quarterly. In addition, she has published scholarly book chapters related to school choice reform, African American families, mothers’ educational advocacy, and social justice education. Christopher D. Yawn is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at the City College of New York. He received his doctorate from Ohio State University. His research interests include effective classroom management strategies for culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) urban learners, and strategies for promoting successful collaborations with families of CLD students with disabilities.

INDEX

achievement gap 9, 15–18 “acronym language” 134 activist educators 94–107 activities focusing on LGBTIQ matters 101–2 Adams, T. 190 addressing needs of LGBTIQ students 94–8 adequate yearly progress 25–8, 36 affirming cultural difference 71–2 affirming multiple dimensions of diversity 77–140; disrupting deficit views 108–122; marginalized sexualities 94–107; religious diversity 79–93; teacher identities in transition 123–39 AFT see American Federation of Teachers agency 110–111, 115–16; youth 116–17 “Allen family” 179–80; see also policy intersections in “real lives” Ally Week 102 America Achieves 31 American Federation of Teachers 123 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 27–8, 174–6 analyzing different perspectives 90 Anderson, P. M. 187 Anglocentric norms 59, 71 Annual Homeless Assessment Report 171 Annual Professional Performance Review 35–6 anti-harassment policies 99–101 anti-immigration legislation 42, 52–3 Antunez, B. 44, 47

apartheid 16–17 Appiah, K. A. 83 Appleton Elementary School 67–71; Principal Austin 67–9; Principal James 69–71 APPR see Annual Professional Performance Review ARRA see American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 assessment of learning 44 assignment abstracts 155–6; “cultural autobiography/memoir” 155–6; “inquiry into culture” 156; “teaching rounds” 156 assimilationism 80, 82–5, 116 asthma 172 at-risk students 1, 10–15, 151, 161, 165 Atkinson, E. 97 attending to teacher development 143–58 auto-ethnographic vignettes 190–94; Fenwick High School parents 192–4; garden city school parents 190–92 avoidance 95 AYP see adequate yearly progress Bailey, T. M. 160 Bakari, R. 163 Baldwin, James 200–202 Banks, J. A. 82–3 basic care 66 Beachum, F. D. 164 BEF see Birmingham Education Foundation

208 Index

Bell, Terrell H. 11 Berliner, D. C. 18, 26 Beyond Shelter 177 bi-directional learning 151–2 biographical vignettes 178–80; linear approach and Ford family 178–9; rapid rehousing and Allen family 179–80 Birmingham 187–92 Birmingham Education Foundation 194–5 Bochner, A. 190 Boykin, A. Wade 15 Brill, Steve 31 Britzman, B. P. 126 Broad Foundation 10 Brown v. Board of Education 16, 82, 159–60, 166, 188–9, 191, 196 building on strength of ethnic diversity 5–6 bullying 101–2 Bush, George W. 13, 28 Campbell’s Law 26 Canada, Geoffrey 19 Carroll, C. D. 15 CAST project see Community and Schools Together project CCSS see Common Core State Standards Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk 15 Center for Urban Development 186 centering teacher practice 148–9 certification 47–9 challenge of facing Islam 79–93 challenge of representation 85–8 challenges of McKinney-Vento 174–5 challenges to youth agency 116–17 changes to incentives and practice 25–40 changing demographics 47–8 Characteristics of At-Risk Students 14 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools 195 charter schools 21, 25–6, 31, 34–5 cheating 26, 29 Chicago 192–4 child wellbeing 177 chronic homelessness 176–7 civil rights movements 10, 12, 18–19, 187 clash of civilizations 81 class/culture clashes 69–71 classism 190 CLD students see cultural/linguistic diversity and special needs Clinton, Bill 13 closing achievement gap 10, 15–18, 159–70; conclusion 168–9;

practicalizing CSM 166–8; role of community 165; role of family 162–3; role of government 165–6; role of school 163–4; role of “self ” 161–2; using CSM 161 closures 35 coalition for LGBTIQ school issues 98–9 Coleman, James 17 Coleman Report 1966 20 collaboration 141–202; see also fostering collaboration colorblindness 2, 57–8, 66 Common Core State Standards 32–4, 49 communication barriers 133–4; see also language barriers communities of color 16–19, 110–111 community role in CSM 165 Community and Schools Together project 186, 190–93 community-based education reform 17–20; Promise Neighborhoods program 19–20; return to neighborhood schools 18–19 competency 47, 123 components of partnerships 147–54; courses taught onsite 149–51; student outcomes 152–4; student teacher interns 151–2; teacher study group 148–9 Comprehensive Management Review and Evaluation of Special Education 161 comprehensive support model 159–70; see also reducing achievement gaps computer literacy 165 conflict-resolution skills 194 Conklin-Spillane, Carol 33–4 constructing learner identities 108–122 context as learning tool 149–51 Continuum of Care policy 175 cookie-cutter approach to reform 30 Cooper, C. W. 58 corruption 26 “country club school” 67–71 creating LGBTIQ coalition 98–9 creating media 90–91 CRESPAR see Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk critical thought 3 cross-sector action 181 Cruickshank, K. 125 CSM see comprehensive support model cultural autobiography 155–6

Index 209

cultural difference 62–71 cultural diversity and school leadership 136–7 cultural identities 108–122 cultural inclusion goals 63–5 cultural politics of difference 58–60 cultural sensitivity 48–9 cultural work 57–75; findings 62–71; literature on transformative leadership 58–9; methods and data sources 60–62; new cultural politics of difference 59–60; as transformative leadership 71–2 cultural/linguistic diversity and special needs 159–70 culture blindness 66; see also colorblindness Cyberbullying Research Center 101 Danielewicz, J. 126 Dantley, M. 58 Day, C. 126, 130, 135 Day of Silence 102 DeBose, C. 143 deficit views 58–9, 108–122 demographically changing schools 57–75 denial 95 DePalma, R. 97 desegregation 16, 18, 188 Deters, P. 124 dialogue as learning tool 149–51 different contexts of homelessness 181–2 Dimito, A. 95 disempowerment 159 disrupting deficit views 108–122; conclusion 118; methodology 111–12; recommendations for practice/research 118–20; themes 112–17; theoretical framework 109–111 diversity 1–3, 57–8, 194, 201 doubling up 173 “Driving while Black” 162 dropping out 14, 159, 163–5, 168 Duncan, Arne 32 dysfunction 150 Edge, D. 194 Edmonds, Ron 20 Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975 160 education and family homelessness 172–3 Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program 173–4, 178, 181 education makeover by NCLB 25–40

educational context of parent involvement 188–9 educational policy in Latino/a growth states 41–56 Educators Guide to Pride Month 102 effects of demographic change 62–71; Appleton Elementary School 67–71; Violet Elementary School 62–6 EHA see Education for All Handicapped Children Act 1975 EHCY see Education of Homeless Children and Youth Program Ek, L. D. 111–12, 114 EL teacher quality domains 42–4; assessment 44; professional development 43; teacher education programs 42–3; teaching methods 43 Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965 12–14, 25, 36–7, 49 Ellis, C. S. 190 Emergency School Aid Act 1972 12–14 empowerment 59–60, 162 engagement 187 English learners in Latino/a growth states 41–56 Equal Access Act 1984 103 Equal Education Opportunity Act 42 Equality of Educational Opportunity 17 equity to accountability 12–14 ESAA see Emergency School Aid Act 1972 ESEA see Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965 ESL international teachers 123–39 essentializing cultural difference 68–9 ethnic “minority” groups 1, 57–8 ethnography of socialization 111–12 evaluating teachers/principals 35–6 evolution of certification 48–9 examining teacher quality 41–56; conclusion 52–3; EL teacher quality domains 42–4; findings 46–52; methods 44–6 exclusionary behavior 60 expecting failure 14–15 experiencing different contexts of homelessness 181–2 exploring effects of demographic change 60–62 facing classroom Islam 79–93 family homelessness 171–85 family role in CSM 162–3

210 Index

fear-based biases 65 federal approaches to homelessness 175–6; linear approach v. rapid rehousing 175–6; shift towards rapid rehousing 176 federal shift towards rapid rehousing 176 Fenwick High School 192–4 Figueroa, R. 161 findings of teacher quality analysis 46–52; evolution of teacher certification 48–9; requirements for teachings ELs 51–2; responses to changing demographics 47–8; SEA-provided professional development 49–51; teacher quality context analysis 46–7 fine-tuning cross-sector action 181 First Focus Survey 175 Flexibility (Waiver) Initiative 27–8, 36–7, 49 “Ford family” 178–9; see also policy intersections in “real lives” fostering collaboration 141–202; conclusion 200–202; parent engagement in post-civil rights South 186–99; “real-life” policy intersections 171–85; reducing achievement gaps 159–70; school–university partnerships 143–58 Fougner, Sharon 34 framework of socio-culturally responsive education 109–111; identity and agency 110–111; socio-culturally responsive education 109–110 framing McKinney-Vento 173–4 Franklin, John Hope 16 future of urban education reform 20–22 Gamm, S. 161 gaps in achievement 159–70 Garden City School 190–92 Gardner, R., III 163 Gates Foundation 10 gathering data about LGBTIQ matters 99–100 Gause, C. P. 58 Gay–Straight Alliance Network 103–4 gay–straight alliances 96, 98, 100–104 Gee, J. P. 110 gentrification 145 global competency 123 globalization 2 Goals 2000 13 goals of Race to the Top 29–36; Common Core State Standards 32–4; evaluating teachers and principals

35–6; origins of Race to the Top 31–2; school turnarounds 34–5 Goodlad, J. 145 government role in CSM 165–6 grassroots movements 10 Graybill, E. C. 96 Great Migration 192 Great Society 10, 12 “Great Teachers and Leaders” 35–6 Gulcur, L. 177 Guthrie, J. G. 11 Harlem Children’s Zone 19 Harris, D. N. 11 Hauser Report 16 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments 13 Hayes, K. 187 HCZ see Harlem Children’s Zone Head Start 113 HEARTH see Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act Hehir, T. 161 heritage language 113 hetero-normative patriarchal society 97 high-stakes testing 10, 21, 26, 32–3, 37 hijab 90 hiring police 116–17 Hollins, E. R. 143 Hollins, K. S. 143 Holmes Group 145 Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act 176, 178, 180–82 Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program 176, 178–9 homelessness 171–85 home–school relations 194 homophobia 104 homosexuality 96–7; see also LGBTIQ students; sexual orientation Horn, L. J. 15 Housing First 176–7 housing service needs research 176–8 housing stability 176–7; and chronic homelessness 176–7; and families 177 how university TEPs might collaborate 194–6 Howard, Jeff 13, 17 HPRP see Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program

Index 211

Huntingdon, Samuel 81 Hussar, W. J. 160 Hutchison, C. B. 125 IDEA see Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990 identifying as LGBTIQ 3–4; see also LGBTIQ students identities in transition 135 identity 110–111 identity eradication 127 imperative for educational reform 1–6; strength of US diversity 5–6; strengthening achievement 2–3; tapestry of critical thought 3 implications of school–university partnerships 154–5 inclusive curriculum content 103 incorporating comparative media literacy 88–91; analyzing different perspectives 90; creating media 90–91; news/ popular culture analysis 88–9; photo analysis 89–90 increasing organizational learning capacities 180–81 increasing school success 159–70 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1990 160 inquiry into culture 156 interconnectedness of people 71 internship 151–2 interventions 161 intimidation 64 intolerance 87 Islam 3–4, 79–93; challenge of facing 79–93 It’s Still Elementary 103 James, J. H. 96 Jane, B. 124–5, 136 jihad 84, 86 Johnson, Lyndon Baines 12 K-12 public educational system 2–3, 29–30, 33, 123, 147, 187, 190 Kallen, Horace 80 Khalifa, M. 17 Kincheloe, Joe 187 King, Steve 81 Kington, A. 126, 130, 135 Klein, Joel 32 Koschoreck, J. W. 94 Kroth, R. L. 194

language barriers 42–3, 65, 72, 133 language learning 41–56 Larson, A. M. 174 Latino/a learners 3–5, 41–75, 108–122; educational policy 41–56 learner identities 108–122 learning disability 166–8 learning English as a Second language 41–56 Leonardo, Z. 111 lessons from international teachers 129–35; personal transitions/challenges 129–30; professional transitions/challenges 130–33; situated transitions/challenges 133–4; transitional resources 134–5 “levels of excellence” 1 LGBT Pride Month 102 LGBTIQ students 94–107 limitations of McKinney-Vento 174–5 linear approach to homelessness 175–6, 178–9; and Ford family 178–9 Lion King 90 literacy 48–9, 52–3, 165 literature on transformative leadership 58–9 Local School Climate Survey 100 Lovelace, T. 163 McCray, C. R. 164 Macgillivray, I. K. 96, 101 McIntyre, L. R. 143 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 172–5, 180–82; framing the Act 173–4; limitations, challenges 174–5 Magnet Schools Assistance 18 managing diversity 2 Mann, Horace 80 marginalization 57–9, 94–107 Mayberry, M. 95 media bias 85–9 mediocrity 13 Meehan, D. M. 174 Melting Pot 80 memoir 155–6 Menken, K. 44, 47 Meyers, J. 96 Mill, John Stuart 81 Mirror Model of Family Involvement 194 Modern School Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy 101 Monroe, C. R. 144 Morris, J E. 144

212 Index

Moss, Alfred 16 multiculturalism 67, 79–93 multiple dimensions of school diversity 77–140 NAEP see National Assessment of Educational Progress Nakae, M. 177 NAR see Nation at Risk narrative research design 127–9 “nation at promise” 20–22 Nation at Risk 1, 10–15, 19–20, 33 National Assessment of Educational Progress 26, 53 National Center for Education Statistics 14, 18 National Center for Homeless Education 171, 175, 181 National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition 44 National Commission on Excellence in Education 10–12, 201; see also No Child Left Behind National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education 146 national interest in education 11–12 National Literary Panel 43 Nation’s Report Card 160 nation’s students at risk 9–24; A Nation at Risk 11–14; achievement gap 15–17; expecting failure 14–15; from rhetoric to action 17–20; nation at promise 20–22 Native American youth 3–5, 108–122 NCATE see National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education NCEE see National Commission on Excellence in Education NCELA see National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition NCES see National Center for Education Statistics NCHE see National Center for Homeless Education NCLB see No Child Left Behind need for activist educators 94–107 negative views 112–17 neighborhood schools 18–19 New Federalism 12 New Leaders for New Schools 31 New Schools Venture Fund 32 New York 19, 26, 33–6 news analysis 88–9 Nichols, S. L. 26

Nicotera, A. C. 12–13 9/11 see September 11, 2001 Nixon, Richard 12 No Child Left Behind 4, 17, 20–21, 25–42, 52, 166; conclusion 37; Flexibility (Waiver) Initiative 36–7; legislation 28–9; Race to the Top 29–36 No Name Calling Week 102 non-discrimination policies 83, 100–101 normalizing underachievement 15–17 Obama, Barack 19, 26–9, 32, 34–5, 37, 49, 176 Obiakor, F. E. 164 observation as learning tool 149–51 Olsen, B. 135 onsite courses 149–51 opportunities for transformative leadership 57–75 oppression 59, 201 organizational learning capacities 180–81 origins of NCLB 28–9 origins of Race to the Top 31–2 origins of reform 11–14; from equity to accountability 12–14; national interest in education 11–12 out-of-the-box thinking 165 outcomes of homeless policies 177–8 outcomes of partnerships 147–54 P-20 systems 109, 119 PAARC Consortium 33 PACT see Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests 144 Parekh, B. 84 parent engagement in post-civil rights South 186–99 partnership fostering 141–202 Pathways 177 Peabody Journal of Education 11 Peeler, E. 124–5, 136 pendulum of public discourse 20–21 Perry, Rick 30 personal transition/challenges 129–30 perspectives from ESL teachers 123–39 photoanalysis 89–90 pluralism 80 Plyer v. Doe 51 police brutality 159

Index 213

policy intersections in “real lives” 171–85; conclusion 182; federal approaches to homelessness 175–6; implications for schools 180–82; introduction 171–3; McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 173–5; rapid rehousing and service needs 176–8; school-related policy intersections 178–80 political rhetoric of equity 9–24 political statement 89 politics of difference 59–60 popular culture analysis 88–9 positive sense of self 136 Post-American World 2 post-civil rights South 186–99 poverty 3, 17–21, 37, 108, 145, 159–62, 171–4, 193 practicalizing CSM 166–8 practicing SRC teaching 118–20 pre-service teachers 143–56, 163, 186–7, 195 prejudice 18, 62–6, 161 preparation of urban teachers 186–99; auto-ethnographic vignettes 190–94; Birmingham 188–9; implications 194–6; methodology 189–90 Principal Austin (Appleton Elementary School) 67–9; essentializing cultural difference 68–9 principal evaluation 35–6 Principal Jacobs (Violet Elementary School) 62–6; basic care v. TL 66; cultural inclusion goals 63–5; fear-based biases/tensions 65; threats of White flight 65–6 Principal James (Appleton Elementary School) 69–71; class/culture clashes 69–71 “principals’ rebellion” 36 privatization 21–2 professional development 43, 49–51, 67, 137, 145; SEA provided 49–51 professional transition/challenges 130–33 Promise Neighborhoods program 19–21 public schools 21–2, 25–6; marginalized sexualities in 94–107 qualitative auto-ethnography 189–90 qualitative empowerment methodology 189–90; auto-ethnography 189–90; CAST project 190 quality context analysis 46–7 queer theory 97 Quinlivan, K. 95

Race to the Top 25–40, 167; origins of 29–36; troubling changes to rules 25–40; see also No Child Left Behind racial separation 16, 47, 82–5 racialization of achievement 17 rapid rehousing 175–6, 178–80; and Allen family 179–80; federal shift towards 176 Ready, Set, Respect 103 Reagan, Ronald 11–12 “real-life” policy intersections 171–85 recognition of racial difference 82–5 recommendations for LGBTIQ student support 98–104; coalition for LGBTIQ issues 98–9; gathering data about LGBTIQ matters 99–100; gay–straight alliances 103–4; LGBTIQ content in curriculum 103; school-wide activities focusing of LGBTIQ issues 101–2; updating non-discrimination/ anti-harassment policies 100–101 reducing linguistic barriers 42–3 relationship building 151–2 religious diversity 79–93; challenge of facing Islam 85–8; conclusion 91; incorporating comparative media literacy 88–91; strangers in our midst 80–82; to recognize or not to recognize 82–5 representations of diversity 79–93 requirements for teaching ELs 51–2 research on international teachers 124–6 research on rapid rehousing 176–8; chronic homelessness 176–7; families and housing stability 177–8; housing stability 176–7; and service needs 176–8 resistance 148–9, 200–202 Respect for All Project 103 responding to homelessness 171–3; family homelessness and education 172–3; trends in homelessness 171–2 responses to changing demographics 47–8 restarts 35 return to neighborhood schools 18–19 Rodgers, C. R. 126 role of school 163–4 role of “self” 161–2 Rose, K. 187 Safe Zone Program 102 Sammons, P. 126, 135 sanctions 28–9 Schlesinger, Jr., A. M. 84 Schneider, M. S. 95 Schnur, Jon 31

214 Index

School Improvement Grant policy 28, 34–6 school leadership and cultural diversity 136–7 school policy intersections in real life 178–80; biographical vignettes 178–80; implications for communities 180–82 school turnaround model 10, 30, 34–6 school-related matters and homelessness 171–85 school–university partnership 143–58 Scott, K. H. 126 SCR education see socio-culturally responsible education SEA-provided professional development 49–51 segregation effects 16, 37, 63–5 self-awareness 155 self-esteem 83, 85, 136 self-learning 161 self-reflection 58 self-sustaining learning 143 September 11, 2001 79, 82, 87 sexism 87, 190 sexual marginalization 94–107; conclusion 104; contextual influences 94–8; recommendations for practice 98–104 sexual orientation 94–107 sexuality 96–8 “sexualization of homosexuality” 97 sheltered population 171, 175, 178–9, 181 Shuttlesworth, Fred 188 SIG see School Improvement Grant policy silence 95, 102 “silver bullet” approach 160 situated dimension of teacher identity 126–7 situated transition/challenges 133–4 “slackers” 117 Slattery, P. 94 sliding scale of expectation 17, 28 smelting pot 80, 84 social justice systemic reform 17 socialization 117 socio-cultural research methods 145–7; university/school context 146–7 socio-culturally responsible education 109–110 socio-economic dissonance 162, 187, 193–4 “soft bigotry” 13, 28 Solórzano, D. 108

South Kilbourne Elementary School 143–58 special needs see students with special needs Spillane, J. P. 135 “spun statistics” 21 Sputnik 12 “standards movement” 28–9 stigma 18, 65, 88 Stobart, G. 126, 135 stopbullying.gov 101 strangers in our midst 80–82 strengthening achievement 2–3 student context for research 146–7 student outcomes 152–4 student teacher interns 151–2 students at risk 9–24 Students First 9–10 students with special needs 159–70 study groups 148–9 supporting gay–straight alliances 103–4 tapestry of critical thought 3 Taylor, C. 83 Teach for America 9–10, 31 teacher development crisis 144–5 teacher education programs 42–3, 186–90, 192–4 teacher identities 123–39; as conceptual lens 126–7; implications for school leadership 136–7; lessons from international teachers 129–35; narrative research design 127–9; personal challenges 135; recent research on international teachers 124–6; transition of 123–39 Teacher Incentive Fund policy 28, 38 teacher leaders and cultural diversity 136–7 teacher perceptions of youth 112–17; challenges to youth agency 116–17; negative views of identities 112–15; youth identity, work, agency 115–16 teacher quality control methods 44–6 teacher retention 145 teacher–student relationship 164 teachers’ negative views of youth 112–17 teaching English as a Second language 41–56, 63, 123–39 teaching methods 43 teaching onsite courses 149–51 teaching rounds 156

Index 215

TEAM see Tennessee Evaluator Acceleration Model teenage pregnancy 159 temporality 128 Tennessee Evaluator Acceleration Model 35–6 tension 65–6, 70 TEPs see teacher education programs terrorism 79, 82, 85–6, 90 “third way” 12 threats of White flight 65–6 TIF see Teacher Incentive Fund policy Tillman, L. 17, 58 Title I program 13, 18, 42, 52, 168 Title III program 42, 44–52 Town, S. 95 Towner, A. 143 transformational knowledge 117–18 transformations 35 transformative leadership 57–75; cultural work as 71–2 transforming public schools 143–4 transitional resources 134–5 transitioning teacher identities 123–39 trauma 68 trends in family homelessness 171–2 troubling changes to rules 25–40 Tsemberis, S. 177 underachievement 15–17, 159–60 understanding educational equity 7–76; demographically changing schools 57–75; examining teacher policy 41–56; nation’s students at risk 9–24; NCLB’s intensifying makeover 25–40 unemployment 11, 187 Unheard Voices 103 University of South Carolina 146 urban education reform 20–22 urban teacher development 143–58; assignment abstracts 155–6; implications 154–5; introduction 143–4; partnership components 147–54; research methods 145–7; teacher development crisis 144–5 Urban Teacher Enhancement Program 186, 189, 193–4

US “us use use

education reform 9–24 versus them” mentality 71 of comprehensive support model 161 of silence 95

value-added measurement scores 35 VAM see value-added measurement scores Varjas, K. 96 Vasquez Heilig, J. 17 venture philanthropy 32 VIF see Visiting International Faculty Violet Elementary School 62–6; Principal Jacobs 62–6 Visiting International Faculty 123 voucher system 21 Waiting for Superman 9 Waiver Initiative see Flexibility (Waiver) Initiative Walton Foundation 10 Washington Post 26 Watson, L. B. 96 Weiss, Joanne 32 West, Cornel 58–60, 71 White flight 65–6, 145 Wilson, William Julius 192 Wilson, Woodrow 80–81 WISA see World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment standards Wong, K. K. 11–13 Won’t Back Down 9 work 115–16 World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment standards 51 xenophobia 66 Yawn, C. D. 163–4 Yes We Can! Birmingham 194–5 Yosso, T. J. 108 youth identity 115–16 YWC!B see Yes We Can! Birmingham Zakaria, Fareed 2 Zangwill, Israel 80