URBAN-FOCUSED TEACHER PREPARATION:
A TALE OF TWO PERSPECTIVES
By
John R. Walcott

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education
2012

ABSTRACT
URBAN-FOCUSED TEACHER PREPARATION:
A TALE OF TWO PERSPECTIVES
By
John R. Walcott

Given the current crisis in urban education and the frequent calls for urban school reform,
a number of colleges and universities have established teacher education programs designed
specifically to prepare teachers for work in urban schools. These urban-focused teacher
preparation programs seek to provide pre-service teachers with the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes necessary to meet the challenges that exist in many urban environments and to be
successful in providing for the educational needs of the students in their classrooms.
These programs are preparing teachers to enter an environment strongly influenced by a
variety of viewpoints and approaches to urban school reform. In this study, I synthesize the
various approaches to urban school reform into two leading perspectives: the accountability
perspective and the equity perspective. The accountability perspective is characterized by a
focus on academic rigor, high academic and behavioral expectations for all students,
standardized tests, and accountability. The equity perspective focuses on promoting equity and
social justice, multicultural education, culturally relevant and critical pedagogy, and democratic
education. These two perspectives dominate the discourse surrounding urban school
improvement and are therefore influential in urban-focused teacher preparation. However, given
the often complex and competing nature of the relationship between these perspectives, it may be
difficult to promote both accountability and equity in useful ways in the preparation of urban
teachers.

Through a document analysis of eight urban-focused teacher preparation programs and a
case study of two of these programs, I investigated in this study the manner in which the
accountability and equity perspectives are understood, presented, and received in these programs.
Furthermore, based on the data analysis, I highlighted the relationship between these two
perspectives and explored new approaches that may allow urban-focused teacher educators and
urban teachers to embrace a new vision for the relationship between accountability and equity.
I found that while both perspectives were clearly represented in these urban
teacher preparation programs, there was significant variation both within and between the
programs in the way these perspectives were presented by the program faculty and understood by
the teacher candidates. In addition, based on the concept of nepantla (Anzaldua, 2002; Gutierrez,
2008), which is a space where existing perspectives are challenged and new realities are
considered, I highlighted a new vision for the relationship between accountability and equity that
includes a critical stance, a reconceptualized view of accountability, a student-centered approach
to teaching and learning, and a social justice orientation. In addition, I described the practices of
teacher educators who are working to engage themselves and their students in the complex space
that considers how accountability and equity can be affirmed in ways that benefits urban schools
and students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I thank all of the university students, graduates, and faculty members
who agreed to meet with me, answer my questions, and share some of their story and knowledge
with me. While it is certainly the case that your involvement was essential to the completion of
this dissertation, what I learned from you extends much further than the confines of this project.
I am inspired by your commitment, dedication, and pursuit of excellence in your work with high
school students and prospective teachers.
I am also always indebted to the many students and teachers with whom I have worked
throughout the course of my teaching career. You have taught me what it means to teach and to
learn. As you have allowed me to be a part of your life, walk with you, struggle with you, and
pursue excellence and equity together, you have made me a better teacher and have inspired my
desire to ask more questions and to gain a deeper understanding of how we—as scholars,
teachers, students, families, and communities—can meet the challenges we face and celebrate
the gifts that we have received.
I cannot adequately express my thanks to the members of my guidance committee and,
especially, to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Rebecca Jacobsen. To the committee
members, I thank you for your advice and direction as I prepared for the dissertation and as you
reviewed by work. Rebecca, your encouragement, support, and guidance were invaluable to me.
Your counsel throughout this entire process was continually full of insight and wisdom. You
have contributed significantly to the success of my graduate studies, and I thank you.
Finally, I thank my family for their constant love and support. My children—Eric,
Michael, and Kassi—have been a joyful foundation in the midst of the deadlines and pressures of

iv

graduate study. Thank you for your understanding when I have been away from home or have
been unduly distracted by studies. Thank you for helping me keep my focus on what is most
important. You have taught me so much, and I am a better person because you are my kids and I
am your dad. And to Katch, my wife and best friend, thank you for your constant love and
encouragement. Thank you for sharing this experience with me. You know that I could not have
walked down this road alone. And thank you for the love of teaching and learning that flows
from you continually. As a teacher, you are an inspiration to me—as you have been to so many
others. You have modeled a desire to pursue the best for all of your students, and this in no
small way has motivated my desire to seek excellence in my work and to pursue equity and
justice for all in our schools and in society.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………………...…….. x
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………………....…. xii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………….………… 1
Two Perspectives: A Framework for Exploring Urban Teacher Preparation …………......... 3
Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………..…… 8
Dissertation Plan ………………………………………………………………………...…... 9
CHAPTER 2
PERSPECTIVES OF URBAN EDUCATION ………………………………………………… 11
Urban Education ………………………………………………………………………….... 11
Current Emphases in Urban Education …………………………………………………….. 13
Historical/Socio-Cultural Outlook …………………………………………………..…. 13
“No Excuses” Viewpoint ………………………………………………………............. 15
Multicultural Education ………………………………………………….………..…… 19
Critical Pedagogy …………………………………………………………………..….. 22
Democratic Education ………………………………………………………………..... 26
Urban Education Outlooks in Teacher Preparation ……………………………..…..…. 30
Urban Education Viewpoints in Educational Policy ……………………………..…..... 33
Accountability and Equity: Two Perspectives in Urban Teacher Preparation ……….……. 35
The Equity Perspective ……………………………………………………..……..…… 37
The Accountability Perspective ……………………………………………..……..…... 38
Accountability and Equity in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation …………..……..… 39
Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………………………………. 41
Looking Forward ……………………………………………………………………....…... 43
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODS ……...……………...……………………………………………….. 45
First Tier Analysis ………………………………………….…………………………….... 46
Sample Selection ………………………………………..……………………………... 46
Data Collection …………………………………………..………………………….…. 48
Second Tier Analysis: Case Studies ………………………….………………………….… 51
The Case Study Approach …………………………………..……………………….… 51
Case Study Selection …………………………………………..….……………….…… 52
Case Study Data ………………………………………………..….…………………… 54
Research Issues and Limitations ……………………………………..…………………….. 59

vi

CHAPTER 4
THE FIRST LOOK: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF URBAN-FOCUSED TEACHER
PREPARATION PROGRAMS …………………………………………………………...…… 63
The Programs …………………………………………………………………………….… 63
Stuart College …………………………………………………………………………... 64
Brightonsville University …………………………………………………………….… 65
Colona State University …………………………………………………………..……. 66
Barkton University ………………………………………………………………….….. 67
Treston State University ……………………………………………………………….. 68
Elia University ………………………………………………………………………..... 69
Peyton University ………………………………………………………………….…… 70
Allerton State University ……………………………………………………………..... 71
Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………….. 72
The Rhetoric of Accountability and Equity …………………………………………..... 72
The language of equity ………………………………………………………..…… 72
The language of difference …………………………………………………….. 73
Social justice ………………………………………………………………….... 75
The language of accountability ………………………………………………….…. 77
Standards and student achievement …………………………………….……… 77
Accountability ……………………………………………………………..…… 78
Institutional Differences …………………………………………………………...…… 79
Moving Forward ………………………………………………………………………...…. 81
CHAPTER 5
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PERSPECTIVE IN URBAN TEACHER PREPARATION …….. 83
The Accountability Perspective at Peyton University ………………………………...…… 84
The Teacher Educators: An Inconsistent Message ………………………………..….... 85
A weak approach to the accountability perspective ……………………………..…. 86
Pragmatic affirmation of accountability …………………………………………… 88
A critically progressive view of accountability …………………………….……… 91
Uniformity and variability in the program message …………..…………………… 93
Teacher Candidates at Peyton University: Variation and Confusion ……………..…… 95
The teacher candidates …………………………………………………………..…. 95
The received curriculum ………………………………………………………….... 96
The students’ views of accountability …………………………………………...…. 98
A critically uncertain understanding of accountability ……………………...…. 98
A strong alignment with accountability ……………………………………..…. 99
A critically progressive approach to accountability ……………………...…… 100
Variation and confusion among the teacher candidates …………………………... 101
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Accountability at Peyton University ….… 102
The Accountability Perspective at Allerton State University …………………………….. 104
The Program Message: A Unified Vision of Accountability …………………….…… 105
A weak approach to the accountability perspective ……………………………..... 105
Pragmatic affirmation of the accountability perspective …………………………. 108
A critically progressive approach to the accountability perspective ……………... 109
Focus on content knowledge and effective pedagogy …………...…………… 110
vii

A critical stance toward current accountability practices …………………….. 111
Criticism of standardized testing coupled with affirmation of its necessity ..… 112
A reconceptualized approach to accountability ………………………………. 114
A unified vision of accountability ………………………………………..…… 116
The Teacher Candidates’ Understanding of Accountability …...………………..……. 117
The teacher candidates ………………………………………………………... 117
The received curriculum …………………………………………………….... 118
The students’ views of accountability ………………………………………… 121
Weak alignment, strongly critical ………………………………………… 122
A moderate alignment …………………………………………………….. 124
Strong affirmation ……………………………………………………...…. 126
Strong affirmation, strong critique …………………………………..……. 128
Uniform message, disparate outcomes ………………………………..……… 129
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Accountability at Allerton State ……….... 130
Emerging Patterns: Two Approaches to Accountability …………………………………. 131
A Comparison of the Two Programs …………………………………………………. 131
Emerging Issues and Implications ……………………………………………….…… 134
Program coherence ……………………………………………………………..…. 134
The intertextual nature of the accountability discourse ………………………..…. 136
A new discourse of accountability? ………………………………………………. 138
Moving Forward: From Accountability to Equity ………………………………………... 139
CHAPTER 6
THE EQUITY PERSPECTIVE IN URBAN TEACHER PREPARATION ………………..... 141
The Equity Perspective at Peyton University ……………………………………..……… 141
The Teacher Educators: Agreement and Ambiguity …………………………………. 141
A weak alignment with the equity perspective ………………………………….... 142
A limited advocacy approach to equity …………………………………………... 145
An activist approach to the equity perspective ………………………………….... 149
Ambiguity in the program message …………………………………………….… 151
Teacher Candidates at Peyton University …………………………………………….. 152
The received curriculum ………………………………………………………….. 152
The teacher candidates’ views of equity ………………………………………….. 154
A limited and uncertain affirmation ………………………………………..…. 155
A strong but incomplete affirmation of equity ……………………………..… 155
A strong and integrated affirmation of equity ………………………………… 156
The teacher candidates: a wide variety of approaches to equity ………………….. 157
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Equity at Peyton University ………..…… 157
The Equity Perspective at Allerton State University ………………………………...…… 159
The Teacher Educators: A Uniform Commitment to Equity …………………………. 159
A weak approach to educational equity ……………………………………...…… 160
A limited affirmation of educational equity ………………………………………. 161
An activist approach to educational equity ……………………………………….. 162
The program message: a consistent commitment to promoting equity ………...… 166
The Teacher Candidates’ Approach to the Equity Perspective ………………………. 166
The received curriculum ………………………………………………………….. 166
viii

The teacher candidates’ views of equity ………………………………………….. 170
A weak approach to equity ……………………………………………...……. 170
A moderate affirmation of the equity perspective ………………….………… 171
A strong affirmation of the equity perspective ……………………………….. 172
The teacher candidates: a strong foundation and disparate understandings ……… 175
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Equity at Allerton State …………………. 176
Emerging Patterns: Two Approaches to Equity ……………………………………...…… 178
A Comparison of the Two Programs ……………………………………………….… 178
Emerging Themes and Implications ……………………………………………….…. 180
The language of diversity ……...………………………………………………….. 180
Disparate approaches to social justice …………………………………………..... 181
Race and class in urban-focused teacher preparation …………………………..… 183
Moving Forward ………………………………………………………..………………… 191
CHAPTER 7
LOOKING FOR NEPANTLA ……………………………………………………………….. 193
Accountability and Equity in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation …………….………... 194
Looking for Nepantla in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation …………………....……… 196
New Possibilities for Accountability and Equity …………………..………….……… 197
A critical stance that seeks new understandings ………………………………….. 198
A reconceptualized view of accountability ……………………………………….. 199
A student-centered approach to teaching and learning …………………….......…. 202
A social justice foundation …………………………………………………..……. 204
A clearly articulated vision ……………………………………………………….. 204
The Teacher Candidates: Emerging Possibilities ………………….………………..... 206
Pictures of Nepantla …………………………………..………………………………. 209
Obstacles to Nepantla ……………………………………………………………….... 213
Nepantla in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation …………………………………….. 217
Searching for Nepantla: Implications for Urban Education ……………………………… 220
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………..…. 223
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………………….. 238

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1

Historical and Socio-Cultural Outlook ……………………………..………….. 15

Table 2.2

“No Excuses” Viewpoint …………………………………………………….… 18

Table 2.3

Multicultural Education ………………………………………………….…….. 22

Table 2.4

Critical Pedagogy ………………………………………………………….…… 25

Table 2.5

Democratic Education …………………………………………………….……. 30

Table 2.6

Perspectives in Urban Education ……………………………………................. 38

Table 3.1

University Descriptions ……………………………………………………..…. 47

Table 3.2

Initial Coding Scheme ………………………………………………………..… 49

Table 3.3

Sampling Criteria for Case Study Selection ………………………………...…. 53

Table 3.4

Interview Participants by Program ……………………………………………... 54

Table 4.1

Frequency of Coded Items by University Program ………………………….… 64

Table 4.2

Stuart College: Frequency of Coded Items …………………………….………. 65

Table 4.3

Brightonsville University: Frequency of Coded Items ………………………… 66

Table 4.4

Colona State University: Frequency of Coded Items …………………..……… 67

Table 4.5

Barkton University: Frequency of Coded Items ………………………….……. 68

Table 4.6

Treston State University: Frequency of Coded Items ……………………..…… 69

Table 4.7

Elia University: Frequency of Coded Items ……………………………………. 69

Table 4.8

Peyton University: Frequency of Coded Items ………………………………… 70

Table 4.9

Allerton State University: Frequency of Coded Items …………………………. 71

Table 4.10

Institutional Differences Related to Accountability and Equity ……………….. 80

Table 5.1

Accountability at Peyton University ………………………………..…..…….. 104

x

Table 5.2

Accountability at Allerton State University ……………………………….….. 131

Table 5.3

The Accountability Perspective: A Program Comparison …………………..... 132

Table 6.1

Equity at Peyton University ………………………………………………..…. 158

Table 6.2

Equity at Allerton State University …………………………………...………. 177

Table 6.3

The Equity Perspective: A Program Comparison ………………………..…… 179

Table 7.1

The Teacher Educators’ Views of Accountability and Equity ……………….. 198

Table B.1

List of Program Documents ………………………………………...………… 226

Table D.1

Faculty interview participants from Peyton University ….…………………… 234

Table D.2

Faculty interview participants from Allerton State University …………..…… 234

Table E.1

Student interview participants from Peyton University …………………...….. 235

Table E.2

Graduate interview participants from Peyton University …………….………. 235

Table E.3

Student interview participants from Allerton State University……….………. 235

Table E.4

Graduate interview participants from Allerton State University………...……. 236

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1

Nepantla ………………………………………………………………………... 42

Figure 2.2

Accountability and Equity ………………………………………………...…… 42

xii

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Throughout its history, the United States has looked to public schooling as a means of
educating its citizens, preparing its workers, and promoting equality. Individuals have pursued
education in an effort to prepare themselves for their vocational future and as a pathway to
increased opportunity and prosperity (Labaree, 1997; Mann, 1842). While in reality our nation’s
schools have failed to live up to these lofty ideal for many of its residents (Deschenes, Cuban, &
Tyack, 2001; Greer, 1972; Spring, 2004), education has repeatedly been asked to serve as the
foundation of our quest for the American dream (Hochschild & Scovrnick, 2003). At the same
time, dissatisfaction with public schooling and calls for change have been an almost continual
reality throughout the history of American education (Cardinal Principles of Secondary
Education, 1918; Lynd, 1950; A Nation at Risk, 1983; Report of the Committee of Ten, 1893;
Sizer, 1984).
Today our nation continues to look to education as a way of growing the economy,
fighting poverty, and increasing opportunity for all citizens. However, reports of failing schools,
the achievement gap, low standardized test scores, and a high drop-out rate have led to new and
intense calls for reform. These concerns about a crisis in education have focused largely on
schools located in our nation’s urban centers. “States Have More Schools Falling Behind”
(Basken, 2006), “In Sharp Rise, 47 City Schools May Close Over Performance” (Otterman,
2010), and “City Graduation Rates Fall” (Macaluso, 2010) are just a few examples of headlines
highlighting a current crisis in urban schools. The spotlight on the racial and socioeconomic
achievement gap and the alarming failure rates reported in these schools have led to the

1

emergence of a wide range of school improvement efforts, the implementation of new federal
and state educational policies, and an increased focus on urban education in our country.
There have been a multiple responses to the growing evidence of crisis and failure in
urban schools. A wide variety of strategies, models, and changes have been proposed. Recent
school efforts have focused on new models of leadership, teacher quality, school structure, and
curriculum and instruction (Ferguson, Hackman, Hanna, & Ballantine, 2010; Lee & Smith, 2001;
Newmann, 1996; Resnick & Glennan, 2002). Furthermore, accounts of high performing schools
in high poverty communities (Carter, 2001; Jacobs, 2005; Levine, 2002; Meier, 1995; Monroe,
1997; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003; Toch, 2003; Wood, 1999) and of inspirational teachers
(Esquith, 2007; Freedom Writers & Gruwell, 1999; Schultz, 2008) have garnered considerable
attention as possible models for school improvement efforts. Many educators and scholars have
also championed the need for an increased emphasis on social justice, multicultural education,
and equity as the foundation of efforts to improve public schools (Ayers, Kumashiro, Meiner,
Quinn & Stovall, 2010; Chapman & Hobbel, 2010; Gutierrez, 2009; Nieto, 2004; Sleeter, 2005;
Valenzuela, 1999).
In addition, increased attention has been given to the manner in which teachers are
prepared for work in urban schools. Many colleges and universities, in particular those located
in or near large cities, have established urban-focused teacher preparation programs. These
programs recognize the unique challenges of urban communities and schools and seek to provide
teacher candidates with the knowledge, skills, and dispositions necessary to succeed as urban
educators. Such programs also respond to concerns about the large number of unqualified
teachers in urban schools (Zeichner, 2003) and the growing cultural divide between students and

2

teachers (Sleeter, 2001; Zeichner, 2003). Preparation for work in urban schools, then, has
surfaced as a salient issue in teacher education and is the focus of this research study.
The work of urban-focused teacher preparation programs is complicated, however, in
multiple ways. Teacher education is influenced by local, institutional, and policy contexts
(Grossman & McDonald, 2008) and therefore must contend with or may be constrained by
demands from local school districts, regulations and limitations inherent in the university setting,
and state and federal education policies which impact the teaching profession. Furthermore, the
lack of agreement about how we should measure and define success in schools, the
characteristics of quality curriculum and instruction, and who or what is to blame for poor
academic achievement contributes to a lack of consistency and coherence in the field of urban
teacher education.
These disagreements about core educational issues also result in a variety of approaches
to urban education. The presence of these disparate and at times contradictory views
complicates the landscape and adds to the complexity of the task facing both urban teachers and
teacher educators. While there are clearly a variety of viewpoints and practices at work in the
field of urban education, two perspectives emerge as the dominant discourses and provide the
foundation for this research project.
Two Perspectives: A Framework for Exploring Urban Teacher Preparation
Urban education discourses may come from multiple sources and incorporate a variety of
characteristics. Currently, the public and policy discourse surrounding urban education is
dominated by a focus on standards and accountability. This emphasis is reflected most clearly in
recent federal education policies that have focused on the development of a clearly defined set of
standards for teaching and content, the use of standardized assessments to measure student

3

achievement, and the use of these assessments as the basis for the evaluation of teachers and
schools (for example: America 2000, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top). It
is also evident in the practices of schools that stress the importance of rigorous academic
standards for all students and accountability based on standardized tests (Carter, 2001;
Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003; Whitman, 2008). It is affirmed in many well known charter
schools—including KIPP, Achievement First, and the Harlem Promise Academy—and many of
its characteristics are celebrated in the recent documentary, Waiting for Superman (Guggenheim
& Kimball, 2010).
A second perspective that is frequently advocated by some urban education scholars and
educators focuses on the need to pursue equity and social justice in our schools and society.
Advocates of this perspective promote multicultural education, democratic equality, and social
justice as necessary components of public education (Apple & Beane, 2007; Ayers, et al., 2010;
Chapman & Hobbel, 2010; Nieto, 2004; Sleeter, 2005; Valenzuela, 1999). Furthermore, they
advance a critical stance toward existing inequities and stress the role of teachers as agents of
change in our society (Giroux & McLaren, 1996; Ladson-Billings, 1995; McLaren, 2003; Sleeter
& Grant, 2003). They assert that unless our educational system recognizes the inequalities
inherent in our schools and works to affirm and promote the full and equitable participation of all
students, large gaps in achievement will persist and there will continue to be large groups of
failing schools and students.
The relationship between these two perspectives and the manner in which they are
enacted in urban-focused teacher preparation programs provide the foundation for this research
project. I call the first perspective, highlighted by its focus on standards and accountability, the

4

accountability perspective. The second, characterized by an emphasis on equity and social
justice, I label as the equity perspective.
These two perspectives, which I outline in more detail in the following chapter, have a
significant impact on current practice in urban schools for several key reasons. First, despite the
objections of many leading urban education scholars and teachers (Au, 2010; Kumashiro, 2009;
Noddings, 2007; Ravitch, 2010), local, state, and federal mandates have made the accountability
perspective a reality in urban classrooms and schools. Teachers and schools need to understand
the associated policies, recognize its impact on the manner in which they are being evaluated and
on the public perception of their work, and be prepared to teach in an environment greatly
influenced by values of this perspective. Second, the current discussion in urban education is
focused on the achievement gap and the significant challenges facing urban schools. Both an
emphasis on accountability and a focus on equity are being touted as solutions to the current
crisis and as necessary to the reduction or elimination of the achievement gap. Given the current
importance of these two perspectives on teaching and learning, therefore, it would be expected
that they occupy a central place in the preparation of teachers for work in urban schools.
Consequently, understanding whether or not this is indeed the case, the extent to which they are
represented, and the relationship between the two perspectives is an important question in the
field of in urban-focused teacher preparation.
It is necessary, however, to acknowledge that describing these two perspectives brings a
certain amount of complexity. First of all, it would be incorrect to assume that these two stances
are mutually exclusive. Those who affirm the importance of standards and accountability may
also believe strongly in promoting social justice and working to reduce inequities in our schools.
Advocates of multicultural education and social justice, moreover, may strongly affirm the

5

necessity of a rigorous academic curriculum and holding high expectations for students. While
some might disagree, others would argue that these two perspectives are able to work together.
Second, discussion of these perspectives relies on language that exists in context. For
some teachers, talk of standards and accountability immediately brings to mind policies or
regulations that they feel have a negative impact on teachers and on classroom learning. Talk of
accountability is often negatively associated with “teaching to the test,” merit pay, and teacher
evaluation. In a similar manner, the promotion of social justice or equity is at times equated with
a liberal agenda that devalues academic achievement and offers excuses rather than solutions for
challenges facing urban schools. Study of these issues and their impact on urban education
requires, then, careful attention to the language of accountability and equity.
Although the relationship between these two perspectives is not always clear, it is certain
that there are points of dissonance between them. For example, the focus on using standardized
tests to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable is at odds with those who seek to
promote equitable testing practices through the use of alternative assessments to measure student
achievement and with those who consider existing conceptions of knowledge and achievement as
barriers to true equity. Ladson-Billings (1992), for example, argued that culturally relevant
teaching is in contrast with “an assimilationist approach” that “sees fitting students into the
existing social and economic order as its primary responsibility” and that does not challenge the
way society privileges some groups of people at the expense of others (p. 314).
Furthermore, an analysis of several program descriptions and a survey of urban-focused
teacher educators have suggested that the promotion of democratic values, multicultural
education, and critical pedagogy is valued more highly than an emphasis on standards and
accountability (Walcott, 2011). A recent study of teacher education programs entitled Cracks in

6

the Ivory Tower (Farkas & Duffett, 2010) while not focusing exclusively on urban-focused
teacher preparation, gave evidence of a similar tension. The report suggested that teacher
educators are more concerned with preparing teachers to be change agents in society than to be
able to confront the reality of today’s public schools. Likewise, although a focus on standards
and accountability is the current reality of public education in our nation, only 24% of teacher
educators considered that supporting teachers in this role was essential to their task (Farkas &
Duffett, 2010). This apparent tension between the values of teacher educators and the current
reality of our schools supports the warning sounded by Lois Weiner (1993) when she wrote,
“When colleges of education prepare teachers to be change agents who transmit the values and
ideals of the teacher educators, the institutions neglect the more difficult task of reconciling the
frequently contradictory demands made on education by community, teachers, parents, and
students” (pp. 102-103).
The relationship between the accountability and equity perspectives—and the potential
tension between the two—clearly has important implications for the preparation of teachers for
work in urban schools. Is it possible for teacher education programs to promote a vision of
teaching that acknowledges and promotes both of these perspectives? Or, is it more likely that
one perspective will be favored against the other? Given this uncertainty about the relationship
between accountability and equity and the important place they occupy in contemporary urban
education, it is crucial to better understand the way these two perspectives are represented in
urban-focused teacher preparation programs and how our nation’s future urban teachers, the
participants in those programs, understand the message they are receiving.

7

Research Questions
Investigating the relationship between the accountability and equity perspectives and how
they are treated in urban-focused teacher preparation programs serves as the foundation for this
research project. The purpose of the study is to determine whether and how teacher educators
and teacher candidates in urban-focused teacher preparation programs perceive and treat issues
of accountability and equity. The research questions that guide the study are as follows:


Do teacher candidates encounter both the accountability and equity perspectives in their
teacher education program? If so, where and to what extent?



What messages about these two perspectives do teacher educators intend to give to the
teacher candidates with whom they work? Are these perspectives evident in the way
teacher educators’ talk about educational concepts and practices such as students,
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and the purpose of schooling?



What messages about these two perspectives are being received and understood by the
teacher candidates?
Teachers in urban schools clearly work in contested terrain, and the challenges they and

their students face are many. In addition, there are diverse and at times conflicting views of how
to approach these challenges. Moreover, the demand placed on teacher preparation programs to
equip teachers for work in urban schools is great, while the public cry for improvement in our
schools and the demands mandated through policy are increasing. It is important, therefore, to
understand how current conceptions of accountability and equity along with the potential conflict
between the two may impact the preparation of those in charge of educating urban youth.

8

Dissertation Plan
Although I have briefly described the accountability and equity perspectives in this
introduction, it is necessary to provide a more detailed discussion of this framework. Therefore,
in Chapter 2 I summarize the literature related to various approaches to urban education in order
to give a more complete understanding of the accountability and equity perspectives and their
foundations. In addition, I present a theoretical framework that is useful in discussing the
relationship between these perspectives and that serves as a guide for the analysis and discussion
that follows.
In Chapter 3, then, I explain the research methods employed in this study. I describe the
two levels of data collection—a content analysis of program documents from eight urbanfocused teacher preparation programs and a case study of two of these programs—and the
manner in which the study data was analyzed.
In Chapter 4, I summarize the data gathered from the program documents from the
various institutions. This data demonstrate the existence of the accountability and equity
perspectives in these programs and provide a clearer understanding of how the two perspectives
are valued and treated at each university. It also provides a foundation which informs the case
study analysis that follows.
The summary of the case study data is divided into two sections. In Chapter 5, I
summarize and discuss data gathered from program participants—faculty member and teacher
candidates—with regards to the accountability perspective. In Chapter 6, I focus on the equity
perspective and its place in the two case study institutions. These chapters provide a more
complete picture of the way the two perspectives are presented and understood through the
teacher preparation programs at these institutions.

9

Finally, I conclude with an extensive discussion of important questions raised by this
study, its contribution to our understanding of urban-focused teacher preparation in particular
and also urban education in general, and the implications for the field of urban education.

10

CHAPTER TWO
PERSPECTIVES OF URBAN EDUCATION

There is almost universal agreement that there is currently a crisis in urban education.
Kincheloe, hayes, Rose, and Anderson (2006) began their handbook of urban education by
stating, “One of the most compelling concerns of our era is the question of what to do about the
neglect of our urban schools” (p. xi). They noted that close to one-third of the students in our
country attend just 1.5% of the nation’s school districts, and they highlighted the challenges of
teacher shortages, lack of funding, poverty, and failing schools.
Fueled in great measure by the language of the No Child Left Behind legislation, recent
attention on the racial and economic achievement gap has heightened our nation’s awareness of
the academic challenges facing urban schools. This spotlight on poor test scores and high dropout rates in urban schools has been accompanied by a renewed interest in raising student
achievement and bringing about meaningful reform in these schools. These efforts at school
improvement reflect a variety of opinions about urban education and disparate approaches to
meeting the challenges. In this chapter, I present a summary of the literature about urban
education and argue that the multiple viewpoints evident in the literature can be synthesized into
two primary perspectives, accountability and equity, which serve as the foundation of this study.
Before turning to the literature review, however, I begin by clarifying what urban education
means and how it is commonly perceived in the current discourse.
Urban Education
While the word urban can be used in a variety of ways and contexts, when speaking of
education this term has been used in an increasingly uniform fashion in recent years. In
introducing the topic of urban education in 1974, David Tyack defined urban in contrast to
11

village as a way to describe “the highly complex changes in ways of thinking and behaving that
accompanied revolutions in technology, increasing concentrations of people in cities, and
restructuring of economic and political institutions into large bureaucracies” (p. 5). Recently,
however, when describing students, urban has become code for poor and minority (Weiner,
2006) and “a signifier for poverty, nonwhite violence, narcotics, bad neighborhoods, an absence
of family values, crumbling housing, and failing schools” (Kincheloe, et al., 2006). Weiner
(2006) noted, however, that cities “have always had the greatest concentrations of poor,
immigrant students of children described at different times in the nation’s history as ‘culturally
deprived,’ ‘disadvantaged,’ or ‘at risk’” (p. 16). Urban teaching is unique, argued Weiner, not
only because of the need to educate an extremely diverse student population, but also because of
organizational and structural factors and persistent scarcity of funding that characterize urban
schools.
Current discussions of urban education, then, focus most frequently on deficits and
challenges. Urban schools are those which are located in low-incomes areas of high population
density and serve large percentages of students of color who traditionally have been
marginalized and underserved. Furthermore, these schools are associated with poor academic
achievement and low graduation rates. The challenges faced by these schools and the ubiquitous
reports of failure have spawned a field of inquiry focused on urban education and efforts at urban
school improvement.
While I hope that my work contributes to a conception of urban education that includes
both an understanding of the unique and serious challenges that currently exist and an awareness
and celebration of the complexity, diversity, strengths, assets, and beauty inherent in urban
communities and schools, in this dissertation I use the term urban in the manner in which it is

12

commonly used today as a means to describe locations in large cities, generally characterized by
high-density population, high poverty rates, and a large percentage of residents who are people
of color. Urban education, then, describes both the realities faced by schools and students in
urban communities and an approach to teaching and learning that acknowledges those realities.
Current Emphases in Urban Education
Based on a review of the urban education literature, I highlight here five current
approaches or areas of emphasis in the effort to improve the quality of urban schools. Although
each may be reflected in specific school practices, these areas of emphasis are not specific
strategies or methods. Instead, they refer to fundamental outlooks, or points of view, about
urban education that influence the approach taken to urban schooling as well as decisions related
to school practice. The five are: (a) historical and socio-cultural, (b) “no excuses,” (c)
multicultural, (d) critical, and (e) democratic. The goal, here, is to present an overview of each
area of emphasis as a background to the conceptual framework for this research study.
Historical/Socio-Cultural Outlook
Many who are seeking to improve urban schools and work to increase student
achievement among traditionally underserved populations emphasize the need to understand the
origins of the current crisis as a foundation for current reform efforts. They rely on an
understanding of history to provide the necessary context to contemporary reality and to inform
efforts at improvement and innovation, thus avoiding the “ahistorical character” of many past
educational reform efforts (Tyack & Cuban, 1995, p. 6).
Attention to the history of education refutes, first of all, the image of a golden age of
education in which all children, including low income, immigrant, and ethnic minority students,
received a quality education, succeeded in school, and were prepared to take hold of the

13

American Dream. In reality, there have always been large numbers of failing students and these
have been disproportionately students of color and low-income students (Deschenes, Cuban, &
Tyack, 2001; Greer, 1972).
A historical viewpoint also focuses on the way past actions have influenced the current
condition of urban schools and communities. It points to industrialization, racial discrimination,
residential segregation, unequal access to education, unjust laws and policies, and economic
instability that have created the depressed conditions that plague many urban communities and
schools today (Anyon, 2005; Kozol, 1995, 2005; Mirel, 1999; Neckerman, 2007; Sugrue, 2005).
A focus on history also suggests a particular understanding of the achievement gap, a
topic that dominates the current discourse about the difficulties facing urban schools. LadsonBillings (2007), drawing on the lessons of history, denounced the deficit language that the
achievement gap focus promotes and argued that any examination of gaps in student
achievement must be accompanied by a thorough understanding of the gaps in educational
funding, income, health, and wealth that have existed throughout our nation’s history and
continue to impact the lives and educational experiences of many children.. She argued that a
proper understanding of our nation’s “education debt” holds us all accountable and “reminds us
that we have accumulated this problem as a result of centuries of neglect and denial of education
to entire groups of students” (p. 321).
Those who draw on these historical lessons contribute to a socio-cultural frame of
reference that emphasizes the need for fundamental changes in our society as essential to
providing urban students with equitable opportunities in school. They argue that although there
will always be a need to search out the best ways to teach all children, the reality is that unless
our society seeks to remedy the problems caused by poverty, inadequate housing, poor health

14

care, unemployment, and other societal ills, efforts at educational reform will fall short (Anyon,
2005; Noguera, 2003; Rothstein, 2004).
Table 2.1. Historical and Socio-Cultural Outlook
Key Ideas

Importance of considering historical and sociocultural context of schooling in search for solutions
to current educational challenges

Purpose of
Schooling

Not addressed

View of Curriculum

Not addressed

Role of Teacher

Not addressed

Primary cause for
student failure

Historical injustices and current societal inequities

“No Excuses” Viewpoint
In recent years, several schools have been recognized for their success in raising student
achievement in schools located in high-poverty, urban communities. These schools champion a
“no excuses” approach to the challenges confronted by their students. This point of view is
characterized by rigorous academic standards for all students, a positive view toward
standardization and accountability, and a focus on creating a school culture that promotes
learning and prepares students for success in society. Descriptions of these schools have
highlighted their “no excuses” approach to education, their success at raising student
achievement and graduation rates, and what Whitman (2008) has described as their
1

“paternalistic” mindset dedicated to establishing an orderly school culture that prizes
1

Although many of these schools might object to the negative connotations associated with
paternalism, David Whitman (2008), in his book Sweating the Small Stuff: Inner-City Schools
and the New Paternalism, advanced a positive view of the paternalistic nature of these schools
and argued that this approach is at the heart of their success in raising student achievement in
urban schools.
15

achievement and traditional middle-class values (Carter, 2001; Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003;
Whitman, 2008). Charter schools associated with the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) or
Achievement First are among the better-known of these schools, but “no excuses” schools exist
around the country and include public, private, and charter schools.
The strong focus on academic skills is demonstrated by a rigorous, college-prep
curriculum for all students. Students are not tracked; there are no vocational education or noncollege-bound programs available to students. The emphasis is on the acquisition of skills and
knowledge. Samuel Carter (2001), in his book celebrating the successes of 21 “high-performing,
high-poverty” schools, noted that the principals of these schools “reject whole language, whole
math, developmentally-appropriate education, and other teacher theories that deemphasize the
acquisition of skills” (p. 5). The schools that share this emphasis make abundantly clear the
expectations that students will work hard, pay attention at all times, complete their homework,
and not waste time (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). Frequent testing ensures that students are
making progress toward their academic goals. The push for academic achievement is often
supported by an increase in instructional time in many of the schools. School days are longer,
and days are often added to the school year through an extended calendar, Saturday school, or
summer school.
Advocates of the “no excuses” approach embrace the focus on standards and
accountability (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003; Whitman, 2008). The use of standardized tests
along with other forms of classroom or school-wide assessment is a central part of efforts to
promote student achievement. Success is measured by performance on these tests, and students
who do not pass the requisite examinations are not promoted to the next grade. This type of
emphasis was demonstrated recently in The New York Times article reporting the success of

16

Public School 172 in Brooklyn on recent state standardized tests. “’Teach, assess, teach, assess’
was the way the principal described the school’s approach, and a parent was quoted as saying,
‘Here, they practice the test so much, it doesn’t faze them anymore’” (Otterman, 2010).
These schools highlight their commitment to closing the existing achievement gap in
standardized test scores. The Achievement First network of schools states clearly that closing
the achievement gap is the mission of their school. The seriousness with which they take this
challenge is evident in the following statement that appears on their website:
“Closing the achievement gap is the civil rights issue of our time. Despite the
promise of equal educational opportunity, the United States education system has
largely failed to provide low-income and minority children access to the highquality education they need to compete on a level playing field with their white,
affluent peers” (Achievement First, 2012).
Schools that promote the “no excuses” approach also work to establish a culture that is
inviting, disciplined, and promotes learning. Teachers work to foster positive relationships with
their students and create an atmosphere in which students enjoy being in school. An
Achievement First school describes its culture as “‘warm demanding’ . . . where respect,
teamwork and hard work are the platinum standard” (Achievement First, 2012). The schools
strive to instill values and dispositions which are considered essential for the future success of
their students. “Teachers work hard to instill the desire, discipline, and dedication—the will to
succeed—that will enable disadvantaged youth to climb the American ladder of opportunity”
(Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003, p. 4). The goal is to help students reject the culture of the
street and instead embrace traditional, middle-class values, including a strong work ethic,
diligence, politeness, and respect (Whitman, 2008). The schools demonstrate strong faith in the
impact of diligence and effort on student achievement. Students receive the message that their

17

hard work, extra time at school, and laser-like focus on student achievement will reap rewards
through raised test scores, better grades, and access to higher education.
Clear behavioral expectations help instill these values and disposition in students. Many
“no excuses” schools have uniforms or a strict dress code. Students are taught to arrive at school
on time, speak politely to adults, and follow a clear code of conduct. An orderly learning
atmosphere is expected; rules for behavior are clear, and there is zero tolerance toward
infractions of school rules (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 2003). Whitman (2008) noted the highly
prescriptive nature of the schools, as they teach students how to think and act. He stated,
“Students are required to talk a certain way, sit a certain way, and dress a certain way” (p. 3).
Students also receive rewards for compliance and punishment for noncompliance.
Table 2.2. “No Excuses” Viewpoint
Key Ideas
Purpose of
Schooling
View of Curriculum
Role of Teacher

Primary cause for
student failure

Rigorous academic standards
Positive view towards standards and accountability
School culture that promotes learning
Prepare students for future academic and vocational
success
Raise student achievement
Rigorous academic standards for all
Preparation for standardized tests
Establish learning climate
Teach basic academic skills
Prepare students for success on standardized tests
Knowledge deficits
Lack of effort
Culture of failure
Ineffective teaching

In summary, the “no excuses” approach views urban education as a space where students
have many needs and significant obstacles. It does not explicitly address the causes of the
challenges facing urban schools but views the solutions as being situated in the hands of the
school and students. It exhibits great faith in the ability of teachers and students—with the right
18

effort and support—to overcome the difficult circumstances students encounter. The school’s
responsibility is to provide students with the core knowledge, attitudes, and values needed to
succeed in school and in life and to hold teachers and students accountable to clearly articulated
standards. Students and teachers are expected to dedicate themselves, through effort and
perseverance, to reach these high standards.
Multicultural Education
A focus on multicultural education in our country has emerged in response to the
increased diversity in our schools and the persistent disparities that have existed in educational
achievement between white students and students of color (Hollins & Torres Guzman, 2005). In
urban schools, the culturally diverse student population and the growing number of English
Language Learners has led to increased attention to the need for education that recognizes the
multicultural nature of both school and society and works to meet the needs of a diverse student
population.
At its core, multicultural education demands “the awareness, acceptance, and affirmation
of cultural and ethnic differences” (Grant, 1995, p. 4). Grant (1978) argued that an appreciation
of diversity and of the right of all individuals to reach their full potential is one of the backbones
of American democracy; therefore multicultural education needs to be a part of public schooling
in general, and is especially needed in urban schools. Schools should work, therefore, to teach
students about a variety of cultures, to affirm and appreciate their beauty and strengths, to reduce
stereotypes, and to create positive feelings among students while acknowledging and respecting
individual differences (Sleeter & Grant, 2003).
Multicultural education, however, moves beyond an appreciation for diverse cultures to
the goal of helping culturally and linguistically diverse students learn more and be better

19

prepared for life in American society. Teachers need to understand cultural and linguistic
difference so that they can provide the support necessary to help all students reach high levels of
achievement. Hollins and Spencer (1990) asserted that education should be characterized by
cultural inclusion: the culture of each learner needs to be incorporated “into the academic and
social context of schooling in ways that facilitate and support academic learning and cultural
identity and promote personal, human, and social development” (p. 90). This involves creating
an atmosphere that affirms and includes all groups, uses culturally appropriate pedagogical
practices, and aligns the school curriculum to meet these goals.
Curriculum and instruction, therefore, should be culturally responsive (Gay, 2000) and
culturally relevant (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Schools should use curricula and teaching materials
that reflect the cultural diversity in our nation and that enable students to learn from a variety of
perspectives. Students should be able to learn and succeed in school without having to sacrifice
their cultural integrity. Cultural competence should be considered an essential component of
academic success, and all students—including those who are culturally or linguistically different
than the mainstream—should be a “part of a mutually supported group of high achievers . . .”
(Gay, 2000, p. 31).
Advocates of multicultural education assert, therefore, that a multicultural emphasis is a
part of the basics. It must pervade all of schooling and be valued as a part of the core knowledge
that all students need to be successful in school and life. The essential nature of multicultural
education affirms the contribution of all cultures to our knowledge and values and contrasts with
the view that “the basics have in effect already been defined, and knowledge is inevitably
European, male, and upper class in origin and conception” (Nieto, 2004, p. 351). For this reason,
Grant (1978) feared that the term multicultural education portrayed multicultural as an add-on,

20

an adjective used to describe the external aspects of education without changing the basic nature
of school in our diverse society. He preferred, therefore, to talk about education that is
multicultural rather than multicultural education.
Sleeter and Grant (2003) have provided a summary of the five main goals of multicultural
education. They are to promote: (a) the strength and value of cultural diversity, (b) human rights
and the respect of differences, (c) alternative life choices, (d) social justice and equal
opportunity, and (e) equity in the distribution of power among groups. They also argued that
truly multicultural education will challenge the cultural deficiency orientation which is prevalent
in schools and allow students to maintain their own cultural identity (Sleeter & Grant, 1987). In
a similar vein, Nieto (2004) discussed multicultural education by highlighting seven
characteristics. These are: (a) antiracist/antidiscriminatory, (b) basic, (c) pervasive, (d) important
for all students, (e) education for social justice, (f) process, and (g) critical pedagogy.
References to equity, social justice, and critical pedagogy as essential aspects of
multicultural education (Nieto, 2004; Sleeter & Grant, 2003) reflect an approach that has been
called critical multiculturalism (Sleeter & Bernal, 2004), which emphasizes the need to promote
social justice and work to bring change to society. Students, therefore, should not only learn to
recognize and understand societal inequity; they also must engage in a critique of the current
reality and become active in confronting issues of power and privilege and in seeking societal
transformation and social justice (Au, 2009; Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Nieto, 2004).
Sleeter and Grant (2003) described this approach as “education that is multicultural and social
reconstructionist.” It begins with a critical view of conditions in contemporary society and of the
role of schools and other social institutions in reproducing inequity. Furthermore, this
perspective recognizes that altering beliefs and attitudes through education will not be sufficient;

21

it is necessary to transform society if we truly desire to confront injustice and change the beliefs
and behaviors of individuals.
Those that advocate for multicultural education, then, acknowledge the significant
challenges that face urban schools and their students. They point to the historical unwillingness
of schools to adjust to the needs of culturally diverse students and to confront inequities in
schools and society. Schools, they argue, have not affirmed diversity nor worked to provide all
students with experiences that enable to them succeed while maintaining their identity and
cultural integrity. This emphasis highlights the value and contributions of all students and
cultures while acknowledging the need to address difficulties many students may have in
attaining a high level of academic achievement and the duty to confront injustice in society.
Table 2.3. Multicultural Education
Key Ideas
Purpose of
Schooling
View of Curriculum
Role of Teacher
Primary cause for
student failure

Affirm and promote diversity
Confront social inequity
Help all students succeed in school and life
Promote diversity
Affirm all cultures
Promote inclusion
Use of culturally appropriate pedagogy
Promote appreciation for cultural diversity
Meet the needs of diverse learners
Lack of culturally appropriate curriculum and
instruction
Failure to meet needs of diverse students

Critical Pedagogy
As noted above, critical multiculturalism reflects an emphasis on critical pedagogy,
which in turn finds its roots in critical theory. Critical theorists begin with a critique of modern
society and its institutions, values, and assumptions and argue that issues of power and privilege
influence societal relationships, views of knowledge, and institutions in such a way that members
of the dominant class are privileged while others are oppressed and denied the opportunity to
22

reach their full potential. Schools, one of the most important social institutions, work to
reproduce social inequality and preserve the status quo as their structures, curriculum, and
practice serve to legitimate the knowledge and privilege of the dominant class (Aronowitz &
Giroux, 1985; Bourdieu, 1973, 1984; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2003).
Critical pedagogy seeks to confront these injustices in school and society. It asserts that
school knowledge is socially constructed, ordered in particular ways, and “deeply rooted in a
nexus of power relations” (McLaren, 2003, p. 72). It explores why and how knowledge gets
constructed and why and how some forms of knowledge are legitimated by dominant culture and
others are not. It views specific belief claims as parts of systems of beliefs and action that
impact societal power structures (Burbules & Berk, 1999). It recognizes, therefore, the necessity
of exploring the political, economic, and cultural significance of the meaning that schools
produce (Giroux & Simon, 1989).
Critical pedagogy rejects the banking concept of education (Freire, 1970) in which the
goal is to deposit into children the knowledge and skills that are privileged in society. Instead, it
calls on schools and teachers to develop students who are able to understand and critique modern
society and who are able to engage in social action aimed at the transformation of society
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teaching should not only be sensitive to the needs and culture of all
students and validate their identity, it should also work to empower students to be better human
beings and more successful learners, to transform students by confronting the hegemony inherent
in traditional educational practices and equipping them to combat oppression, and to liberate
them from the constraints of limited forms of knowledge and thinking (Ball, 2000; Gay, 2000)
There are several important characteristics of a truly critical pedagogy. First, it is critical.
It exposes the injustices inherent in society and confronts instances of oppression. Freire (1970)

23

argued that the oppressed must become convinced of their need for liberation through their own
conscientizacao, or critical consciousness, which is “learning to perceive social, political, and
economic contradictions, and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality” (p. 19).
Students need to understand explicitly the way in which power relations impact life in school and
society both to confront injustice and to be able to acquire power for themselves (Delpit, 1988).
Second, critical pedagogy is problem-posing. It takes as its starting point the real-life
problems facing the students in the classroom and the broader society. It leads fifth graders in
Chicago to make their concern with their own decaying school building the foundation of their
curriculum (Schultz, 2008), high school students to use mathematics to understand issues like
racial profiling and the impact of sweatshops on both the global economy and on the individuals
who work in them (Gutstein & Peterson, 2006), and a secondary social studies class to use hiphop to explore social inequality (Stovall, 2006).
Third, it embraces traditions, histories, and knowledge that are typically ignored in school
(Giroux & McLaren, 1996). It recognizes the limiting nature of the canon of knowledge that is
often associated with school curriculum. Students need to be exposed not only to academic
content—literature, history, mathematics—from diverse cultures but also to alternative ways of
thinking and understanding the world.
Fourth, critical pedagogy is built on dialogue. Teachers do not see their main role as to
deliver knowledge or tell students how to think; rather, they engage with their students in
learning. It is a pedagogy that is with, rather than for, the oppressed (Freire, 1970). This is the
only way that the pedagogy can realize its final goal: the liberation and transformation of both
the participants and society. Critical pedagogy calls teachers and students to action.

24

An understanding of the way language works in school and society is also a crucial
component of critical pedagogy. Giroux and McLaren (1996) explained that language functions
to position people in the world and is therefore implicated in power relations. For example,
many teachers view language diversity as a problem rather than an asset (Nieto, 2009) or believe
that the language spoken by many African-American students is evidence of a cognitive
deficiency (Delpit, 2002). When a child’s home language is viewed as deficient, this impacts the
behavior of the teacher and also increases the likelihood the child will reject school and
everything it has offer. Critical pedagogy, therefore, emphasizes the need for teachers to
understand the strengths of their students and make school an inviting place for them to learn
(Delpit, 2002; Hilliard, 2002). To accomplish this, teachers need to understand the disparity
between the school setting and the cultural lives of many urban students (Delpit, 2002). There is
often little in school that connects to the cultural lives or personal interests of many students.
This disconnect contributes to the potentially negative attitudes urban students have toward
school and their chances for success (Carter, 2005; Ogbu & Simon, 1998).
Table 2.4. Critical Pedagogy
Key Ideas
Purpose of
Schooling
View of Curriculum

Role of Teacher
Primary cause for
student failure

Schools as sites of social reproduction
Need to confront social injustice and inequity
Critique and confront existing social inequities
Knowledge as constructed
Primacy of critical thinking and reflection
Equip students to recognize and confront social
inequities
Empower all students to be successful in school and
society
Social inequities
Hegemonic nature of school knowledge and practice

Critical pedagogy places the blame for high failure rates in urban schools at the feet of
society. It desires to hold students accountable for high standards of achievement but asserts that
25

educational inequality will continue unless societal injustices are confronted. Locating the
problem outside of school, it challenges the perspective that there is core canon of knowledge
and skills which must be mastered by all students and that low student achievement is primarily
the result of lack of effort, bad parenting, and poor teaching. Critical pedagogy affirms the
strengths and culture of all students and invites them to be co-constructors of knowledge and to
join in the struggle against oppression and for equity and justice.
Democratic Education
Although the term democratic is commonly used to describe education’s role in
promoting democracy and teaching the democratic principles of our nation, the designation is
used here to describe an approach to education that emphasizes the participation of all members
of the school community; a school culture that focuses on trust, decency, and positive
relationships; a curriculum that is student-centered and focuses on real-life problems and relevant
learning experiences; the use of alternative assessments; and a focus on promoting equity and
democracy in both schools and society. In the past 20 years accounts of schools and teachers
that value and practice these characteristics have emerged with the goal of inspiring more
teachers to implement these practices in order to combat the challenges confronting urban
students today (see for example Apple & Beane, 2007; Benitez, Davidson & Flaxman, 2009;
Levine, 2002; Meier, 1995; Schultz, 2008; Toch, 2003; Wood, 1992).
Democratic education is founded on the ideal that every human being is uniquely gifted,
of immeasurable value, and worthy of dignity and respect. Furthermore, its basic proposition is
that “the fullest development of all human beings is the necessary condition for the full
development of each person” (Ayers, et al, 2010, p. 34). As articulated by Dewey (1916),
democracy here functions as a mode of associated living rather than as a means of government.

26

Democratic schools, then, reflect this emphasis on community, interaction, shared interests,
equity, and justice (Beyer & Liston, 1996)
In schools, democratic education starts with a desire to build a learning environment that
involves and depends on all members of the school community: teachers, administrators, parents,
community members, and students. Parental involvement goes far beyond attending parentteacher conferences and special events. Parents are included in the life of the school and are
involved in decision-making from the very start. In some cases, regular home visits are used to
strengthen the home-school connection and foster strong relationships. Students, as well, serve
on school planning committees, are involved in establishing classroom and school norms of
conduct, and take leadership in the classroom as they present work and facilitate group
discussions.
The importance of community is reflected in the school culture as well. A “supportive,
trusting, student-centered culture unifies community members’ experience” (Benitez et al., 2009,
p. 272). Schools work to establish a climate of trust and decency in which the value and
contribution of all individuals is acknowledged and affirmed. Many schools incorporate
advisories—small groups of students who meet regularly with the same teacher—as a way to
build supportive relationships and as the primary vehicle for communication with the home.
Problems in school are viewed as learning opportunities; the focus is on helping students learn
from their mistakes. In place of traditional forms of discipline and punishment, democratic
schools are likely to incorporate restorative justice practices in which students are challenged to
grow through their mistakes and, at times, make amends to the school community. Students are
often involved with establishing norms for behavior and may also be involved in responding to
problems that arise. At Humanities Prep in New York City, individuals who violate a

27

community norm are taken to the Fairness Committee, comprised of students and teachers. The
committee discusses the situation and decides what action should be taken in response. Not all
democratic schools operate in this manner, but they do “view discipline not as a set of rules
developed by adults and imposed on young people but rather as a community-developed set of
expectations and norms that values individual students and works with them as they face their
challenges” (Benitez et al., 2009, p. 286).
Teaching and learning at democratic schools are student-centered and focused on real-life
issues that are important to students. Meier (1995) argued that the human mind is naturally
generative and that it is the school’s responsibility to help students recognize “the power of their
ideas.” The aim is to provide students with a powerful and interesting curriculum that will
inspire them to know more and that takes advantage of their natural desire to understand the
world (Benitez et al., 2009; Beyer & Liston, 1996). Levine (2002) described the academic
program at the Metropolitan Regional Career and Technical Center (the Met) in Providence,
Rhode Island. At the Met, each student, along with his or her advisor, designs an individualized
curriculum through which learning goals are met. The heart of the program is the internship,
which is based on student interests and allows students to meet learning goals through “real
world” experience. Toch (2003) shared the story of six small schools that have rejected
traditional approaches to secondary education and seek to meet the needs of their students in a
variety of innovative ways. These schools focus on creating small learning communities that
emphasize personal relationships among students and staff members. In most cases, the
classroom environment and instruction bear little resemblance to a traditional, comprehensive
high school. Students spend many hours away from school participating in internships, take

28

classes with names like “Looking for an Argument?” and “Chemical Puzzles,” and are expected
to take charge of their own learning.
In spite of the “alternative” feel of some of these schools, advocates of democratic
education insist that their desire is to build a culture that supports high achievement. The belief
that all students can meet high standards of intellectual achievement is fundamental to their
efforts. These schools engage students in serious intellectual work, however, not to prepare for
standardized tests but in order to make a difference in the world (Apple & Beane, 2007).
A common theme in many democratic schools is their rejection of standardized testing.
Au (2010) argued that the current focus on high-stakes testing is anti-democratic in that it
prohibits diversity both in content and instruction and removes the individual student and local
school context from consideration in curricular choices. In contrast, the democratic perspective
advocates for the use performance-based assessments, graduation portfolios, and student
exhibitions as the means of evaluating student work. The Coalition of Essential Schools, a
network of hundreds of schools that strive to promote democratic and student-centered
schooling, includes the following “Demonstration of Mastery” as one of its Common Principles:
Teaching and learning should be documented and assessed with tools based on
student performance of real tasks. Students not yet at appropriate levels of
competence should be provided intensive support and resources to assist them
quickly to meet those standards. Multiple forms of evidence, ranging from
ongoing observation of the learner to completion of specific projects, should be
used to better understand the learner's strengths and needs, and to plan for further
assistance. Students should have opportunities to exhibit their expertise before
family and community. The diploma should be awarded upon a successful final
demonstration of mastery for graduation - an "Exhibition." As the diploma is
awarded when earned, the school's program proceeds with no strict age grading
and with no system of credits earned" by "time spent" in class. The emphasis is on
the students' demonstration that they can do important things (Coalition of
Essential Schools, 2012).

29

Through the involvement of all members of the community, the establishment of a school
culture based on relationships and trust, student- and problem-centered learning, and the use of
alternative assessments, the fundamental desire to promote equity and democracy in and through
schools emerges from the accounts of these schools. The desire to build a democratic
community and promote egalitarian ideals, for example, drove Deborah Meier (1995) to start
Central Park East Secondary School in Harlem. Its purpose was “putting all our young people in
a position to explore and act upon the fundamental intellectual and social issues of their times”
(p. 170). Ideals like these and a desire to make meaningful, relevant, and equitable education
available to all of their students provide the foundation for schools that emphasize democratic
education.
Table 2.5. Democratic Education
Key Ideas
Purpose of
Schooling
View of Curriculum
Role of Teacher
Primary cause for
student failure

Democracy
Building community
Right of all to full participation in democratic life
Promote equity and democracy in school and society
Student-centered
Focus on real-life problems
Facilitate learning
Promote positive relationships
Curriculum and instruction that are not studentcentered
Undemocratic school environment
Lack of supportive relationships

Urban Education Outlooks in Teacher Preparation
This review of urban education literature has revealed a variety of viewpoints about
urban education and the essential characteristics of effective urban teaching. Alongside of this
work, many teacher education programs have asserted the need to provide programs specifically
designed to prepare teachers for work in urban schools. These urban-focused teacher preparation
30

programs explicitly state this as their mission and support this work through urban-focused
coursework, community involvement, and urban field placements. A review of the literature
regarding urban-focused teacher preparation programs gives an indication of which of the
approaches described above are evident in these programs. Although there is certainly a degree
of variability in the way these programs are structured and in the values and practice they
emphasize, the dominant picture that emerges from this review is of programs that affirm the
characteristics of democratic education, multicultural education, and critical pedagogy.
In the field of urban-focused teacher preparation programs, there is strong support for the
need to culturally immerse prospective teachers in the urban community (Ladson-Billings, 2000;
Sleeter, 2001). Teacher preparation is often viewed as being limited to the “artificial” domains
of the university and the field-based practicum (Solomon & Sekay, 2007), and pre-service
teachers who have only superficial contact with urban communities are likely to have negative
stereotypes of urban education environments (Solomon, Manoukian, & Clarke, 2007; ZygmuntFillwalk & Leitze, 2006). Engagement with the urban community, therefore, has been advanced
as an essential part of the learning environment for teacher candidates. The Urban Diversity
Teacher Education program at York University in Ontario, for example, seeks to deepen their
teacher candidates’ engagement in and promote collaboration with urban communities through
involvement in a community-based project that continues throughout their teacher education
program (Solomon, Manoukian, & Clark, 2007). The Buffalo Urban Teacher Corps at Houghton
College includes the study of a variety of community-based agencies in the program and servicelearning is incorporated into teacher education courses (Massey & Szente, 2007). A study of the
urban-focused teacher preparation program at Ball State demonstrated that opportunities to
interact personally with students and families in an urban setting brought about positive change

31

in the attitude of the participants toward issues of multiculturalism and “a beginning awareness
of the extent to which a teacher’s knowledge about, respect for, and appreciation of differences
could facilitate their classroom competence” (Zygmunt-Fillwalk & Leitze, 2006, p. 285). These
programs seek to move beyond a teaching practicum in an urban school to providing teacher
candidates with the opportunity to live in, work in, and be part of an urban community.
Authentic community involvement and fieldwork in urban schools is also considered to
be the foundation of helping teacher candidates understand and pay attention to the unique needs
of urban students. Many urban-focused teacher preparation programs recognize the importance
of helping their teacher candidates understand their students’ cultural and linguistic background,
their unique experiences, and the specific needs and strengths they bring to the classroom.
Teachers can make a significant contribution to the academic achievement of their students if
their preparation is grounded in multiculturalism and if they have been able to develop a
framework for interpreting the realities of students’ lives (Tidwell & Thompson, 2009; ZygmuntFillwalk & Leitze, 2006). Some scholars argue that this is necessary, in part, to confront the
notion that students of color are inferior to or are incomplete copies of white students (Delpit,
2002; Hilliard, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 2000).
Ladson-Billings (2000) focused specifically on the importance of preparing teachers for
work with African-American students. She argued that the unique experience of slavery, the
enduring ideology of White supremacy, and the repeated messages of inferiority to which
African Americans are subjected necessitate that the schooling of African-American students be
approached differently than the schooling of other students. Failure to do so ignores the unique
values of African-American students and the reality that they begin school in a place different
from their white classmates and will ultimately result in an increase in educational disparity.

32

She also asserted that teacher preparation must take place in a holistic, integrated manner, rather
than through an individual course or a specific field experience.
There is also a strong push in many circles for teacher education programs to promote
social justice and equity while taking a critical stance of the current social reality. Critical
theorists argue that urban-focused teacher preparation should prepare teachers to engage in the
struggle to transform both the school and the wider social setting (Giroux, 2009; Giroux &
McLaren, 1996; Kincheloe, 2004). Teachers need to understand the ways that schools, as well as
other social institutions, support dominant ideology (Tozer, 1985) and therefore reproduce social
inequality. Teacher candidates need to be educated, they assert, in the language of critique and
possibility, and in turn be prepared to engage their students in a critique of existing inequities
and the transformation of societies. Giroux and McLaren (1996) argued that in order for this to
take place it is necessary that future teachers be prepared as independent thinkers and
transformative intellectuals. Cultural studies should be at the heart of teacher education
programs to provide teacher candidates with the tools necessary to examine school and
classroom relations. Moreover, teacher candidates need to understand the way in which certain
types of knowledge are regularly ignored and marginalized while the knowledge of the dominant
class is privileged. It is necessary, therefore, for teachers to recognize that teaching and learning
are rooted in environments shaped by politics and the social context in which they take place
(Hilliard, 2002).
Urban Education Viewpoints in Educational Policy
While the practices and points of view at work in urban schooling reflect a substantial
amount of diversity, educational policy has been moving steadily in one direction for the past
thirty years and fits most clearly with the “no excuses” approach to education. The policy

33

discourse has been dominated by a focus on standards and accountability and by rules, laws, and
incentives that reward such a focus in the schools and punish failure to comply or to meet
established standards. This emphasis culminated in the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) in 2002, which proclaimed its intent “to close the achievement gap with accountability,
flexibility, and choice” (No Child Left Behind, 2002).
Although NCLB, passed during the administration of President George W. Bush, has
received the most attention, the roots of this legislation go back to the release of A Nation at Risk
in 1983, a report which highlighted problems within our nation’s educational system and called
for new educational standards, and are evident in the America 2000 (1991) plan of President
George H. W. Bush and the Goals 2000 (1994) initiative of the Clinton administration. Recent
proposals and policy discussions, including those of recent presidential candidates and of the
current administration, continue to focus on standards, accountability, sanctions and rewards, and
choice (Kumashiro, 2009). The policies that have been enacted as a result of this perspective
have impacted urban schools tremendously as they seek to comply with federal or state
regulations and respond to growing criticism that they are not succeeding in raising student
achievement.
It is difficult to determine if the “no excuses” approach is a reaction to federal policies or
if these policies merely reflect a way of thinking that is also advanced by those who share this
attitude toward school improvement. Nevertheless, it is clear that advocates of this approach
have embraced the recent push for standards and accountability and the beliefs that motivate this
movement.

34

Accountability and Equity: Two Perspectives in Urban Teacher Preparation
Exploring the various practices and approaches at work in the field of urban education in
detail provides a deeper understanding of the different values and areas of emphasis that may
impact urban-focused teacher preparation. This analysis also reveals both areas of overlap and
conflict among these approaches. Therefore, as introduced in Chapter 1, I utilize a framework
that synthesizes the above work into two broad perspectives so that we are able to better
understand the complex world of urban schooling and more clearly investigate the potentially
contradictory demands being placed on teacher candidates in their teacher preparation programs.
The accountability perspective and the equity perspective, therefore, emerge from the
discussion of these various areas of emphasis in urban education. In this section I summarize
areas of agreement and disagreement among these various approaches and explain in detail the
basis for the utilization of these two perspectives in this study.
First, it is important to note that, of the areas of emphasis that emerge from the literature,
a historical and socio-cultural focus plays a different role in the broader discussion of urban
education than do the other areas of emphasis. This focus provides a context which aids our
understanding of the issues faced in urban schools and works alongside of or in the background
of the other approaches, which are more clearly evidenced in various school and classroom
practices.
Second, there may be important areas of agreement among these viewpoints. For
example, there may be general agreement that all students can reach high levels of academic
achievement and that schools have the responsibility of meeting the needs of all students.
Furthermore, most proponents of these various approaches recognize the importance of
community and of fostering positive relationships among students and teachers. Therefore,

35

while there are schools that are closely aligned with one specific area of emphasis, it is probable
that most schools will incorporate practices that draw on more than one of these points of view.
For example, a school that affirms the importance of raising student achievement as measured by
standardized tests—associated with a “no excuses” approach—may also affirm principles of
democratic education in their efforts to create positive relationships between students and
teachers and to incorporate a student-centered curriculum.
There are, however, significant differences among these approaches which influence their
views of the purpose of school, the curriculum, the role of the teacher, and student failure. The
starkest disagreements rest in the various views of the purpose of school and of the cause for
student failure. The “No Excuses” approach focuses on preparing students for success in society
through raising student achievement as measured by standardized tests. While affirming the
importance of academic achievement, multicultural and democratic education focus more on
promoting diversity and equity and affirming the strengths of all cultures. Critical pedagogy, in
turn, argues that schools should focus on understanding and confronting existing social
inequities. These approaches also differ significantly in their view of the cause of student
failure. To combat failure, the “No Excuses” approach seeks to reduce knowledge deficits,
increase student and teacher effort, improve instruction through a focus on the basics, and
establish a culture that promotes learning and middle-class values. Advocates of multicultural
education point to a lack of cultural diversity in curriculum and instruction and the failure to
meet the needs of a diverse student population as the primary causes of student failure. Critical
pedagogy points to existing social inequities and school practices which privilege certain types
of knowledge as the roots of failure. Advocates of democratic education argue that curriculum

36

that is not student-centered and undemocratic and uncaring school environments lead to student
failure.
The Equity Perspective
This review of the beliefs and values associated with each viewpoint suggests that
multicultural education, democratic education, and critical pedagogy have a great deal in
common. Although each of these approaches highlights a particular area of emphasis, there are
important areas of agreement, and the values they share are much more significant than their
distinct areas of emphasis. The beliefs and values of these approaches, therefore, provide the
basis of the equity perspective. While promoting the importance of raising student achievement,
advocates of the equity perspective argue that this requires a proper understanding of and focus
on multicultural and democratic values along with a critical stance toward existing societal
inequities. They point to the frequent lack of cultural diversity in curriculum and instruction, the
failure to meet the needs of a diverse student population, and an uncritical acceptance of the
status quo as reasons for the alarming rates of student failure in schools today (see Table 2.6).
Furthermore, they question the use of standardized tests as the primary measure of student
achievement and promote acceptance of diverse funds of knowledge in place of a standardized
view that assumes consensus and privileges the canon of knowledge that is traditionally
associated with school curriculum (Giroux & McLaren, 1996; Sleeter, 2005). Finally, advocates
of the equity perspective recognize that equity is not the same as equality; rather, “it means that
all students must be given the real possibility of an equality of outcomes” (Nieto & Bode, 2012,
p. 9). Although the equity perspective generally takes a back seat to the accountability
perspective in public and policy debates, it is reflected strongly in the values and practices of

37

many urban-focused teacher educators (Walcott, 2011) and in many schools throughout the
nation (Benitez, Davidson & Flaxman, 2009; Levine, 2002; Meier, 1995; Toch, 2003).
Table 2.6. Perspectives in Urban Education
Purpose of
schooling
View of
curriculum
Role of teacher

Primary cause for
student failure

The Accountability Perspective
Raise student achievement and
prepare students for success in
society
Rigorous and common academic
standards; preparation for
standardized tests
Establish learning climate, teach
basic skills, raise student
achievement as measured by
standardized tests
Knowledge deficits, lack of
effort, culture of failure,
ineffective teaching

The Equity Perspective
Promote diversity, equity, and
democracy in school and society
Focus on culturally appropriate
pedagogy, student-centered
teaching and learning
Promote cultural diversity and
positive relationships, equip
students to confront social
inequities
Lack of cultural diversity in
curriculum and instruction, failure
to meet diverse needs of students,
societal inequities

The equity perspective reflects the values of Schubert’s (1996) experientialist and critical
reconstructionist curriculum traditions. It celebrates teaching and learning that emerge from the
experiences and interests of the students and argues that how we learn is often more important
than what we learn. In addition, it stresses the need for a critique of societal inequities and an
acknowledgement of the way social institutions, including school, work to reproduce existing
patterns of inequality. As such, this approach affirms the need for culturally relevant (LadsonBillings, 1995) or culturally responsive (Gay, 2000) teaching, with their emphasis on promoting
student achievement, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and encouraging students to critique
and confront societal inequities.
The Accountability Perspective
The accountability perspective aligns with the current policy focus on standards and
accountability and is reflected to a great extent by advocates of the “No Excuses” approach and
38

others who stress the importance of common standards for all students and accountability based
on standardized tests. Although subject to some criticism by both practitioners and educational
scholars, this perspective currently dominates both the public and policy discourse surrounding
urban education in our nation.
While it is certain that advocates of this perspective strive to meet the needs of all
children and desire to promote equality in our society, their use of standardized testing as the
primary measure of student achievement separates them from those who hold as foundational the
values of multicultural and democratic schooling. This perspective advances the belief that
providing all students with quality teaching and curriculum and holding them to high standards
will increase educational and vocational opportunities for all students and thereby reduce
inequity in society. The accountability perspective points to the lack of basic skills, insufficient
effort on the part of students or teachers, and ineffective curriculum and instruction as the causes
for student failure and seeks to remedy these by establishing common curricular standards,
focusing on the basics, promoting values that lead to success, and by holding all students,
teachers, and schools accountable to these standards (see Table 2.6).
The accountability perspective favors what Schubert (1996) has described as an
intellectual traditionalist view of curriculum, desiring to provide a liberal education for all based
on conventional views of knowledge. Although desiring to meet the needs of all learners, the
foundation of the curriculum is considered to rise above matters of student difference and the
emphasis is on holding all students accountable to the established core standards.
Accountability and Equity in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation
Urban-focused teacher preparation programs state their commitment to preparing
teachers to be successful in urban schools. As noted above, the literature around such programs

39

aligns most clearly with the equity perspective as evident by the focus on community
involvement, meeting the needs of diverse learners, and promoting social justice and critical
pedagogy. It is not clear, however, to what extent and in what manner the equity perspective is
promoted in such programs. The extent to which they prepare their teacher candidates for the
current emphasis on standards and accountability as legislated by recent policy initiatives also
remains uncertain. Furthermore, the ability of a teacher education program to successfully
promote both equity and accountability is questionable.
This uncertainty about the relationship between accountability and equity in urbanfocused teacher preparation is heightened by areas of tension between the two perspectives.
Although they may jointly affirm the need to raise student achievement, meet the needs of all
students, and reduce educational inequality, fundamental differences in their views on
standardized testing, the purpose of school, curriculum, and school failure point to significant
conflicts between the perspectives that are likely to show up in teacher preparation programs. It
is this tension and uncertainty that leads to this study’s focus on the manner in which teacher
educators and teacher candidates in such programs perceive and treat issues of accountability and
equity.
The way in which these perspectives are presented to and received by future teachers has
important implications for the field of urban education. Are teacher candidates who have
received a strong message related to educational equity adequately prepared to thrive in an
environment dominated by a focus on accountability? Does an emphasis on the accountability
perspective result in a watered-down understanding of equity that relegates it to the periphery?
Are there alternate ways of conceptualizing accountability and equity such that both can be
advanced in a way that envisions new possibilities for urban teaching and learning? Ultimately,

40

as we seek to fully equip teachers to confront the challenges that await them, it is essential that
we understand the goals of urban-focused teacher preparation programs with respect to these two
perspectives.
Theoretical Framework
This study is situated, therefore, in the world of urban-focused teacher preparation and
considers the fact that these teacher education programs prepare teacher candidates to enter an
environment filled with challenges, under attack for its history of failure, influenced by diverse
perspectives about the characteristics of quality urban education, and subject to policy mandates
that greatly influence practice. In particular, it focuses on potential tensions experienced by
those who desire to promote an equity perspective while also recognizing the need to help
teacher candidates thrive in a system that privileges the accountability perspective.
Rochelle Gutierrez (2008) has provided a useful way of considering these tensions.
Gutierrez used the concept of nepantla, taken from the work of Gloria Anzaldúa (2002). As
explained by Anzaldua, nepantla is a Nahuatl word, from the language of the Nahua people who
lived primarily in Central Mexico, meaning “tierra entre medio,” or “the land in between.”
Anzaldúa described nepantla as a space where multiple realities are considered, existing
categories are disrupted, and new knowledge is fostered. Gutierrez applied this concept to
discuss the intersection of the dominant and critical. Issues of access and achievement are
framed along the dominant axis, while issues of identity and power are found on the critical axis.
Nepantla, then, exists at the messy space where these two lines intersect (see Figure 2.1).
The implication for teachers is that they need to be able to see and understand these
realities and “grapple with the tensions and dilemmas of preparing students to play the game
while also supporting them to change the game” (Gutierrez, 2008, p. 25). If teacher preparation

41

programs are going to be effective at promoting social justice and equity while also preparing
teachers to thrive in the contested landscape of urban schools, they are going to need to address
these tensions in meaningful ways. Figure 2.2 represents a way of using this concept to frame
the potential tensions experienced in teacher education programs that seek to prepare teacher
candidates to incorporate both the accountability and equity perspectives in their practice.
Figure 2.1. Nepantla (Gutierrez, 2008)
Dominant

Critical

Achievement

Identity

Nepantla

Power

Access

Figure 2.2. Accountability and Equity
Accountability

Equity

standards

equity

Neplantla

justice

accountability

42

Applying the concept of nepantla to teacher preparation, like critical pedagogy, asserts
the necessity of taking a critical stance toward societal injustice while also equipping students for
academic success (Ladson-Billings, 1995). In many cases, however, this is not happening (Ball,
2000). The questions addressed in this study, therefore, consider how teacher preparation
programs can help teacher candidates cope with the potentially conflicting demands of
accountability and equity. Giroux’s (2009) discussion of empowerment further helps make
visible this tension. He argued that empowerment moves beyond self-confirmation that students
gain from an appreciation of their own culture to “the process by which students are able to
interrogate and selectively appropriate those aspects of dominant culture that will provide them
with the basis for defining and transforming, rather than merely serving, the wider social order”
(p. 448). This supports Gutierrez’ (2008, 2009) notion of changing the game while playing the
game as well Delpit’s (1988) affirmation that teachers need to teach students the codes of power
in order for them to have the ability and opportunity to confront societal injustice.
Finally, this framework requires a clear understanding of the concepts of justice and
equity in education. Although discussions of justice and equity pervade the current educational
discourse around urban education, agreement about what these concepts mean and how they
should be applied in educational settings cannot be assumed. A thorough analysis of these issues
related to urban-focused teacher preparation will require, therefore, careful attention to the way
justice and equity are perceived and communicated by both individuals and institutions.
Looking Forward
At this point, therefore, I have described two perspectives—accountability and equity—
that are currently at work in urban education and therefore influence the world of urban-focused
teacher preparation. In this study, I investigate the place of these two perspectives in teacher

43

education and examine the relationship between the two and look for potential sites of
intersection. These intersections may result in synergy or dissonance. This potentially messy
space where accountability and equity meet emerges, then, as a possible site for new perspectives
related to effective urban-focused teacher preparation.
In order to investigate the stated research questions and contribute to a deeper
understanding of urban-focused teacher preparation, I designed a research study utilizing
document analysis and interview data from urban-focused teacher preparation programs around
the country. In Chapter 3 I describe my research methods before turning to the data analysis in
the subsequent chapters.

44

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODS

The world of urban education, including urban-focused teacher preparation, is full of
challenges and complexity. As argued in Chapter 2, two perspectives of urban education emerge
from the scholarly literature on urban schools and urban-focused teacher preparation, accounts of
current practice, and the policy context. The accountability and equity perspectives play an
influential role in urban school practice; consequently it is important to consider the place of
these two perspectives in teacher education programs that focus on preparing teachers for work
in urban schools. This leads directly to the research questions that guide this study:


Do teacher candidates encounter both the accountability and equity perspectives in their
teacher education program? If so, where and to what extent?



What messages about these two perspectives do teacher educators intend to give to the
teacher candidates with whom they work? Are these perspectives evident in the way
teacher educators’ talk about educational concepts and practices such as students,
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and the purpose of schooling?



What messages about these two perspectives are being received and understood by the
teacher candidates?
As is the case in most university programs, urban teacher preparation programs have a

stated mission along with a set of goals, objectives, and values which are often outlined in
publically available program documents. These statements are a valuable source of data as they
reflect the beliefs and values that lie at the foundation of each program and inform the public of

45

the intended curriculum2 of the university’s program. However, in addition to their stated
objectives, programs also have an enacted curriculum which at times emphasizes or favors only a
portion of the stated goals or even contradicts them. Therefore, to investigate the research
questions, I used a two-tiered approach. First, I conducted a content analysis of eight urbanfocused teacher preparation programs from around the United States. For this first tier, I
collected data from publically-available program documents in order to address the question of
whether or not and to what extent these programs claimed to address issues of accountability and
equity. From these eight programs, I then chose two programs for the second part of the study
and then employed a case study approach in order to investigate more thoroughly the place of
these two perspectives in the programs and how they were perceived by program participants.
First Tier Analysis
Sample Selection
The first stage of the research involved a content analysis of eight urban-focused teacher
preparation programs. Choosing the programs to be included in this study was a multi-layered
process. I incorporated a network sampling process (Glesne, 2006) to identify urban-focused
teacher preparation programs throughout the country. First, faculty members at my university
with experience in or an expressed focus on urban education were contacted and asked to
identify leading programs of urban-focused teacher preparation in the United States and also
asked to identify other scholars with expertise in this area who would also be able to provide
recommendations. Based on these initial recommendations, I began to formulate a list of such

2

In contrast to the common use of this term to refer to a list of courses or course materials, the
word curriculum is used here to refer to the entire breadth of learning experiences and outcomes
associated with a teacher education program.
46

programs while also reaching out to additional scholars, based on the input from the initial
contacts, to solicit their recommendations.
In total, I contacted 21 urban education scholars and received recommendations from 18
of the 21. This process yielded a list of 39 programs, and from this list I first chose 12 programs
to be part of the study. I included all of the programs, seven in total, that were recommended by
at least three scholars. I then completed the list by adding institutions that represented a variety
of geographic regions and program sizes.
Table 3.1. University Descriptions3
University
Location
Size
Carnegie Classification*
Stuart College
Western U.S.
~2000
Private, Master’s M
Brightonsville University Eastern U.S.
~10,000
Public, Master’s L
Colona State University
Eastern U.S.
~20,000
Public, Master’s L
Barkton University
Eastern U.S.
~40,000
Public, RU/H
Treston State University
Western U.S.
~40,000
Public, RU/VH
Elia University
Eastern U.S.
~25,000
Private, RU/VH
Peyton University
Midwest U.S.
~15,000
Public, RU/H
Allerton State University Midwest U.S.
~30,000
Public, RU/H
*Note: The Basic Carnegie Classification is defined as follows:
Master’s M – a medium-size institution that awards at least 50 master’s degrees and
fewer than 20 doctoral degrees per year
Master’s L – a large institution that awards at least 50 master’s degree and fewer
than 20 doctoral degrees per year
RU/H – a high research activity institution that awards at least 20 research doctoral
degrees per year
RU/VH a very high research activity institution that awards at least 20 research
doctoral degrees per year.

I narrowed the focus to eight programs in order allow for a more thorough analysis of
each program. Criteria for inclusion were: a clearly articulated urban focus throughout the
teacher preparation program, a sufficient quantity of program documents to supply data for
analysis, and at least ten program faculty members. Of the original twelve, one of the programs
3

Pseudonyms are used for all university names.
47

was excluded due to a lack of urban focus related to its secondary education program. Two
programs did not provide sufficient information upon which to base the first level of analysis. A
fourth program was excluded because it only listed six faculty members as part of its urbanfocused teacher education department. The eight remaining programs—which vary in size,
location, and institutional status (see Table 3.1)—were chosen as sites for this project (see
Appendix A for additional information about each program).
Data Collection
Data for the first level of study were collected from publicly available documents,
including web pages, program handbooks, mission and vision statements, and course
descriptions. There were a variety of documents available from the different programs (see
Appendix B for a complete list of documents), including College or School of Education
overviews, program introductions, course descriptions, mission and vision statements, brochures,
lists of core values, program handbooks, program standards, and lists of desired program
outcomes. For the purposes of analysis, I grouped mission, vision, and core values statements
into one category labeled vision statements and included program standards and desired program
outcomes in the program standards category.
All data were coded to determine how often and in what context these specific programs
reference the accountability and the equity perspectives in their work with teacher candidates.
The literature and conceptual framework of the study provided a set of provisional codes (see
Table 3.2) for use at the start of the project (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The initial goal was
simply to highlight the existence of the two perspectives and provide a starting point for
analyzing the meaning attributed to these perspectives. For the accountability perspective, I
looked for references to standards, standardized assessment, student achievement, classroom

48

management, accountability, evaluation, academic rigor, and high expectations. For the equity
perspective, I coded for reference to diversity, multiculturalism, social justice, equity, inequality,
societal critique, critical pedagogy, and democratic education. In addition, as views of
knowledge, curriculum, and school purposes are influenced by each of these perspectives, I also
coded for references to these concepts.
Upon completion of the initial coding, I prepared analytic memos for each program.
These memos included a table which organized the codes by document type and frequency. For
example, the table corresponding to Stuart College noted that the course descriptions contained
five references to the equity and two references to accountability. Each memo also contained a
narrative in which I recorded my initial interpretations of and questions about the data.
Table 3.2. Initial Coding Scheme
Perspective

Accountability

Equity

Other Terms

Terms
standards
standardized assessments
student achievement
classroom management
accountability
evaluation
academic rigor
high expectations
diversity
multicultural
social justice
equity
inequality
societal critique
critical pedagogy
democratic education
knowledge
curriculum
school purpose

49

After compiling and reviewing all of the data in this manner, two things became clear.
First, the data were clearly useful in moving me towards an answer to the research questions.
Second, however, the data also demonstrated sufficient ambiguity in the way in which certain
terms were used that it was evident that a more thorough analysis was required in order to truly
understand specific terms and their intended meaning. This was especially true given my goals
of exploring the complex relationship between accountability and equity and seeking nepantla—
new possibilities and understandings of the space where these two perspectives meet (Anzaldua,
2002; Gutierrez, 2008).
It was important, therefore, to explore more thoroughly the rhetoric related to urban
education, accountability, and equity in order to understand the meanings being conveyed by the
program documents. As teacher preparation programs disseminate their program mission and
goals and as teacher educators explain their beliefs and practices, they employ words and phrases
and engage in discussions that are subject to multiple interpretations and may be received in
ways not originally intended. Wells, Slayton, and Scott (2002) provided an example of this
when they noted the varied ways conceptions of “democracy” and “markets” are used in debates
over school choice policies in education.
I returned, then, to the documents a second time in order to analyze the discourse based
on work by Phillips (2004) in his study of educational testing. Based on the work of Foucault
(1972) and Burke (1937, 1941), Phillips described three levels of analysis that are useful for
exploring the rhetoric of education. First, a set of terms is identified based on the frequency and
intensity of their use. Second, a pattern of usage, the discourse, is identified based on the setting
or relationship in which these terms appear. Finally, a logic of the discourse is identified. This
considers the way the discourse connects with the material world—in this case the practice of

50

education. In this study, the initial set of terms corresponded to the initial coding scheme
developed from the literature and conceptual framework of the study. Subsequent analyses of
how the terms were used and their relationships to other terms provided a clearer understanding
of the discourse of equity and accountability and its logic. This proved useful in highlighting
some of the ambiguity in the way certain terms were used and in gaining an increased
understanding of how issues of accountability and equity were being portrayed by the various
programs. This is explored in more detail in Chapter 4.
Second Tier Analysis: Case Studies
The Case Study Approach
The choice to use case studies was driven by several aspects of this project. First, I
brought to the project the belief that the socially-constructed nature of reality must be considered
at all times. Qualitative research stresses this (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Glesne, 2006), and case
studies are especially helpful in allowing the researcher to pay close attention to the influence of
various contexts on the target issue (Stake, 2004). Second, the decision to use a case study
approach was driven by the choice of what to study more than as a methodological decision
(Stake, 2004). The focus here was to gain as much understanding and information as possible
from specific teacher preparation programs, and the use of case studies supported this objective.
Third, the research questions dictated a method that would optimize understanding of some of
the complexities involved with urban-focused teacher preparation. The goal of the study was not
to measure effectiveness or some sort of increase in achievement; rather, it was to answer
questions about and increase understanding of specific aspects of urban teacher preparation.
Answers to the research questions required the ability to listen carefully to actual program
participants. A case study provided access to the experiential knowledge of the programs being

51

studied and insight into the fundamental issues at play that were required to meet the research
objectives (Stake, 2004). A case study, as is true with qualitative research in general, allows the
researcher the opportunity to gain understanding from the perspective of those most involved
with the target activity (Glesne, 2006). Fourth, this approach can incorporate several types of
data. The use of multiple data sources provides rich and detailed information that increases
opportunities for learning and intensive study (Glesne, 2006; Jones & McEwen, 2002; Stake,
2004). Furthermore, they provide the basis for triangulation and increased validity.
The use of more than one case provides the opportunity to increase the value of a study in
several important ways. First, it results in increased access into and comprehension of the
research questions along with added confidence in the findings (Miles & Huberman, 1994;
Stake, 2004). Second, although there are certainly limits to the amount of generalization that
should take place based on a small sample size, the use of multiple cases may afford the
opportunity to theorize more generally about a broader collection of cases (Stake, 2004).
Finally, use of multiple cases provides data through which the researcher is able to see what is
common and what is particular about the various programs. Therefore, I began the project with
the intention to choosing at least two universities to serve as sites for the case studies.
Case Study Selection
Based on the first level of analysis, I used purposeful (Jones & McEwen, 2002) or
purposive (Stakes, 2004) sampling to target programs that would provide rich data and optimize
learning. The first criterion for selection was that the first tier analysis had to provide evidence
that both the accountability and equity perspectives were incorporated into the institution’s stated
goals for their urban teacher education program. Secondly, I wanted to include programs that
differed from each other significantly in either size, research status, or path to teacher

52

certification in order to add a potential layer of analysis to the study and possibly highlight
beliefs or practices that may be unique to particular program types. Finally, having identified
potential sites, I needed to find at least two programs that allowed access to the necessary data, in
particular, interview participants (see Table 3.3 for details of the sampling criteria).
Based on the first tier analysis and the sampling criteria, I focused on Peyton,
Brightonsville, and Allerton State as sites for the case studies. After contacting each of the
programs to ask permission to conduct the research at their program, it became clear that it
would not be possible to gain access to the necessary data at Brightonsville in the required time
period. Although I initially received a favorable response from the Dean of the College of
Education at Brightonsville, subsequent efforts to finalize the research plans resulted in reports
of scheduling conflicts, delays, and additional obstacles that made it impossible to continue.
Fortunately, I was able to connect successfully with the leadership in the schools of education at
Peyton and Allerton State in order to gain the necessary permissions to proceed with the study
and to set up a suitable schedule of research activities.
Table 3.3. Sampling Criteria for Case Study Selection
Criteria
Place of two perspectives
in teacher preparation
program

Institutional
characteristics

Program stance or characteristics related to sampling criteria
Both programs express a desire to:
 Acknowledge reality of both accountability and
equity perspectives
 Prepare teacher candidates to effectively incorporate
both perspectives in their teaching
There will be a clear difference among the programs in
regard to at least one of the following characteristics:
 Size
 Research status
 Path to teacher certification

Furthermore, Peyton and Allerton State offered different paths to certification in their
urban-focused teacher preparation programs, thus satisfying the second selection criterion.
53

Allerton State offers a traditional four-year undergraduate program that results in a bachelor’s
degree and teacher certification. In contrast, the urban-focused program at Peyton University is a
specific cohort of the broader teacher education department and is offered to students already in
possession of a bachelor’s degree as part of a 16-month program leading to a master’s degree and
teacher certification.
Case Study Data
The majority of the data for the case studies was collected through the use of interviews
with program participants. At each university, I interviewed faculty members, current teacher
candidates—university students—nearing the end of their studies, and program graduates
currently at work as classroom teachers. In total, I interviewed 15 faculty members, 16 teacher
candidates, and 8 graduates from the two programs (see Table 3.4). I conducted one interview
with each participant. The interviews were semi-structured in that they begin with an established
interview protocol (see Appendix C) but then also used the participants’ responses as a basis for
further discussion (Glesne, 2006). The length of the interviews ranged from 25 minutes to 90
minutes, with the majority lasting about 45 minutes. All interviews were audio recorded, and I
prepared a transcription of each interview for the purpose of data analysis.
Table 3.4. Interview Participants by Program

Faculty
Teacher Candidates
Graduates

Peyton
University
7
5
6

Allerton State
University
8
11
2

For the faculty members, at each university I interviewed at least one person in leadership
in the program who was able to provide a clear explanation of the mission and vision of the
program, a description of the values that guided the program practice, and an overall perspective

54

of the program. I also interviewed instructors of introductory, foundations, curriculum, and
methods courses in the secondary education program. The decision to limit the study to courses
in secondary education was designed to narrow the focus of the study and to build on my prior
knowledge as a person involved with secondary education. The faculty members’ years of
experience at their university ranged from 1 to 36 years (see Appendix D for a more detailed
description of the faculty participants). The faculty interviews served to clarify the written
documents and gave me the opportunity to learn about the beliefs, understandings, and practices
related to accountability and equity of individual members of the faculty as well as their
understanding of the place of these perspectives at their institution.
The interviews of the current teacher candidates and of the program graduates were
conducted to provide information about how they perceived and understood the two perspectives
and how they made sense of the experiences they were having or had while preparing to be
teachers. At Peyton University, all of the student participants were in a secondary education
program, and their majors included mathematics, English, social studies, and Spanish. Due to
the nature of the program as a post-baccalaureate path to certification, the teacher candidates
ranged in age from 25 to 40 years of age and all had post-graduate work experience in a field
other than teaching. Some of the participants had attended urban public schools and others had
lived in suburban environments. The Allerton State student participants ranged in age from 20 to
30 years of age, with the majority being traditional university students in their early 20s. All of
the teacher candidates were in a secondary education program, and their majors included social
studies, English, and mathematics (see Appendix E for more information about the student
participants).

55

All of the graduates except one had participated in a secondary education program and
were teaching in a middle or high school at the time of the interview. One of the graduates from
Allerton State studied in an educational policy program and did not have any classroom teaching
experience. They ranged in age from approximately 25 to 60 years of age and had completed
their teacher certification program from two to seventeen years ago (see Appendix E for more
information about the graduate participants).
All interviews were transcribed and subjected to a two-pronged analysis process. First,
because the purpose of the interviews focused on understanding the meaning assigned to each of
the two perspectives and the way this meaning was presented or received by the program
participants, many of the questions were explicitly directed at these two issues. Responses to
these questions, therefore, were not subjected to a coding procedure designed to highlight the
existence of the perspectives but, rather, were reviewed in order to note the meaning advanced
by the respondent and then to note patterns of usage of particular words and phrases and the
logic of the discourse surrounding the perspectives (Phillips, 2004).
Second, particular attention was paid to the context of the interview responses. Abell and
Myers (2008) explained that in analyzing research interviews, it is necessary to explore the
contexts of the interviews. They highlighted four types of contexts. First, the co-text refers to
what comes just before and after a specific portion of the text. Second, intertextual links refer to
other voices used in the response or dialogue. These voices may be quotes or familiar arguments
that are brought to bear on the discussion. Third, the situational context refers to the
conditions—such as time or place —that immediately surround the interview responses. Fourth,
sociopolitical or historical contexts may also have an impact on answers provided by the
participants. This focus on context proved valuable in the analysis of the interview data for this

56

project. For example, in discussing accountability, many respondents referred to specific
documents that were very influential in their state or school district. Furthermore, current policy
discussions relating to standardized testing also were mentioned frequently in the interviews.
The intertextual and sociopolitical contexts of the interviews, therefore, emerged as elements of
the analysis.
The interviews also involved questions related to specific classroom practices, such as
assessment or learning activities, and general ideas about education, school improvement, and
teachers. Responses to these questions were subjected to the same initial coding procedure used
with the program documents. Again, these responses were reviewed a second time in order to
explore emerging discourse patterns or logic.
Finally, after completing the analysis, an analytic memo was prepared for each interview.
These memos included a summary of responses related to issues of accountability and equity and
of how each participant perceived the manner in which the program treated these issues. The
memos also included an analysis of the participant’s view about the relationship between
accountability and equity.
As noted by Glesne (2006), the strength of the interview process is “the opportunity to
learn about what you cannot see and to explore alternative explanations of what you do see” (p.
81). For this study, the interview allowed me to gather perceptions and opinions from faculty
members and students and hear reports of what the programs seek to offer and of what students
take away from these programs. It also provided explanations or further understandings of data
collected from program documents and course syllabi.
There are also, however, limitations in the use of interviews in research. As it is a timeconsuming process, it is necessary to work with a manageable sample size. Therefore, it is

57

necessary to recognize that the interview participants represent only a portion of the total
population of the teacher education programs. Nevertheless, targeting faculty members that
represented a broad spectrum of program courses and disciplinary areas yielded a sample that
was likely to be representative of the entire program.
Gaining access to interview participants and successfully recruiting volunteers is also a
challenge inherent in the use of interviews as a primary source of data collection. For both
universities, it was fairly easy to make contact with a representative sample of faculty members
by means of publically available information about the programs and their faculty. Connecting
with students and graduates was more difficult due to constraints mandated by acceptable
research practices and policies. In keeping with privacy laws, I was not able to have access to
lists of students or graduates. Fortunately, connecting with students was a rather straightforward
process with the cooperation of the department chairpersons and program faculty who were able
to forward an email message to students in the program explaining the research project and
asking for volunteers. Interested students were then able to contact me directly to set up an
interview appointment. At Allerton State I received notices from 20 students and randomly
chose 12 of those students to be interview participants. Of that group, I was successful in
scheduling an interview appointment with 11 of the 12. At Peyton University, which organizes
their program by cohort, the program chairperson sent notices to all of the students in one of the
cohort. Of this group of 20 students, five of them volunteered to participate. While repeated
attempts to recruit additional volunteers were unsuccessful, the sample of 25% of the program
participants from a variety of content areas provided a representative sample.
Connecting with graduates was the most difficult. The specialized program at Peyton
University was able to facilitate the recruitment of volunteers by sending an email announcement

58

to all program graduates from the past ten years. This effort, including the sending of two
reminders, yielded six volunteers. Allerton State, however, was not able to provide the same
level of support. The alumni office was able to facilitate the sending of an email announcement
to a small group of program graduates, but only two volunteers responded. The small number of
graduate participants, therefore, severely limited the usefulness of the data from program
graduates at Allerton State. In addition, in general the graduates from both programs provided
minimal insight into the manner in which the accountability and equity perspectives were
portrayed to them through their program experiences. Therefore, the analysis of this data did not
contribute significantly to the primary goals of the study. Because of these two factors, I have
not included the analysis of the interviews with program graduates in the discussion of the
findings for this study.
Course syllabi provided the final set of data for the case studies (see Appendix F for a list
of course syllabi included in the study). Course syllabi were coded following the same
procedure used for the other program documents. However, when possible, a specific syllabus
was also compared with interview responses from the course instructor to provide further
understanding of both the interview and the syllabus. Information from the analysis of the
syllabi was added to the interview memo when possible. For syllabi that were not accompanied
by an interview, a memo was created to summarize its analysis.
Research Issues and Limitations
All research involves people, practices, decisions, and obstacles that bring with them
certain strengths and weaknesses and point to limitations or concerns that must be addressed.
For example, as reviewed above, it is important to acknowledge issues that arise during the
research study related to challenges in gaining access to necessary data. It is also necessary to be

59

clear about concerns related to the position of the researcher, the subjective nature of research,
and the interpretation of the data.
First, I bring to this study a strong base of knowledge about urban education and a limited
amount of experience in urban-focused teacher preparation. As a teacher and administrator in an
urban school for 13 years, I formed my own opinions about what worked and did not work in my
school and about the challenges facing urban educators. During my doctoral studies my graduate
assistantships involved teaching a seminar for interns in urban secondary schools and
coordinating the Urban Educators Cohort Program at our university. These experiences gave me
a front row seat to the challenges of preparing teachers for work in urban schools and influenced
my thinking in important ways. As is generally the case in educational research, I entered this
project not as an unbiased bystander but as someone with great interest in and ideas and opinions
about urban education.
This reality, however, does not minimize the validity of the research project. As noted by
Weber (1949) more than 50 years ago, there is no pure objectivity in the study of the social
sciences. The researcher brings his personal experiences, understandings, and perspectives.
However, this is not a blemish on the research. It simply requires, first of all, that the researcher
places her “best intellect into the thick of what is going on” (Stake, 2004, p. 449). Secondly, it
necessitates a clear and complete description of the study, the use of multiple forms of data, and
a clear representation of decisions regarding methods and analysis. These disciplined research
practices form the foundation of the researcher’s ability to differentiate between the knowledge
gained from the study and personal preference and opinion (Stake, 2004). For this project, then, I
used data gathered from program documents, three types of interviews, and course syllabi as an
aide in triangulating the data to increase validity and to deepen my understanding of each data

60

point (Glesne, 2006; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Throughout the process, I also received regular
feedback from my dissertation committee regarding the data gathering process, the analysis, and
my discussion of the findings. The use of two case study sites provided not only additional data
but also a valuable point of comparison. Finally, as asserted by Miles and Huberman (1994), the
project required “plenty of care and self-awareness on the part of the researcher” (p. 10). This
was certainly my intention throughout the process.
During the interviews, I also occupied a position as an informed outsider. I shared with
the interview participants information about my educational experience and my interest in urban
education. It was clear to them, therefore, that I was well-informed about issues related to
education in general and urban schooling in particular. This facilitated meaningful and efficient
discussions of a variety of issues as they felt free to discuss their experiences and thoughts and to
use language that might only be understand by someone with inside knowledge of teaching or
teacher education. At the same time, it was clear that I was not involved with their specific
institution. This supported the project’s commitment to confidentiality and contributed to open
and honest discussions about specific aspects of the respective programs.
Finally, an essential characteristic of a case study is the specific nature of the project; the
object of study is an individual case. This has two implications for the interpretation of the data.
First, for this project, the findings contribute primarily to our understanding of the two urbanfocused teacher preparation programs that are the objects of the study. There is no claim that the
results can be generalized to all such programs. Nevertheless, as the two programs are similar in
terms of their stated mission and in their design to many other programs, the findings do
contribute to our general understanding of urban-focused teacher education. Second, it must also
be stressed that analytic, rather than statistical, generalization is the goal of the case study

61

approach (Yin, 2003). The aim of this study, therefore, was not to learn about all urban-focused
teacher preparation programs, but rather to increase our comprehension of how accountability
and equity are perceived in the case study programs and thereby contribute to a deeper
understanding of these perspectives, the role they might play in urban-focused teacher
preparation, and the implications this new knowledge might have for urban educators.

62

CHAPTER FOUR
THE FIRST LOOK: A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF URBAN-FOCUSED
TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS

The first step in understanding the role of the accountability and equity perspectives in
urban-focused teacher preparation programs was to investigate the extent to which these two
perspectives were evident in such programs and the manner in which they were portrayed. In
this chapter, then, I summarize the data collected from program documents at eight universities
in order to demonstrate the degree to which these two perspectives were reflected in these
institutions. I then present an analysis of the data which focuses on the way in which certain
attributes of accountability and equity were presented and how this contributed to their program
message.
The Programs
This analysis of program documents indicates, first of all, that both accountability and
equity are reflected in the urban-focused teacher preparation programs included in this study (see
Table 4.1 for an overall summary of the data). While two of the programs, Treston State
University and Elia University, were almost devoid of coded references to accountability (8.1%
and 5.6% of total references, respectively), the other six institutions ranged from 19.5% to 47.2%
of total references for accountability. However, while providing evidence of the existence of
both perspectives, the analysis also points to a stronger affinity to the equity perspective than to
accountability. Taken together, 71.9% of the coded references pointed to the equity perspective
while only 28.1% referred to accountability. With the exception of Brightonsville University

63

(47.2% accountability, 52.8% equity), the difference in the relative percentages was significant
(ranging from 31% to 88.8%), clearly favoring equity over accountability.
Table 4.1. Frequency of Coded Items by University Program
Program

Accountability

Equity

3 (25%)

9 (75%)

Brightonsville

17 (47.2%)

19 (52.8%)

Colona State

8 (19.5%)

33 (80.5%)

Barkton

18 (34%)

35 (66%)

Treston State

3 (8.1%)

34 (91.9%)

Elia

1 (5.6%)

17 (94.4%)

Peyton

10 (34.5%)

19 (65.5%)

Allerton State

16 (36.4%)

28 (63.6%)

Total

76 (28.1%)

194 (71.9%)

Stuart

While this brief summary provides an overall picture of the frequency with which these
two perspectives were presented in these eight programs, it is necessary to look more closely at
the program documents of each university to understand more clearly the way in which these
perspectives were presented and their relative significance in each program.
Stuart College
Program documents and course descriptions at Stuart College reflect a clear emphasis on
the equity perspective (see Table 4.2). The brief introduction presents the program’s intent to
prepare teachers who value diversity, exhibit cultural competence, meet the needs of all learners,
and are committed to equity. Similarly, course descriptions reflect this emphasis on
understanding the social and cultural context of on education, recognizing injustice, and teaching
for equity.

64

The accountability perspective, while not as prominent, is visible. It is reflected in an
introductory reference to the importance of providing a strong academic preparation for its
teacher candidates and the inclusion of classroom management strategies and state standards as
included topics in a curriculum and instruction course.
Table 4.2. Stuart College: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Program introduction
Course descriptions
Total

Accountability
1
2
3 (25%)

Equity
4
5
9 (75%)

Brightonsville University
The objective that comes through most strongly in the program documents of
Brightonsville University is that program graduates will be reflective practitioners equipped with
the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to be excellent teachers. Essential knowledge
includes strong content knowledge, the ability to effectively present subject matter using a
variety of teaching methods, appropriate use of assessment, understanding of child development
and student motivation, and critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
In discussing this overarching goal, there are specific references to the accountability
perspective (see Table 4.3). Academic rigor and student achievement are each mentioned on one
occasion, and there are two references to student assessment—including standardized testing—
and academic standards. There are also frequent references to content knowledge, skills, and
standards in the course descriptions, demonstrating the high value placed on preparing teachers
who will be able to equip their students to succeed academically.
The equity perspective is also evident in course descriptions (see Table 4.3). Several
courses promote the importance of a critical perspective on the contexts of schooling and of
preparing teachers for work in multicultural settings and with diverse students. The equity
65

perspective is also given a clearly privileged position in a foundational statement of program
benchmarks. In this statement, the critical, democratic, and multicultural approaches come
through strongly in benchmarks stressing issues related to power, equality, culture, race, class,
family and community involvement, and respect for cultural difference.
Table 4.3. Brightonsville University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Accountability
School of education
introduction
Program outcomes
Course descriptions
Total

Equity

2

1

6
9
17(47.2%)

12
6
19 (52.8%)

Colona State University
An emphasis on the equity perspective is evident throughout the program descriptions
and documents of Colona State (see Table 4.4). The website’s introductory materials highlight a
focus on culturally responsive teaching and the preparing of students for democratic life. The
program handbook further emphasizes the relationship between education and democracy and
makes several references to diversity, being prepared to help all students learn, and valuing
cultural differences. The summary of desired program outcomes highlights democratic
education in almost half of its statements, stressing the importance of students’ experiences,
multiple forms of assessment, and community involvement. It also promotes cultural awareness,
a critical perspective, and the promotion of social justice. Course descriptions also include
specific references to democratic education, diversity, and a multicultural perspective.
The accountability perspective clearly takes a back seat to the emphasis on equity in the
teacher preparation program (see Table 4.4). However, the program handbook includes two
references that stress the importance of academic standards and also notes the importance of
holding students accountable for their behavior. Also, teaching about classroom management is
66

a central course objective in two required courses, and there is a course offered that serves as an
introduction to assessment and accountability.
Table 4.4. Colona State University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Program introduction
Brochure
Program handbook
Program standards
Course descriptions
Total

Accountability
0
0
2
2
4
8 (19.5%)

Equity
4
4
6
10
9
33 (80.5%)

Barkton University
While Barkton University’s program documents speak clearly of both the accountability
and equity perspectives of urban education, there is a much greater emphasis on equity than on
accountability (see Table 4.5). In total, there were 18 statements coded for accountability, and
35 statements coded for equity. Reference to academic standards dominated the discussion of
the accountability perspective. References to academic achievement and academic rigor express
the program’s emphasis on preparing students for academic success. Academic rigor and
accountability are also highlighted as two of the six principles on which the university’s teacher
preparation program is founded. In the course descriptions, there were several references to
accountability, but they were limited to courses focusing on teaching subject matter or on student
evaluation.
Statements demonstrating a focus on diversity and democratic education were the most
common among those reflecting the equity perspective (see Table 3.4). A critical stance also
clearly emerges in the course descriptions. This emphasis on a critical approach, in particular,
and equity in general appears in courses discussing the history of education, education in a
diverse society, and socio-cultural foundations. Courses treating the topics of curriculum and
67

teaching in content areas are almost completely devoid of references to equity, with the one
exception being a statement about “authentic educational experiences” in a curriculum and
instruction course.
Table 4.5. Barkton University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
College introduction
Program introduction
Vision statement
Course descriptions
Total

Accountability
3
4
6
5
18 (34%)

Equity
6
9
11
9
35 (66%)

Treston State University
The introductory materials for Treston State’s School of Education include a specific
reference to the university’s emphasis on diversity, multicultural education, and equity. The
overview of the teacher preparation program goes into much greater detail and includes 20
statements reflecting their focus on the equity perspective, including descriptors and goals that
speak of a social justice agenda, a critical perspective, student-centered learning, inquiry-based
teaching, anti-racist education, and multiculturalism. Social justice is at the heart of the
program’s mission, as it seeks to advance a “social justice agenda” and prepare “social justice
educators.” The program also promotes a critical stance through efforts to engage in “critical
inquiry,” attend to the political aspects of teaching, and work to recognize and confront injustice
in an effort to promote equity. In contrast to this clear focus on equity, the introductory
comments about the School of Education and the teacher preparation program each include only
one reference to the accountability perspective (see Table 4.6).
The course descriptions provide further evidence of the focus on equity and the lack of
attention paid to issues of the accountability perspective (see Table 4.6). The course descriptions

68

contain one explicit reference to the importance of academic content alongside multiple
references to issues of diversity, socio-cultural approaches to learning, identity, and equity.
Table 4.6. Treston State University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Accountability
School of education
introduction
Program introduction
Course descriptions
Total

Equity

1

3

1
1
3 (8.1%)

20
11
34 (91.9%)

Elia University
Both the introduction to the School of Education at Elia University and the teacher
preparation program description highlight a focus on the equity perspective, visible in frequent
references to social justice, community involvement, student-centered learning, equity, and the
critical perspective (see Table 4.7). The terms social justice and equity are used together on
several occasions and are presented as part of the program’s mission and core commitments. An
emphasis on democratic education is evidenced in a commitment to community involvement, an
inquiry focus to instruction, a concern to use students’ lived experiences as the foundation for
teaching and learning, and the use of learner-centered instructional strategies. The program’s
critical stance is clearly reflected in statements noting the importance of critically interpreting the
world through classroom decisions, the need to challenge racism, sexism, and classism, the
political nature of teaching, and the need to challenge prior assumptions.
Table 4.7. Elia University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Accountability
School of education
introduction
Program introduction
Course descriptions
Total

Equity

0

7

0
1
1 (5.6%)

6
4
17 (94.4%)

69

The accountability perspective, however, is completely lacking from introductory
statements, and the only explicit reference is found in a course description of an Advanced
Methods course which notes a special focus on content and state and national standards.
Peyton University
While Peyton University’s program documents reference characteristics of the equity
perspective more frequently than the accountability perspective (see Table 4.8), both are clearly
evident. The focus on accountability is demonstrated in statements about student achievement,
evaluation, standards, and classroom management. The program introduction affirms the goal of
promoting student learning and academic success. The handbook outlines a clear evaluation
procedure for teacher candidates, the use of a standardized assessment as part of that evaluation,
and the role of standards in lesson planning. References to behavioral standards for students and
classroom management are found in the statement of core values and in a course description.
Table 4.8. Peyton University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Program introduction
Program standards
Program handbook
Course descriptions
Total

Accountability
1
3
5
1
10 (34.5%)

Equity
2
10
1
6
19 (65.5%)

The equity perspective is also reflected throughout the program documents. Diversity,
the social context of learning, social justice, and student-centered and culturally relevant
curriculum are highlighted in several places. For example, the introduction, the program
outcomes statement, and course descriptions affirm the importance of understanding the impact
of social structures and diversity on learning. Social justice is highlighted as one of the primary
program outcomes, and issues of equity are the focus of one required class. Course descriptions

70

and the core values statement also reference student-centered teaching, learning, and
instructional methods.
Allerton State University
Program documents from Allerton State’s teacher preparation program reflect a clear
focus on both the accountability and equity perspectives (see Table 4.9). The equity perspective
is presented in introductory statements that express a commitment to diversity, equity,
community involvement, and the need to meet the unique challenges of urban environments.
The core values statements and a statement of program standards affirm this focus in multiple
statements regarding diversity, social justice, the need for a critical stance, the impact of the
social context of learning, equitable educational practices, and community interaction.
While there are fewer references to issues of accountability, this perspective is certainly
reflected in the program documents. The description of the program’s vision expresses a
commitment to quality instruction, high expectations, attention to standards, and accountability.
The program has also developed a set of teaching standards which serve as the basis for the
evaluation of teacher candidates. Among other characteristics, teacher candidates are expected
to possess strong content knowledge, hold high expectations for their students, and be
accountable for student learning.
Table 4.9. Allerton State University: Frequency of Coded Items by Document Type
Accountability
School of education
introduction
Vision statement
Program standards
Course descriptions
Total

Equity

1

7

7
7
1
16 (26.4%)

8
11
1
28 (63.6%)

71

Discussion
This first tier analysis demonstrates, then, that the accountability and equity perspectives
are represented in these urban-focused teacher preparation programs, but also that the equity
perspective is clearly favored, at least in terms of the number of references it receives, at seven
of the eight programs investigated for this stage of the project. The data also point to important
issues related to the meanings assigned to certain terms associated with accountability and equity
and to difference in university status and its relationship to the manner in which these
perspectives are presented.
The Rhetoric of Accountability and Equity
In addition to providing evidence of the existence of the accountability and equity
perspectives in these teacher preparation programs, the analysis of program documents reveals
how certain elements of these perspectives are portrayed. By looking beyond the simple list of
terms and concepts that are talked about by the institutions, certain discourse patterns emerge
which lead to a deeper understanding of various aspects of these perspectives and suggest the
need to explore these patterns more thoroughly in the case studies that follow.
The language of equity. These programs demonstrate their commitment to the equity
perspective through frequent references to diversity, diverse learners, community involvement,
equity, social justice, democracy, and critical pedagogy. From the limited information available
in the program documents, however, it is not always possible to determine the meaning that is
assigned to these terms. For example, although a commitment to equity appears frequently in
these documents, the programs do not provide a clear definition of the term. In other cases, a
deeper look at how some terms are used and the context in which they appear provides valuable
information about the intended meaning and their importance in these teacher preparation

72

programs. In particular, the manner in which issues of difference and social justice are discussed
point to the need for a more nuanced understanding of these terms, in particular as the case study
data is subjected to analysis in the following chapters.
The language of difference. The concept of difference is raised frequently in the
program documents, indicated by the use of the terms diversity, diverse, multicultural, or
difference. Seven of the eight programs make frequent use of these terms, and the eighth, Elia
University, discusses its preparation of teachers to reach all children and the importance of
providing teacher candidates the opportunity to observe in school communities. In each case, the
concept of diversity—often expressed using the adjective diverse—is most often used to describe
the students in urban schools or the environments in which the schools are found. Interestingly,
only one program, Barkton University, contains a statement that specifically posits diversity as
an asset of urban communities.
In some cases, however, these terms move beyond describing students, schools, or
communities to indicate a specific approach to education. Some programs assert the necessity of
adapting instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners. For example, Peyton University’s
core values statement expresses the importance of recognizing the uniqueness of each student
and understanding how different characteristics impact teaching and learning. A course on
instruction at Treston University expresses it focus on instructional models that are effective for
culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse students. Two programs, Colona State and
Barkton, use the language of culturally responsive or relevant to describe the type of teaching in
which they are preparing their candidates to engage. Implicit in these statements is the belief
that students come to school with different needs and that successful teaching requires an
understanding of these differences and the ability to adapt to them and choose appropriate

73

instructional models in order to facilitate student achievement. In this way, the programs move
beyond describing students and schools to promoting a specific approach to education.
These programs also emphasize the importance of affirming, valuing, and learning about
students’ diverse cultures. Developing this awareness is presented as a core component of these
teacher preparation programs. Brightonsville University, for example, seeks to prepare its
teacher candidates to cultivate respect for cultural difference. Stuart College commits to
preparing its students to value cultural diversity, and demonstration of respect for individual and
cultural differences is included in a list of desired teacher qualities in Colona State’s teacher
preparation handbook.
The phrase, “all children,” also appears frequently in these program documents and is
often used as a substitute for diversity or diverse learners. As is the case with the use of diversity
and multicultural, the document analysis reveals the need for a more nuanced analysis of this
phrase. Frequently, programs assert the importance of preparing teachers to meet the needs of all
children; however, they are unclear about what this actually includes. An analysis of the context
of these declarations indicates an acknowledgement of the existing diversity in urban schools and
communities and a commitment to a multicultural approach which incorporates the
understanding of diversity into effective teaching practices. Teacher candidates, therefore, must
understand diverse students and be equipped to meet their needs. Barkton University, for
example, states that they prepare teachers to “reach all of our children.”
A second use of this phrase, using similar language, calls attention to the need for equity
in education. For example, Elia University highlights its belief that access to a high-quality
education is the right of all children. This statement, in the context of explaining a social justice
emphasis, uses the language of inclusivity as a call for justice rather than as a statement of

74

diversity. This phrase also appears in the context of promoting academic success. Programs
advance the belief that all children are capable of learning and meeting high expectations and
therefore commit to providing all children with academically rigorous curriculum and working to
ensure high levels of success and achievement. The multiple uses of the phrase “all children”
demonstrate the need to closely examine how language is used in order to better understand the
values and perspectives advanced by various urban-focused teacher preparation programs.
It is clear, then, that diversity and multiculturalism are heavily emphasized in all of these
urban-focused teacher preparation programs. However, it is essential to understand how these
terms are being used. When used to describe students, schools, or communities, these terms may
reflect a positive view toward equity, but they also may serve merely to point to the existence of
difference rather than to promote equity in education. In contrast, when these terms are used to
advance an approach to teaching that builds on the diversity present in schools in a way that
enables students to succeed and difference to be valued and respected, they are able to contribute
to an educational environment that increases equity in school and, potentially, in society.
Social justice. Several important patterns related to the discussion of social justice are
also evident in the program documents. First, social justice is explicitly mentioned by seven of
the eight programs, and the remaining program, Brightonsville University, expresses a
commitment to promoting the belief that schools ought to function as vehicles for liberation and
equality. Social justice, then, is clearly a privileged component of the equity discourse in these
urban-focused teacher preparation programs.
Second, while the theme of social justice is prevalent, varied portrayals of social justice
emerge from the analysis. Several of the programs characterize it primarily in terms of
dispositions and understandings. Colona State, for example, highlights its attention to teacher

75

candidates’ beliefs about social justice and seeks to develop teachers who see the potential of
schools to stimulate social justice. Peyton University describes its commitment to social justice
as an understanding and respect for student difference, a recognition of the impact of societal
structures on learning, and the promotion of culturally relevant teaching.
Other programs couple their emphasis on social justice with a critical approach
emphasizing the need for teachers to serve as change agents working to transform society and
confront existing inequities. For example, Elia University uses action verbs to explain its social
justice emphasis, declaring its intent to extend and enact social justice. It also lists the practice
of social justice as one of its core commitments and defines this as helping teachers challenge
inequality and promote justice. Treston State highlights its commitment to social justice
throughout its program documents and declares its intention to prepare teachers to undermine
social injustice and engage in social activism. Barkton University affirms education as a
principal means for social justice and a commitment to preparing teachers to be change agents in
the world.
In a similar fashion, there is variety in the way the program documents use the language
of critical pedagogy. All but one of the programs, Stuart College, use the language of critical
pedagogy to describe their program and its aims. However, Barkton, Elia, Colona State, and
Treston State identify the preparation of teachers to be agents of change or the need to confront
social injustice as core elements of their program. They promote a clearly activist view of
critical pedagogy. In contrast, Brightonsville, Allerton State, and Peyton, while making frequent
mention of the need to increase teacher candidates’ understanding, to question assumptions and
beliefs, and to be aware of the social context of learning, stop short of calling for teachers to be

76

actively involved in confronting injustice in education and society. This is a key distinction that
needs to be considered in analyzing data from the case studies.
A second finding related to critical pedagogy emerges from the analysis of course
descriptions. In each instance, the great majority of references to the critical perspective are
found in program introductions or in statements of program vision or core values. Very few
references are found in course descriptions. Furthermore, courses that do explicitly advance a
critical perspective are introductory and foundations courses. Courses focusing on curriculum,
instruction, and teaching methods do not include a critical perspective in their course description
or list of objectives.
The language of accountability. While not referenced as frequently as the equity
perspective, the accountability perspective is clearly evident in these teacher preparation
programs. This perspective is evident in statements about standards, academic rigor, academic
expectations, standardized testing, and accountability. These terms are often related to each
other in their use. In particular, the rhetoric of standards, student achievement, and
accountability in these documents includes some variability and points to the need to closely
examine the meaning assigned to these terms.
Standards and student achievement. Content standards are the most frequently
referenced component of this perspective. Programs discuss standards or subject-matter
knowledge in a variety of ways, including the study of state or local standards, specific
instructional methods or strategies designed to meet standards, and the use of standards in lesson
planning.
Evidence of the accountability perspective also comes through in the language of student
achievement and academic expectations. Brightonsville expresses its commitment to promoting

77

academic success and the belief that all learners are able to meet high expectations. Allerton
State describes quality teachers as those committed to the success of their students and able to
use assessments to motivate students and to improve the quality of their instruction. In addition
to these typical statements regarding student achievement, Barkton also highlights its goal of
using research to increase student achievement.
Accountability. Only three of the programs explicitly use the word accountable or
accountability in their program documents. Colona State mentions the importance of holding
students accountable for their behavior and includes one course in which an introduction to
assessment and accountability is given as a course goal. Allerton State describes accountability
as part of the culture of learning that they want their teacher candidates to promote in their
classrooms. Barkton University highlights accountability as a program principle and posits that
successful learning is evidence of effective teaching. It is important to note that they do not offer
an explanation of what constitutes “successful learning” as part of this declaration.
An important pattern regarding the language of accountability that emerges from this
analysis is the reality that in most cases programs advance statements promoting various aspects
of accountability with little or no connection to the equity perspective. For example, a course at
Colona State is designed with the distinct purpose of introducing students to accountability and
assessment. Stuart College’s course on curriculum and instruction similarly teaches about state
and local standards but does not indicate any context for this desired understanding. Mention of
accountability in the program documents of Elia University is similarly limited to a reference to
standards in the description of a course on teaching methods.
There are a few instances, however, when programs advance an approach that seems to
exist at the intersection of the two perspectives. Barkton University affirms the importance of

78

high academic standards while engaging and empowering students. They also place a special
emphasis on helping all children reach those standards and advertise courses that connect high
academic demands with diverse student experiences. Allerton State describes its commitment to
social justice as existing within a framework of accountability and high expectations, and
Brightonsville stresses that its expectations for academic achievement and success apply to all
learners. This picture of an intersection between accountability and equity is important to
consider as part of the case study analysis in order to increase understanding of how programs
may or may not be equipping teacher candidates to promote both accountability and equity in
their teaching.
The varied ways, then, that teacher preparation programs present their approach to
accountability is an important consideration as we seek to understand its impact on the
preparation of urban teachers and its potential influence on urban teaching. This analysis of
program documents indicates that the discourse of accountability is clearly present in these
programs; however, there may be important variations in the meaning assigned to this discourse
and the understanding taken away by the teacher candidates.
Institutional Differences
As outlined in Chapter 3, the eight universities included in this study represent a variety
of institutions. Three of the colleges and universities—Stuart, Brightonsville, and Colana
State—are classified as Master’s institutions according to The Carnegie Foundation’s Basic
Classification system (Carnegie, 2012). The other five are labeled Research Universities, with
Treston State and Elia associated with Very High (RU/VH) research activity and the remaining
three with High (RU/H) research activity.

79

Analyzing the relative frequency of the coded references according to university
classification demonstrates a substantial difference in the way these perspectives are treated at
the RU/VH universities (see Table 4.10). For these institutions, only 7.3% of the codes related to
accountability while 92.7% are associated with equity. In contrast, the other two types of
institutions are quite similar in the relative frequency of these perspectives in their program
documents (Master’s: 31.5% accountability, 68.5% equity; RU/H: 34.9% accountability, 65.1%
equity).
This difference extends as well to the manner in which equity is presented. Although
they are not alone in promoting an activist approach to social justice and the need for a critical
stance toward educational and societal inequity, the frequency and clarity with which Elia and
Treston State, the two RU/VH universities, communicate this emphasis in their programs sets
them apart from most of the other programs. While affirming all characteristics of the equity
perspective, it is clear that these two programs have a special focus on preparing teachers to be
critically active in their role as change agents in schools and society.
Table 4.10. Institutional Differences Related to Accountability and Equity
Carnegie Classification
Master’s M or L
Stuart
Brightonsville
Colona State
RU/H
Barkton
Petyon
Allerton State
RU/VH
Treston State
Elia

Accountability

Equity

28 (31.5%)

61 (68.5%)

44 (34.9%)

82 (65.1%)

4 (7.3%)

51 (92.7%)

This disparity among the various types of institutions raises important questions and is
deserving of further research. Does the research focus of these universities cause them, in some
80

way, to be more critical of current educational and societal practices? Do they pay more
attention to research which demonstrates that schools are sites of social reproduction and that
different social structures impact learning and result in inequitable experiences for many students
in our schools (Anyon, 1981; Bourdieu, 1973; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Lareau, 2000)? On the
other hand, is it possible that teacher educators who work at institutions less focused on research
may be more involved in the direct instruction of teacher candidates and thereby have a clearer
sense of the realities of K-12 public education? While this study does not provide the
opportunity to explore these questions, it does demonstrate the need for further study of the
impact of institutional differences on the type of preparation being received by teacher
candidates.
Moving Forward
This review of program documents has demonstrated the existence of the accountability
and equity perspectives in these urban-focused teacher preparation programs. Additionally, it
indicates that the equity perspective is more privileged of the two in terms of the level to which it
is highlighted and promoted by these programs.
Furthermore, a review of the rhetoric related to certain terms and concepts presented in
these program documents indicates a degree of complexity that must be taken into account when
seeking to understand the accountability and equity perspectives and the way they are presented
in teacher preparation programs. The multiple ways in which certain terms and ideas are
presented and the varied meanings assigned to them demonstrates the importance of a careful
analysis of the contexts in which words or phrases are used. For the purpose of this study, it is
especially important to consider the ways in which program documents and research participants

81

spoke of diversity, social justice, and accountability. In particular, a complete analysis must
consider the following:
a) Do discussions of diversity serve primarily to describe schools or students or are they
also used to advocate for specific educational practices?
b) Is an emphasis on social justice a push for understanding and awareness of issues that
impact teaching and learning or does it include a call for critically confronting
inequity and for being actively involved in change efforts in school and society?
c) Is accountability discussed as an end in itself or does it exist within the context of
educational practices that jointly promote accountability and equity?
This first level of analysis gives evidence of the need to ask these questions and of
possible answers. It also provides a foundation and increased clarity for a closer analysis of
urban-focused teacher preparation programs. It does not, however, give sufficient information to
move to this deeper level of analysis on its own. The more intense focus on two of the programs
afforded by the case study allows us to move beyond statements of intent in order to see how the
programs are actually enacted and how they are received by their intended audience, the teacher
candidates. In Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, therefore, I report on the analysis of the case study data
from Peyton University and Allerton State University in order to provide a more complete
understanding of the place of accountability and equity at these two institutions.

82

CHAPTER FIVE
THE ACCOUNTABILITY PERSPECTIVE IN URBAN TEACHER PREPARATION

The program documents from eight urban-focused teacher preparation programs
demonstrate that both the accountability and equity perspective, albeit to varying degrees, are
represented in these programs. This level of analysis, however, is limited in the information it is
able to provide. The program documents reflect values, beliefs, and goals that have been
established by those in leadership in the program and then used to provide a description of the
program. However, they do not necessarily reflect actual program practice. Furthermore,
although program and course descriptions give some indication of how and where these
perspectives are included, for the most part the information remains quite general and may not
give a clear picture of what is actually being presented and received in the program. The case
study data—gathered from course syllabi and interviews with teacher educators and program
students—provide a clearer understanding of the information gathered from the program
documents and moves the study forward in investigating the specific messages about these two
perspectives that the programs intend to present and the messages that are being received and
understood by the teacher candidates in the programs. In the next two chapters, therefore, I
present a detailed report of the case study data. In this chapter I begin with the accountability
perspective. I first analyze separately the research data from each of the two case study
universities before closing with a brief comparison of the two programs and a discussion of
implications for our understanding of the accountability perspective and its place in urbanfocused teacher preparation.

83

Overall, consistent with the findings from the program document analysis, the case study
data demonstrate the presence of the accountability perspective in the two programs. However,
although certain elements of this perspective are affirmed by almost all of the interview
participants, there are also significant differences in the manner in which the perspective is
presented and understood by the teacher educators and teacher candidates. Among the teacher
educators at both institutions, the analysis and synthesis of the data suggest that there are three
emerging typologies for how they incorporate the accountability perspective into their courses
and work with students. These are a weak approach, a pragmatic affirmation, and a critically
progressive approach to accountability. Among the teacher candidates, a wider range of
approaches emerge from the data, resulting in different categories at each university.
The Accountability Perspective at Peyton University
As part of its College of Education, Peyton University, a mid-sized public institution
located in a large Midwestern city, offers a cohort-based program that specializes in urban
education as one its paths to teacher certification. This case study focuses on only this
component of Peyton University’s teacher education program. Peyton was chosen as a site for
this case study because its program documents established the existence of both the
accountability and equity perspectives and because its organizational structure—as a specialized
program within a larger teacher education program—differed from the other case study
institution, yet represents the reality at many other programs around the country.
At Peyton, the focus on urban education is offered as part of special 16-month program
leading to a Master’s degree and teacher certification. Each year a cohort of 20 to 30 students
enters the program in the spring. They begin with an extensive orientation that introduces them
to the goals of the program and includes several days observing in classrooms in various local

84

public schools. During the summer months, all of the teacher candidates take courses in
technology, educational psychology, and literacy. In addition to studying these concepts, the
candidates also begin to develop relationships with the other members of the cohort as they
participate in these courses together.
Beginning in the fall, teacher candidates begin their year-long internship in a local public
school. In addition to the fieldwork, the candidates continue taking courses in teaching in their
content area, classroom management, and the social context of education. While some of these
courses are exclusively designed for the urban education program, at times the cohort members
take courses with other students from Peyton’s College of Education. The urban-focused
program terminates in the summer of the second year when the teacher candidates finish their
course work and complete a final research project.
In the following sections, I examine how the accountability perspective is presented and
received in the urban-focused teacher preparation program at Peyton University. I first report on
the data gathered from teacher educators in order to determine the program’s intended message
about the accountability perspective. I then turn to data gathered from interviews with current
students in order to ascertain the message about accountability that is being received by the
teacher candidates in the program.
The Teacher Educators: An Inconsistent Message
In order to study the program message about the accountability perspective at Peyton
University, I interviewed seven faculty members and analyzed course syllabi for six of the
program courses. The syllabi corresponded to courses taught by the interview respondents (see
Appendix F for a list of included courses). There was significant variation in the way the teacher
educators at Peyton approached the accountability perspective. However, in general the case

85

study data supported the general finding of the document analysis that the accountability
perspective is evident in a variety of ways in the teacher preparation work at Peyton University.
It also provided additional understanding of how the accountability perspective was understood
and reflected by individual teacher educators and throughout the program. While many faculty
members at Peyton expressed overlapping views, there were also key differences in the way they
represented the accountability perspective.
A weak approach to the accountability perspective. Interview responses from Albert,
Christine, and David reflect what I term a weak affinity with the accountability perspective that
is characterized by general affirmation of the importance of content knowledge and high
expectations for all students, strong disagreement with current practices related to the standards
and accountability movement, and a limited involvement of the perspective in their personal
approach to education and in their work with teacher candidates. Generally, this group of
teacher educators expressed awareness of the dominant public discourse of accountability, but
dismissed most aspects of it due to strong personal convictions about the negative consequences
of an over emphasis on accountability.
When describing successful teachers or discussing urban school improvement, these
faculty members articulated the importance of content knowledge and high expectations. Albert
argued that “one of the things they [future urban teachers] absolutely have to have is a very
strong content knowledge.” Christine, speaking of secondary math teachers, voiced her concern
that many urban teachers “don’t have strong enough content knowledge” or “a deep
understanding of the mathematics they’re teaching.”
This group of faculty also expressed a consistently negative attitude toward current
practices related to the standards and accountability movement. They were critical of the role of

86

standardized testing, current accountability policies, and the use of standards. In discussing these
practices and their impact on teaching, Albert stated, “it’s actually killing the field” and
compared the focus on standardized testing as being “akin to the farmer bringing in the sheep to
constantly weigh them and not putting them out in the field to actually pasture.” David decried
the negative impact that standardization is having on teaching, arguing that in many ways it
works “to hamstring the teacher in what they’re able to do” and requires teachers to deal with the
“soul deadening practicalities” related to educational policy. He also stated that his biggest
complaint with current testing practices is the high stakes aspect and the resulting pressure.
Christine strongly argued that standardized tests do not provide useful information about student
learning. She argued, “There’s little resemblance in many cases, [between] a student’s
standardized test score and what they can actually produce in a classroom . . . with the guidance
and support of a skilled teacher.”
Beyond the general affirmation of the positive role of content knowledge and high
expectations for students and the strong critique of many practices associated with standards and
accountability, these three faculty members paid little attention to characteristics of the
accountability perspective in their discussion of urban education and their work with teacher
candidates. For example, Albert asserted that in his courses issues related to standardized testing
are not discussed “other than my complaining about excessive testing and my harping that it’s
killing teaching.” The course syllabus for his technology course supported this assertion. Issues
related to accountability are not included among the course topics or the descriptions of the
specific class sessions other than one instance in which students are taught how to search for
“content based drill and practice sites.” Christine expressed a begrudging obligation to at least
mention standardized testing because her students will “have to produce and coach their students

87

on how to take those standardized tests.” David explained his approach of raising issues related
to standards and accountability in his course as part of regular discussions of current educational
issues; however he indicated that he does not think it is appropriate for him to offer his opinion
related to these issues. The course syllabus for his Social Issues course indicated that the class
dedicates one class session to discussing “standards and accountability in education,” and
another on issues related to charter schools and school choice. David reported that in these class
sessions he provided students with readings that represented all sides of the issues in order to
give them a broadened perspective.
This weak approach to the accountability perspective that is advanced by these faculty
members at Peyton is typically encountered by the teacher candidates in the early part of their
urban-focused teacher preparation program. Albert’s course on using technology in teaching is
among the first that the teacher candidates take upon entering the program, and they participate
in this course with the entire cohort. David’s course on social issues in education is typically
taken in the fall during the candidates’ first internship semester and is open to all students in the
College of Education. Christine is unique among this group in that she works only with those
teachers preparing to be math teachers.
Pragmatic affirmation of accountability. Other faculty expressed a more pragmatic
and positive approach in dealing with the accountability perspective. This approach included a
critique of the standards and accountability movement, a strong affirmation of the need to hold
high expectations for teachers and students, and a commitment to prepare students for success on
standardized tests. Among the faculty at Peyton, Daniel and Mark reflected this pragmatic
affirmation of accountability in their discussion of urban education and of their work in
preparing teachers. All of the teacher candidates, then, encounter this approach to the

88

accountability perspective through their course on Teaching and Management in the Secondary
School taught by Mark. In addition, this view is also advanced by Daniel in his work with the
candidates preparing to teach social studies.
Daniel and Mark joined their colleagues in a critique of certain aspects of the standards
and accountability movement. They based their criticism of many of the tenets of the standards
and accountability movement on its political roots and the way it ignores the impact of societal
structures on teaching and learning. Daniel described the standards and accountability
movement as coming from unqualified politicians “trying to score political points.”
Furthermore, he passionately argued that this emphasis completely ignores issues of poverty,
language difference, cultural background, and other factors that influence learning. Mark
expressed a positive view towards “standards that are well-constructed, meaningful, and take into
account the life experiences of individual learners” but went on to argue that “the current . . .
system we have serves only to recreate . . . the social class system and reinforce stereotypical
thinking in the minds of the public regarding the capacity of urban learners to learn and
succeed.”
While expressing some hesitation, then, about the accountability perspective, both Mark
and Daniel also referenced ways that it promotes teacher quality and school improvement.
Daniel asserted, “You have to establish a culture in urban areas of discipline in the schools,
you’ve got to have teachers who care, which means they care enough to give kids failing grades
if they deserve it; you need teachers who are going to teach the content, and you are going to
hold the kids accountable to very high standards and won’t tolerate foolishness.” Mark
emphasized the need for empirically based research-practices in order to raise student
achievement, the importance of standards as benchmarks for measuring student growth, and the

89

need to equip teacher candidates with techniques of classroom management and instruction. He
stated, “I think really preparing our teachers to go in with a core set of tools to deliver content
and motivate and manage student behavior, those . . . should always be the foundations upon
which we base our practice” as teacher educators.
Their pragmatic approach also focused on the need to prepare their students for the reality
in today’s urban schools. While holding some negative beliefs about aspects of the standards
and accountability movement, Daniel and Mark reported that they emphasized to their students
the importance of content standards and of preparing K-12 students for standardized tests.
Daniel declared that in his courses they talk frequently about the state-mandated tests and that he
stresses that teachers are responsible to teach the content necessary to help students pass the
tests. He says to his students, “You better teach your kids about this because it’s going to be on
the [state test].”
Content standards and classroom management were central themes in Mark’s course on
teaching in the secondary classroom. The syllabus listed the national and state standards for his
students’ content areas as one of the required texts of the class and included the alignment of
curriculum with local and state standards as one of the central objectives of the course. Helping
teacher candidates implement effective classroom management practices was also included as a
central course goal and was listed as the primary topic of discussion for four out of 17 class
sessions. In the interview, Mark stated that his goal for the teacher candidates with whom he
works is that they
“leave my class thinking that standards-based testing is a fact of life in urban
education that they will have to deal with, so being irritated and angry by
standards-based testing may serve you in a political activist bent, but will not
serve you overly well as an actual day to day educator, so you might as well take
the tests, use them as your opportunity to do high quality instruction and then take

90

the data from those tests and use that as a way to better understand the needs of
students in order to best meet what they need.”
A critically progressive view of accountability. Faculty who advance a critically
progressive approach to the accountability perspective offer a critical view of many current
practices but also seek to challenge their students to embrace a distinctive view of accountability.
This approach affirms the importance of content knowledge and holding high expectations for all
students, is critical of the current emphasis on standardized tests, and advances a progressive
stance towards accountability.
Two of the professors, Carl and Marcia, joined their colleagues in affirming certain
aspects of the accountability perspective while also being critical of many current practices
related to standards and accountability. They affirmed the importance of a strong background in
content knowledge among the necessary traits of a successful teacher and the need to hold high
expectations for all students. Marcia stated, “We do have to offer a very strong education. I
think the bar has to stay high in terms of what we expect . . .; I don’t think there should be
exceptions because they’re just urban kids.” They also joined the other faculty members in a
critique of standardized tests and the way they are often used as the only measure of student
achievement and as a means to evaluate teacher effectiveness. Carl argued that in the current
assessment system “we’re using the wrong stick.” He also argued that that although there is a
great deal of talk of proficiency, “my understanding of proficiency is that this is the bare
minimum level of acceptability that you should be reaching; that shouldn’t be the expectation for
our kids.” Marcia criticized the use of only one test for a high stakes evaluation of students and
for use with teacher accountability. Furthermore, while acknowledging a role for content
standards in education, she also argued that it is impossible to set a standard “for what any
students should learn or must learn” and still honor the background and diversity of each student.
91

But unlike the others, as they spoke about issues related to accountability and urban
education, both Carl and Marcia spoke of a view of accountability that went beyond much of the
current rhetoric and practice related to this issue. Carl described his approach to accountability
as “bigger than a test” and framed it in terms of a relationship with parents rather than a policy
measure. He spoke of the importance of being accountable to parents and being able to
demonstrate to them that their children have experienced growth during the school year.
Communication, he argued, “has to be a big part of accountability.” Schools should welcome the
input of parents, who are “experts on their kids.” Carl described true accountability as a
classroom with glass walls, “so that anyone can come in and see what I’m doing and ask
questions about what I’m doing.” He reported that with the teacher candidates in his class, he
stresses the importance of relationships in bringing accountability. “If I know that parents are
watching me and they’re aware of what I’m doing, how much more accountable can you get than
that?” In a similar vein, Marcia stated that she pushes her students to go beyond narrow views of
accountability that only consider test scores and student achievement. While acknowledging that
teachers are accountable for helping their students pass the state test, she too stresses that
accountability goes “beyond the test” and that “they have an accountability to each student and
meeting that student’s needs, and whether that’s academic, social, emotional.” During the
interview she noted that she rarely addresses these issues with teacher candidates in terms of
accountability because that immediately brings to mind issues related to state testing, merit pay,
and political agendas. Accountability, asserted Marcia, “is one of those red flag terms.” Instead,
she points her students back to the core values of their program, reminding them of their
responsibility to the local community, urban teaching, and social justice.

92

All of the teacher candidates are introduced to this critically progressive view of
accountability through the work of Marcia and Carl, each of whom play a prominent role in the
urban-focused program at Peyton. Marcia, in her role in program leadership, directs the
orientation of the students and works with the students throughout their internship experience.
She has multiple opportunities, therefore, to discuss issues related to accountability with the
program participants and to advance her views of this topic. Carl also works with the entire
cohort in his course in educational psychology during the first summer of the program.
Uniformity and variability in the program message. While the case study data affirms
the existence of the accountability perspective that is evident in the program documents, it also
points to both uniformity and variability in the message about accountability that is presented by
program faculty at Peyton University. There was substantial agreement among the faculty
members in their views toward content knowledge, academic expectations, and current
standardized testing practices. They all affirmed that a strong foundation in content knowledge
was an essential component of teacher preparation and that successful urban schools and teachers
must hold high academic expectations for their students. They also uniformly criticized the
current use of standardized tests as a measure of student achievement and as a principal means of
holding schools and teachers accountable for student learning.
There was also considerable uniformity in regards to the message presented to the teacher
candidates. Most of the respondents indicated that they did not push one particular stance over
another in debates about standards and accountability practices in education today. The majority
either paid little attention to these debates or chose to focus on presenting teacher candidates
with as much information as possible so that they could formulate their own opinions and
approaches. With a few exceptions, there was also similarity in the faculty members’ affirmation

93

of the need to at least minimally equip teacher candidates to prepare their students to take
mandated tests.
The most significant differences emerge when comparing the faculty members’
viewpoints about what it means to be accountable in education. Faculty with a weak affirmation
of the accountability perspective paid little, if any, attention to this question. Their focus
remained almost exclusively on the negative impact of accountability practices on teaching and
learning. Daniel and Mark, who offered a practical affirmation of the accountability perspective,
not only acknowledged the need for teachers to be cognizant of the demands placed on them by
federal or state policies but strongly affirmed the need for accountability in our schools. They
affirmed the goals represented by a focus on standards and accountability and stressed this in
their work with the teacher candidates. Finally, Marcia and Carl expressed dissatisfaction with
the current rhetoric and practices related to accountability and sought to equip their students with
an alternate understanding of accountability that included a focus on communication with
parents, community involvement, and social justice.
In general, then, Peyton’s urban-focused teacher preparation program offers a message
characterized by uniformity at some points and significant variation in others. The program
seems to provide its teacher candidates with a foundational understanding of the current situation
in K-12 schooling and a sense of what their obligations are in light of these realities. However,
although various faculty members advance a strong stance related to one component or another
of accountability, the neutral stance advocated by several of the faculty members coupled with
the disparate notions of what it means to hold educators accountable results in an inconsistent
and uncertain program message related to the accountability perspective. It is likely, therefore,

94

that the teacher candidates would not encounter in their teacher education experiences a strong
rationale to alter the views about accountability with which they entered the program.
Teacher Candidates at Peyton University: Variation and Confusion
Common sense tells us that the message we intend to give is not always the message that
is received by others. In the field of curriculum studies, this is discussed in terms of the
relationship between the enacted, the delivered, and the received curriculum (Jackson, 1992).
Jackson described this as the difference between “what appears in the teacher’s guide or
textbook,” “what is actually taught in class,” and “what the students grasp or understand” (1992,
p. 9). This difference, coupled with the disconnect that at times exists between what teacher
education programs desire to teach and what their students learn or value (Britzman, 2003;
Labaree, 1996; Lortie, 1975), makes it necessary to investigate how the students interpret and
relate to the messages that they receive in order to truly understand the place of the
accountability perspective in an urban-focused teacher preparation program. In this section,
then, I report on the data collected through interviews with students at Peyton University
currently preparing to be urban teachers. I begin with a brief description of the teacher
candidates who were interviewed for the study in order to provide background for the
consideration of their interview responses. This is followed by an analysis of what the students
reported about the way in which the accountability perspective was presented to them through
their program experiences. I then examine the personal opinions about accountability that were
evident in the students’ interview responses.
The teacher candidates. The five student participants in this study reflected the
diversity that is often sought after in non-traditional teacher preparation programs (Humphrey &
Wechsler, 2007; Sleeter, 2001; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Three of the

95

participants were African American and the remaining two were White. Although they all
embraced the urban focus of Peyton’s program, all of the teacher candidates pointed to the
location of the school or the structure of the program as their primary reason for choosing Peyton
University’s urban-focused teacher certification program. One of the candidates, Kristy,
reported that she did not have any urban experience prior to coming to Peyton University, and
only Lara mentioned explicitly that she had attended urban schools and could relate to many of
the experiences of the students in her internship classroom. The candidates varied in age from the
mid to late-twenties to the mid to late-thirties and came to the program with a variety of postbaccalaureate experiences, including working in “corporate America” (Andrea), being involved
in an after-school program (James), and doing a variety of “crazy things” including “being a ski
bum,” working as a waiter, and living in Italy (Eric).
The received curriculum. The students’ discussion of how the accountability
perspective was presented in their program and what they had learned about it highlighted four
things. First, the teacher candidates reported that the professors sought to present a balanced
discussion of controversial issues. Second, the students emerged with an understanding that
corrected some of their negative assumptions about accountability and pointed them toward the
realities of current practice in K-12 schools. Third, some students took away from their
experiences an uncertain and confused understanding of these issues. Finally, only one student
communicated that she gained a broadened view of accountability from her coursework.
Four of the five interview participants indicated that their professors presented a neutral
view of debated issues related to accountability. Kristy and Lara both articulated that in their
classes the professors were slow to offer opinions, presented the pros and cons of various aspects
of accountability, and provided information to increase the teacher candidates’ understanding

96

and to ensure that they considered all sides of the issues. Andrea stated that the professors
wanted the teacher candidates to raise questions, be curious, and be thoughtful about these
issues. Eric agreed and added that in particular one of his professors wanted students to answer
their own questions and formulate their own opinions about these matters.
The interview respondents indicated, however, that the professors presented a message
that contradicted some of the negative assumptions held by the teacher candidates about
standards and accountability and prepared them for the realities of current school practices.
Kristy noted that it was stressed in one class that teaching the standards “doesn’t take as much as
you think” and that teachers should not use standards “as a crutch to say I can’t do something
that I want to that may take a little more time because of standards.” Lara reported that her
professors had “enlightened” the teacher candidates about standardized testing. She felt that in
her coursework she had been led to understand that it is not necessary to think negatively about
teaching to the test; rather, they should understand that the standards on which the tests are based
are those that should be taught in class anyway. James communicated that he had encountered
teaching about standards in an educational psychology class, and he had also reviewed the
content standards with his cooperating teacher. He had come to understand that he will be held
to certain standards and accountability practices no matter how he felt about it and that his
teaching of content standards should not be limited to a focus on standardized assessments. He
gave examples of their discussion about the use of portfolios and group presentations as alternate
ways to teach and measure student proficiency.
Two of the participants, James and Andrea, communicated that in spite of the efforts of
the program they remained confused about issues related to standards and accountability.
Andrea noted while professors worked to remain neutral in their discussion of contested aspects

97

of the accountability perspectives, she had picked up on differences of opinion among the
teacher educators and that there was considerable disagreement about these issues among the
students in her cohort. She lamented, “I think it’s a big jumbled mess at this point.” She
described her current understanding as “chaos inside of my head about what to do with these
standards and accountability.” James expressed similar frustration. While acknowledging that
standards were addressed in Peyton’s teacher preparation program, he described his
understanding of them as “still a bit cloudy to me.”
Finally, Lara was alone in describing her professors as “big on accountability.” The
message that she gained concerning accountability, however, did not concern issues of student
assessment or teacher evaluation. Instead, she explained that the professors spoke of
accountability in terms of teachers being responsible for their students at all times. This
responsibility was not limited to academic matters, but also included, for example, providing a
safe learning environment for students.
The students’ views of accountability. The students communicated, therefore, a fairly
uniform, although limited, message about what they had received from the teacher preparation
program about the accountability perspective. Their responses, however, demonstrated
significant variation among the students in their personal approach to accountability. The data
indicate that the students held opinions that were critically uncertain, strongly aligned, or
critically progressive towards the accountability perspective.
A critically uncertain understanding of accountability. Andrea referenced the
accountability perspective in a way that valued some of its characteristics but that also included
significant areas of concern. She spoke of successful teachers as those with a strong knowledge
base, a positive attitude, and the ability to “go in there and get it.” She was critical, however, of

98

current practices related to standards, accountability, and standardized tests. She based her
uncertainty about the role of standards in school on the inconsistency in how they are defined
from state to state and even school to school. She affirmed the need for teacher accountability
but also argued that it should not “go against them because there are circumstances that are
beyond your control.” She gave an example of a family suffering economically and the impact
that might have on a student’s work in school. Finally, she argued that standardized tests do not
“represent truly what a student can do.” She described students who are poor test takers or suffer
from test anxiety and worried that these students might miss out on opportunities simply because
of a low test score.
A strong alignment with accountability. Both Kristy and Eric expressed a strong
alignment with the accountability perspective. They affirmed the importance of strong content
knowledge as the basis of effective classroom instruction. Moreover, while acknowledging the
negative attitudes of many of their colleagues, they chose to advance a positive stance toward
standards and accountability. Eric highlighted the role of standards as vital in raising
expectations for students. He argued, “I think if we don’t have expectations of them to know
certain things, they’re not going to.” He also communicated the belief that the state has a good
reason for establishing certain standards, stating, “They believe that having this knowledge is
going to help students in the future, and I believe that’s true.” Kristy also affirmed the role of
clearly defined standards and a system of accountability in order to evaluate student learning and
teacher effectiveness. She emphasized the need for “some test you can pass in order to graduate
high school.” She described standardized assessments as useful tools to measure student
achievement and to make comparisons among other students across the nation. Eric also
affirmed the role of standardized assessment in communicating expectations and suggested that it

99

could be “a source of national pride” as well as personal satisfaction. Kristy acknowledged that
the presence of test anxiety could negatively impact the usefulness of the tests, but she expressed
confidence that the testing procedures included appropriate accommodations in order to meet all
students’ needs.
A critically progressive approach to accountability. The interview responses of both
James and Lara pointed to a critically progressive approach to accountability; however, there
were significant differences in the way they discussed their viewpoints. James’ interview
responses demonstrated some affinity for qualities of the accountability perspective but also key
areas of concern. In contrast, characteristics of this perspective were completely absent in any of
the dialogue with Lara about urban school improvement, quality teaching, and other educational
issues.
James emphasized classroom management and structure as key components of successful
teaching. He stated that many students may come from homes that lack structure and therefore it
is essential to provide them with a structured learning environment. He also expressed the need
for standards but felt that less emphasis should be placed on standardized tests. He noted the fear
that teachers may “begin teaching more for the test than for the student” rather than working to
get to know their students and relating the curriculum to them. Lara shared this critical stance,
stressing that teachers need to make sure that their instructional practices give students “the tools
they need to succeed, instead of the tools they need to pass the [state test].” At that point she
laughed and added, “I’m not a big fan of standardized testing.” She based her criticism on the
high-stakes aspect of the testing, arguing “that they weigh so much and . . . they make and break
these kids.” She also decried accountability practices that, in her view, “equate a failing test with
a failing teacher.”

100

In addition to their critical stance towards many current practices, James and Lara both
demonstrated an affinity with a more progressive and expansive view of accountability. James
agreed that teachers should be held accountable for their students, but although he referenced
performance on standardized tests, he went beyond discussing this solely in terms of measurable
academic achievement. James argued, “Teachers are accountable for the results of their students.
Teachers should be aware of, as we would say, the with-it-ness of how their students are doing,
and students’ strengths and weaknesses.” Similarly, in talking about what she had learned from
her time at Peyton University, Lara affirmed the professors’ stance that accountability involves
being responsible for students at all times and in ways that went beyond academic matters to
include, for example, providing them a safe learning environment.
Variation and confusion among the teacher candidates. The teacher candidate
interviews reflect areas of agreement and disagreement in their discussion of the program’s
message and a great deal of variation in their personal viewpoints toward the accountability
perspective. In terms of the program’s message, the teacher candidates agreed that the program
emphasized the need to be prepared for current practices related to standards and testing and
offered a primarily neutral discussion of debates related to accountability practices. The teacher
candidates, however, expressed a variety of opinions about other aspects of the accountability
perspective that had been advanced in the program, and two of the students explicitly mentioned
feeling confused and uncertain about many of the issues related to accountability. Their personal
approaches to accountability also varied greatly, as responses pointed to examples of a critically
uncertain understanding, a strong affirmation, and a critically progressive approach to
accountability. There were no areas of agreement that extended across the three categories, and

101

they varied significantly in their stance toward standardized testing and in their understanding of
the meaning of educational accountability.
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Accountability at Peyton University
A comparison of the intentions of the program faculty, the teacher candidates’ perception
of that message, and the personal opinions of the teacher candidates points to significant
variability towards the accountability perspective in the urban-focused teacher preparation
program at Peyton University (see Table 5.1). As noted above, there is a substantial amount of
inconsistency in the way accountability was presented by the teacher educators and this is
reflected in the way this perspective is understood by the students in the program. The teacher
candidates agreed that the program sought to introduce them to the practical realities related to
standardized testing and to present them an unbiased or neutral understanding of current debates
about standards and accountability. However, they also expressed confusion and uncertainty
about this perspective, a variety of understandings of the meaning of educational accountability,
and substantial differences in their personal views about the accountability perspective.
As noted previously, the teacher candidates at Peyton would be expected to encounter all
three of the approaches to accountability advanced by the program faculty. Representatives of
each approach had the responsibility to teach core program courses required of all cohort
members. Given the diverse viewpoints expressed by the program faculty, it is not surprising
that a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty was reflected in the interview responses of the
teacher candidates. The lack of consistency in the way the accountability perspective was
portrayed by the teacher educators translated into disparate and confused understandings on the
part of the program students. Given the lack of a clear message about the accountability
perspective, then, the variation in the students’ perception of accountability may be as much the

102

result of their prior beliefs and experiences than an outcome of their program experiences. For
example, Andrea mentioned that much of her confusion stemmed from the diverse opinions that
were advanced by the various cohort members during class discussions. The teacher candidates
at Peyton, older than traditional university students and often with a variety of life and work
experiences outside of the school setting, had considered these issues in other settings and were
often, as reported by several of the teacher candidates, quite vocal in their opinions. In other
cases, the personality of the teacher candidates seemed to contribute greatly to their approach to
the concept of accountability in education. Eric, for example, presented himself as a thoroughly
confident individual and as a leader. In discussing his approach to helping students who might
have difficulty in learning, he recounted his experience waiting on an “outrageous” amount of
tables as evidence that he would be able to “individually reach these students while helping keep
other students on task.” He concluded this discussion by stating, “I have no worries, and it’s not
that I don’t have worries—I know things are going to come up—but I have the utmost
confidence that I can do anything.” He later noted that he was not really concerned with the high
stakes testing in his state. He stated, “I can teach the [state test] and plus; I can teach the [state
test] plus and it’s not going to interrupt me.” He argued that “if you learn how to read people and
talk to them, you can trick them into learning almost anything.” Given the prior experiences and
beliefs of the teacher candidates and the lack of consistency in the program message, it is
unlikely that the treatment of the accountability perspective in this urban-focused teacher
preparation program had a significant impact on these teacher candidates.

103

Table 5.1. Accountability at Peyton University
Program faculty
Typology

Agreement

Variation

weak approach
pragmatic affirmation
critically progressive
importance of content
knowledge
emphasis on high
expectations
critique of
standardized testing
neutral approach to
current debates
meaning of
accountability
need to prepare
teachers for current
practices

Received curriculum

Personal beliefs of
teacher candidates
critically uncertain
strong alignment
critically progressive

neutral approach to
current debates
practical approach to
standardized testing

degree of uncertainty
meaning of
accountability

view of standardized
testing
meaning of
accountability

The Accountability Perspective at Allerton State University
Allerton State University was selected as the second case study site. This university is
located in a large city in the Midwest and boasts a strong urban-focused teacher preparation
program. Its program documents point to a clear focus on both the accountability and equity
perspectives. Furthermore, the urban focus is a part of the entire teacher education program,
which is a traditional undergraduate program leading to a bachelor’s degree and teacher
certification. The difference in organization of this program when compared with Peyton
University qualified Allerton State as a site for the case study research.
As part of their four-year teacher education program, teacher candidates at Allerton State
typically take introductory courses during their first two years at the university. During these
courses, the candidates are introduced to the core values of the program, spend time in the local
community, and engage in some school-based fieldwork. During the last two years of their
undergraduate studies, the secondary education majors take courses in the teaching of reading in
104

the content area, cooperative teaching strategies, classroom management, and subject-specific
teaching methods. In addition, they have two significant field placements—one in a middle
school setting and one in a high school. The goal of the university is to place all of their students
in the local public school district; however, due to logistical constraints, this is not always
possible.
The Program Message: A Unified Vision of Accountability
Data related to teacher educators and their involvement with the teacher preparation
program was collected through interviews with eight faculty members and through an analysis of
11 course syllabi. The syllabi were for courses taught by the interview respondents (see
Appendix F for a list of included courses). Program documents from Allerton State indicate
several points of alignment with the accountability perspective. A commitment to quality
instruction, high expectations, attention to standards, and accountability are included in the core
values of the program and reflected in course and program descriptions.

The case study data

presented here support these findings and provide a clearer picture of how the accountability
perspective is understood and reflected by individual teacher educators and throughout the
program. The analysis suggests that there is significant agreement throughout the program
regarding the accountability perspective, but there are also instances of disparate beliefs and
approaches. Consistent with the analysis of the data from Peyton University, I use three
categories to discuss the findings related to the accountability perspective as presented by the
teacher educators at Allerton State.
A weak approach to the accountability perspective. Two of the faculty participants at
Allerton State, Neal and Stefan, presented a weak affinity for the tenets of the accountability
perspective. This approach was characterized by a highly critical view of current practices and

105

little regard for issues of accountability in their work with teacher candidates. As both Neal and
Stefan teach content-specific courses, in social studies and second language acquisition,
respectively, their approach to the accountability perspective would be received by only a portion
of the teacher candidates at Allerton State.
Stefan’s interview responses and course syllabi were completely devoid of positive
references to characteristics of the accountability perspective, and he was highly critical of
current conceptions of standards, accountability, and standardized assessment and the underlying
assumptions behind these practices. He argued that current practices reflect “very narrow visions
of what it means to know something” and “rob students’ and teachers’ creativity.” He reported
that he discusses accountability in his coursework with teacher candidates, but that the focus is
on equipping students to critically examine the assumptions at work in current accountability
practices. They discuss, he stated, questions about how educational issues are framed and who it
is that has the opportunity to frame these issues. Stefan framed his criticism of standards by
stating, “In terms of standards, my question is: whose standards? Who gets to decide?” He also
rejected the belief that there should be an accepted canon of school knowledge that all students
should know. He argued, “It really is caught up in values. Whose values?” Stefan was also
critical of how decisions are made related to standards and school curriculum.
While discussing schools that he believes are doing excellent work in urban education,
Stefan pushed for a different view of accountability. He spoke highly of schools that use
portfolio defenses as a way to assess student learning. He stated that these schools used these
alternative assessments in addition to the state-mandated tests. In this way, Stefan’s views about
accountability share some common elements with those who promoted a critically progressive
view of accountability; however, his failure to affirm any positive characteristics of the

106

accountability perspective, even while discussing this alternate view, presented a clearly negative
stance toward accountability and separated him from many of his colleagues.
Although in a different way, Neal also presented a weak approach to accountability.
Although recognizing the need for teachers to have a basic level of content knowledge and
pedagogical skill, he rejected what he described as the typical tendency for teacher educators to
focus first on content knowledge and teaching skills in the preparation of classroom teachers. He
argued, “I really kind of don’t care about content; there’s minimums that we use, but I don’t
think you know your content until you start teaching.” Similarly, he asserted that teachers can
have a firm grasp of teaching methodologies and skills “and just be horrible in the classroom.”
For Neal, the most important quality of a successful teacher is care for and commitment to the
students.
Neal agreed that teachers, teacher unions, and schools need to be more accountable;
however, he was not really sure what that meant. He stated that in talking about accountability,
“I hear a code word for things like teacher pay and treating the classroom with a business
model.” Furthermore, he noted that the complexity of teaching and uncertainty about its goals
makes the notion of teacher accountability difficult. Neal argued, “This kind of trying to ram it
down our throats . . ., I get some of it. Sure we should be held accountable. Sure we should be
able to stand up and say this is what I did. But it’s not that easy. I don’t make widgets. I help
kids grow up.” For Neal, to be accountable as a teacher means to “show up; be on time; play by
the rules, and go teach your kids.” Those responsible for holding a teacher accountable should
“know what I’m doing, kind of help me do my job, and if I’m going off somewhere they put me
back in line.”

107

Neal reported that he does not pay much attention to issues related to the accountability
perspective in his teaching. However, he does address questions about standardized testing,
accountability, and teacher evaluation that are raised by students in response to increased
discussion about these issues in the media and personal experiences with state-mandated
assessments during fieldwork. He also stated that he focuses on content standards. Developing
standards-based objectives and familiarity with state and district social studies standards are
identified as key course objectives in the syllabus for Neal’s course on teaching social studies.
Students are also required to examine concepts and generalizations from the state and local
standards.
Pragmatic affirmation of the accountability perspective. Peter teaches courses in the
preparation of secondary math teachers and also supervises teacher candidates in their fieldwork.
Peter presented a strong view of accountability in terms of his focus on content standards, highly
qualified teachers, classroom management, and preparing teacher candidates for the realities of
standardized testing and teacher accountability. Like the majority of his colleagues, he also
expressed a negative view of current policies related to standardization and accountability.
According to Peter, strong school leadership and teachers with strong subject-matter
knowledge and understanding of the best way to teach content are the two most important things
needed to bring improvement to urban schools. Peter reported that in his preparation of math
teachers he spends a lot of time reviewing and teaching about the state standards and how best to
teach them to middle and high school students. He also said that when he visits his teacher
candidates in their field placements, a discussion of the objective and standards of the lesson is
always part of the conversation. The syllabus for the student teaching seminar that Peter leads
states that the primary objectives are related to curriculum, classroom management, and

108

standards-based lesson preparation. His secondary methods class highlights these same
objectives and also includes a focus on methods of instruction and meeting the needs of diverse
learners. In the methods class, 11 of the 14 class sessions are focused on content standards.
Issues related to standardized testing and teacher accountability are not emphasized in
Peter’s courses. In the interview, he lamented the impact of standardized tests on the math
curriculum. While discussing the new tests that will inevitably accompany the common core
standards, Peter said, “I hate to say it, but when that test comes out, it’s going to drive what we
do.” He indicated that he does not talk much with his students about these tests and the way they
are sometimes related to teacher accountability other than to ensure that his teacher candidates
are familiar with the process before they run into it in their fieldwork and to make them aware of
what their students will be going through.
A critically progressive approach to the accountability perspective. The majority of
the faculty members interviewed at Allerton State—Tara, Victoria, Teresa, Nancy, and Paul—
presented a critically progressive view of the accountability perspective. These teacher
educators are involved with the teacher candidates at Allerton State through positions of
leadership, in the teaching of introductory and foundations courses, and in work with English,
social studies, and special education majors. Tara, Teresa, and Nancy have played important
roles in the development of the program and continue to be involved directly or indirectly with
many of the teacher candidates at Allerton. Victoria and Paul work exclusively with students in
their subject areas. In their discussion of their views of issues related to accountability and the
way they presented this perspective to their students, these teacher educators advanced an
approach that for the most part shares the following characteristics: a) affirmation of the
importance of teacher’s content and pedagogical knowledge, b) a highly critical stance toward

109

current practices related to standards and accountability, c) a view of standardized testing that
acknowledges its place in our educational system while also criticizing its current uses, and d) a
reconceptualized approach to accountability.
Focus on content knowledge and effective pedagogy. The faculty members advocating
a critically progressive approach to the accountability perspective were clear in their emphasis on
the need for teachers with strong subject-matter knowledge and the ability to teach the content.
Speaking from a program leadership perspective, Tara and Nancy affirmed the central role of
teaching and content standards in their program and explained in detail how these standards are
addressed in various parts of their program. Furthermore, Tara began her description of a
successful teacher by asserting that “content matters.” She gave an example of her concerns
about teachers who are not knowledgeable in the content areas. She said, “You know, I have
students who say to me, ‘Well, I just can’t do math.’ Well, you’d better figure out how to do it
because, you know, I think about my own child sitting in your classroom, and I want to know
that you know how to do math so that they can learn how to do it.” Nancy described the
program efforts by saying, “I think what we’ve done is to look at what do those standards mean
in an urban context and how do we hold high expectations for our children to be able to meet
those standards, and what does it mean in terms of instruction and what might that mean in terms
of support.”
The other faculty members sharing this view affirmed the central role of content
knowledge in effective teaching and learning. Victoria contended that standards serve as
guidelines for teachers and stressed that the teaching of content standards is a central part of her
work with secondary English teachers. She stated, “For me, I think my job is to get them
comfortable with standards and . . . to see them not as in opposition to what they do.” Teresa, in

110

discussing characteristics of successful urban teachers, asserted the need for a strong knowledge
base and a firm understanding of the curriculum. She also spoke of accountability in terms of
holding high expectations for students. Paul also spoke of content as a key to effective teaching.
He lamented the fact that the teacher education generally does not teach content to teacher
candidates. He argued that it is necessary to hold teachers to a standard and that teacher
educators “have to make sure that your students understand content because if they understand
content they’re able to do more creative things pedagogically.”
Course syllabi affirm this commitment to teaching and content standards. For example,
in both Linda’s and Tara’s urban teaching class, developing expertise in the state’s teaching
standards is listed as one of four central themes in the course. In Nancy’s course, students are
required to complete a portfolio in order to demonstrate their understanding of the state teaching
standards. Furthermore, the syllabus highlights “Strong Content Knowledge” as one of the
standards that is emphasized in the course.
A critical stance toward current accountability practices. Along with the other
interview participants, these five faculty members were united in their criticism of current
practices related to standards and accountability. Their criticism was founded in part on
disagreement with some of the underlying assumptions related to standards and accountability
and in part on specific practices currently being implemented in public schools.
Several of the respondents addressed concerns with the beliefs and assumptions at the
heart of the standards and accountability movement. Four of the five raised important questions
related to the use of standards. Tara expressed her discomfort with standards, noting “that
there’s always the conflict of who set them, why they set them, how they set them, and who
wasn’t involved in the discussion.” Victoria asserted that standards are often used to marginalize

111

certain students. Nancy voiced concern that current practices may be less about “helping all kids
reach high expectations” and more about “going back to that sameness, where we say all kids
learn in the same way at the same pace.” While discussing curriculum selection, Paul
highlighted the privileged status of Western civilization in the social studies curriculum and was
concerned with the absence of multiple perspectives.
Several of the faculty members expressed a negative impression of how accountability is
being conceptualized in their state. Tara began to talk about accountability by saying, “My
visceral reaction to accountability is, it’s a capitalist effort.” She went on to acknowledge that
there is need for some sort of accountability in education, but she condemned what she sees as
current efforts to treat education as a business endeavor and apply notions of accountability from
the business sector to public schools. Victoria agreed that accountability is essential in schools;
however, she also argued that current conceptions of how to measure accountability were invalid
and had a negative impact on schools. Nancy asserted her strong support for the idea that
teachers are accountable for student learning. However, for her, “the devil is in the details.” She
stated that the controversy surrounding accountability is a result of our inability to answer the
fundamental question of how we measure it. Her discussion of these issues demonstrated clearly
that she does not agree with current practices.
Criticism of standardized testing coupled with affirmation of its necessity. In addition
to questions about the assumptions underlying the use of standards and current accountability
practices, these faculty members also condemned the current use of standardized assessments.
Teresa criticized the excessive amount of testing that is going on in schools and argued that it
isn’t producing any positive change and is having a negative effect on teachers and students. She
stated, “It is unfortunate that the idea that we should be accountable for what’s not happening

112

with some kids has turned into this testing mania that . . . defies good practice and common
sense.” Victoria decried the way teachers are being forced to spend time helping students
prepare for standardized assessments. She also shared how she worked with her students to
understand the difference between scoring well on a standardized test and doing good writing.
She said, “We’ve talked about the difference between good writing and getting a five out of five
on the test, and having those conversations with the kids.” Nancy noted that she finds herself
regularly listening to the concerns of her student teachers who see what is going on in schools
and conclude that the tests are not fair. She agrees with their concerns and works to help her
students understand the implications. In talking about these discussions, she indicated that she
asks students, “How do you think some of your kids feel when the [state test] scores are used to
determine their destiny.” Later she said, “We’ve got a serious problem because I think teaching
and learning involve much more than [standardized tests].” Paul was critical of the amount of
weight given to standardized test scores in the evaluation of teachers and students. He argued
that standardized tests should be one component of an assessment system that includes a variety
of measures.
While being highly critical of many of the ways in which standardized tests are presently
being used, these faculty members reported that they incorporated teaching about standardized
assessments into their work with teacher candidates and acknowledged the need for such
measures. Nancy stated that she sees experiences with and discussions about standardized
testing as an important part of the learning of teacher candidates. Paul noted that standardized
tests have always been used in K-12 schools and that they are also used at the university level.
He also argued that these tests should be one part of a complete plan for assessment. Teresa
indicated that in her work with teacher candidates, she wants them to learn that standardized tests

113

can be a source of useful information; she does not want her students to “dismiss them outright”
or make them seem irrelevant to students or parents. She also emphasizes the importance of
using the data provided by these assessments to improve teaching and learning. Finally, Teresa
indicated that she works with her students to help them understand the limitations of the tests,
“that it’s only one part of the picture,” but that they have a responsibility to look for other
measures “that are more powerful and more meaningful to add to that picture.” Victoria also
stressed the importance of helping teacher candidates critically examine the use of standardized
tests in order to understand why they are necessary, what their goals are, and who benefits from
their use. She noted that in her methods course she has extended her focus on assessment in
order to more adequately deal with these issues.
A reconceptualized approach to accountability. The critically progressive view of the
accountability perspective is advanced at Allerton State by those faculty members who affirm the
need for accountability in education but also push to redefine the conversation around this issue.
Their discussion of accountability, then, moves beyond much of the current rhetoric and suggests
a different stance that in many ways expects even more of schools and teachers. This includes,
first of all, a broadening of the standards to include references to issues of social justice, equity,
and urban education. Furthermore, the focus on standards includes a strong emphasis on their
implications for instruction and student support so that the goal of promoting academic
achievement of all students can become a reality. Teresa stressed, for example, the teachers’
responsibility to move beyond the use of standardized assessments and to create “other measures
that are more powerful and more meaningful” in order to provide a complete picture of student
learning. In a course on urban teaching often taught by Tara, the ability to use multiple sources

114

of evidence in student assessment is listed among the criteria by which teacher candidates will be
evaluated in their fieldwork.
This approach also incorporates a more nuanced and challenging view of accountability.
Tara spoke of the central role of teachers in the classroom and of the need for highly qualified
teachers. She stressed, however, that those qualifications needed to extend beyond strong
content and pedagogical knowledge to include “the ability to connect with students, with their
funds of knowledge, with the communities from which they come.” Teresa also focused on the
need for teachers to appreciate the diversity in their classrooms and to connect with the school
community. Likewise Paul, who unreservedly affirmed the importance of holding teachers
accountable for student learning and looking for ways to evaluate their performance, moved
beyond the focus on test scores and suggested that teachers receive regular feedback and
constructive criticism from other teachers or school leaders. He also suggested that teachers
need to find ways to regularly reflect on their work and to receive feedback from their students.
Paul stated, “Imagine if at the end of every class a teacher would say to the students, ‘So, what
could I have done better today?’ Imagine giving the power away and empowering your students
by saying what worked well today, what didn’t work well . . . .”
Finally, the broadened view includes getting involved with efforts to create and find new
systems of teacher evaluation. Nancy described in detail work that she and other faculty
members were involved in at the local school district and state level to create, pilot, and
implement a new system of pre-service teacher evaluation and in-service teacher performance
assessment. She stated, “I think we talk about accountability; we’re really taking it to a new
place.” Although many details are still to be worked out, she described a system that would be
“much more intense and involved and performance based.” She also noted that it would require

115

many more resources than currently allocated to teacher evaluation and assessment, and
therefore would need the support of the state legislature.
A unified vision of accountability. Although there is variability in the manner in which
the accountability perspective is perceived and presented at Allerton State, the case study data
reflect a fairly unified vision of accountability. While two of the faculty participants, Neal and
Stefan, focused almost exclusively on the negative in their portrayal of the accountability
perspective, all of the faculty members except Stefan explicitly affirmed the importance of strong
subject-matter knowledge, teaching and content standards, and some form of accountability. The
case study data, then, align with statements about this perspective found in program documents.
A degree of variability emerges when looking beyond these initial areas of affirmation to
consider the manner in which the accountability perspective was portrayed by the individual
faculty members. Stefan’s treatment of accountability focused almost entirely on presenting a
critical stance toward this perspective and the way it works to perpetuate inequality and injustice
in schools and society. Neal also presented a predominantly negative focus, but his work with
teacher candidates around social studies content standards presented a positive opinion of at least
this aspect of the accountability perspective and equipped his teacher candidates to interact with
and use content standards in their teaching. Peter shared this focus on standards and portrayed
alignment with the accountability perspective as a necessary reality of contemporary teaching.
The remaining five interview respondents presented a critically progressive view of
accountability which included a critique of certain accountability practices but also included
strong affirmation of teaching and content standards and sought to present teacher candidates
with a reconceptualized view of accountability that prepared them to be critically aware of the
way standards and accountability function in schools and challenged them to a view of

116

accountability that included attention to social justice and equity. This approach, which is also
reflected in the teaching standards highlighted in the program documents, points to an approach
to accountability that intersects with the program’s emphasis on equity. Furthermore, the fact
that a majority of the teacher candidates reflected this view suggests that teacher candidates are
likely to receive a mostly consistent message about the accountability perspective through their
program experience, and that this message will challenge them with an approach to
accountability that includes a focus on social justice and equity.
The Teacher Candidates’ Understanding of Accountability
Although the teacher candidates at Allerton State presented a rather uniform message
regarding the accountability perspective, it is also necessary, as noted above, to explore the
manner in which this message was received by the students in the program. The data gathered
through interviews with the teacher candidates at Allerton reflect the uniform message portrayed
by the teacher educators while also giving evidence of important differences in the personal
approach of the teacher candidates toward the accountability perspective.
The teacher candidates. The 11 interview participants represented a fairly traditional
group of university students. While several of the teacher candidates reported that they had
switched majors or changed schools during the course of their undergraduate studies, all of them
except one transitioned immediately from high school to the university and were on track to
finish their program in four or five years. Trent, an English major, was the only teacher
candidate who reported that he was an older than average student, in his late 20s. He noted that
he had dropped out of college for a time to pursue some other interests, but then returned once he
decided to become a teacher.

117

None of the teacher candidates referred to prior experience in urban settings as a
motivation for entering the field of urban education. On the contrary, several alluded to the fact
that their background was very different than that of the students they were teaching in their field
placements or that they could not relate to living in poverty or facing the obstacles generally
associated with living in high-poverty communities. All of the teacher candidates who
participated in the interviews at Allerton State were White.
The received curriculum. During the interviews, the current teacher candidates at
Allerton State presented a rather consistent view of the message about the accountability
perspective that they were receiving from their urban teacher preparation program. This message
was characterized by a strong emphasis on content and teaching standards and a critical yet
pragmatic approach to standardized testing. However, interview responses also demonstrated
some variation in the way the teacher candidates understood the meaning and practice of
accountability in education.
All of the respondents asserted that content standards were a primary focus in their course
work and field experiences at Allerton State. They reported that they reviewed and analyzed
state and national content standards in their courses and were expected to incorporate these
standards into their lesson and unit plans. For example, Trent stated, “We definitely talk about
how to incorporate the different standards we should be meeting with our students and we’ve had
classes that deal with assessment and how to focus and create fair assessments for students based
on the standards.” Ted also reported that in his course work they “constantly” talked about the
common core standards and that “every lesson plan is supposed to be aligned to common core
standards.” Maria described class discussions about state standards and projects that were
assigned in which she had to connect artifacts to the standards and indicate how she

118

demonstrated them in her teaching. She also articulated that she found great benefit in a project
that required them to analyze the state standards in order to more clearly understand the learning
goals associated with them. She demonstrated her enthusiasm when she declared, “I’m anxious
to do that with the common core standards.” Tisha also emphasized the focus on content
standards that she encountered in her math methods class. She stated, “We get [the math]
standards, and we read through them. We discuss them, and we do problems that are related to
them, and we talk very in depth about all of the standards.”
The teacher candidates reported that teaching standards also occupied a central place in
their teacher preparation program. Several students reported that teaching standards were
included in each course syllabus and were incorporated into their portfolio—a requirement for
successful completion of the program and teacher certification. Valerie explained that for her
exit portfolio she was required “to write like a two-page essay on each teaching standard and
how we satisfy those.” She went on to state that the standards “are very in our face.” Ted also
spoke of the central place of the teaching standards in his program and expressed his opinion that
the teaching standings “guide our professors’ decisions about what they’re going to be teaching
in the courses.”
Several respondents mentioned that the professors made attempts to avoid presenting a
biased view of some issues related to accountability. Melissa reported, for example, that in
discussions about the use of standardized tests as an accountability measure her professors “just
teach us the facts and leave it up to us to make up our own minds.” Trent stated that his
professors presented both pros and cons of standardized testing, and Tracy also noted that
professors were good at getting the teacher candidates to ask questions about issues related to
standards and accountability.

119

The majority of respondents, however, focused on the critical stance toward certain
aspects of the accountability perspective, especially standardized testing, that they picked up
from their professors. Trent noted that his professors presented “a little bit more of a critical
tone” in discussions of policies related to No Child Left Behind and the unrealistic expectations
behind some state or federal standards. He stated that the professors “tend to avoid political bias
or anything like that, but they’re very candid” in their critique. Valerie reported that “we
constantly talk about how standardized testing’s not the best way to gauge either student
knowledge or quality of teaching.” She indicated that much of the concern about testing was
related to current plans in the state legislature to incorporate student testing results into a plan for
teacher accountability. This led, she reported, to discussions about the dangers of teaching to the
test. Richard also noted the relationship of discussions about standardized testing to the current
political climate in the state. He reported that the general idea he picked up in his classes was
that standardized tests were fundamentally flawed and not appropriate to serve as a measure of
teacher effectiveness. Maria asserted that in her courses they had talked about standardized
testing and its use as a teacher accountability measure. In these discussions, she reported,
professors encouraged critical discussions about the tests, how they are scored, and the ultimate
meaning assigned to the results.
Several students also highlighted their professors’ emphasis on preparing students for
success on the standardized assessments. Nathan, a math major, reported that there had been a
great deal of discussion about various forms of standardized tests and their relationship to
content standards and that the emphasis was on how to prepare students to be successful on the
tests. Similarly, Maria reported that in her courses standardized tests were viewed as a
requirement that teachers were going to have to deal with and incorporate into their curriculum

120

in order to “set up our students to be successful.” Maria also noted a pragmatic message in
regards to the place of standards in teaching. She reported that the professors present an
approach that focuses on the reality of standards in education and the need for teachers “to make
them work.” In a similar manner, Tracy reported that “the message is to know the test because
you’re not going to get away from the test.”
There was more variability in the way the different teacher candidates spoke about the
message they received about educational accountability. The majority of the discussion focused
on teacher accountability practices and the use of standardized assessments to evaluate teachers.
Trent, however, spoke of discussions in his classes about personal accountability and the need to
hold students accountable for rules and expectations. Trent described this sort of accountability
as including a teachers’ responsibility to have clear personal standards and also to be responsible
to students, families, the school, and the administration. Similarly, Ted stated that in his
coursework professors held him accountable to standards which reflected his responsibility, as a
teacher, to meet the needs of diverse learners and to teach the common core content standards.
Nathan and Tisha, both math majors, also reported a focus on responsibility in course discussions
of accountability. Nathan specifically related his experience in an introductory education class in
which the professor stressed the teacher’s responsibility to ensure that students understood
course material and were able to perform at grade level. The professor also stated, according to
Nathan, that it was the teacher’s responsibility to provide the necessary resources and support
that students would need in order to succeed academically.
The students’ views of accountability. Although the teacher candidates at Allerton
State described the message that they received from their program experiences in a rather
uniform manner, the interview data point to significant variability in their personal viewpoints

121

about the accountability perspective. Also, they spoke about accountability in a way that
differed in important ways from the message presented by the teacher candidates at Peyton
University. Therefore, different categories emerge from the interview data from Allerton State
than from the data from Peyton. At Allerton State, the interview responses reflect four different
viewpoints of the accountability perspective: a weak alignment coupled with a strong critique, a
moderate alignment, a strong affirmation, and a strong affirmation coupled with a strong critique.
Weak alignment, strongly critical. Trent, Melissa, and Patricia presented a view that
included minimal agreement coupled with a strongly critical stance of the accountability
perspective. This approach was characterized by a limited affirmation of the place of standards
in education and a clear critique of standardized testing and federal or state accountability
policies.
These three teacher candidates acknowledged the role of standards in promoting student
achievement, but their affirmation included uncertainty about the appropriate way to incorporate
standards into teaching or a concern that the push for standards could be detrimental to quality
teaching. Patricia noted the emphasis on content standards that was present in her teacher
preparation program but expressed her personal struggle in using them effectively in her lesson
planning. Melissa expressed agreement with the idea of common core standards “because I feel
that all teachers should have a set of goals that they try to reach with their students.” She
rejected, however, what she termed a “micro-managed approach” of how to reach these
standards. Trent also asserted the need for clear standards in his classroom and commonly
accepted benchmarks which could serve as a guide to determine what students should be
studying each year. However, he expressed a clearly negative attitude toward “the standards that
are forced upon you by your school district, your state’s department of education, and the federal

122

[government].” He also stated that “the further you get from the standards of the individual
classrooms, the more unrealistic [they] become.” He then argued that we cannot expect all
students to fit under one “umbrella of standards.”
Melissa, Trent, and Patricia were united in their critique of standardized testing practices
and educational policy mandates. Melissa first asserted that standardized assessments did not
serve any appropriate purpose in education. She backed away from this assertion by
acknowledging that the testing could be beneficial, but she condemned the way that many
schools encourage teaching to the test and the high stakes nature of the assessments. She stated,
“These tests are weighed so heavily on these students’ future and education that . . . it has the
chance to really screw their future educationally and professionally.” She also argued that use of
standardized assessments for the purpose of teacher evaluation was “ludicrous.” She confidently
explained, “Obviously it’s insane because the first thing they teach you when you are to be an
educator is you always want to make sure your assessments match your objectives. The
objective of the [state test] is to measure 8th graders’ readiness and skill for high school, not
teacher performance. That’s insane; so just deductively you can see how idiotic the whole thing
is.”
Although not with the same passion, Trent also expressed concern that giving undue
importance to the test results worked to turn teachers’ attention away from an emphasis on
providing students with quality learning experiences. Speaking from his vantage point as a
future English teacher, he noted that the reading and writing skills required to do well on
standardized tests ignore important literary qualities such as creativity, voice, and critical
thinking. He argued, “If I’m trying to teach the students how to be good readers, I can’t focus on
that if I’m trying to teach them, or almost train them, condition them, to pass a standardized

123

test.” Patricia shared the concern that the focus on testing was adding stress to the learning
environment and took teachers’ attention away from the realization “that these are kids with
brains that need nurturing, and they’re not machines that need to pop out all the right answers.”
A moderate alignment. Four of the teacher candidates—Ted, Richard, Tisha, and
Valerie—reflected a moderate alignment with the accountability perspective in their interview
responses. This approach was characterized by a general affirmation of the importance of
holding high academic expectations, the need for strong classroom management practices, and
the role of content standards in teaching. This view also contained a limited critique of certain
practices related to the standards and accountability movement.
These teacher candidates affirmed the need for high expectations in urban classrooms.
Valerie and Richard both stressed the need for high academic expectations in efforts to improve
student performance in urban schools. Tisha stated that in her teaching she provides her students
with clear academic expectations as a way to promote accountability to learning in her
classroom, and Ted emphasized the need for strong content knowledge as an essential
characteristic of successful urban teachers. They each emphasized the place of strong classroom
management skills in effective schools. Richard gave an example of a successful urban middle
school that pushed its students to attend good high schools and did not tolerate many behaviors
that would be “par for the course” at other urban schools. When asked about a book that she
would recommend to any future teacher, Valerie highlighted a book on classroom management
that she had used in one of her university courses.
Valerie, Ted, Tisha, and Richard were also united in their commitment to content
standards as an essential foundation to their teaching. Valerie discussed the important role of
standards in giving students clear expectations; she also argued that common standards are

124

essential to confront the high student mobility rate that often characterizes urban school districts.
In discussing school curriculum, Ted articulated his appreciation for the common core standards
as a “go-to guide” and a “guiding higher authority.” He also noted that in his classroom
assessments he liked to use rubrics that were aligned with the common core standards. Tisha
noted her appreciation for content standards and pacing guides as the foundation to good lesson
planning. Richard offered a less clear affirmation of the importance of content standards, but he
acknowledged their usefulness in serving as a “decent guide to periodically check in and see how
you’re doing.”
These teacher candidates were less clear about their approach to accountability. Ted
noted that there are problems with using test scores to hold teachers accountable and pointed
instead to the need for teachers to be sure to fulfill their requirements and “cover their bases.”
Richard acknowledged the need for increased accountability among teachers but also stated that
the current reliance on test scores “scares me a little bit from the standpoint that I can see it being
taken too far.” Valerie also seemed uncertain of her thoughts about accountability in schools.
She stated that “maybe the teacher should be held accountable [for test scores] because their
teaching should have prepared [students] for the test.” She suggested that students might also be
held accountable. Tisha advanced the most positive view of accountability among this group.
She stated that there should be multiple levels of accountability in education that included
teachers, students, parents, and school leaders. She was uncertain, however, how her approach to
accountability might be implemented.
Although they did not express strong opinions, their interview responses reflected an
acknowledgement of the place of standardized testing in schools coupled with a mildly critical
stance toward certain testing practices. Valerie stated that standardized tests could be useful in

125

measuring student progress, but she was concerned with the heavy emphasis placed on the test
results in many schools. Richard stated that test scores were not “ideal,” but also argued that
they “almost are the only realistic option” to measure student achievement. Ted’s approach to
testing focused on preparing students to do well, even if he was not convinced of the tests’
validity. He stated, “You don’t want the students to do poorly on it because the standardized
tests are very high stakes and they very much matter.” He stressed, however, that he hoped his
teaching would go beyond the test to provide students with needed competencies that are not
able to be measured on a test. While being aware of some concerns about validity and cultural
appropriateness, Tisha also seemed for the most part to be quite uncertain about the role of
standardized tests and how they functioned in schools.
Strong affirmation. Two of the teacher candidates expressed a strong affirmation of the
accountability perspective. This viewpoint was marked by an emphasis on content knowledge
and classroom management, a clear declaration of the importance of standards, and a pragmatic
approach to testing and accountability.
Both Nathan and Maria asserted the central role of content knowledge in teaching and
learning. Nathan described school’s purpose as providing students with the knowledge they
would need to succeed in life, and Maria listed strong content knowledge as an essential
characteristic of quality teaching. Nathan and Maria also agreed that effective classroom
management was important in urban teaching.
Nathan and Maria placed special emphasis on the role of standards in quality urban
education. Nathan described one function of standards as ensuring that students received the
information they would need to be prepared for life after school. He also described in detail the
curriculum standards and pacing guide that positively impacted his fieldwork in a middle school

126

math classroom. Maria affirmed, “Common core standards have come out, and I think it’s good
that as a nation we have some definitive goals.” She also explained the multiple levels of
standards—including the subject matter department, local school, school district, and common
core—that should be a part of school curriculum.
Nathan and Maria expressed reservations about standardized assessment along with a
commitment to prepare students for success on the tests. Nathan lamented the amount of
classroom time that needed to be dedicated to preparing students for standardized assessments.
However, he spoke positively of the connection between the tests and the common core content
standards. He reported that he did not want to “teach straight to the test,” but he went on to
describe in detail strategies for preparing students to do well on the tests. Maria stated that she
felt there was a need to improve current testing practices. She stated, “It’s not that I’m against it;
it’s more that I think we’re going about it in the wrong way and we haven’t quite found how to
test and make sure we’re really testing what they’re learning.” She affirmed, however, the need
for teachers to incorporate test preparation into the curriculum in order for students to be
successful.
These teacher candidates spoke of accountability in a similar fashion. They each
expressed reservations about certain aspects of accountability practices but also recounted ways
they tried to affirm the spirit of accountability in their teaching. Maria spoke of multiple levels
of accountability that should exist in schools. These spoke specifically about the ways that
students, teachers, and administrators should be held accountable for certain aspects of
schooling. Nathan described accountability as an “iffy” topic that led to a lot of “fingerpointing.” For him, accountability had to do with the responsibility he felt for his students’

127

performance. He stated, “I really take a lot of my students’ grades and performances to heart; I
try to go way above and beyond.”
Strong affirmation, strong critique. Tracy, an English major, presented a unique
approach to the accountability perspective in that she strongly affirmed certain qualities while
advancing a strong critique of other parts of the perspective. First, when discussing important
qualities of urban teachers, Tracy stressed the need for teachers to provide students with a
rigorous curriculum, hold high expectations, and maintain a sincere belief in the ability of their
students to succeed. She also discussed the role of standards as the foundation of lesson and unit
planning and stated that the standards allowed sufficient room for teachers to flexible in their
instruction.
Tracy expressed a clear and strong critique of current standardized testing and
accountability practices. She stated that an appropriate use of standardized tests would be to
provide teachers information about what concepts they should target in their teaching. She
strongly condemned, however, the negative consequences that are often associated with poor
performance on tests. She was especially critical of policies that applied negative consequences
to underperforming schools. She argued that students who are not performing well need
additional resources and that “it doesn’t make sense to me to disinvest as a result of poor
performance on a standardized test.” Tracy was also highly critical of what she called “extreme”
ideas surrounding accountability and of the use of standardized tests as the basis for teacher
evaluations. She stated, “I think people are upset that this is the case, not that teachers are being
held accountable, but that the assessments of our work are not really appropriate measures of our
work, or even really of our students’ abilities.”

128

Uniform message, disparate outcomes. The teacher candidates at Allerton State
demonstrated a high level of agreement regarding the message they were receiving about the
accountability perspective. Although interview responses indicated some lack of consistency in
regards to the way accountability was talked about by the program faculty, for the most part they
pointed to a general agreement among the students that their program emphasized the importance
of teaching and content standards and presented a critical stance toward current standardized
testing and accountability practices.
This uniformity, however, did not extend to their personal beliefs about the role of
accountability in education. The teacher candidates were united in their support of standards to
improve teaching and learning and the need to hold high academic expectations. They also
joined in expressing some degree of hesitation about the use of standardized tests and related
accountability measures. However, there was a significant degree of variation in the type and
strength of the critique that was offered. The candidates advancing a moderate or strong
alignment to accountability offered a rather mild critique of current testing practices. In contrast,
the other teacher candidates were strongly critical of the current use of standardized assessments
and their use in making important decisions about school funding and teacher quality. In
addition, in their discussion of a variety of issues related to urban education, the teacher
candidates at Allerton State varied in their support of important aspects of the accountability
perspective. They expressed opinions ranging from a very limited acknowledgement of some
characteristics of accountability to strong affirmation of the majority of principles and practices
advocated by this perspective.

129

The Intended and Received Curriculum of Accountability at Allerton State
A comparison of the intended program message, the teacher candidates’ reports of this
message, and the personal opinions of the teacher candidates points to elements of both
consistency and variation (see Table 5.2). As discussed previously, the data gathered from
program faculty indicate a rather uniform message advancing a critically progressive approach to
the accountability perspective. Of the teacher educators who participated in this study, only
three who taught subject-specific teaching methods courses presented a weak or pragmatic
affirmation of the accountability perspective, suggesting that it is quite likely that the critically
progressive approach advanced by the majority of the interview respondents would be more
characteristic of the general experience of the teacher candidates. This measure of uniformity
aligns with the consistent manner in which the teacher candidates discussed the way in which the
accountability perspective was portrayed through their program experiences. This consistency
included the candidates’ affirmation of the role of standards in education and their critique of
standardized assessment and accountability practices. However, it is significant to note that the
teacher candidates did not report having encountered the progressive view of accountability that
was emphasized by the majority of the teacher candidates. This may reflect the tendency of the
teacher candidates to center their discussion of accountability primarily on the standards and
accountability discourse which is reflected in much of current education policy.
The teacher candidates’ discussions of their personal beliefs about the accountability
perspective demonstrate that the mostly unified character of the program message did not
translate into agreement among the student participants. There were important differences in
their level of affirmation of certain aspects of this perspective and in their understanding of
educational accountability. Also, although all of the candidates expressed some level of concern

130

about current standardized assessment practices, they varied significantly in the type of critique
that they offered.
Table 5.2. Accountability at Allerton State University
Program faculty

Typology

Agreement

Received curriculum

weak approach
pragmatic affirmation
critically progressive

strong subject-matter
knowledge
teaching and content
standards
some form of
accountability
critically progressive
stance of majority
meaning of
accountability

emphasis on content
and teaching
standards
pragmatic approach to
standardized testing
critical stance

meaning and practice
of accountability

Variation

Personal beliefs of
teacher candidates
weak and critical
moderate alignment
strong affirmation
strong affirmation,
strong critique
affirmation of role of
standards
critical element in
view of standardized
testing

degree of critique
toward standardized
assessment practices
meaning of
accountability

Emerging Patterns: Two Approaches to Accountability
The case study data point to important areas of agreement both within and between the
two programs as well as significant differences in the way the accountability perspective is
portrayed at these two urban-focused teacher preparation programs. In addition, key issues
emerge from the analysis that have important implications for our understanding of the
accountability perspective and the way it functions in urban-focused teacher preparation
programs.
A Comparison of the Two Programs
There are important similarities and differences in the way the accountability perspective
was presented and received in the two programs (see Table 5.3). First, at both case study sites
131

there was substantial agreement among the faculty members in their views toward content
knowledge, academic expectations, and current standardized testing practices. Almost all of the
teacher educators affirmed that a strong foundation in content knowledge was an essential
component of teacher preparation and that successful urban schools and teachers must hold high
academic expectations for their students. They also uniformly criticized the current use of
standardized tests as a measure of student achievement and as a principle means of holding
schools and teachers accountable for student learning. In addition, at both universities there was
variation in the way this perspective was portrayed by the teacher educators.
Table 5.3. The Accountability Perspective: A Program Comparison

Program
Message

Peyton
focus on content knowledge
emphasis on high expectations
critique of standardized testing
disparate understandings of
accountability

Allerton State
strong subject-matter knowledge
emphasis on high expectations
critique of standardized testing
disparate understandings of
accountability

neutral approach to current
debates
significant differences of
opinion among program
faculty
practical approach to
standardized testing
disparate understandings of
accountability

role of teaching and content
standards
predominance of critically
progressive stance

Teacher
Candidates’ neutral approach to current
Reports
debates
level of uncertainty and
confusion

pragmatic approach to
standardized testing
variation in understanding of
accountability
program emphasis on content
and teaching standards
critical stance toward standards
and accountability
personal affirmation of role of
standards

Data collected from teacher candidates also reflected important similarities. Students at
both universities reported that their program sought to prepare teacher candidates for the current
132

focus on standards, testing, and accountability that exists in K-12 education. They also reported
that the programs emphasized the importance of being familiar with the demands placed on them
by current state or federal education policies and of preparing their students to take the mandated
assessments.
Along with these basic similarities between the two programs, there are significant ways
in which they differed in their approach to the accountability perspective. First, a stress on the
importance of standards in teaching and learning was much more evident at Allerton State than
at Peyton University. While only one faculty member (Mark) at Peyton explicitly promoted
content or teaching standards in his work with teacher candidates or in the discussion of issues
related to urban teaching and learning, all of the interview participants at Allerton State, with the
exception of Stefan, articulated a positive view toward content and teaching standards and
described how they incorporated these standards into their preparation of teachers.
Second, most of the teacher educators at Peyton reported that they did not push one
particular stance over another when it came to debates about standards and accountability
practices in education today. The majority either paid little attention to these debates or chose to
focus on presenting teacher candidates with as much information as possible so that they could
formulate their own opinions and approaches. In contrast, the teacher educators at Allerton State
emphasized the need to equip teacher candidates to understand the issues and to take a critical
stance toward the current emphasis on standards and accountability.
Furthermore, the strong commitment to a critically progressive approach to
accountability communicated by the majority of teacher educators at Allerton State stands in
contrast to the limited number of faculty members (two out of seven) at Peyton who articulated
this stance. Furthermore, the critically progressive viewpoint at Allerton State was generally

133

presented in a more complete fashion, including specific references to social justice and equity.
In their discussion of accountability, these teacher educators pointed to an approach that included
key points of intersection with their programs’ emphasis on equity.
The student data also pointed to important differences in the two programs. According to
the students, the program message at Peyton University was characterized by a mostly neutral
discussion of issues related to standards and accountability and a considerable amount of
confusion with regards to the role of accountability in education. In contrast, while the students
at Allerton State also expressed some variation in their understanding of educational
accountability, they characterized the program’s message as highly focused on standards and
consistently critical of standardized testing and current accountability practices.
Emerging Issues and Implications
In addition to noting the similarities and differences between the two case study
programs, the data also point to several key issues that contribute to our understanding of the
place of the accountability perspective in urban-focused teacher preparation and are worthy of
further consideration. These issues include the level of program coherence, the intertextual
nature of the discourse of accountability, and the potential impact of a broader and
reconceptualized vision of the accountability perspective.
Program coherence. The presence of a coherent vision and clearly stated goals has been
related to effective teacher education and the ability to develop new understandings (DarlingHammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005; Feiman-Nemser, 2001). The data
from Peyton University point to a lack of coherence with respect to their approach to the
accountability perspective. Although there are important areas of agreement among the program
faculty, it is also clear teacher candidates encounter a variety of outlooks and beliefs about the

134

accountability perspective during their program experience. This undoubtedly contributes to the
high level of variation in the way the teacher candidates approach the accountability perspective
and makes it very unlikely that new understandings or visions related to accountability would
have a chance to be thoroughly understood.
The program at Allerton State, in contrast, exhibits a significant level of coherence in its
approach to preparing teachers in general and in regard to its message regarding the
accountability perspective. The strong emphasis on content and teaching standards and the way
this emphasis is incorporated into course work and program requirements provides a clear
message to the teacher candidates. In addition, the relatively high level of agreement among the
program faculty in their presentation of a critically progressive view of accountability also gives
their students the opportunity to interact at a deep level with these ideas. This increased level of
coherence is reflected in the consistent reports of the teacher candidates about the message they
received from the program faculty. However, in spite of this increased level of consistency, the
teacher candidates varied significantly in their approach to the accountability perspective and
their understandings related to accountability. Furthermore, in spite of the rather uniform
message from the program about the need for a critically progressive view of accountability,
references to this sort of approach to accountability were largely absent from the responses of the
teacher candidates. Again, the discrepancy between the program message and the manner in
which it is understood by the student participants, even in a program with a significant degree of
coherence, highlights the need for teacher preparation programs to provide their teacher
candidates with a clearly organized framework and to incorporate central themes throughout the
program experience in order to promote deep understanding (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005).

135

The intertextual nature of the accountability discourse. An understanding of the
context of the interview data and the relationships that often exist among discourses is essential
to a thorough analysis of the manner in which the accountability perspective was presented and
understood in these urban-focused teacher preparation programs. In her introductory discussion
of discourse studies, Wodak (2008) noted that analysis of qualitative data must consider the ways
in which “texts are related to other texts” (p. 3), which she called intertextuality. In the same
volume, Abell and Myers (2008) described the intertextual links that exist in interview data as
study participants bring in other voices to their responses. At times these voices come from texts
that rely on the sociopolitical or historical context of the interview setting.
The intertextual nature of the case study interviews was certainly evident in the manner in
which the language and understanding of accountability was heavily influenced by the public
rhetoric surrounding this topic. As reference to standards or accountability emerged during the
interview sessions, the responses almost always turned to discussions of school practices, state
legislation, or federal policy that incorporate this language into mandates that influence teaching,
assessment, and teacher evaluation.
At both universities, several teacher candidates referenced a specific state law concerning
teacher accountability and the current political context as the basis for their discussion about the
meaning of accountability in education. Eric, for example, expressed his belief that the tension
that some see between accountability and equity was due to a new state proposal that linked
teacher pay to student performance. Valerie described the influence of her state’s new governor
on the negative attitude of many teachers toward teacher accountability practices. She explained
the stance of her professors by stating that they were all “anti the [governor’s name] business and
everything it stands for.” At both universities, opinions about the place of standards in education

136

was heavily influenced by educational policies mandating the use of high stakes tests to measure
student achievement. James represented the views of several of the students as he argued that
“there’s too much emphasis put on the test” in their state. Trent described the standards “that are
forced upon you by your school district, the standards that are forced upon you for your state
department of education, and then your federal standards.”
Marcia, a teacher educator at Peyton, noted that accountability was a “red flag term”
associated with a range of issues dealing with standardized testing, teacher evaluation, merit pay,
and tenure. She avoided, therefore, the use of this term in her work with the teacher candidates.
Likewise, Tara, part of the program faculty at Allerton State, shared that talk of standards or
accountability immediately drew her attention to the political discourse surrounding these issues.
She stated, “My visceral reaction to accountability is it’s a capitalist effort; I mean I have this
sense of politicians sitting in a room thinking, ‘Well, this works for business; this must work for
teaching.’” She went on to explain that when she examines these issues from an academic
perspective she is then able to consider their appropriate place in their teacher preparation
program.
During the interviews, therefore, it was clear that the policy discourse dominated the
thinking of those involved in the teacher education programs and therefore served as the starting
point for any discussion of accountability in the university classroom as well as in an interview
setting. While the critical stance advanced by many of the interview participants could naturally
lead to conversations about current practices and policies, I find that the focus on this aspect of
the discourse seemed to impede the ability of many of the respondents to move past this
discourse to consider other ways of understanding or conceptualizing the accountability
perspective. This was true of many of the teacher educators and almost all of the teacher

137

candidates. Therefore, just as it is necessary to understand the context of an interview in order to
analyze the data (Abell & Myers, 2008), it is also necessary to recognize the way in which the
social and political contexts related to educational accountability influence the way both teacher
educators and teacher candidates enter into this issue and make sense of it in their professional
lives. It also has the potential to impact the ability of urban educators to consider a new reality
related to accountability in education.
A new approach of accountability? While the current policy discourse related to
accountability clearly impacts and at times limits the way this perspective is presented and
understood in these urban-focused teacher preparation programs, the data also point to the
potential for an alternate educational discourse related to accountability. At each university,
there were faculty members who intentionally chose to move beyond the dominant policy
discourse to challenge their students to embrace an alternate view of accountability. At Peyton
University this was presented in terms of moving beyond the test, challenging teachers to open
up their classrooms to parents and the community, being accountable for the academic, social,
and emotional growth of students, and being responsible to promote social justice. At Allerton
State, teacher educators advanced a view of accountability that included standards of social
justice and equity and the search for meaningful measures that provide a more complete picture
of student learning. In each case, those who pushed for an alternate understanding of
accountability introduced the possibility of an interdiscursive relationship (Wodak, 2008)
between the accountability and equity perspectives. Therefore, while the interviews reflected
variation in the way accountability is understood both by teacher educators and teacher
candidates, the critically progressive approach to accountability offered by some teacher

138

educators gives at least a glimpse of what might be possible in terms of a new vision of
accountability.
Moving Forward: From Accountability to Equity
The case study data affirm the place of the accountability perspective in the urbanfocused teacher preparation programs at Peyton University and Allerton State University but also
point to both complexity and variability in the way this perspective is portrayed and understood
in these two programs. The analysis points to significant differences between the two programs
in their approach to accountability and also important differences between the way this
perspective is presented by the programs and the way it is understood by the teacher candidates.
The data, however, also highlight common understandings of the accountability perspective that
are present in these two programs and point to key issues which must be understood and
considered as part of an increased understanding of the place of this perspective in urban-focused
teacher preparation.
A final issue related to the place of the accountability perspective in urban-focused
teacher preparation has to do with its relationship to the equity perspective. While the program
documents provided a limited understanding of the relationship between these two perspectives
in the case study institutions, the case study data provide a more complete picture of how these
two perspectives relate. This chapter’s discussion of the accountability perspective has
demonstrated that for many of the research participants, their understanding of and approach to
accountability was heavily influenced by their understanding of the policy discourse related to
standards and accountability and therefore did not provide many openings for a consideration of
how equity and accountability might relate. However, a group of teacher educators at each
university advanced a critically perspective view of accountability that offers a glimpse of how

139

these two perspectives might interact in a meaningful way. In the following chapter, therefore, I
offer a thorough analysis of the data concerning the equity perspective as a foundation for the
final chapter’s discussion of the relationship between these two perspectives in urban-focused
teacher preparation.

140

CHAPTER SIX
EQUITY IN URBAN-FOCUSED TEACHER PREPARATION

As noted in Chapter 4, the program documents from Peyton University and Allerton State
University indicate that the equity perspective is strongly emphasized in their urban-focused
teacher preparation programs. As was true in examining the way these programs treat the
accountability perspective, however, it is necessary to go beyond the intended curriculum to
investigate both the manner in which this perspective was delivered and the way in which it was
received by the teacher candidates. In this chapter, then, I present a detailed analysis of the case
study data related to the equity perspective. I close this chapter with a brief comparison of the
two programs and a discussion of key findings related to the equity perspective.
The Equity Perspective at Peyton University
The equity perspective is clearly evident in Peyton University’s program documents
through multiple references to diversity, the social context of learning, social justice, and
student-centered and culturally relevant curriculum. To understand more deeply how this
emphasis is presented and understood in their urban-focused teacher preparation program, I
gathered data directly from the program participants. In the following sections, I report first on
the data gathered from teacher educators and then turn to the data gathered through interviews
with teacher candidates.
The Teacher Educators: Agreement and Ambiguity
The case study data confirm the prominent place of the equity perspective that was
highlighted in the various program documents and offer a more complete picture of how this
perspective was portrayed by program faculty. In addition, as was true with the accountability

141

perspective, the data indicate multiple approaches and viewpoints related to the equity
perspective. A synthesis of the data gathered from interviews with teacher educators and course
syllabi reflect three stances toward this perspective: a weak alignment, limited advocacy, an an
activist approach.
A weak alignment with the equity perspective. Albert, Daniel, and Christine presented
a weak alignment with the equity perspective. This approach was categorized by an awareness
of the impact of socio-cultural factors on education coupled with a weak or negative view of
social justice and the values of multicultural education. Furthermore, it was evident that issues
of equity played a limited role in their view of education and in their work with teacher
candidates.
These teacher educators reflected a strong awareness of the impact of social issues on
teaching and learning and of the importance of this understanding on the part of teacher
candidates. For example, Albert discussed discrepancies in school funding among school
districts and differences in the types of issues and problems confronted by urban schools. In a
similar fashion, Daniel’s strong critique of the standards and accountability movement focused
on current practices that ignore the impact of poverty, language, and culture. He also shared that
in his course they discuss the impact of racism, poverty, and “all kind of issues that could impact
the achievement gap.” The syllabus for his social studies methods course listed 12 knowledge
objectives. These included helping students understand the role of global issues such as
migration, hunger, human rights and ethnicity and understanding “the critical role that race,
ethnicity, religion, and culture play” in society. Christine similarly shared that in her methods
class they regularly discussed issues of poverty and lack of resources and how these impact
classroom teaching.

142

In discussion of a variety of educational issues, however, these faculty members
demonstrated little or no alignment with the equity perspective. For example, other than a brief
mention of the need to critically examine assumptions associated with standardized testing,
Albert’s interview responses reflected a weak, and for the most part, absent stance toward the
equity perspective. He expressed the opinion that issues of social justice played in important part
in Peyton’s teacher preparation program, but it was not something that was important to him.
His focus was on teaching instructional methods, and while speaking of social justice he shared
that “it’s one of those times where I feel—well, let me focus on the things that I believe are
important.” This stance was clearly reflected in his course syllabus, which focused entirely on
the technical and methodological aspects of using technology in the classroom.
Daniel’s discussion of school curriculum portrayed a viewpoint that incorporated aspects
of the equity perspective while challenging other of its values. Daniel held to a cultural
transmission view of the purpose of education; however, he also affirmed the need to critically
examine school curriculum, and his syllabus affirmed the importance of respect for diverse
viewpoints and a recognition of the crucial place of dialogue and dissent in a democratic society.
He also stated that the purpose of education in our country “is to transmit the cultural heritage of
the society, our cultural values, our political values, our economic values.” At the same time, he
highlighted the power issues inherent in decisions regarding school curriculum, describing
curriculum as “a weapon, and it can be used by different groups for different purposes.”
However, he went on to express a negative view of those who desire to use curriculum to
“challenge the dominant, elites in society, to challenge capitalism, . . . .”
In addition, Daniel’s discussion of the impact of race and class on education reflected a
position that in many ways denies the existence of racial and economic inequity in our society.

143

He stated that in his course on diversity he highlighted our nation’s negative legacies of racism,
segregation, and poverty and that the impact of poverty must be taken into account when
considering teacher accountability practices. However, his discussion of urban school
improvement and social justice demonstrated an unwillingness to thoroughly address how issues
of race and class contribute to current educational inequities. He argued that teachers “simply
need to have incredibly high expectations and hold Blacks and Latinos to the same standards that
they’d hold middle-class White students for example, where there can be no bigotry in terms of
reverse bigotry.” He also downplayed the current impact of racism in our nation. He pointed to
the many African Americans who are in the middle class and have done well academically as
proof that “racism is not the insurmountable barrier that it used to be in this country.” He also
argued that “believing that any inequality among groups is proof of racism is patently false and
dangerous.”
Daniel was also highly critical of educators who stress the importance of social justice.
He described social justice as a “buzz word” and a “loaded term” that is often “just code for
criticizing the capitalist system, blaming group A because group B is poverty stricken, for
example.” Daniel advocated a view of social justice that focused on “our moral and
constitutional mandates . . . to provide equal opportunities.” He rejected, however, any notion
that promoted equality of results or a belief that “inequality among groups is proof” of injustice.
Similarly, Christine presented an uncertain view of equity in education. She was clearly
uncomfortable discussing social justice, stating, “I don’t really know what it means actually.”
She went on to propose that social justice in mathematics could be accomplished through the use
of problems relating to social justice issues; however, it was clear that this was not something
she regularly promoted in her teaching. Christine stated that she regularly raises issues of

144

diversity and student needs in her courses and challenges the urban teacher candidates to think
about how they will handle such issues. She gave an example of specific discussions related to
students who cannot afford calculators or teachers who do not have adequate classroom
resources. Christine described an equitable classroom as a place where all students have the
opportunity to learn and “to display their knowledge in a way that’s reasonable for them.” This
requires, she explained, accommodations for students’ needs and curriculum, teaching, and
assessment that enable each individual to reach their full potential.
It would be expected that the place in the program of the three professors advancing this
weak alignment with the equity perspective would influence the manner in which this viewpoint
would be experienced by the teacher candidates going through the urban-focused teacher
preparation program at Peyton University. The influence of Christine and Daniel would be
limited to the math and social studies majors who participate in their methods courses. All
cohort members would interact with Albert in his technology course. However, given his
expressed desire to avoid discussions related to equity, the students in his class would not be
encouraged to view equity as something that is necessarily integrated into classroom teaching
and practice. This might further contribute to a weak understanding of the role of the equity
perspective in urban education.
A limited advocacy approach to equity. Other faculty expressed a more positive stance
toward the equity perspective. What I term the limited advocacy approach includes an emphasis
on the social context of learning, a clear understanding of the impact of race and class on
education, and a concern for social justice and equity in its practice. The view of social justice,
however, is somewhat limited and focuses primarily on meeting the needs of individual students
and providing all students with a quality education.

145

Carl, Mark, and David reflected this understanding of the equity perspective in their
interview responses. They affirmed the importance of understanding the social context of
teaching and learning and pushing their teacher candidates to get to know their students, be
familiar with the communities in which they work, and understand the impact of race and class
on school and society. Carl, for example, described urban centers as places “where relationships
are going to be very, very important in preparing teachers.” He also stressed the necessity of
being aware of the strengths and challenges present in urban schools and of “what we are doing,
who we’re going out to teach, what strategies there are.” To accomplish this, the urban-focused
program at Peyton, asserted Carl, works to make their teacher candidates part of the community
as the first step in their teacher preparation. Mark also stressed the importance of understanding
the life experiences of urban students and “the role of class and race in a school setting.” He
argued that in order to be successful in urban schools, teachers need to “have some commitment
to broader social improvement.”
These teacher educators affirmed other aspects of the equity perspective as well. Mark
reported that he wants the teacher candidates to understand the importance of incorporating
students’ life histories as well as community values into lesson plans. His syllabus stated that
teachers should be able to design culturally responsive lessons and teaching strategies, use
information about their students and their communities as a foundation for their teaching, and
learn to create a classroom atmosphere in which all students can learn. One of the core
assignments in his course was the creation of a community map, on video, based on the teacher
candidates’ exploration of the urban community in which they would be teaching. He
summarized his, and the university program’s, focus as trying “to take the community in which

146

children live and put it into their classrooms to the greatest degree possible, so as to increase the
amount of validity the students see in the content.”
This group also advanced a critical perspective of important issues in education. This
was reflected, for example, in Carl’s discussion of school curriculum. Carl described himself as
a traditionalist, believing that “there is a body of knowledge that everyone should have.” At the
same time, he highlighted the hegemony issue related to who is controlling the knowledge that is
taught in schools that is inherent in any such discussion. In addition, the syllabus for Carl’s
psychology of education class referenced the limitations of theories of growth and development
in diverse classroom settings, the role of language and culture in education, and the need to
understand diversity in teaching. Understanding cultural, ethnic, gender, and class difference
also was listed as a central topic in the course.
David similarly described his goal of introducing his teacher candidates to the social
issues, local politics, and other “external influences that are going to be affecting them.” He also
noted that teachers need to be aware of how these social issues affect equity. This emphasis was
evident in his syllabus which included “understanding of the social, political and economic
factors that influence education” and the incorporation of diversity into teaching as central
course goals. David gave an example of a class discussion about school choice, which he
described as a social issue impacting equity. His approach was to use readings that presented
both a positive and a negative stance regarding school choice. His goal was not to present one
viewpoint, but rather to allow students to “see the human face of both sides” of the issue.
Personally, he shared that he recognizes the negative impact that school choice can have on
educational equity, but does not see eliminating school choice as an option. Rather, he asserted
that it “makes it even more incumbent upon us to raise the quality of education offered

147

everybody, again hitting that lowest social standard acceptable in order to produce quality
education.”
While these teacher educators expressed a strong belief in promoting equity and social
justice in teaching, elements of their discussion of these issues reflected uncertainty about their
place in teacher preparation and advanced an understanding of social justice and equity that was
limited to concern for meeting the needs of all students. For example, while expressing his belief
in promoting equity and social justice in the preparation of teachers, Carl also voiced the concern
that teacher candidates may not gain a strong understanding of what this means while
participating in a teacher education program. Part of the difficulty, according to Carl, was that
“an issue like equity is a lot more difficult to measure.” He stated that he tried to demonstrate to
his students that social justice is “a moving target,” and that it requires flexibility to meet the
diverse needs of students. Mark’s view of social justice also was limited to a focus on meeting
the needs of all students. He asserted that social justice was a foundational aspect of what he
teaches in his teacher education courses and defined it by stating, “In education social justice
should mean that every student is afforded the same opportunity to succeed in the educational
arena, regardless of their markers of difference.”
David also indicated that he incorporates a heavy emphasis on social issues in his
approach to teaching and learning. On a personal level, David articulated a strong affinity for
issues of social justice based on his strong religious background and his experience running a
shelter for homeless men. He associated social justice with equity, which he defined as “almost
a baseline of quality to which everybody is entitled.” He saw providing this standard of
education as the responsibility of public education; however, he was quick to point out that he

148

does not equate equity with fairness, which he asserted is not “a fight we can win.” David’s
focus, then, was on providing all students with a certain standard of education.
David’s explanation of why he considered Paulo Freire’s (1970) Pedagogy of the
Oppressed to be one of his favorite books and one that he would highly recommend to new
teachers also clarified his approach to the equity perspective. He noted that many object to this
book because, they argue, Freire’s situation is not applicable to their teaching. David responded,
however, by noting that for him Pedagogy of the Oppressed “goes deeper than that.” He stated,
“It has to do a lot with personal philosophy of teaching and how you see yourself performing in
the classroom.” David’s discussion of Freire fit well with his overall view of social justice. He
advanced a predisposition toward issues of equity and justice, but his application of this view
focused on a personal approach to teaching and working to provide everyone with a certain
standard of education or opportunity. He ignored Freire’s call for liberation and opposition to
oppression and did not reflect an activist or critical bent in his articulation of social justice in
education.
The three faculty members advancing a limited advocacy of the equity perspective work
with all of the urban education cohort members in their courses in educational psychology,
classroom management, secondary teaching, and social issues in education. This approach to the
equity perspective, therefore, is one that is likely to permeate the program message offered to the
teacher candidates.
An activist approach to the equity perspective. While having much in common with
other faculty members at Peyton University, Marcia Radsty’s approach to educational equity was
clearly more comprehensive, integrated, and activist in orientation than that of her colleagues.
She clearly demonstrated that social justice was the fundamental lens through which she, with

149

her urban pre-service teachers, approaches teaching and learning. She asserted that a
commitment to social justice is a requirement for successful urban teachers. She defined social
justice in terms of equity, stating, “it’s equity; it’s looking for equity in education; it’s looking
for equal access for students.” She went on to explain that it also involves addressing issues of
“age, race, gender, sexual orientation, and making sure that all of those do not prevent a child
from their education.” Marcia also emphasized that a push for equity is not a desire to make
everyone the same. Rather, it includes an appreciation for diversity and its richness along with
efforts to ensure that all students have “the same opportunities for success and growth.”
Not only did Marcia’s discussion of these issues demonstrate a more comprehensive view
of equity, she also advanced an activist approach to social justice—a stance that moves beyond
promoting justice to include actively engaging in the fight for justice and equity in schools and
society. For example, her discussion of difference did not stop at promoting awareness; rather,
she asserted that social justice involved “removing those barriers of gender, race, sexual
orientation, language, whatever they may be, that exist and that are most evident in our urban
schools.” For Marcia, being critical of current accountability practices was not sufficient; rather,
she challenged her teacher candidates to go beyond helping students to pass a test to also be
responsible for promoting social justice in their classrooms.
Marcia gave several examples of how issues of equity and social justice were presented
in her classes and in the teacher education program in general. She cited the commitment of the
program faculty to social justice as essential to the message they sought to present to their
teacher candidates. She indicated that in coursework students talked about issues of poverty,
violence, and broken families and how they impact the educational experience of K-12 students.
They also talk about specific questions related to classroom practices, such as how to group

150

students and how to respond to students who share troubling information in a writing journal.
She also recounted discussions about the importance of building relationships and looking for
ways to support the diverse needs of students. Marcia indicated that preparing to deal with
issues such as these is crucial to the preparation of successful urban teachers.
Although Marcia was unique among the faculty interview participants in advancing an
activist approach to the equity perspective in her interview, her central role in the program, both
via her leadership position and her involvement with all of the teacher candidates throughout the
program, suggest that the teacher candidates would encounter this approach in meaningful ways
throughout their program.
Ambiguity in the program message. The general affirmation of the equity perspective
evident in the faculty interviews and course syllabi coincides with the message advanced by the
program documents. The case study data demonstrate general agreement that an understanding
of the influence of societal structures on teaching and learning is essential preparation for teacher
candidates and should be the foundation of the way various teaching practices are evaluated.
The data also point to a commitment to meeting the needs of diverse learners.
However, the teacher educators presented a variety of approaches to equity and social
justice both in degree of emphasis and in the meanings assigned to these terms. Several faculty
members presented a rather weak view of equity which included a misunderstanding, disregard,
or negative attitude toward social justice education. Others portrayed a much more positive
stance toward the equity perspective that included an emphasis on student difference and the
need for teaching that is culturally aware and relevant. Finally, Marcia articulated a stance
toward equity which promoted the active engagement of teachers in confronting injustice in
schools and society.

151

Peyton’s urban-focused teacher preparation program, therefore, contains a significant
degree of ambiguity in regards to essential aspects of the equity perspective. Although the
limited advocacy approach and the activist stance toward the equity perspective may be
presented more strongly than the weak alignment due to the more comprehensive and prominent
role of the faculty educators advocating these positions, the data still point to significant
variation in the message being presented to the teacher candidates. Furthermore, while the
program and its faculty affirmed certain parts of this perspective, teacher educators presented
mixed messages about the meaning of social justice and its implications for classroom teaching.
Teacher Candidates at Peyton University
As discussed in Chapter 5, a certain amount of variation between the message advanced
by the program faculty and the way this message is received and understood by the teacher
candidates is expected. In the following sections, I report on the students’ perceptions of the
curriculum they received and then on their own personal beliefs about the equity perspective.
Overall, the data indicate that the ambiguity in the message of the teacher educators is present to
a great extent in the reports of the teacher candidates. While they agreed about certain aspects of
the message they had received, they differed greatly in their personal outlook and understanding
of the equity perspective.
The received curriculum. The teacher candidates’ reports of how the equity perspective
was presented to them in the teacher preparation program at Peyton University reflected strong
acknowledgment of the central place of social justice in their program experience, significant
variation in their description of what they had been taught about social justice, and agreement
about the program’s emphasis on building relationships, being aware of the social context of
learning, and working to meet the needs of diverse learners.

152

The teacher candidates were unanimous in their assertion that the topic of social justice
was a key component of their program experience at Peyton. Nevertheless, the emphasis on
social justice was described in different ways by the teacher candidates. Both Kristy and Eric
recognized the program’s emphasis on social justice but did not describe it as being central to
their course work. Eric recalled an introductory activity in their first cohort meeting in which
each student was asked to share his or her perspective of social justice, but he was not able to
describe any other examples of how social justice or equity were portrayed in the program.
Similarly, Kristy spoke of the program’s emphasis on social justice but also stated that she did
not feel it was a main focus in her courses. She later stated that she had learned that social
justice should be an underlying theme in her classroom, but her description of what this would
look like—that she should “be a good example” to her students of being fair and good—
demonstrated a rather limited view of social justice.
The other interview respondents presented a stronger interaction with social justice in
their program experience. Andrea, while expressing personal uncertainty of a school’s ability to
promote social justice, summarized the program’s message about social justice as including
awareness of the community, social responsibility, community involvement, understanding of
students’ backgrounds, knowing the students, and working to prepare lessons that meet their
needs. Both James and Lara described social justice as a major focus of the program. James
reported that social justice was the first thing that he encountered in the program through an
activity in which each teacher candidate shared an artifact related to social justice. He also
recounted discussions about social justice in his content literacy course. He shared an example
of how teaching students, especially African Americans, the history of how many people were at
one time denied the opportunity to learn to read and that many fought and died for that right

153

might motivate students to read and pay more attention to their education. Lara agreed that
social justice was a major issue in the teacher preparation program. She stated that it was
frequently discussed and professors were “constantly pointing out that we just discussed a social
justice issue.” She described their focus as helping them be sensitive to social justice issues and
to “promote equality for all of our students.”
While discussing social justice and also in other contexts, the teacher candidates also
highlighted the program’s emphasis on building relationships with students, being aware of their
situations, and working to meet their needs. Kristy reported that her literacy course stressed the
importance of “catering to multiculturalism,” which she described as being aware of the
linguistic needs of the students in order to avoid using vocabulary or activities to which students
could not relate. Andrea’s discussion of social justice focused on the message that teachers need
to know their students in order to teach effectively. She expressed her appreciation for the
emphasis on knowing students and compared this approach with her school experiences by
saying, “I think that’s different because when I was growing up they didn’t care where you came
from; you were just going to learn this, . . . . ‘We don’t care if you can relate it to yourself or
not.’” Lara also pointed to the professors’ focus on promoting equality for all students.
The teacher candidates’ views of equity. The teacher candidates’ descriptions of how
they felt the equity perspective was presented in their urban teacher preparation program
focused, then, on two key concepts: social justice and knowing students well. In contrast, their
discussions of a range of educational topics in the interview gave evidence of a variety of
personal viewpoints related to the equity perspective. I describe here three different stances that
emerged from the interview data: a limited and uncertain affirmation, a strong but incomplete
affirmation, and a strong affirmation and commitment to the equity perspective.

154

A limited and uncertain affirmation. Kristy and Andrea portrayed a viewpoint of equity
that included limited involvement with this perspective in their approach to teaching and a
limited or uncertain understanding of the place of equity in education. Other than in response to
specific questions about equity or social justice, Kristy’s only references to characteristics of the
equity perspective were her emphasis on community involvement in bringing improvement to
urban schools and her discussion of disparities in financial resources between urban and
suburban schools. Kristy also presented a rather narrow understanding of equity, describing it as
providing all students with “a fair shake” and “the same opportunities.” She also stated that
urban teachers understand that, due to challenges in urban communities, they need to “put in a
little more effort just so everybody gets that fair deal.”
Andrea expressed a good deal of uncertainty and pessimism about equity. In speaking
about social justice in education, she stated, “I don’t think there is any real social justice inside of
teaching.” She explained this statement by arguing that no matter how much we strive for justice
there will always “be some type of duplicity involved.” Furthermore, she reported that although
the program presented the message that a big part of social justice was being involved in the
community, she did not believe that would be sufficient to “bring about social justice.”
A strong but incomplete affirmation of equity. Eric discussed equity in a way that
strongly affirmed its place in education but included an incomplete understanding of the equity
perspective. In his responses to interview questions, he emphasized on several occasions the
importance of knowing his students, making connections with them, helping students learn about
their interests and identity, and fitting curriculum to the needs of the student. He also expressed
a clear commitment to social justice in education. This was based on his view of the importance
of education in our society and the existence of large gaps in the availability of quality education.

155

Eric passionately declared, “What people need is an education; that’s the only way to go from
point A to point B.” When asked to explain the meaning of social justice in education, he simply
described is as “walking into an area where there is a need for education and helping kids desire
it.” His commitment to social justice was limited, therefore, to a desire to motivate all students
to learn.
A strong and integrated affirmation of equity. In comparison to the other members of
their cohort, James and Lara articulated a strong and integrated stance toward the equity
perspective. Their approach included a strong concern for the needs of individual students and
an approach to social justice focused on providing an equal opportunity for all learners and on
affirming each student’s place in society.
In discussing the foundations of urban school improvement, James argued that effective
urban education requires a strong concern for each individual student. He criticized approaches
that consider groups of students while ignoring the social context of an individual child’s
education. He described the importance of considering how the lack of a father in the home or
the reality of having “to take ten buses to school” might affect a student’s attendance and school
performance. Lara brought up similar issues through her emphasis on multicultural education.
She described successful teachers as those that “make their classroom multicultural.” She
explained that this included understanding students’ backgrounds and funds of knowledge and
being able to adapt classroom practices accordingly. She hoped to be able to incorporate
multiculturalism into her teaching as a way of developing in her students an understanding and
appreciation of difference.
Both James and Lara also expressed a strong commitment to pursuing social justice in
education. James defined social justice as “being able to give everybody an equal opportunity

156

and understand that they have a place in society and [that] education is key.” Lara defined social
justice as “making my classroom a place where no matter where you come from, no matter what
your linguistic differences are, your sexual orientation, your backgrounds, making you feel
comfortable in my classroom and . . . getting my students to learn and to appreciate the
uniqueness in others.”
The teacher candidates: a wide variety of approaches to equity. Data gathered from
the teacher candidates demonstrate a wide variety of understandings and approaches to the equity
perspective. In discussing the program message, the teacher candidates agreed that social justice
was a foundational component of their program and that their coursework also emphasized the
importance of understanding the social context of education, the need to build relationships with
students, and the obligation to meet the needs of all learners. However, the teacher candidates’
descriptions of the specific message they had received about social justice education varied
greatly.
Significant disparity also emerged as the teacher candidates discussed their personal
viewpoint of the equity perspective. They varied greatly in the way they talked about social
justice and equity and in the level of commitment they expressed for these issues. In general, the
approach to the equity perspective in general and social justice in particular demonstrated by the
students did not match the program’s commitment to this perspective presented in the program
documents, advanced by some faculty members, and reported by the students themselves.
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Equity at Peyton University
The analysis of the message presented by the program faculty, the teacher candidates’
perception of that message, and the personal beliefs of the teacher candidates reflect an overall
approach characterized by a uniform affirmation of certain components of the equity perspective

157

coupled with a wide range of opinions and a considerable amount of uncertainty and
disagreement about other significant issues related to the equity perspective (see Table 6.1).
There was general agreement among the teacher educators of the influence of sociocultural factors on teaching and learning and of the need for a commitment to meeting the needs
of diverse learners. However, they presented a variety of understandings of the role of social
justice in education and the manner in which it should be emphasized in their work with teacher
candidates. The teacher candidates reported that the program included a clear focus on social
justice and emphasized the need for teachers to build positive relationships with students, be
aware of the social context of schooling, and commit to meeting the needs of all learners. They
disagreed, however, about the meaning of social justice that was presented to them through their
program experiences.
Table 6.1. Equity at Peyton University
Program faculty

Typology

Agreement

Variation

Received curriculum

weak alignment
limited advocacy
activist approach
influence of societal
structures on education
commitment to meeting
needs of diverse
learners

program focus on
social justice
building positive
relationships
social context of
learning
meeting needs of
diverse learners
approaches to equity and meaning of social
social justice
justice education

Personal beliefs of
teacher candidates
limited and uncertain
strong but incomplete
strong and integrated
community
involvement
concern for needs of
all students

meaning of equity and
social justice
level of commitment
to educational equity

Significant variation was evident in the personal approaches to the equity perspective
portrayed by the teacher candidates. They expressed general agreement that teachers should seek
158

to be involved in the school community and work to meet the needs of all students. They varied
greatly, however, in their level of commitment to educational equity and in their understanding
of social justice in education.
Therefore, the data indicate that the consistent commitment of the teacher educators to
certain components of the equity perspective is reflected in the message received and understood
by the teacher candidates. However, the variation in the level of commitment to the equity
perspective and in the meanings of social justice in education presented by the program faculty
corresponds to the varied and, in some cases, uncertain understanding of the equity perspective
that is present in the responses of the teacher candidates at Peyton University.
The Equity Perspective at Allerton State University
The program documents from Allerton State express a strong commitment to the equity
perspective through introductory statement, program standards, and core values statements that
highlight diversity, equity, community involvement, social justice, and critical pedagogy. In the
sections that follow, I investigate the manner to which this commitment is realized in the work of
the program faculty and how it is understood by the teacher candidates.
Teacher Educators at Allerton State: A Uniform Commitment to Equity
The commitment to the equity perspective reflected in the program documents is also
evident in the data gathered from the teacher educators at Allerton State. The interview
participants advocated a fairly uniform and positive stance toward the equity perspective, yet
there was some variability in the way this perspective was understood and presented in the
program. Of the eight participants, Peter demonstrated a weak view of the equity perspective;
his alignment with this perspective was limited to his advocacy for equal access for all students
to quality curriculum and the resources necessary to support that curriculum. Neal expressed a

159

stronger view of equity, but one that was still limited in its scope. The remaining six faculty
members were united in advancing an activist approach to educational equity.
A weak approach to educational equity. Data from his course syllabi and the interview
with Peter, who teaches secondary math courses and supervises student teachers at Allerton
State, demonstrated a weak alignment with the equity perspective. His discussions of urban
school improvement and characteristics of successful teachers were devoid of references to
tenets of the equity perspective, and when talking about social justice he stated, “I can’t speak
much about social justice because that’s not in my background.” The only reference to equity in
the two course syllabi available for Peter was the statement in his grading rubric for his student
teaching seminar that the ability to adapt teaching to individual learning styles and needs was a
requirement for earning the top grade in the class.
In the interview, Peter did affirm the importance of educational equity, but his conception
of equity was limited to the idea of access to quality curriculum and the necessary resources for
the learning of mathematics. Peter noted that the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) includes equity as one of its core professional standards. Peter explained that, first, this
means that “we don’t want three different curriculums for children.” Rather, all children should
have access to a quality mathematics curriculum. Secondly, Peter spoke of technology as an
example of the importance of providing necessary resources for all children. An example of
inequity, asserted Peter, is when some children do not have access to the technology necessary to
support a deeper learning of mathematics while other children have more than enough.
Peter assessed, then, the level of equity present in a school by the quality of the
curriculum and the availability of teaching resources. In his program teaching, therefore, issues
of equity were not part of his coursework. He stated, “I’m choosing schools where equity is not

160

an issue.” His primary concern was that his teacher candidates “see really good teaching of
mathematics rather than have to worry about all of the other classroom issues.”
A limited affirmation of educational equity. Neal presented a more complete, but still
limited, approach to the equity perspective. This was characterized by a commitment to meet the
needs of all students, a critical stance toward standardized testing, and a narrowly defined
understanding of social justice.
The course syllabi for Neal’s courses lacked any reference to characteristics of the equity
perspective, but during the interview he presented a limited agreement with various tenets of this
perspective. He affirmed the need for successful teachers, in all schools, to be committed to their
students, and he voiced clear criticism of current standardized assessment practices and their
failures in improving schools. Neal also expressed his belief that schools should be places where
students learn about themselves and their interests.
For Neal, social justice was primarily an issue of content. As he started to talk about
social justice, he stated, “I don’t need to worry too much about it because content I teach, in
terms of social studies, . . . everywhere you look are issues of social justice.” He noted that the
primary message he would like his students to gain about social justice is to “be a good role
model in terms of how we treat each other and don’t shy away from content.” He went on to
discuss how they talk about the appropriate way to incorporate issues of justice and equity in the
course content.
Neal asserted, however, that there is an additional layer of school issues related to social
justice and equity. He pointed to the political nature of school knowledge and the disparate
viewpoints impacting many decisions about school curriculum. He noted that he emphasizes
with his students the role that they have in making decisions that will lead to the inclusion of

161

certain content and the exclusion of other topics. He stated that he teaches the pre-service social
studies teachers that they need to help their students understand the subjective nature of school
curriculum. In addition, Neal alluded to the inequities that exist in schools related to funding,
resources, and school climate. He argued, “It’s hard to be fair. I think we should move in that
direction, but I’ve got 44 kids in a classroom and 10 of them are Special Ed. What’s fair about
that?” He did not, however, offer any hope that he or classroom teachers could do anything to
address these issues.
An activist approach to educational equity. The course syllabi and interview
responses of the remaining faculty members reflected a comprehensive and activist approach to
the equity perspective. This approach places social justice and equity at the heart of urban
education, advances an activist view of social justice, includes a critical approach to teaching and
learning that clearly examines issues of race and class, and affirms the need to make positive
connections with students and communities.
First, these faculty members saw social justice and equity as essential components of
urban education and of quality urban teachers. They did not simply talk about issues of equity,
they viewed this perspective as being at the core of urban education. They described it as the
foundation of the teacher preparation program at Allerton State. From her perspective as a leader
in the department, Tara stated that “social justice and equity is how we define what it is that
makes us different” and “the lens that all else goes through.” This commitment was also
demonstrated in Tara’s course on urban education which promotes teaching for social justice as
one of the central themes of the course.
The approach to educational equity advanced by these faculty members went beyond an
awareness of injustice and how it impacts learning to an activist stance that promotes teacher and

162

student involvement in pursuing changes in individual and societal circumstances. Tara argued
that promoting social justice includes “challenging wherever there are inequities in ways that
will create contexts, or openings, or co-create contexts and openings for the elimination of
inequity.” She asserted her view that teaching children is the act of developing “a critical
citizenry that sees themselves as active participants.” In order to accomplish this, she argued,
teachers have to be active in the community in addition to in the field of education. In a similar
vein, Victoria described social justice as “providing equity and access for all students” and
helping them understand their role as citizens in the world and ways they can both be successful
and be “agents and proponents for changing the things that they believe are not right . . . .”
Nancy described the program’s focus by declaring that “social justice goes beyond just talking
about issues; it’s developing plans to help kids take action on issues” and to become selfadvocates. Paul, throughout his interview, emphasized the importance of empowering students
and engaging them in the educational process. He described social justice, among other things,
as “making sure that your students have voice in a classroom.” Stefan described social justice as
“naming” the frameworks and social conditions that privilege some while oppressing others and
“then advocating for changing those often negative conditions.” He communicated that a goal of
his courses in second language education is to teach his students what it means “to advocate for
the language rights” of others and how they might challenge others, including those in political
power, about these issues. In his linguistics class syllabus, Stefan included among the course
goals that his students would understand their role as change agents in both school and
community.
These faculty members also incorporated a critical approach to educational issues in their
views about urban education and in their program teaching. Tara spoke about the need to

163

confront the challenges of racism, classism, and ethnocentrism and the way they are “deeply
embedded in the process of education.” She noted that in the program at Allerton State teacher
candidates are engaged in thinking about historical, political, and economic structures that have
existed and continue to exist in our country and that influence students’ educational experiences.
Victoria highlighted her course discussions centered around issues of equity, access, institutional
racism, sexism and other societal structures. She indicated her desire to help her students think
beyond matters of individual bias to “actually looking at this as a societal, institutional,
replicating force.” Nancy also asserted the goal of having teacher candidates understand
injustice in society “in a way that allows them to look at assets rather than liabilities . . . and get
away from that deficit model that has been so prevalent I think in urban education particularly.”
Her course syllabus included the identification of issues of equity—including race, class, and
power—as one of four central course goals. Paul gave an example of how he encourages a
critical perspective in his coursework. He described his philosophy statement which he gives to
students on the first day of class. In it, he states that everyone comes to class with biases and
baggage and that as teachers, “you need to maybe unload some of those kinds of biases before
you socialize, no coerce usually, your future students.”
Stefan set himself apart from his colleagues by expressing the most radically critical
stance in his discussion of social and educational inequality. He decried “the very reductionist
trap of blaming everything on the schools.” He pointed instead to the political economy and a
capitalist system “that inherently places value, a misplaced value, on inequity.” He argued, “So
from where I stand, until we revamp or dismantle the current political economy, schools are
going to continue to not do well.” He also criticized what he described as the prevailing belief
that schools’ primary purpose is to equip students to enter the workforce. He described this as

164

preparing “children to become cogs in a wheel, and to make somebody else rich while our
children are being exploited.” He described his view as Freirean, arguing that liberation should
be viewed as the primary purpose of schooling. The syllabi from Stefan’s second language and
linguistics courses also demonstrated the critical manner in which he approached education and
the stance he promoted with his university students. His course descriptions and statements of
goals included multiple references to the need for teachers to interpret policies and practices with
a critical lens and to confront issues of colonialism, hegemony, and the sociopolitical nature of
schooling.
The importance of understanding the community and connecting with students and
parents also emerged regularly in the interviews and course syllabi of these faculty members.
Tara argued that teachers need to recognize the strengths that students bring to the classroom.
She explained—and it was also clearly described in her course syllabus—various components of
the program in which teacher candidates are required to learn about the city’s assets, prepare a
community map, engage in service learning, and then integrate their understanding into their
teaching. Her syllabus also listed the candidates’ development “as a teacher who understands
and respects the communities and cultures of all students” as one of the criteria for evaluation of
growth as a teachers. Nancy’s course on urban teaching included the same focus on community
and building strong relationships with students. Her course objectives included helping teacher
candidates identify community resources in order to support students and their families. Her
syllabus also outlined one of the key assignments which required students to visit specific places
in the community in order to gain an understanding of the community’s assets and how they are
connected to urban schools. Teresa also, while discussing qualities of effective teachers,
highlighted the importance of building strong connections with students and the community and

165

incorporating cultural responsiveness and an appreciation of diversity. Similarly, Stefan
described successful teachers as those desire to learn from their students and families and who
understand the strengths of urban communities, and his course syllabi highlighted the importance
of community involvement and family partnerships.
The program message: A consistent commitment to promoting equity. As with their
approach to the accountability perspective, the faculty at Allerton State presented a primarily
unified vision of the equity perspective. Although Neal and Peter presented a less complete view
of equity, all of the faculty participants incorporated issues of equity in their interview responses
and affirmed the importance of this perspective in their work with their teacher candidates.
Furthermore, six of the eight joined in presenting a clearly defined understanding of the equity
perspective that affirmed the central role of social justice in their approach to teaching and
learning, an activist approach to social justice, a critical approach to educational issues, and a
commitment to building strong connections with students and the community.
The Teacher Candidates’ Approach to the Equity Perspective
Therefore, although there was a certain amount of variation in the manner in which the
equity perspective was presented to the teacher candidates at Allerton State, the majority would
be expected to encounter a fairly uniform message. Data gathered from the teacher candidates
reflect this consistency in terms of the message they report having received from their program
experiences. At the same time, the teacher candidates demonstrated a variety of personal
understandings of the equity perspective and how it might impact their work as urban teachers.
The received curriculum. The data collected from interviews highlight features that the
teacher candidates at Allerton State reported about the message they had received about the
equity perspective from their urban-focused teacher preparation program. First, the teacher

166

candidates communicated that there was a clear focus on social justice in their program. Second,
there was significant variation in the message about social justice that was presented. Third,
many of the teacher candidates highlighted the program’s emphasis on preparing them to
successfully teach diverse learners. Fourth, several of the candidates brought up specific
strategies to promote educational equity while discussing general educational issues. Fifth,
interview responses demonstrated the significant impact that an individual faculty member was
able to have on the students’ understanding of the program message.
In the eyes of the teacher candidates, the teacher preparation program at Allerton State
presented a clear focus on social justice and equity. All but one of the interview respondents
spoke of the way social justice or equity were emphasized or discussed throughout the program
or in particular classes within the program. For example, Tracy stated, “I think that almost all of
my classes contribute to this understanding that I have, . . . this knowledge and idea that I have
about social justice.” Ted also reported that social justice was a dominant theme in one
particular course but was reflected in his other courses as well. Trent, who was preparing to be a
secondary English teacher, discussed the way social justice emerged as an important theme in his
courses on the teaching of reading and the teaching of writing. Richard, a social studies student,
and Nathan, a math student, were the only two to express a more limited role of social justice in
their program experience. Richard acknowledged that some issues related to social justice were
brought up in coursework but also stated that it was not a theme emphasized in his classes, and
Nathan was unique in stating that social justice was never discussed in his courses.
Although the teacher candidates spoke in a mostly uniform manner about the existence of
the program’s emphasis on social justice and equity, they articulated a variety of approaches to
this topic. For Richard, issues of social justice were discussed primarily in terms of the need to

167

be aware of inequalities that exist in education. He recalled discussions about “the issue that the
suburbs seem to have so many more resources available to them.” Other students described the
program’s emphasis on social justice and equity in terms of the teacher’s responsibility to
students. Ted described the program’s “underlying assumption” that teachers will treat students
equitably and not “favor some over others.” Nathan expressed appreciation for the way in which
the program pushed him to “learn different ways to deal with various types of students.” Maria
recounted how in her coursework she learned that social justice teaching involved working to
make connections with students and their communities in order to make school meaningful for
all students.

Valerie and Tracy focused on the foundational understandings of equity and

social justice that they had picked up through their program experiences. Valerie described in
detail class discussions comparing equality and equity. She recounted the professors’ push for
equal educational opportunity for all students as opposed to a focus on giving all students the
same resources or material. Tracy stressed that the program message was that social justice was
“a philosophy and it needs to be a part of everything you do.” She then described how the
professors supported this idea in her methods classes and in a course on urban education.
The teacher candidates also communicated that the program had emphasized the
importance of meeting the needs of diverse learners. As noted above, several teacher candidates
discussed the focus on social justice in terms of taking steps to ensure that all students were
taught in ways that were meaningful and would provide them with an opportunity for success. In
addition, Trent discussed the need to take into account the variety of challenges that students
may face due to cultural or language differences, and Tisha spoke of the need to bring in
students’ culture and interests into her planning in order encouragement engagement and
understanding with course material.

168

Several of the students shared specific teaching strategies or curricular materials that
were part of the message about the equity perspective that they had received as part of their
teacher preparation. Trent related the impact that Critical Encounters in High School English:
Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents by Deborah Appleman (2009) had on his view of
teaching. He was introduced to this book in a methods course. He reported how this book
equipped him to engage in critical pedagogy and encourage this stance in his students, even
when he felt constrained by requirements about which books he must teach or topics he must
cover. Two students referenced the use of what they called “Where I’m From” poems in their
work with students. They indicated that they had learned about these poems in their teaching
methods course and described using them as a way to affirm the value of their students’
experiences and to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy into their teaching. Tracy reported
that she had been introduced by Spectacular Things Along the Way by Brian Schulz (2008) in her
course on urban education and that it had taught her a great deal about student-centered
classrooms, student-directed learning, and problem-based instruction.
Finally, a story of “one of our professors” also emerged from the interview data. Many
students referenced a particular professor who was “big on social justice” or was “pretty
passionate about social justice” and included it as a dominant theme in her course. Valerie told
of one professor who had written extensively about social justice in teaching and emphasized it
in her teaching. Several other students, while discussing some of the work they were doing in a
local middle school, gave examples of readings and activities they had used in order to draw on
their students’ experiences or to incorporate social justice themes into their teaching. When
asked where they had received the inspiration for these ideas, they all pointed to a methods class
with the same professor. For many of the students, their most memorable encounters with the

169

equity perspective were the result of the work of one particular professor rather than the
culmination of their entire program experiences.
The teacher candidates’ view of equity. While agreeing that the program message
contained a clear emphasis on social justice and equity, the students at Allerton expressed a
variety of viewpoints about the message they had received related to that emphasis. This
disparity extended as well to their expressions of their personal views about the equity
perspective. The data present, therefore, three different categories of approaches: a weak
approach, a moderate affirmation, and a strong affirmation of the equity perspective.
A weak approach to equity. Three students, Richard, Tisha, and Nathan, presented an
approach that included an awareness of the social context of teaching and learning and a limited
or unclear understanding of social justice and equity. These teacher candidates affirmed the
importance of making connections with students and relating the curriculum to students’ lives
and interests. For example, Richard highlighted the need to understand students’ experiences as
a foundation for building relationships with them. Tisha reflected on the influence that students
should have on curricular and instructional decisions by saying, “As a teacher I need to be aware
of their situations because if I can skew the curriculum so that it’s related to their lives . . . and
interests, something to get them engaged in the material because they latch on to it so much
easier than if we’re just doing a random algebraic equation on the board.”
In discussing issues related to social justice and equity, however, these teacher candidates
demonstrated a weak understanding and uncertainty about the relationship of these concepts to
teaching and learning. They all raised concerns about a lack of resources in urban schools, but
were unclear about how social justice and equity fit into the discussion. When asked about his
thoughts about equity and social justice as they related to education, Richard responded by

170

saying that he was not very familiar with those terms. He then stated, “When I think of them I
guess I think more along the lines of the city compared to the suburbs, the issue that the suburbs
seem to have so many more resources available to them, where city schools are really
struggling.” He went on to express doubt that these sorts of differences could adequately be
addressed due to the nature of our capitalistic society. Tisha also was uncertain about the
meaning of social justice. She attempted to discuss it in terms of student rights or as part of the
debate about standardized testing, but she was clearly uncertain about its meaning and its
relationship to educational issues. Nathan mentioned social justice in relation to a conversation
he had had with a friend about charter schools and their impact on public education. Noting the
ability of some charter schools to be selective in their enrollment, he argued that this left public
schools with many struggling students and often inadequate resources.
A moderate affirmation of the equity perspective. Three of the teacher candidates—
Valerie, Melissa, and Maria—discussed a variety of issues related to urban education in a way
that reflected a moderate affirmation with the equity perspective. This approach was
characterized by a focus on establishing relationships with and meeting the needs of students, a
critical stance, and affirmation of a limited approach to social justice and equity.
Valerie considered forming relationships with students as one of the most important
characteristics of a successful urban teacher. She also centered her understanding of social
justice on understanding and meeting the needs of her students. Melissa also stressed that urban
teachers “need to get to know their students; they need to know their strengths and weaknesses
and . . . what skills they bring into the classroom.” When speaking of equity, she stated that
every student “deserves a specific and individualized instruction.” Maria also advocated for
culturally relevant curriculum as a necessary component of urban school improvement.

171

This moderate affirmation of the equity perspective also included reference to the need to
approach certain educational issues from a critical stance. Maria stressed the need to reconsider
the current approach to standardized testing based on the values and needs of the local
community. Melissa noted that in her teaching she stresses that “every idea that they have is
most likely a construct handed down to them by somebody else” and that her students need to
learn how to challenge assumptions and form their own opinions.
These teacher candidates affirmed the importance of social justice and equity in
education, but their discussion reflected a limited understanding of these concepts. In speaking
about social justice, Valerie focused on the need to be aware that urban students are often treated
differently and the importance of “teaching them things that apply to their communities in ways
that they can better their situation” and make them aware of the challenges they face. Melissa
spoke of social justice as using real-life scenarios in her teaching. She also cited “writing letters
to the community and all that stuff” as excellent ideas, but stressed that her students needed to be
students first rather than “trying to be young adults under the pretext of a student.” Maria’s
concept of social justice focused on helping students be accountable for their actions and the
actions of their community. She also spoke in an uncertain fashion of having students
investigate problems and make changes, but she was not able to articulate what this might look
like or involve. It was clear that these three students had encountered social justice teaching in
their program and wanted to affirm it; however, their understanding of what in involved was
uncertain, and they spoke about it primarily through general or vague examples.
A strong affirmation of the equity perspective. Five of the interview respondents—
Tracy, Trent, Patricia, Rianna, and Ted—presented a strong affirmation of the equity
perspective. Their discussion of the equity perspective was more complete than that of their

172

fellow students and incorporated a strong awareness of sociocultural influences on learning, the
promotion of a critical stance, an affirmation of multicultural education, and the integration of an
activist approach to social justice in their educational practice.
These teacher candidates stressed the need to know their students well and understand the
impact of their sociocultural context on learning. Trent acknowledged the disconnect that
existed between his experiences and those of his students and stressed the need for successful
teachers to get to know their students and understand their community, culture, and values. Ted
similarly spoke of the need to understand the challenges that students face and the difficulties
many of them have to overcome in order to be successful in school. He specifically pointed to “a
very high correlation between poverty and how well children perform in school” and the need for
society to meet the basic needs of students in order to promote educational improvement. In her
discussion of challenges facing many urban schools, Tracy stated, “I think what’s lacking is an
understanding of what a systemic issue this is” and the need to consider all of the factors that
contribute to the challenges faced by many urban students. Patricia shared this emphasis on the
importance of knowing her students, but she also stressed the need to see them as being valuable
contributors to the learning environment.
Their interview responses also reflected a critical approach to schooling. Trent discussed
in detail his concern with standards that are forced on teachers by state and federal mandates. He
stated, “I think that the further you get from the standards of the individual classroom, the more
unrealistic they become.” He also described the purpose of school as getting students to think
critically about issues that are relevant to them and their community. Ted also highlighted the
importance of exploring injustices and working to promote justice in society. Patricia expressed

173

on several occasions during the interviews the need to think about why certain decisions about
standards and curriculum are being made and who is involved in making these decisions.
A third area of focus for these three candidates was multicultural education. In speaking
about urban school improvement, Ted stressed the need to use lessons that were culturally
sensitive and reflected the diversity of the classroom. While talking about social justice, he also
articulated the importance of making sure “that everything that we’re doing is aimed at
maintaining and upholding the dignity of each student and making sure that each student,
regardless of background, has the same opportunities to learn.” Rianna also stressed the need for
culturally relevant curriculum and an attitude of respect towards students “in every aspect of
what we do” as a part of urban school improvement. Tracy stated that students needed to have
the opportunity to incorporate their own experiences and literacies into their learning. Similarly,
Ted described social justice as going “hand in hand with culturally relevant and responsive
pedagogy,” and Patricia emphasized the need to be aware of cultural and linguistic differences in
her instructional planning and to view a student’s home language as valuable.
These students also articulated a clear desire to integrate social justice into their approach
to teaching and learning. They spoke of social justice as an approach to teaching and as the
motivation for specific practices. For example, Tracy stated, “To me the biggest thing is that
urban education should have a social justice orientation.” She later explained that social justice
teaching affirms who students are and provides students with resources necessary to succeed.
Ted spoke of social justice pedagogy, which he described as exploring and confronting injustice
and incorporating culturally responsive pedagogy. He also argued that even while preparing
students for standardized tests he would seek to develop the necessary skills while exploring
social justice themes. Trent described how his focus on social justice would influence his lesson

174

planning, the type of literature he would choose to introduce to his students, and his efforts at
providing equitable learning opportunities for all of his students.
The view of social justice advanced by these teacher candidates also exemplified an
activist bent. Patricia and Tracy both highlighted the need to teach students to be advocates for
themselves. Patricia focused on engaging students as change agents in society as she described
social justice as “just getting students to know that they have a voice and they can use it to make
change happen.” Rianna similarly described social justice education as “education that
inculcates the structural inequalities which exist and that tries to activate students and engage
students in learning through the lens of inequalities.” She went on to describe her desire to
actively engage students in issues important to their community. Trent also focused on getting
his students to critically engage in issues relevant to their community and culture and to
constantly question what they had been taught, the meaning of authority, and the “role that
society wants to place on them.”
The teacher candidates: a strong foundation but disparate understandings. The
teacher candidates at Allerton State expressed an almost uniform acknowledgment of the central
place of social justice in their urban-focused teacher preparation program. They also reported
that they had received clear messages about socio-cultural influences on education, the
importance of forming relationships with students and building on their experiences in the
teaching and learning process, and the need to be prepared to teach diverse learners.
The interviews also indicate, however, a range of understandings and commitment to
educational equity and social justice. The teacher candidates described the program message
about social justice in different ways, and discussion of issues related to urban education pointed
to a variety of beliefs and approaches to social justice. Therefore, as was the case in relation to

175

the accountability perspective at Allerton State, a mostly uniform message had resulted in
disparate outcomes. However, in contrast to the manner in which the teacher candidates at
Allerton State discussed the accountability perspective, their interview responses—although
containing a noticeable degree of difference—indicate that the teacher candidates received a
fairly uniform and consistent foundation of understanding of the equity perspective. They also
expressed general agreement about important aspects of the equity perspective, and nine of the
eleven candidates advanced at least a moderate affirmation of the equity perspective.
The Intended and Received Curriculum of Equity and Allerton State
Although there are differences between the message that is presented by the teacher
educators at Allerton State and the way that message is understood and received by their
students, there also exists a substantial degree of uniformity that in many ways outweighs the
discrepancies (see Table 6.2). According to the teacher educators, the program presents a
primarily unified commitment to equity and social justice and promotes the importance of
involvement in the school community, awareness of the social context of schooling, and a
critically activist view of social justice. The teacher candidates discussed these same
characteristics in their description of the message they were receiving through their program
experience. Furthermore, although there were significant differences in the way the teacher
candidates understood the program’s message concerning social justice and in their personal
approach to educational equity, they did express general agreement with many of the same
values of the equity perspective and demonstrated at least a beginning understanding of the
program’s emphasis on equity and social justice.
The analysis also suggests that the difference in the way the message concerning the
equity perspective was received by the teacher candidates may be tied, at least in part, directly to

176

the professors with whom they had the most contact. The three teacher candidates who
portrayed a weak approach to the equity perspective were Richard, a social studies major, and
Nathan and Tisha, both math majors. The only faculty member who exhibited a weak approach
to the equity perspective was Peter, who taught the secondary math courses. In addition, Neal,
who worked primarily with social studies educators, offered a limited affirmation of the equity
perspective. Meanwhile, all of the English majors presented at least a moderate affirmation of
the equity perspective, and five of this group advanced a strong affirmation. In their interviews
they frequently pointed to a specific professor, whose focus was English education, as a
champion of social justice education. Therefore, while the commitment to an activist approach
to the equity perspective was evident in faculty members who taught a variety of classes, it is
most clearly reflected among the teacher candidates who had the most contact with a professor
who demonstrated a strongly integrated approach to equity and social justice in her work with
teacher candidates.
Table 6.2. Equity at Allerton State University
Program faculty
Typology

Agreement

Variation

Received curriculum

weak approach
limited affirmation
activist approach
essential place of
equity in education
activist stance
community and
student connections
small group of faculty
members with weak
or limited approach

clear focus on social
justice
meeting needs of all
learners
impact of individual
faculty members
specific message
about social justice
strategies to promote
equity

177

Personal beliefs of
teacher candidates
weak approach
moderate affirmation
strong affirmation
social context of
schooling
building relationships

understanding of
social justice

Emerging Patterns: Two Approaches to Equity
As was the case in the analysis related to the accountability perspective, the case study
data indicate similarities and differences between the institutions and also deepen our
understanding of the manner in which the equity perspective is presented and understood in
urban-focused teacher preparation. The analysis also raises important questions about the equity
perspective and key themes usually associated with it. Finally, the research findings contribute
to an emerging picture of a potential relationship between these two perspectives in urban
education.
A Comparison of the Two Programs
There are many similarities between the two programs which emerge from the case study
data (see Table 6.3). According to the reports of the teacher educators, both programs emphasize
the influence of societal structures and the socio-cultural context on learning, the importance of
community involvement and building relationships with students, and the preparation of teachers
to meet the needs of diverse learners. In each case, the teacher candidates’ reports about the
message they were receiving reflected to a great extent the characteristics emphasized by the
teacher educators. The teacher candidates in both universities also articulated that social justice
and equity were central themes in their program experience. In addition, a variety of
understandings of and approaches toward social justice and equity were present among the
students in both programs.
Important differences, however, also emerge from the data. First, the data gathered from
the teacher educators at Peyton University give evidence of a great deal of ambiguity in their
discussion of the equity perspective and the manner in which they portrayed it to the teacher
candidates. Moreover, the interviews point to significant differences of opinion among the

178

faculty about the role and meaning of equity and social justice in education. Furthermore, only
one professor advanced an approach to social justice that moved beyond an emphasis on
awareness of injustice and meeting the needs of all learners to also involve active engagement
with efforts to confront injustice and transform society. In contrast, Allerton State University
presented a mostly unified vision of the equity perspective that included a critically activist
approach to social justice.
Table 6.3. The Equity Perspective: A Program Comparison
Allerton State
Socio-cultural context of
schooling
Community involvement
Building relationships
Meeting needs of diverse
learners
Focus on social justice and
equity
Variety of approaches

*Significant differences of
opinion among program
faculty

Program
Message

Peyton
Socio-cultural context of
schooling
Community involvement
Building relationships
Meeting needs of diverse
learners
Focus on social justice and
equity
Variety of approaches

Mostly unified approach of
program faculty
Emphasis on critically activist
approach
Program focus on social justice
Building relationships
Meeting needs of diverse
learners
Disparate understandings of
social justice

Program focus on social justice
Building relationships
Community involvement
Meeting needs of diverse
learners
Teacher
Disparate understanding of
Candidates’
social justice
Reports
Significant variability in
understanding of and
commitment to social justice

More uniform commitment to
social justice and equity
Beginning understanding of
social justice and equity
*Note: Key differences between the two programs are noted in italics.
The interviews with the teacher candidates also highlight important differences between
the two programs. While there was significant variability in the personal beliefs of the teacher
179

candidates at both institutions, there was a noticeably stronger and more uniform commitment to
social justice and equity among the teacher candidates at Allerton State. The teacher candidates
at Allerton State expressed a general agreement with many important aspects of the equity
perspective and almost all of them articulated at least a beginning understanding of the
program’s emphasis on social justice and equity.
Emerging Themes and Implications
In addition to highlighting points of comparison between the two programs, the case
study data also provide a more complete understanding of how several concepts associated with
the equity perspective are conceptualized and portrayed at the two research sites. As discussed
in Chapter 4, an analysis of the logic and pattern of the discourse about diversity and social
justice reveals variable understandings of these terms. The case study data reflect this same
variation and further contribute to a deeper understanding of the equity perspective.
The language of diversity. The analysis of the program documents demonstrated that
diversity and related terms were often used by the various universities simply as a description of
students in urban schools or of the urban community. In some cases, however, programs spoke
of diversity as they highlighted their desire to prepare teachers for an approach to education
designed to meet the needs of diverse learners. In these instances, the teacher preparation
programs referred to culturally relevant instruction, an understanding of the diverse needs of
students, and the importance of affirming, valuing, and learning from students’ diverse cultures.
These same two ideas emerge from the interviews with faculty members and teacher candidates
from the two case study institutions; however, the concept of diversity most often reflected a
specific approach to education that values diversity and incorporates that value into its work with
students.

180

The concept of diversity as a description of students or communities came up primarily in
discussions about the meaning of urban education. Urban education was described repeatedly as
involving a racially or ethnically diverse student population or as pertaining to schools located in
diverse communities. In a few instances, this concept was also used in a merely descriptive
manner in general statements advancing the importance of meeting the needs of diverse learners.
Most frequently, however, interview respondents who highlighted diversity in their
discussions referenced the importance of being aware of students’ diverse backgrounds as a
foundation to building positive relationships, providing all students with meaningful and
culturally relevant learning experiences, and affirming and respecting cultural and linguistic
difference. Furthermore, this view of diversity was clearly affirmed by the majority of teacher
educators and teacher candidates in both institutions and emerged from the data as a key element
of the equity perspective as it was represented in these urban-focused teacher preparation
programs.
Disparate approaches to social justice. The dominant theme in terms of the language
and meaning of equity that emerges from the case study data is the variety of ways that social
justice was presented by teacher educators and understood by teacher candidates. The various
typologies related to the equity perspective that emerge from the data depend in great measure on
the understanding of social justice that was advanced by the faculty members or teacher
candidates. Although there was more consistency at Allerton State, there were important
differences in the understanding of social justice that were advanced by the program participants
at each university.
Part of this variation may be due to the multiple ways in which social justice is
understood in society in general. Stefan Aragon, one of the faculty participants from Allerton

181

State, referred to this during his interview. He said, “I think social justice unfortunately has
become like a buzzword, and when you say something enough often times, its meaning is lost, or
at least you might come across a thousand definitions.” Ayers et al. (2010) expressed a similar
concern, arguing that “‘social justice teaching’ has been used so often in so many situations to
reference such a wide range of adaptations and bearing and practices . . . that the phrase itself has
overrun its banks and risks being reduced to a slogan without substance, a weak trickle where
there should be a raging river” (p. 61).
Nieto and Bode (2012) have provided a definition of social justice that is useful in
considering the multiple ways this term is often used generally and was specifically used by the
teacher educators and teacher candidates in this study. They outlined four components of social
justice education:
(1) “It challenges, confronts, and disrupts misconceptions, untruths, and stereotypes that lead
to structural inequality and discrimination based on race, social class, gender, and other
social and human differences.”
(2) It “means providing all students with the resources necessary to learn to their full
potential.”
(3) It draws on “the talents and strengths that students bring to their education.”
(4) It “promotes critical thinking and supports agency for social change” (p. 12).
As noted in Chapter 4, the program documents from the eight programs included a
variety of ways of looking at social justice. Some programs focused on an understanding of and
respect for student difference and the need to meet the needs of all learners. Other programs
included an emphasis on the need to challenge inequality and to engage in efforts to transform
society. The case study data also point to different approaches to social justice. As they
discussed urban education issues in general and social justice in particular, many of the study
participants incorporated only one or two of the components outlined by Nieto and Bode (2012).
Almost all of the interview respondents, both faculty members and teacher candidates, affirmed

182

the importance of providing students with the necessary resources for learning. Many others
spoke clearly about the importance of knowing their students and understanding the particular
learning obstacles they faced, but they often focused their attention on the challenges and deficits
rather than the talents and strengths their students might have. Others raised concerns about
societal injustice that contribute to educational inequality.
The teacher educators who reflected an understanding of social justice that incorporated
all four of the components advanced by Nieto and Bode (2012) were those who advanced what I
termed an activist approach to the equity perspective. They were more explicit about the need to
critically challenge many of the misconceptions that contribute to inequality and also expressed
the necessity of challenging injustice and seeking social change. This activist stance toward
social justice was less common among the teacher candidates than among the program faculty;
however, it was reflected in the responses of several students from Allerton-State University.
Race and class in urban-focused teacher preparation. A third important theme related
to the equity perspective that emerges from the case study data is the way race and social class
are dealt with in these teacher preparation programs. Urban education is often viewed as being
synonymous with schools in high-poverty areas and attended by a large percentage of students of
color. Urban-focused teacher preparation programs must deal with this reality as they confront
the demographics of urban schools and the growing cultural divide between students and
teachers (Sleeter, 2001; Zeichner, 2003). As argued by Pollock, Deckman, Mira, and Shalaby
(2010), while diversity among students is increasing, teachers remain predominantly white and
“students of color are routinely underserved and disserved by schools” (p. 212). Furthermore, as
argued by proponents of the equity perspective, teachers need to be aware of and confront the
racial and socio-economic inequities that exist in our society and engage in teaching that is

183

culturally responsive, affirming, and sustaining (Au, 2009; Sleeter & Grant, 2007; LadsonBillings, 1995; Nieto, 2004: Gay, 2000, Paris, 2012). In addition, urban educators must
recognize the significant role that race continues to play in determining inequity in our country
(Ladson-Billings, 2009) along with the manner in which social class is related to success in
school and the way schools reproduce social inequality (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1985; Bourdieu,
1973, 1984; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Freire, 1970; McLaren, 2003).
The case study data point to three findings about how issues of race and class are treated
in these two urban-focused teacher preparation programs. First, a great deal of the discussion
about race and class in the interviews was limited to a description of urban schools, their
students, or of the challenges they face. Second, there was significant variation in the extent to
which issues of race and class were voiced by the teacher educators. Third, the teacher
candidates, for the most part, did not articulate a critical and comprehensive stance toward issues
of race and class. Their discussion of these issues centered on instructional strategies but did not
critically examine structural issues or seek to address race and class-based societal inequities.
First, a significant amount of the discussion about race and class in the interviews was of
a descriptive nature. Almost all of the teacher candidates referenced either issues of poverty or
racial demographics in explaining their understanding of the meaning of urban education. In
talking about urban school improvement, Ted, a teacher candidate from Allerton State, listed the
“characteristics of urban students: minority, low-income, high-density housing, urban living, you
know, all the things that come with urban living.” Eric, from Peyton University, described the
educational barriers present in many urban schools as being the result of students who do not
have two parents, come from homes where English is not the dominant language, or do not have
money. Teacher educators also regularly referenced socio-economic status and racial

184

demographics in their description of urban schools and students and in their discussion of the
realities of urban education. For example, Mark, an instructor at Peyton University, described
urban education as “the study and practice of meeting the needs of those students who are nonwhite and non-middle class.” Similarly, Stefan, a professor at Allerton State, noted that urban is
often a term used for people of color who live in poverty. In many cases, references to issues of
race and social class were limited to these descriptions of students and communities and did not
extend to a critical examination of how these social structures operate in schools and society.
Second, the disparate approaches to equity exhibited by the teacher educators included
variation in the extent to which issues of race and class were incorporated into their thinking
about urban education and their work in preparing urban teachers. Some teacher educators—like
Albert and Christine at Peyton and Neal and Peter at Allerton State—paid minimal attention to
the impact of race and class. Meanwhile, Daniel, a faculty member at Peyton, openly challenged
those who stress the current impact of racism on educational opportunity. Other teacher
educators, however, emphasized the need to understand and confront the impact of race and class
on school and society. They expressed a clear emphasis on the challenges of racism and the role
of social class in shaping the lived experiences of contemporary students and reported that they
placed these issues at the center of their approach to urban education and sought to present this
message to the teacher candidates with whom they work. For example, Mark noted that his
course included readings on critical race theory and race and class-oriented pedagogy. He also
stated that “social justice should mean that every student is afforded the same opportunity to
succeed in the educational arena, regardless of their markers of difference,” which include “race,
class, gender, sexual orientation, handicap status, etc.” Tara argued that an essential component
of urban school improvement was noting the challenges of poverty and racism and the

185

institutional nature of both “racism and classism, how deeply it’s embedded in the process of
education.” In general, there was significant variation in the way the teacher educators portrayed
issues of race and class in their work with teacher candidates; however, the majority of faculty
members—primarily those who reflected a limited advocacy or activist approach to the equity
perspective—presented a critical understanding of the impact of race and social class on urban
education.
Third, the interview data from the teacher candidates reveal an approach to issues of race
and class that focused on the need to incorporate curricular and instructional practices that would
be meaningful for and effective with urban students but that generally stopped short of critically
examining issues of power, racism, and privilege in our society. Almost all of the teacher
candidates reflected on the need for teachers to be aware of racial, ethnic, and class differences in
their lesson planning. For example, Ted stressed that teachers need to be aware of the
community and culture of their students in order to be effective and that he had encountered in
the program “a lot of talk about stereotypes and making sure that you treat students fairly.”
Nathan pointed positively to the way in which his program experiences had helped him learn
different ways to deal with a diverse student population. Maria and Rianna stressed the
importance of making curriculum relevant and meaningful for students. Kristy noted that in her
work at Peyton University she had encountered a focus on being aware of diversity in her
teaching and of the need to eliminate “limiting phrases” that might interfere with students’
academic success. In both programs, the teacher candidates reported a focus on teaching
practices that were informed by an understanding student difference.
Few of the teacher candidates, however, went beyond a focus on practice in their
discussion of race and class. At Allerton State, only two of the 11 interview participants

186

discussed specifically the impact that societal structures have on education and on life’s
opportunities. Ted spoke of his understanding of the impact of poverty on student achievement.
He said, “I’m aware . . . that there is a very high correlation between poverty and how well
children perform in school.” He referred to students who did not have their basic needs met to
explain this relationship and noted that many of his students had “additional hurdles that . . . I
never had to worry about, because I came from a middle-class neighborhood.” He also discussed
social justice in terms of recognizing that in our society some groups receive more justice than
others and that the role of social justice pedagogy is to explore these injustices and “how we can
work to be a more just society in the future.” Rianna, also an English major, also discussed
social justice teaching in terms of the way it makes clear existing structural inequalities “and that
tries to activate students and engage students in learning through the lens of inequalities that
exist . . . .” However, even though it was clear through her interview that she placed a high value
on combating inequality and respecting all students’ cultures, she did not explicitly reference
race or class.
There were more references to race and class in the interviews with the teacher
candidates at Peyton University than at Allerton State. Four of the five participants referenced
race or class in ways that went beyond a description of students or schools or as a basis for
culturally relevant teaching. Their responses, however, included a degree of uncertainty and
ambiguity. Kristi referenced class differences as she described social justice as fighting against
wealth disparities. The three African American teacher candidates—James, Andrea, and Lara—
introduced race into their responses on several occasions. James referenced race or ethnicity as
he discussed urban education in general and teaching in particular. He gave the example of an
African American student without a father as an example of the need to understand each

187

student’s circumstances when considering how to hold students and teachers accountable. He
also asserted that in teaching reading it would be good to share with students, especially African
American students, the struggle that many African Americans had to endure in order to learn to
read and to receive the right to attend schools. He hoped that this would serve as motivation for
African American students to learn to read. Although clearly attuned to the role that racial
identity plays in the experiences of students, he also articulated that schools should focus on
individuals and not try to group students together by race or ethnicity as they seek ways to truly
understand a student’s background as the basis for meaningful school improvement.
Andrea also expressed concern that urban educators focus too much on the race and
ethnicity of their students. She stated that while urban education is a term often used to signify
Black or Hispanic kids, “they’re just children wanting to learn.” However, in contrast to this
statement indicating a desire to remove race from her thinking about teaching, she also shared
that when asked by her professor to bring an artifact to represent social justice, she brought a
copy of a Norman Rockwell painting depicting a young African American girl walking to school
with armed guards. She stated that this reminded her of white flight leaving “pockets of just
African American neighborhoods.” She clearly had internalized an awareness of the way race
has influenced the life experiences of many students of color in our society.
Lara also introduced issues of race into her discussion of urban education in a variety of
ways. Her main focus was on the importance of understanding all students’ background and
experience in order to be able to teach them effectively. In discussing Delpit’s (2006) Other
People’s Children, however, she criticized the need to focus on the ethnicity of students by
responding, “It was interesting to me that one of the things throughout the book was teaching to
Black students, and as an African American I didn’t understand why we have to teach to them;

188

they’re just students after all.” She then changed course, however, and discussed the importance
of understanding students’ needs in the teaching of literacy by asserting, “Black students have no
problem with fluency. They express it all the time in rap songs and verbal games that they play
and the way that they speak with each other and their storytelling methods. They have no
problem with fluency; they have no problem with expression. They need skills.”
The responses of these teacher candidates suggest that the majority of them have not
internalized a critical stance toward issues of race and class that challenges existing power
relations in schools while also considering how best to meet the needs of all students. Some of
the teacher candidates spoke of societal inequities associated with race or social class, and others
incorporated discussions about race into their conversations about urban education. However,
even these teacher candidates presented inconsistent and, at times, contradictory views about
how race impacts students’ educational experiences.
These findings related to the manner in which race and class were reflected in these
teacher preparation programs point to three important issues. First, these findings demonstrate
the difficulty in engaging teacher candidates, the vast majority of whom are female, white, and
middle class to examine and change their attitudes and beliefs (Cochrane-Smith, 2000; Hollins,
2011; Pollack et al, 2010; Sleeter, 2001). In this case study, of the 16 teacher candidates who
were interviewed, 13 (81.25%) were White. This is consistent with data demonstrating that the
vast majority of students in teacher education programs are White (Pollack et al, 2010; Sleeter,
2001; Zeichner, 2003). The challenges facing urban-focused teacher preparation programs, then,
are significant as they seek to prepare teachers for work in schools populated by a large
percentage of students of color.

189

These findings may also reflect the mistaken belief held by many that we currently live in
a post-racial society (Bonilla-Silva, 2010). Although these teacher candidates clearly are aware
of the demographics of urban schools, their knowledge of this fact stops at the recognition that
they must be aware of student difference in order to teach students effectively. They do not seem
inclined to critically examine the impact of race on society. This stands in contrast to the
message given by the majority of faculty participants in this study who presented a strong
understanding of the manner in which issues of race and class continue to contribute to societal
inequalities and injustice.
Finally, although the background of the teacher candidates does not explain all of the
difference, it is worth considering. Interview data indicate that the teacher candidates at Allerton
State were much more likely to have encountered a clear and consistent message about race and
class in their teacher preparation program than were the students at Peyton University. However,
although the participants at Peyton presented a varied and inconsistent approach to these issues,
they were much more likely to reference race in their discussion of urban teaching and learning.
Although the sample size at each university is small, the fact that three of the five teacher
candidates at Peyton were African American is likely to have played in a role in their focus on
race in their discussions of urban education. Furthermore, although these three candidates
discussed race in an inconsistent fashion and at times advanced ideas that seemed to discount the
impact of race on education, they also clearly raised issues related to race and ethnicity to a much
greater degree than did the majority of the other teacher candidates. This suggests, therefore,
that the racial identity of the teacher candidates may have had more to do with their ability to
consider issues of race than did the message they received from their teacher preparation
program. This supports Sleeter’s (2001) review of research that noted the importance of looking

190

for ways to recruit teachers of color “who bring experiences and attributes that good urban
teachers share” (p. 102).
Moving Forward: Accountability, Equity, and Nepantla
The case study data affirm the existence of the equity perspective in the urban-focused
teacher preparation programs at Peyton University and Allerton State University. As was true
with the accountability perspective, there was a great deal of variation in the way the equity
perspective was portrayed and understood in the two programs. However, the data also reveal
that there were important differences between the two programs. Peyton’s treatment of the
equity perspective was characterized by ambiguity, and this was reflected in the way this
message was received by the teacher candidates. In contrast, Allerton State presented a fairly
uniform and strong view of the equity perspective, and while the teacher candidates varied
substantially in their approach to the equity perspective, they also presented a rather consistent
affirmation of many aspects of this perspective and a beginning understanding of educational
equity and social justice.
The data also point to the need to more completely understand the view of social justice
that is at work in urban-focused teacher preparation programs. The manner in which these
programs advance social justice may have implications for the extent to which they are able to
truly advance the cause of equity through their work with teacher candidates. This in turn may
impact the relationship that exists between the accountability and equity perspectives in urbanfocused teacher preparation programs.
In the final chapter, therefore, I review the implications of this study for our
understanding of these two perspectives. In addition, I synthesize the findings in order to make
clear the relationship between accountability and equity that emerges from the data and to

191

consider the necessary conditions for considering new ways of thinking about accountability and
equity in urban-focused teacher preparation and the extent to which new possibilities may
already exist at Peyton University or Allerton State University.

192

CHAPTER SEVEN
LOOKING FOR NEPANTLA

In this research study, I have investigated the manner in which two perspectives—one
focused on accountability and the other on equity—are presented and understood in a sample of
urban-focused teacher preparation programs. Furthermore, the analysis has made visible the
nature of the relationship that exists between these often competing perspectives in order to
contribute to an understanding of how teacher preparation programs can incorporate both
accountability and equity in their approach to urban education in the hopes of introducing new
understandings that increase our knowledge of existing perspectives of urban education and open
new spaces for the preparation of teachers and for teaching and learning in urban schools.
As a foundation for this study, I have argued that the accountability and equity
perspectives play central roles in current efforts to improve the quality of education in urban
schools. The accountability perspective is reflected in the current focus on standards and
accountability, the use of standardized assessments as the key measure of student achievement
and teacher or school quality, and an emphasis on holding high expectations for all students. The
equity perspective highlights the need for multicultural education, democratic equality, and
social justice as key components of the pursuit of educational and societal equity. While these
two perspectives may impact educators’ views of teaching and learning throughout the nation,
they play an especially critical role in urban schools. Federal and state educational policies have
privileged the accountability perspective through their focus on standards, accountability, and the
mandated use of standardized testing as the basis for student, teacher, and school evaluation.
This reality, coupled with the current focus on the achievement gap and the ubiquitous reports of

193

failing schools in urban centers, have highlighted the challenges faced by urban schools and
increased the demands for both equity and accountability in urban education. Understanding
these two perspectives and their influence on urban teaching has emerged, therefore, as a salient
issue in urban-focused teacher preparation.
Accountability and Equity in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation
The document analysis of the eight urban-focused teacher preparation programs and the
case study data from two of these programs demonstrates, first of all, that both the accountability
and equity perspectives are evident and affirmed in these programs. Programs vary in the extent
to which these perspectives are represented, but it is clear that characteristics of these
perspectives are key components of the preparation that is offered to the teacher candidates in
these programs. The document analysis also indicates that while both perspectives are affirmed,
the equity perspective is more frequently emphasized than the accountability perspective. This is
supported by the case study data as faculty members more regularly pointed to social justice and
equity as core values of their program.
Furthermore, although the accountability and equity perspectives clearly played a role in
the two case study programs, there was significant disparity among and between the programs in
how these two perspectives were presented and received. Although certain practices and ideas
were represented throughout the programs, there was also substantial difference in the way the
perspectives were presented at each university and significant variation in the way the messages
were received by the teacher candidates. However, as discussed in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, the
data point to a more consistent message at Allerton State University than at Peyton University.
The teacher educators at Allerton State presented a generally unified focus on a critically
progressive approach to the accountability perspective and an activist approach to the equity

194

perspective. This consistency was paralleled to some degree among the teacher candidates at
Allerton State. Although they differed in their personal beliefs, they also expressed at least a
beginning understanding of the program message related to these perspectives. In contrast, the
lack of coherence evident in the Peyton University program was also reflected in the
discrepancies noted in the teacher educators’ understandings related to the two perspectives.
In addition to displaying the manner in which these two perspectives were portrayed and
received in these urban-focused teacher preparation programs, the study has also highlighted
important issues and patterns that have emerged from the data concerning these two perspectives
and the way they are represented and understood. The analysis has underscored the various ways
in which equity, accountability, social justice, and diversity are considered in these programs and
established the necessity of a thorough understanding of the rhetoric related to these issues, the
disparate meanings that are often assigned to these terms, the influence of related discourses to
the way in which these concepts are discussed and understood, and the potential implications of
these discrepancies for urban-focused teacher preparation and urban school practice.
Finally, the analysis has demonstrated the complexity and tension that exist between the
accountability and equity perspectives in urban-focused teacher preparation. The analysis has
pointed to many examples in which an affirmation of one perspective has been coupled with a
negative or critical stance toward the other. In other cases, the two perspectives are viewed as
competing or disconnected approaches to urban schooling. Nevertheless, possibilities for new
understandings of the relationship between these perspectives do emerge from the data and offer
important implications for urban education in general and the preparation of teachers for work in
urban schools in particular.

195

Looking for Nepantla in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation
Nepantla, as conceptualized for the purpose of this study, is the complex and messy space
where the accountability and equity perspectives meet and where new realities are considered.
Referring to her work in encouraging teacher candidates to see multiple realities in their teaching
in urban high schools, Gutierrez (2008) stated, “In Nepantla, new forbidden knowledges develop
that disrupt previous practices. In essence, Nepantla fosters transformation” (p. 24). Nepantla is
not a space of compromise, but rather a place of new possibilities. Anzaldua (2002) explained
that she used the word “to talk about those who facilitate passages between worlds” and “with
states of mind that question old ideas and beliefs, acquire new perspectives, change worldviews,
and shift from one world to another” (p. 1). The distinction between compromise, or mere
intersection, and nepantla is crucial because a focus on compromise is likely to lead to an
approach to accountability that lacks the strength and integrity to be meaningful or a view of
equity that has little or no chance of realizing its goals. Therefore, while considering the
relationship between the accountability and equity perspectives and the tension that often exists
between the two, it is absolutely essential, I argue, that the emphasis remain on the search for
nepantla rather than on futile efforts at compromise. My focus turns, then, to the pursuit of
alternative views, new realities, of the relationship between accountability and equity that
emerge from this research project and an articulation of a vision for promoting the space,
nepantla, in which these realities can be imagined and practiced in urban-focused teacher
preparation and, by extension, in urban education in general. In the following sections,
therefore, I first highlight a new approach to accountability and equity that affirms the
complexity of the relationship between the two and seeks new understandings of how they can
positively impact urban education. I then describe a picture, based on the data gathered from the

196

two case study sites, of how nepantla—a space for considering new possibilities—can be
promoted in urban-focused teacher preparation.
New Possibilities for Accountability and Equity
Although I do not frame nepantla as the intersection of the two perspectives, the places
where both perspectives are affirmed is a good place to start looking for examples of a new
understanding of accountability and equity in urban-focused teacher preparation. It is unlikely
that new realities can be found among those who present a negative or weak view of one or both
of the perspectives. For example, Albert, a teacher educator at Peyton University, portrayed a
weak affirmation of both accountability and equity in his interview responses. His emphasis on
accountability as something that is “killing” teaching and his description of issues of equity as
not important and best left to others do not provide fertile soil for exploring a positive
relationship between these two perspectives.
Table 7.1 demonstrates that eight of the faculty members—five at Allerton State and
three at Peyton—promote to some degree both the equity and accountability perspectives.
Although a simple affirmation of both accountability and equity does not point to a new
understanding of these perspectives, analysis of the data gathered from the eight teacher
educators who engage with both accountability and equity in their work with teacher candidates
points to new possibilities for the role of accountability and equity in urban education. The data
suggest an approach to accountability and equity that includes a critical stance toward education
that opens the door to new understandings, seeks and supports a reconceptualized view of
standards and accountability, emphasizes a student-centered approach to teaching, rests on
principles of social justice, and is supported by a clearly articulated vision.

197

Table 7.1. The Teacher Educators’ Views of Accountability and Equity

weak
weak
pragmatic

Albert (P)
Christine (P)
Daniel (P)
Peter (AS)

Equity
limited
affirmation
David (P)
Neal (AS)

activist
Stefan (AS)

Mark (P)

Accountability

Marcia (P)
Tara (AS)
critically
Victoria (AS)
Carl (P)
progressive
Teresa (AS)
Nancy (AS)
Paul (AS)
Note: The university affiliation for each teacher educator is denoted by a P, for Peyton
University, or an A, for Allerton State, in parenthesis.
A critical stance that seeks new understandings. First, this framework includes a
critical approach to education that does not accept the status quo but rather seeks new
understandings and practices that are able to serve as the foundation of urban school
improvement. Therefore, while affirming the importance of accountability and equity, several of
the teacher educators engaged in a thoughtful critique of accepted educational practices and
assumptions and sought to equip future teachers to embrace this same critical stance. In
addition, this critique was not limited to a denunciation of faulty practices or misinformed
assumptions but included a genuine search for alternate possibilities that might contribute to
meaningful improvement in urban schools and communities.
Teresa, for example, joined her colleagues in challenging many of the assumptions and
practices reflected in the current focus on standards and accountability. She noted that she
challenges teacher candidates to be aware of the institutional structures that promote inequity
while also working to “find a way to make a difference under these conditions and be part of a
group that affects change.” Similarly, while stressing the importance of challenging many of the
assumptions and practices related to standards, Nancy described her efforts to help teacher
198

candidates “look at what do those standards mean in an urban context and how do we hold high
expectations for our children to be able to meet those standards, and what does that mean in
terms of instruction and what might that mean in terms of support.”
These responses, and others like it, reflected the critique of Gutierrez (2009) who argued
that often discussions of achievement rely exclusively on “a dominant perspective with little
concern for issues of identity and power or broadened notions of learning from a critical
perspective” (p. 9). She also noted that an exclusive focus on the achievement gap leads to “gaze
that gives authority to a particular discourse about equity” (p. 10) that focuses on test scores and
seeks to judge all students in comparison to a narrow vision—equated to white, middle-class
society—of what it means to be capable of high levels of academic achievement. At the same
time, these teacher educators did not allow their critical stance to create what Kumashiro (2009)
has described as “a false division between social-justice education and standards-based reform”
(p. xxiv).
A reconceptualized view of accountability. Second, several teacher educators
advanced a point of view that, while highly critical of many current practices, seeks and supports
an alternative vision of the place of standards and accountability in urban education that includes
a push for equity and social justice.
While all of the teacher educators advanced a critical stance toward certain aspects of the
accountability perspective, some faculty members also discussed new practices and
understandings related to accountability. For example, Teresa expressed the views of many of
her colleagues when she argued that the current testing mania “defies good practice and common
sense.” Her discussion of testing practices was not, however, limited to a harsh critique. She
also added that that in her view testing was “one one part of a picture and we’re responsible for

199

creating the other part.” Victoria also cautioned that standards can often be used to marginalize
certain groups of students, but she emphasized as well the importance of moving beyond the
critique with her teacher candidates so that they would be comfortable with the standards,
understand their limitations, and yet not consider them as being in opposition to a focus on
justice and equity. She stated that in her courses she and her students had “the conversation that
says that standards and multicultural, social justice education are not mutually exclusive.”
Similarly, Marcia advocated an approach to accountability that challenged her teacher
candidates to move beyond commonly accepted understandings. She argued that accountability
was not limited to a test and that teachers were responsible for meeting all of the needs—social,
emotional, and academic—of their students. She also asserted that accountability must be
conceived in terms of social justice, urban communities, and urban teaching. Similarly, Tara
indicated that in the program at Allerton State they spent a significant amount of time discussing
and examining teaching standards, but they also challenged their students to standards that had
been rewritten to include an urban focus and an emphasis on social justice and equity. These
teacher educators presented a picture of accountability that moved beyond the focus on test
scores and that incorporated a vision of equity and social justice.
In addition to highlighting the need to hold educators to standards of equity and social
justice, a new vision of the relationship between accountability and equity includes recognition
of the need for a focus on certain elements of the accountability perspective as foundations for
social justice education. Nancy explained this when she asserted that strong content knowledge
and pedagogy are “so critical as a base to begin to think about how we can look at curriculum,
the standards, and infuse learning about those standards and reaching those standards [with]
curriculum that also brings in social justice.”

200

These teacher educators pointed to a vision of accountability that stretches beyond the
current focus on testing and measurement in an effort to promote both equity and accountability.
Moreover, this approach builds on a solid scholarly foundation that for the most part has been
lost in the current rhetoric of educational policy. This broader understanding begins with the
belief that teachers are indeed responsible for the learning of their students. Corbett, Wilson, and
Williams (2002), in a report on their research, asserted that the commonly expressed belief that
all children can learn in school requires a commitment on the part of teachers to this
responsibility. They highlighted an “it’s my job” attitude—“a belief that educators must do
anything and everything to see to it that every last child achieves at a high level” (p. 132)—that
they saw practiced by successful teachers in urban schools. This attitude, which aligns in many
ways with a “no excuses” approach to education that is characteristic of the accountability
perspective, was promoted by several of the teacher educators as they spoke of the importance of
holding high expectations for their students and of their commitment to help all students learn.
This approach, however, while beginning with a sincere recognition of the educators’
responsibility for student learning, also seeks to frame any discussion of accountability in terms
of that responsibility rather than by focusing on narrow measures of student achievement.
Noddings (2007) argued, “Responsibility is the fundamental concept on which any reasonable
concept of accountability must be built” (p. 38). She clarified this by stating that teachers are
certainly responsible for student learning but not for lists of what must be learned or uniform
standards that have been established far from the classroom. This stance related to educational
responsibility was reflected in the interview response of Marcia, who stressed teachers’
responsibility for the social, emotional, and academic growth of their students. Noddings also
promoted a view of responsibility that turns the expected hierarchy on its head, pointing

201

downward toward the student rather than up toward district, state, and federal mandates that have
the potential to negatively impact student learning in the name of accountability. Responsibility
for student achievement, therefore, does not end with the teachers, but also extends to schools
and the way they are structured (Deschenes, Tyack & Cuban, 2001).
These faculty members also expressed caution about views of accountability that ignore
socio-cultural influences on education. They echoed the voices of the many scholars (Anyon,
2005; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Noguera, 2003; Rothstein, 2004) who have argued that the belief
that all children can attain high academic standards must be accompanied by a recognition of the
impact of social, political, economic, and cultural factors on education. Ladson-Billings (2007)
articulated this critical aspect of a broadened view of accountability in her discussion of the
education debt that our nation has accumulated. She argued that our focus on the achievement
gap leads us to think that the only problem schools face is one related to student achievement.
She argued, “We hear nothing of the other ‘gaps’ that plague the lives of poor children of color”
(p. 317). These are the gaps in health, income, wealth, and school funding that also influence the
achievement, broadly considered, of students in urban communities.
A student-centered approach to teaching and learning. Third, this approach to
accountability and equity stresses the importance of keeping the focus in urban education on the
students. This involves making connections with students and communities, getting to know the
students in urban classrooms, and constantly focusing on student progress.
Tara communicated that her teacher candidates often expressed a lack of confidence that
they would be able to engage in social justice teaching while also meeting the demands placed on
them by the focus on standards and accountability. She tells her students, she said, that they
need to start by getting “to know their students first of all and learn their funds of knowledge and

202

assets that they bring to the table and the assets that their community has to offer.” Teresa also
shared that she emphasizes to her teacher candidates the importance of remaining focused on
what is happening with their students in the classroom. She stated that she tells her teacher
candidates to “keep anchoring themselves in what you are seeing in terms of kids’ progress.”
Mark expressed this focus on students as the foundation of classroom teaching when he stated
that in the teacher preparation program at Peyton University the goal “is to take the community
in which the children live and put it into their classrooms to the greatest degree possible, so as to
increase the amount of validity the students see in the content.”
These teacher educators have articulated the importance of student-centered teaching and
learning in the promotion of both equity and accountability in urban education. Keeping the
focus on the students allows teachers to organize educational experiences that are relevant and
meaningful to their students, to be aware of the needs and interests of all learners, and to
constantly evaluate the progress of their students. This promotes equitable learning experiences
for all students and keeps teachers from focusing inappropriately on a test instead of the learner.
This approach reflects Dewey’s (1964) emphasis on education as the interaction of the child and
the curriculum. Dewey argued that separating the student from the subject matter led to an
ineffective and dualistic approach to teaching. Similarly, the views of these teacher educators
recognize the need for teachers to know their students and their communities as a basis for
decisions about what students should learn, how they should learn, and how their learning should
be evaluated. At the same time, as Dewey rejected an exclusive emphasis on the child, these
teacher educators recognized the need to establish academic expectations for their students and
evaluate their progress as the basis for planning and instruction.

203

A social justice foundation. This approach uses social justice as the lens through which
it views all aspects of teaching and learning. This foundation was clearly reflected in the
comments of those who articulated a critically progressive approach to the accountability
perspective. Several professors at Allerton State, for example, highlighted the focus on social
justice that their program added to the state teaching standards. Marcia also stressed that in her
work with teacher candidates at Peyton University the focus on accountability always
emphasized the responsibility to promote social justice.
For these faculty members, social justice was an essential component of conversations
about standards, curriculum, accountability, and other educational issues. Tara noted how she
promoted an approach towards standards that equipped teacher candidates to use standards as a
means of addressing existing inequities in school and society. She also stressed with her
students that the focus on social justice needed to influence their choice of curricular materials
for use in their classrooms. She also encouraged them to seek out opportunities for involvement
with groups that advocate for social justice.
Nancy also indicated that her approach to social justice included helping the teacher
candidates, and they in turn working with their students, to develop plans “to help kids take
action on issues . . . that are important to them in their lives and important to society as well.”
Paul also noted that his views about accountability depended on the social justice orientation he
brought to his work with teacher candidates. He discussed the importance of regular assessment
and reflective practice as essential components of social justice teaching.
A clearly articulated vision. A final characteristic of a new approach to accountability
and equity that emerges from the analysis is the need for a clearly articulated plan to implement
this approach into urban-focused teacher preparation in particular and urban education in

204

general. As noted above, the interview respondents based most of their discussion related to the
accountability perspective on the current policy discourse that is defining how standards and
accountability are perceived and practice in education today. Whether the faculty members and
teacher candidates agreed with the policy discourse or not, it clearly framed their discussion of
accountability. Any attempt to promote new possibilities for accountability and equity in urban
education, therefore, must also be able to provide a clear vision of both how these approaches are
defined and how they can be implemented.
In comparing the two case study institutions, it was clear that, although variation existed
within both programs, Allerton State presented a more unified and clear understanding of both
the accountability and equity perspectives than did Peyton. As a result, the teacher candidates at
Allerton State reported a more consistent understanding of these perspectives than did their
counterparts at Peyton. At Peyton University, for example, the inconsistency with which the
equity perspective was portrayed by the program faculty led to the mixed messages received by
the teacher candidates and their reported uncertainty about how to incorporate this perspective
into their teaching. Furthermore, although the program’s focus on social justice was clearly
articulated in the program documents and affirmed in the interviews with faculty members, the
disparate beliefs about social justice and the way this concept was portrayed by the teacher
educators raises the question of to what extent, in reality, the urban-focused teacher preparation
program at Peyton University really sought to incorporate social justice as a foundational value
of its program. In important ways, then, social justice functioned at Peyton University as a
slogan, lacking the necessary substance to powerfully impact its teacher candidates (Ayers, et al.,
2010).

205

In contrast, the program at Allerton State held its students accountable to clearly defined
standards that incorporated a focus on equity and social justice. According to the reports of both
the faculty members and the teacher candidates, this emphasis permeated the program, was
evident in almost every class, and was the basis for the evaluation of teacher candidates.
Although the interviews demonstrated that there were areas of the program in which this
emphasis was not so clearly presented, the clear majority of teacher educators understood and
advanced this program vision. Likewise, almost all of the teacher candidates developed a clear
understanding of the program’s approach to both accountability and equity.
This same sort of clarity is required of those who desire to promote new possibilities in
their approach to accountability and equity in urban education. While the interviews with some
of the teacher educators, in particular the group of five at Allerton State who shared a critically
progressive approach to accountability and an activist approach to equity, give a picture of new
possibilities for the relationship between the accountability and equity perspectives in urban
education, it is also clear that there is need for further clarity among the program participants
about what this really encompasses in terms of urban-focused teacher preparation and how this
message can be more clearly and effectively communicated to their students preparing to serve in
urban schools.
The Teacher Candidates: Emerging Possibilities
The data gathered from the teacher educators provide a framework for considering new
possibilities related to the accountability and equity perspectives in urban-focused teacher
preparation. While the analysis of the interviews with the teacher candidates reveals fewer
examples of new ways of thinking about these two perspectives, there are instances in which the
teacher candidates reflect a beginning understanding of a new vision of accountability and

206

equity. However, the data also demonstrate that these pre-service teachers have at best a limited
sense of what a new approach might involve and rarely exhibit an understanding of how equity
and accountability might co-exist in a meaningful way.
The teacher candidates rarely succeeded in articulating an approach to teaching that could
positively incorporate both the accountability and equity perspectives. Even as they affirmed
aspects of each of the perspectives, they focused more on the tensions between the two than on
possibilities for promoting both perspectives at the same time. For example, when discussing
ways to engage in social justice teaching, James immediately referred to constraints associated
with reaching mandated benchmarks or preparing students for state assessments. He expressed a
desire to promote social justice in his teaching, but also expressed fear of losing his job if he did
not fulfill the requirements of his position. He described his attempts at seeking to find balance
between equity and accountability as “walking a tight line.” Valerie, while declaring that a focus
on equity and accountability was possible, focused first on the very different nature of the two
perspectives. Maria also initially described the relationship between accountability and equity in
antagonistic terms, noting that a focus on social justice would enable students to understand the
negative consequences of the focus on standards and accountability.
Although the teacher candidates had difficulty discussing the two perspectives in a way
that suggested a mutually positive approach, some of their responses did suggest a beginning
understanding of a new approach to accountability and equity. First, an emphasis on the studentcentered nature of effective urban teaching was evident in the interview responses of several
teacher candidates. James, for example, discussed his approach to accountability by describing
the teachers’ responsibility to be aware of their students’ strengths and weaknesses and the
degree of each student’s “with-it-ness.” Maria emphasized the importance of making curricular

207

content meaningful for students. She stated, “You have to find a way to make connections to
their community and their world. Take that literature, whatever it is, and make those
connections.” Eric also stressed the importance of understanding his students as a key to his
success as a future classroom teacher.
The teacher candidates had difficulty embracing a broader vision of standards and
accountability, but there were instances in which such a stance was discussed. For example,
Valerie asserted that she did not view district or state mandates as constraints on what she was
able to teach; rather, her goal was to incorporate test preparation into a social justice focused
curriculum. James and Lara expressed agreement with at least a partially progressive view of
accountability. James stressed the teacher’s need to be aware of her students’ strengths and
weaknesses as a central component of accountability, and Lara affirmed the message that she had
received from one of her professors that teachers needed to be accountable for all aspects of
teaching and learning and needed to embrace a sense of responsibility for their students.
The place of social justice as the foundation of effective urban teaching also was evident
in the responses of some of the teacher candidates. Although pessimistic about the ability to
promote accountability and equity together, James stressed that a teacher should “always [be]
thinking about social justice.” Tracy asserted that a social justice orientation should be an
essential characteristic of urban education, and Lara described social justice as the basis for her
classroom teaching. Valerie also described social justice as a philosophy that should be present
in all of her teaching. Ted gave several examples of how he tried to promote social justice and
equity into his teaching of literature. He asserted that he should be able to provide his students
with the skills they would need to pass state-mandated tests while “exploring social justice
literature or while writing ‘Where I’m From’ poems or using other culturally relevant topics.”

208

One aspect that was missing from the teacher candidates’ approach to accountability and
equity was a critical stance that moved beyond pointing out the negative to include a desire for
new understandings. Their criticism of current practices and assumptions focused on the
negative and did not contribute to an understanding of alternate conceptions of standards or
accountability. In other cases, the lack of a critical stance limited possibilities for new
approaches to accountability and equity. Eric, for example, articulated a positive attitude toward
both the equity and accountability perspectives. However, in so doing he accepted assumptions
often associated with the accountability perspective that work to limit equity. In explaining his
commitment to holding students and teachers accountable for the state standards, he argued,
“The state has their reason for it, and I don’t think they’re just being arbitrary with their
reasoning. They believe that having this knowledge is going to help students in the future, and I
believe that’s true.” He also expressed his confidence that because of his enthusiasm and level
of commitment he would be able to motivate his students to learn whatever he wanted them to
learn. In the midst of his enthusiasm and commitment to helping his students learn the statemandated curriculum, however, he failed to consider ways in which certain forms of knowledge
were being privileged while others were being excluded.
Pictures of Nepantla
In spite of the inherent tension that often exists between accountability and equity,
glimpses of new understandings related to these two perspectives clearly emerge from the case
study data. The ability to consider and embrace these new understandings requires the
willingness to enter in to nepantla, the space where the accountability and equity perspectives are
examined, interrogated, challenged, and transformed in the hopes of encountering new
possibilities and understandings that can serve as the foundation of effective and equitable urban

209

teaching and learning. A picture of that space emerges from the accounts of some of the teacher
educators in this study. Although elements of this picture are evident in the practice of several of
the teacher educators interviewed for this study, I highlight in this section Tara Brandt and
Nancy Backton—professors at Allerton State University—as examples of teacher educators who
give evidence of entering the complex world of nepantla in their efforts to prepare teachers for
work in urban schools. As they described their approach to urban education, their work with
teacher candidates, and their views related to a variety of current education issues, they present a
picture of urban-focused teacher preparation that embraces the complexity inherent in promoting
both accountability and equity, actively engages the tensions often evident between these
perspectives, advances a critical stance toward key issues that seeks new knowledge rather than
narrowing the conversation, and brings a thoughtful and planned approach to this complex space.
In addition, at each step they invite the teacher candidates with whom they work to encounter
this space as they prepare for their work in urban schools.
By embracing the complexity inherent in promoting both accountability and equity, these
teacher educators open doors to new understandings of these perspectives. In discussing
characteristics of successful urban teachers, Tara stressed the importance of content knowledge
and a strong belief in the ability of children to reach high expectations while simultaneously
stressing the need for teachers to have “the ability to connect with students, with their funds of
knowledge, with the communities from which they come.” She also noted that she spends a lot
of time focusing on classroom management as a key to “creating communities in which students
can learn and feel affirmed.” She explained in detail the program’s focus on social justice and
equity, how this was reflected in the teaching standards established by the department, and the
manner in which the program held teacher candidates accountable for reaching those standards.

210

Nancy similarly integrated an emphasis on high expectations for students and a discussion of the
role of teaching standards into her teaching about social justice. She described content
knowledge and strong pedagogy as a critical “base to begin to think about how can we look at
the curriculum, the standards, and infuse in learning about those standards and reaching those
standards, curriculum that also brings in social justice.” Throughout the interview, both Tara and
Nancy made clear the manner in which accountability and equity worked together and were
integrated into the program’s approach to preparing teachers.
While affirming this integrated approach, they also acknowledged the inherent tensions in
promoting both accountability and equity and explained the ways in which they, along with their
students, engage in the pursuit of new understandings related to these perspectives. Tara
explained that she had previously avoided debates about standards, testing, and accountability
because of her strong disagreement with new state and federal educational mandates. At one
point, however, she realized that she needed to be involved in the conversation. She stated, “I’ve
got to start playing the game at least so I can say, ‘Timeout, this is how I feel about this.’” She
explained then how she was getting more involved in both research activities and conversations
related to these issues. Nancy also noted the controversy about “how the standards are being
interpreted and implemented in classrooms” in the local public schools. However, she also
explained the way that she and others in her department were engaging at the local and state
level in developing content standards and designing new approaches to pre-service and teacher
evaluation. Tara and Nancy did not back away from the difficult issues facing educators today,
but rather chose to engage those issues in meaningful ways.
They asserted, as well, that they pushed their teacher candidates to engage these issues.
Speaking about standards and accountability, Tara stated, “I would love for them to leave with a

211

critical stance towards [standards and accountability]; that they understand what they are, where
they came from, and to what extent they can use them to support their professional choices, and
how they can use them to address the achievement gap, the inequities.” Tara also asserted that
teachers need to understand the political nature and inherent power in teaching. Teachers need to
examine critically, she argued, “the power in the classroom in the sense of who has it, who
doesn’t have it, and how you’re going to share it.” Nancy shared her desire to equip her students
to help all students learn by critically examining societal issues like racism, sexism, and social
class in a way that allows them to see assets instead of liabilities and “to get away from the
deficit model that has been so prevalent in urban education.” Tara and Nancy invited their
teacher candidates to interact with these difficult issues as a foundation for equitable teaching.
Finally, although acknowledging the complexity of engaging these issues and pursuing
new understandings of accountability and equity, the commitment of Tara and Nancy to nepantla
in their work preparing urban teachers was demonstrated in a clearly articulated approach to
teacher education. Tara and Nancy each described how the program at Allerton State
incorporated state-mandated teaching standards that had been rewritten to reflect the program’s
urban focus and emphasis on social justice and equity. In addition, they explained course
assignments which required the teacher candidates to immerse themselves in the urban
community in order to gain a deeper understanding of the community, its strengths, and the way
societal structures promote inequity. As they described the program’s approach to teacher
preparation, they articulated a coherent and thoughtful vision for engaging teacher candidates in
the complex world of urban education.

212

Obstacles to Nepantla
Along with giving some clear pictures of new ways of conceptualizing the relationship
between accountability and equity, the interview data also point to certain beliefs or practices
that limit teachers and teacher educators from incorporating these ideas into their thinking and
practice. The limiting practices that emerge from the data are the tendency to give in to the
status quo, relegating social justice education to the periphery of teaching, and an unwillingness
to engage in the complexity of an authentic search for new possibilities in urban-focused teacher
preparation.
Several of the teacher educators who affirmed in some way both the accountability and
equity perspectives also reflected a resignation that the current policy discourse defines the
reality of urban schooling and simply cannot be avoided. Marcia, for example, highlighted the
difficulty of promoting both social justice and accountability in teaching because of the realities
of having to prepare students for the state-mandated assessments. She stated, “You have to get
out that practice test that the students could care less about . . .; they have no choice but to do the
review sheet one more time.” Later she added, “They’re some things that as lofty as our goals
may be, we live in the real world.” Mark also seemed tied to the status quo in his discussion of
the importance of building relationships with students in the K-12 environment. He argued that
the urban school improvement required a greater emphasis on “research-based practices that are
empirically supported and much less emphasis placed on the intangible qualities of education.”
He explained this further by arguing that although building relationships with students is
important, and even research based, “it is very difficult to teach people how to build
relationships.” Therefore he articulated a focus on fundamental classroom practices and
techniques. Carl also seemed tied to current measurement practices even as he discussed his

213

goals for promoting educational equity. He critiqued many current practices related to
accountability but also acknowledged that “an issue like equity is a lot more difficult to
measure.”
The responses of these faculty members highlight an inability to broaden the conversation
and push beyond current conceptions of success, accountability, and achievement in efforts to
improve urban education. These teacher educators, like the majority of those interviewed, were
articulate in challenging many of the assumptions behind current accountability practices;
however, they were not able to move past this critique to envision alternate views of
accountability or conceive of different ways to measure or evaluate educational effectiveness.
A second stance that limits a new understanding of equity and accountability is the
tendency to divide the two perspectives and thereby push one of the perspectives to the sidelines.
For example, while discussing the constraints put on teachers by an excessive focus on
standardized practice, Marcia stated her hope that teachers would not “let go of the social
justice” but would find time after helping students get through the test to focus on social justice
teaching. Christine stated her belief that accountability and equity “work against each other,”
although she acknowledged that there are some teachers who somehow are able to work around
that and be successful. Stefan, who expressed a strongly activist approach to equity and a highly
critical view of the accountability perspective, was not able to see how the two perspectives
could co-exist. He stated, “So there is going to be a huge contradiction between what we’re
talking about here in this space and what happens in many schools.” He reported, then, that he
advised his teacher candidates to stay away from schools that did not honor their vision of what
teaching and learning should be.

214

This division of the two perspectives was also evident in the ideas expressed by the
teacher candidates. Melissa, for example, was not able to see how she could incorporate social
justice into her classroom during her student teaching experience due to the constraints put on
her by the cooperating teacher. For her, social justice pedagogy was limited to the content of the
curriculum; therefore, she felt unable to engage in this type of teaching without having the power
to choose the topics she would teach to her students. Eric described his goal to prepare his
students for state-mandated tests and his desire to teach for social justice as two separate, but
equally valid, components of his job. He reported that he was certain that he could fulfill his
duty to prepare students for high-stakes test and then use the extra time to promote social justice.
For many of the other teacher candidates, a narrowly defined view of accountability prohibited
them from considering how equity and accountability could be brought together in their teaching.
A third obstacle to nepantla is the unwillingness to engage in the complexity of an
authentic search for new possibilities in urban-focused teacher preparation. Throughout this
project, many of the interview respondents have highlighted the need to challenge many of the
assumptions of the current focus on standards and accountability that privilege certain forms of
knowledge, ignore the socio-cultural aspects of education, and reproduce inequity. In so doing,
they reflect the views of many leading educators and scholars who have offered thoughtful
critiques of these same assumptions (Ayu, 2010; Kumashiro, 2009; Lipman, 2004; Noddings,
2007; Ravitch, 2010). In many cases, however, the critical stance of the research participants
served as a barrier that served to reject all elements of the accountability perspective without
considering how it might be used to promote educational equity. Kumashiro (2009) cautioned
against this tendency when he stated that “a common mistake by many on the Left is to create a
false division between social-justice education and standards-based reform” (p. xxiv). He further

215

argued that in the current educational climate a rejection of curriculum standards was really not
an option and also “limits our ability to engage in social justice education” (p. xxv). Sincere
efforts to explore new visions of accountability and equity necessitate, therefore, consideration of
the demands and viewpoints of those who are frustrated with current realities and are looking for
ways to hold educators accountable (Dimitriadis & Hill, 2012; Lipman, 2011).
Potential benefits of engaging in this complex space have been reported on several fronts.
For example, Schmerler (2012) noted that often-criticized attempts to create frameworks for
teacher evaluation have led to efforts to identify “enlightened components of teaching” that
“emphasize learner engagement, inquiry, and independent thought, broaden the categories of
analysis to reduce the possibilities of facile quantification, and place the primary focus on selfassessment” (p. 31). He also noted that, while many educators are critical of any attempt to
standardize curriculum or teaching, there have been positive discussions related to the Common
Core which promote crucial elements of student-centered teaching and learning. Similarly,
Noguera (2012) noted expanded conversations about educational improvement that are taking
place in communities throughout the country. He described local groups that “have organized to
demand that their interests be taken into account . . . and that schools become accountable and
responsive to the communities they serve. They are challenging policies that have tolerated
gross inequities between schools, and they are calling for an end to policies that may result in
their children being suspended and pushed out of schools, feeding the school to prison pipeline”
(p. 35). These reports provide examples of new approaches to accountability and a desire to
promote equitable teaching practices; however, they also demonstrate the need to engage in
tough conversations about the proper role of standards, accountability, and equity in education.

216

Nepantla in Urban-Focused Teacher Preparation
The data gathered for this research project has provided some pictures of nepantla in the
work of specific teacher educators and of some obstacles that work to limit the consideration of
new possibilities for accountability and equity in urban education. These findings also point to
ways that this understanding of nepantla can be applied not only to individuals but also to teacher
education programs dedicated to preparing teachers for work in urban schools. In comparing the
two case study institutions of this study, Allerton State University was more successful than
Peyton University in promoting a space that allowed for new and deeper understandings of
accountability and equity. However, there are elements of each program that point to essential
ingredients of urban-focused teacher preparation programs that seek to guide their teacher
candidates into the complex space where accountability and equity meet in urban education.
First, it is necessary to clearly integrate a focus on accountability and equity throughout
the program experience. As noted previously, the analysis of program documents from eight
different urban-focused programs showed little or no connection between the two perspectives.
Allerton State was one of the few programs that expressed its commitment to equity within a
framework that also valued accountability. The case study data also gave evidence of the
integration of the two perspectives throughout the program through clearly written standards of
teaching and learning that promoted both accountability and equity and through the commitment
and values expressed by a strong majority of the program faculty. This integration was not
evident at Peyton University, where the message regarding the accountability perspective was
highly inconsistent and where the commitment to equity, while clearly stated in program
documents and strong in some faculty members, was lacking in important areas and did not
emerge from the case study as a clearly foundational value of the program.

217

Second, to prepare teacher candidates to engage and embrace the complexity inherent in
promoting both accountability and equity, teacher preparation programs need to provide teacher
candidates with multiple opportunities to learn, explore, critique, reflect, and apply their
understandings of these issues and the way they impact students’ lives. It is absolutely essential
that teacher candidates be prepared as “transformative intellectuals” (Giroux & McLaren, 1996,
p. 303) able to comprehend the foundational and political issues related to current practices and
understandings of accountability and equity, the historical forces that have shaped our schools,
the current social context of education, and the importance of engaging in a transformative and
culturally-relevant pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lipman, 2011) as a basis
for exploring new possibilities related to these perspectives. At Allerton State, the program
sought to provide these opportunities through coursework, significant involvement in the
community, multiple school-based experiences, and assessment tools that required students to
repeatedly reflect on the values of the program and how they might be implemented in their
teaching. While Peyton shared many of the goals advanced at Allerton State, their program did
not provide the breadth and depth of opportunities available at Allerton State. This may have
been partially the result of the brevity of the program and may suggest that traditional four or
five-year teacher education programs may be more equipped to supply teacher candidates with
the appropriate space to adequately explore and engage in these difficult issues than programs
offering a more rapid path to certification.
Finally, urban-focused teacher preparation programs need to take into account the
characteristics and life experiences of their teacher candidates. Allerton State is an example of a
program that certainly needs to recognize the “overwhelming presence of Whiteness in teacher
education” (Sleeter, 2001, p. 102) and be diligent in providing its students with experiences that

218

enable them to critically examine their own beliefs and attitudes and develop into the culturally
responsive and transformative teachers needed in all schools. Indeed, the case study data give
evidence of Allerton State’s commitment to providing their students with these opportunities.
However, the data also indicate that the teacher candidates at Allerton State did not readily
incorporate issues of race into their approach to urban education. This suggests that while
Allerton State’s program incorporates many values and practices that encourage their teacher
candidates to embrace the complexity of seeking both accountability and equity in urban
education, it may be necessary for them to take additional steps to equip their candidates to
deeply understand the manner in which societal structures such as race and class continue to
impact the opportunities available to many urban students.
The fact that several of the students at Peyton were quicker to introduce matters of race
into their discussion of educational issues indicates the need to reflect, also, on the comparison
between the structure of Allerton’s traditional teacher education program and Peyton’s
alternative 16-month program. Researchers have suggested that alternative programs are often
more successful in recruiting teacher candidates from diverse racial backgrounds (Humphrey &
Wechsler, 2007). The limited data from this project support this notion. Programs like Peyton,
however, need also to be mindful of the characteristics of their students, who generally come in
to the program with post-baccalaureate work experience and at a more advanced age. While
these characteristics may contribute to their ability to engage more thoughtfully in difficult issues
of race and social class, it also means that they may be more likely to arrive with firmly
entrenched attitudes about how these issues intersect with education. This was evident among
the teacher candidates at Peyton who, although more likely to reference race in their discussion
of urban education, did not portray as strong a commitment to social justice and equity as did the

219

students at Allerton State. These findings suggest, therefore, that alternative programs also need
to be cognizant of the experiences, beliefs, and experiences that teacher candidates bring with
them to the program and plan learning experiences—in the university, the community, and the
schools—that allow them to engage critically and fruitfully with the wide array of complex
issues that affect educational accountability and equity.
In addition, the comparison of these two case study institutions contributes to the recent
discussion about teacher education programs and, in particular, much of the criticism that has
been received by university-based programs. Such programs have been criticized due to a lack
of consistency and coherence, the inadequacy of teachers’ subject matter knowledge, the poor
teaching practices in teacher education courses, low standards, disparities in institutional quality,
and a disconnect between the theory of the university and the practice of the classroom (FeimanNemser, 2001; Levine, 2006; Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001; Zeichner & Conklin,
2005). In this study, Allerton State University emerges as a program that does not appear to be
subject to these sorts of concerns as it is a characterized by strong program coherence, strong and
clearly articulated standards, a commitment to providing pre-service teachers with a solid content
knowledge foundation, and multiple opportunities for the integration of theory and practice.
Searching for Nepantla: Implications for Urban Education
Throughout this project, the research data has pointed to the significant role that the
accountability and equity perspectives play in current thinking about urban education and the
preparation of teachers for work in urban schools. Whether in response to strongly-held personal
beliefs about effective teaching or because of current practices and policies related to testing,
achievement, and teacher evaluation, teacher educators and teacher candidates in urban-focused
teacher preparation programs reflect an approach to the accountability perspective in their work.

220

Likewise, their beliefs and practices related to the equity perspective emerge from their
discussions about teaching and learning in urban schools. A variety of beliefs, outlooks, and
practices related to these perspectives have emerged from the data. Furthermore, there has been
a clear sense of the tension that often exists between these two perspectives and the resulting
difficulty in trying to incorporate both perspectives in a meaningful approach to urban education.
There has also emerged from the data, however, a picture of what it might look like to
actively seek a new understanding of how equity and accountability might be incorporated into
urban education. Using the concept of nepantla—the complex space in which assumptions are
questioned, new realities are explored, and new challenges are embraced—this project
contributes to a better understanding of both accountability and equity and pushes us to consider
new possibilities for urban education. Furthermore, in terms of urban-focused teacher
preparation, the analysis points to the potential of a new approach to accountability and equity
characterized by a critical stance that actively seeks new understandings, a broader vision of
standards and accountability, a student-centered approach to teaching and learning, a social
justice foundation, and clearly defined goals.
In addition to these findings, it is also necessary to highlight two final implications. First,
the language of nepantla must always be carefully considered and interrogated. Throughout the
data analysis, it is has been clear that the manner in which certain concepts or practices are
described, defined, and discussed has had a critical impact on the way in which they have been
understood and has worked to constrain or enable new possibilities in urban education. The
current policy discourse related to accountability, for example, has influenced our understanding
of this perspective and has also, in many cases, limited our ability to look beyond this discourse
to new understandings of accountability. Similarly, social justice education has been talked

221

about in such a variety of ways that for many it has lost its meaning and ability to move beyond
the abstract in order to function as a powerful tool in the lives of urban students and
communities.
Second, the essential character of nepantla indicates that it is an ever-changing space.
Therefore, it is impossible to provide a standardized prescription of the path to nepantla that is
applicable in all situations and times. The very nature of nepantla requires that it be constantly
interrogated and that its assumptions always be challenged so that it does not become a static and
useless concept. Its foundation in social justice and in the lives of its students demands that it be
an ever-changing space, responding always to the needs of its participants and the challenges that
it confronts.
The challenges facing urban schools and communities are real, and as noted by Freire
(1970), “just as objective social reality exists not by chance, but as the product of human action,
so it is not transformed by chance” (p. 36). Therefore, confronting these challenges requires the
commitment and action of nepantleros and nepantleras (Anzaldua, 2002), those individuals who
embrace the complexity of nepantla and are willing to engage in the difficult work of seeking
and participating in new perspectives of urban education that promote both accountability and
equity for the benefit of urban schools and students.

222

APPENDICES

223

APPENDIX A

Program Information

4

Stuart College. Stuart College is a small, independent, liberal arts college located in a
large city in the Western United States. It offers undergraduate and graduate degrees and is
consistently ranked as one of the top colleges or universities in the nation. Its education
department offers a variety of programs related to teacher preparation and educational
leadership. Consistent with its location in a large metropolitan area, it focuses on preparing
educators to work effectively in urban environments and to meet the needs of diverse learners.
Brightonsville University. Brightonsville University is a medium-sized public
university located just outside of a major metropolitan area on the East Coast of the United
States. This liberal arts university offers bachelors and masters degrees to its student body of
just less than 10,000 students. Brightonville’s highly acclaimed College of Education has
several departments offering a variety of programs leading to teacher certification and/or
graduate degrees. The College advances a clearly defined urban mission and desire to prepare
teachers for work in urban, multicultural settings.
Colona State University. Colona State University is a medium-sized public university
located in a suburb of a large East coast city. The university offers a full range of degrees to its
20,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Its College of Education has seven departments
housing a variety of programs. While the college’s mission expresses a general commitment to
qualities that are often associated with urban schools—a commitment to social justice, and
respect for cultural and social class difference—it offers an explicit focus on urban education as
part of a specific program within its teacher education program.
Barkton University. Barkton University is a large, Research 1 university located in a
major metropolitan area in the Eastern United States. Its College of Education offers a full range
of undergraduate and graduate degrees and promotes close collaboration with the urban, public
schools in its neighborhood. The university expresses a clear commitment to serving the needs
of its community and preparing teachers and educational leaders for work in urban schools.
Treston State University. Treston State University is a large, Research 1, public
university situated in a large metropolitan area in the Western United States. Treston State has
40,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Its School of Education boasts a wide variety of
highly ranked programs leading to various degrees in teaching, research, leadership, and
educational studies. Although students are able to choose Urban Education study programs, the
4

Introductory information about each program is taken from the institution’s website. In
keeping with the promise of confidentiality given to all research participants, specific citations
are not provided for this information.
224

entire School of Education is committed to preparing educators for work in urban schools and
environments.
Elia University. Elia University is a large, private, Research 1 institution located in a
major city in the Eastern United States. It offers a full range of undergraduate and graduate
degrees and programs to its approximately 25,000 students. Its School of Education celebrates
its status as a leading research institution and promotes its commitment to excellence in teaching,
the pursuit of social justice, and community involvement.
Peyton University. Peyton University is a mid-sized public university with a downtown
campus in a large Midwestern city. Peyton has approximately 15,000 students enrolled in their
undergraduate and graduate programs pursuing bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees. The
College of Education at Peyton offers several paths leading to teacher licensure. While the entire
department is influenced by the university’s urban location, the College of Education offers one
program that specializes in preparing teachers for work in urban schools. Using a cohort model,
this intensive program accepts teacher candidates committed to working in urban schools and
seeks to prepare them to be successful in that endeavor.
Allerton State University. Allerton State University is a large, public university located
in a major metropolitan area in the Midwestern United States. The university boasts a growing
and diverse student population and offers a complete range of degrees to its approximately
30,000 students. The school of education places almost all of its student teachers in local urban
public schools as a part of its clearly expressed commitment to urban education.

225

APPENDIX B

Program Documents

Table B.1. List of Program Documents
University
Stuart College
Brightonsville University

Colona State University

Barkton University

Treston State University

Elia University

Peyton University

Allerton State University

Available Documents
Program Introduction
Course Descriptions
School of Education Introduction
Program Outcomes
Course Descriptions
Program Introduction
Brochure
Program Handbook
Program Outcomes
Course Descriptions
College of Education Introduction
Program Introduction
Vision Statement
Course Descriptions
School of Education Introduction
Program Introduction
Course Descriptions
School of Education Introduction
Program Introduction
Course Descriptions
Program Introduction
Program Outcomes
Program Handbook
Course Descriptions
School of Education Introduction
Core Values Document
Program Standards
Course Descriptions

Note: In the tables found in Chapter 4, all mission statements, vision statements, and lists
of core values have been placed in one category labeled Vision Statements. Also, the
Program Standards category includes both program standards and program outcomes.

226

APPENDIX C

Interview Protocols

Faculty Interview
1. What is your position at this university?
a. Probe for what courses they generally teach and what other involvements they are
engaged in for the university?
2. How long have you been working at this university?
a. Probe for other experiences they had in education before coming to this university
3. Today we hear a lot about the challenges of teaching in urban schools and the crises in
urban education. I have a couple of questions related to this. First, how would you
define urban education?
4. Next, what do you think are the most important things we need to keep in mind as we
discuss urban education and look for ways to help urban students and schools succeed?
5. Also, what are the most important things – knowledge, skills, or dispositions – that a
teacher needs to be successful in working in an urban school today?
a. Probe for challenges that will meet the teacher candidates studying here when
they begin their teaching.
6. What purposes should school curriculum serve?
7. How should the knowledge that is taught in school be selected?
8. How should the students who are in the classroom influence the way learning experiences
are chosen and organized?
9. There is a lot of talk today about standards and accountability in education. Could you
define educational accountability? What place or importance do accountability have in
urban education?
a. Probe for what benefits or dangers they see in this movement
10. In the courses you teach, do you talk about accountability in education?
a. Probe for the context and for specific activities or readings that are used
11. What is the message you hope your students walk away with in terms of accountability?

227

12. There is also a lot of talk in the field of urban education about equity, social justice, and
diversity. Could you give a definition of educational equity? What place or importance
do these issues have in urban education?
a. Probe for benefits or dangers of an emphasis on these issues.
13. In the courses you teach, do you talk about issues related to social justice, equity, or
diversity?
a. Probe for the context and for specific activities or readings that are used.
14. What is the message you hope your students walk away with in terms of these issues?
15. As they enter the teaching profession, the teacher candidates that you are working with
will undoubtedly have students who face obstacles to their learning, for example: English
language learners, students with learning disabilities, students who are below grade level
in reading or math, etc.. What are some of the ways you try to prepare teachers to work
with these students?
a. Probe for specific activities, assignments, readings, etc. that are used
16. For the courses that you teach here in the teacher preparation program, can you list the
primary goals of the course?
17. What are key themes or concepts that are discussed in the course?
18. I will also include specific questions about course descriptions and course syllabi when
talking to the appropriate faculty member. These will include questions such as:
a. Can you explain what is meant by this phrase . . . in the course description?
b. Can you tell me more about what you are teaching during this class session? Or
by way of this particular reading or activity?
c. What sorts of activities do you use to teach these concepts?
d. You list the following course objectives . . . Can you elaborate on what you mean
by this particular objective/goal? What are some the things you do, or have your
students do, in the course to help your students reach this objective?
e. Or, what are the goals that you have for your students in this course? What are
some of the things you do, or have your students do, in the course to help them
reach these goals?
19. How do you think learning should be evaluated?
a. Probe for how respondents assess their students’ learning
b. Probe for specific projects, assignments, activities, or tests that are used to assess
their learning? Ask for copies of these assignments or assessment tools
20. Do you talk about assessment practices with the teacher candidates in your courses?
a. Probe for what is taught about the purpose of assessment
b. Probe for the kinds of assessments that are taught and modeled with teacher
candidates

228

21. Thinking now about K-12 education, what do you think about standardized tests and their
appropriate use in our schools today?
a. Probe for their perception of how they can be useful to teachers, schools, students,
and parents
b. Probe for their perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses, benefits or dangers
22. Do you talk with your teacher candidates about standardized testing? If so, what is the
message you seek to convey to them about this?
23. Is it possible for a teacher to promote social justice and equity while working in an
environment that focuses on standardized tests and accountability?
a. Probe for explanation of how teachers can accomplish this
24. If so, how can you as a teacher educator help prepare students to succeed in doing this?
Can you give examples of how this is done here at this university (and/or in the courses
you teach)?
a. Probe for explanation of examples or for reason why this is not done at this
university
25. If you were to recommend one or two books or readings to a prospective teacher, what
would they be? Why this choice?

Teacher Candidate Interview
1. What led you to decide to become a teacher?
a. Probe for past experiences, family influence, certain dispositions, etc.
2. Why did you decide to come to this particular university for your studies?
3. Today we hear a lot about the challenges of teaching in urban schools and the crises in
urban education. I have a couple of questions related to this. First, how would you
define urban education?
4. Next, what do you think are the most important things we need to keep in mind as we
discuss urban education and look for ways to help urban students and schools succeed?
5. Also, what are the most important things – knowledge, skills, or dispositions – that a
teacher needs to be successful in working in an urban school today?
6. What purposes should school curriculum serve?
7. How should the knowledge that is taught in school be selected?

229

8. How should the students who are in the classroom influence the way learning experiences
are chosen and organized?
9. There is a lot of talk today about standards and accountability in education. How would
you define these terms? What come to your mind when accountability is brought up in
terms of education?
10. What did you learn about accountability in your teacher preparation program?
a. Probe for what they were taught; ask for examples
b. Probe for whether they agree with the stance taken by their instructors or the
university in regards to accountability
c. Probe for dangers or benefits they see in this movement.
11. There is a lot of talk about equity, social justice, and diversity in education today. How
would you define educational equity? What is your understanding of this these words and
how they fit into education?
12. What did you learn about these issues in your teacher preparation program?
a. Probe for what they were taught; ask for examples
b. Probe for whether they agree or disagree with the stance taken by their instructors
or the university in regards to these issues?
c. Probe for dangers or benefits they see in this emphasis.
13. In your teaching, you will undoubtedly have students who face obstacles to their learning,
for example: English language learners, students with learning disabilities, students who
are below grade level in reading or math, etc.. What are some strategies you might use to
help these students?
a. Probe for what sort of responsibility they feel in terms of trying to help these
students master the course objectives
14. Thinking of your teacher education program, what have you learned about how to meet
these challenges? Do you think what you have learned has been useful to you in your
teaching? Explain
a. Probe for learning experiences (classes, assignments, readings, etc.) that were
most helpful
15. What was the message you received from your instructors and coursework in regards to
your responsibility in helping students with special learning needs?
a. Probe for how this message was conveyed
16. Part of your job as a teacher will be to assess your students learning. In addition to
assessment that takes place in your classroom, student learning is assessed in other ways.
I would like to ask you a few questions about assessment. First, what do you think about
standardized tests and their appropriate use in schools?
a. Probe for their perception of how they can be useful to teachers, schools, students,
parents
230

b. Probe for their perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses, benefits and
dangers
17. Second, will you assess the learning of your students in the classroom?
a. Probe for examples of each type of assessment mentioned
18. What have you learned about standardized testing at the university?
a. Probe for whether they agree with the stance of the university or their instructors
about this
19. What did you learn about assessment in general?
a. Probe for what the instructors taught as the purpose of assessment
b. Probe for what types of assessments were modeled and taught
20. The program description here at (name of university) lists the following as its mission
(vision, core values, as appropriate):
a. Do you feel that the teacher education program here is fulfilling this mission?
b. Probe for ways in which it is fulfilling its mission; ask for examples
c. Probe for where and how it is falling short of meeting these goals
21. Do you think it is possible for a teacher to promote social justice and equity while
working in an environment that focuses on standardized tests and accountability?
a. Probe for their explanation of how teachers accomplish this or for why they do
not think teachers can accomplish this
22. From your time here at the university, is there a book or reading that has had a lot of
influence on the way you view teaching? Explain
23. In your role as a teacher, which is more important: Helping prepare your students for the
challenges they will face academically or helping your students understand who they are
and the goals they have for their future? Explain.

Graduate Interview
1. Could you tell me about your background in teaching and how long you have been
teaching at this school?
a. Probe for other teaching positions, how long they taught in other positions
2. Please describe your current teaching assignment.
a. Probe for subject areas and grade levels taught, as well as other responsibilities
3. In general, how would you describe your teaching experience so far?
a. Probe for their perceptions of a) the most positive or rewarding aspects of their
teaching, and b) the most challenging or difficult aspects of their teaching?
231

4. Also, what are the most important things – knowledge, skills, or disposition – that a
teacher needs to be successful in working in an urban school today?
5. In general, how well do you think the university prepared you for what you have faced as
a teacher?
a. Probe for examples
b. Probe for whether they felt coursework, student teaching, other aspects of
preparation were valuable
6. What purposes should school curriculum serve?
7. How should the knowledge that is taught in school be selected?
8. How should the students who are in the classroom influence the way learning experiences
are chosen and organized?
9. In your classes, you undoubtedly have students who face obstacles to their learning, for
example: English language learners, students with learning disabilities, students who are
below grade level in reading or math, or students who consistently struggle to master the
objectives, etc.. What are some strategies you might use to help these students?
a. Probe for what sort of responsibility they feel in terms of trying to help these
students master the course objectives?
10. Thinking back to your teacher education program, what did you learn about how to meet
these challenges? Do you think what you learned has been useful to you in your
teaching? Explain.
a. Probe for learning experiences (classes, assignments, readings, etc.) that were
most helpful in terms of this issue?
11. Again, thinking back to your teacher education program, what was the message you
received from your instructors and coursework in regards to your responsibility in
helping students with special learning needs?
a. Probe for how was this message was conveyed
12. There is a lot of talk today about standards and accountability in education. How would
you define these terms? What come to your mind when accountability is brought up in
terms of education?
13. What did you learn about accountability in your teacher preparation program?
a. Probe for what they were taught; ask for examples
b. Probe for whether they agree with the stance taken by their instructors or the
university in regards to accountability
c. Probe for benefits or dangers they see in this movement.
14. In what ways do you promote accountability in your classroom and in your teaching?

232

15. Has the push for accountability in our schools affected your teaching?
a. Probe for whether they see this as a positive thing for their teaching and why they
do or do not see it as being positive
16. There is a lot of talk about equity, social justice, and diversity in education today. How
would you define educational equity? What is your understanding of this these words and
how they fit into education?
17. Do you think promoting equity and social justice needs to be a part of your role as a
teacher?
a. Probe how they address equity and social justice in their teaching or why they do
not
18. What did you learn about these issues in your teacher preparation program?
a. Probe for what they were taught; ask for examples
b. Probe for whether they agree or disagree with the stance taken by their instructors
or the university in regards to these issues?
c. Probe for dangers or benefits they see in such a focus.
19. Part of your job as a teacher is to assess your students learning. In addition to assessment
that takes place in your classroom, student learning is assessed in other ways. I would
like to ask you a few questions about assessment. First, what do you think about
standardized tests and their use as a means to assess student learning?
a. Probe for their perception of how they can be useful to teachers, schools, students,
parents
b. Probe for their perceptions of their strengths and weaknesses
20. Second, how do you assess the learning of your students in the classroom?
a. Probe for examples of each type of assessment mentioned
21. Thinking back to your teacher education program, what did you learn about standardized
testing at the university?
a. Probe for whether they agree with the stance of the university or their instructors
about this
22. What did you learn about assessment in general?
a. Probe for what the instructors taught as the purpose of assessment
b. Probe for what types of assessments were modeled and taught

233

APPENDIX D

5

Faculty Participants

Table D.1. Faculty interview participants from Peyton University
Name
Mark Johnson
Albert Lancaster
Carl Parkton
Marcia Radsty
Christine Sampson
Daniel Smith
David Watkins

Position
Instructor, Curriculum Foundations
Associate Professor, Curriculum
Foundations
Assistant Professor, Educational
Psychology
Associate Professor, Curriculum and
Foundations, Program Director
Associate Professor, Mathematics
Education
Associate Professor, Social Studies
Education
Instructor, Social Foundations

Years in program
3
24
8
25
13
7
8

Table D.2. Faculty interview participants from Allerton State University
Name
Stefan Aragon
Nancy Backton
Tara Brandt
Neal Farmer
Victoria Gibson
Peter Jackson
Teresa Sack
Paul Whitaker

Position
Associate Professor, Curriculum and
Instruction, Second Language
Associate Professor, Curriculum and
Instruction
Associate Professor, Curriculum and
Instruction, Department Chair
Instructor, Social Studies Education
Associate Professor, Urban
Education, English Education
Instructor, Mathematics Education
Professor, Curriculum and
Instruction
Associate Professor, Social Studies
Education

5

Pseudonyms are used for all faculty members
234

Years in program
10
36
9
20
9
4
22
1

APPENDIX E

Student and Graduate Participants

6

Table E.1. Student interview participants from Peyton University
Name
Kristy Bartlett
Andrea Case
James Castle
Eric Roberts
Lara Start

Major
Mathematics
Spanish
Social studies
Language Arts
Language Arts

Age
25-30
35-40
25-30
30-35
25-30

Table E.2. Graduate interview participants from Peyton University
Name
Hannah Cooke
Charles Dawkins
Julia Frauning
Bradley Hansen
Abigail Jones
Cheryl Larson

Position
high school language arts teacher
high school math teacher
middle school language arts teacher
high school social studies teacher
middle school language arts teacher
middle school social studies teacher

Graduation Date
2008
2009
2009
2010
2007
2007

Table E.3. Student interview participants from Allerton State University
Name
Tisha Beals
Maria Caruso
Ted Conklin
Rianna Craft
Trent Johnson
Melissa Kramer
Nathan Morello
Tracy Spears
Valerie Stevens
Richard Strodtman
Patricia Walker

6

Major
Mathematics
Language Arts
Language Arts
Language Arts
Language Arts
Language Arts
Mathematics
Language Arts
Language Arts
Social Studies
Language Arts

Pseudonyms are used for the names of all students and graduates
235

Age
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
25-30
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25
20-25

Table E.4. Graduate interview participants from Allerton State University
Name
Sarah Masterton
Winona Sampson

Position
graduate student
middle school science

236

Graduation Date
2004
1995

APPENDIX F

Course syllabi
Peyton University
Psychological Foundations of Education
Social Issues and Education
Technology in the Classroom
Teaching and Management in the Secondary School
Social Studies Methods
Mathematics Methods

Allerton State University
Professional Urban Teaching Linking Seminar
Professional Urban Teaching Linking Seminar
Teaching Reading and Adolescent Literature
Introduction to Teaching
The Teaching of English
Educational Applied Linguistics
History and Politics of Second Language Education
Student Teaching in Mathematics
Teaching of Secondary Mathematics
Introduction to the Teaching of Social Studies
Social Studies Methods

237

REFERENCES

238

REFERENCES

Abell, J., & Myers, G. (2008). Analyzing research interviews. In R. Wodak & M. Krzyzanowski
(Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 145-161). New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Achievement First. (2012). Achievment gap and mission. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from
http://www.achievementfirst.org/our-approach/achievement-gap-and-mission/
Achievement First. (2012). About Elm City College Preparatory Middle School. Retrieved
February 20, 2012, from http://www.achievementfirst.org/schools/connecticutschools/elm-city-middle/about/
America 2000: An education strategy. (1991).
Anyon, J. (2005). Racial possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social
movement. New York: Routledge.
Anzaldua, G. E. (2002). (Un)natural bridges, (un)safe spaces. In G. E. Anzaldua & A. Keating
(Eds.), This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation (pp. 1-5). New
York: Routledge.
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (Eds.). (2007). Democratic schools: Lessons in powerful
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Appleman, D. (2009). Critical encounters in high school English: Teaching literary theory to
adolescents (Second ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. (1985). Education under siege: The conservative, liberal, and
radical debate over schooling. Boston: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc.
Au, W. (Ed.). (2009). Rethinking multicultural education: Teaching for racial and cultural
justice. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Rethinking Schools, Ltd.
Au, W. (2010). The idiocy of policy: The anti-democratic curriculum of high-stakes testing
[Electronic Version]. Critical Education, 1, 1-16. Retrieved January 21, 2010, from
http://m1.cust.educ.ubc.ca/journal/v1n1
Ayers, W., Kumashiro, K., Meiners, E., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2010). Teaching toward
democracy: Educators as agents of change. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.
Ball, A. F. (2000). Empowering pedagogies that enhance the learning of multicultural students.
Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1006-1034.
Basken, P. (2006, March 29, 2006). States have more schools falling behind. The Washington
Post.
239

Benitez, M., Davidson, J., & Flaxman, L. (2009). Small schools, big ideas: The essential guide to
successful school transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beyer, L. E., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Curriculum in conflict: Social visions, educational agendas,
and progressive school reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2010). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in the United States (Third ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, education, and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education (pp.
71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the
contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers.
Britzman, D. P. (2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Revised
ed.). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing
schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations,
differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendler (Eds.), Critical theories in
education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 45-65). New York:
Routledge.
Burke, K. (1937). Attitudes toward history. Boston: Beacon Press.
Burke, K. (1941). The philosophy of literary form. New York: Vintage Books.
Cardinal principles of secondary education. (1918). (No. 35). Washington D.C.: National
Education Association.
Carnegie Foundation (2012). The Carnegie classifications of institutions of higher education.
Retrieved February 1, 2012, from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/
Carter, P. L. (2005). Keepin' it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Carter, S. C. (2001). No excuses: Lessons from 21 high-performing, high-poverty schools.
Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation.

240

Chapman, T. K., & Hobbel, N. (Eds.). (2010). Social justice pedagogy across the curriculum:
The practive of freedom. New York: Routledge.
Coalition of Essential Schools. (2012). The CES Common Principles. Retrieved February 20,
2012, from http://www.essentialschools.org/items/4
Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). Blind vision: Unlearning racism in teacher education. Harvard
Educational Review, 70(2), 157-190.
Corbett, D., Wilson, B., & Williams, B. (2002). Effort and excellence in urban classrooms:
Expecting--and getting--success with all students. New York and London: Teachers
College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. S. (2005). The
design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do
(pp. 391-441). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (2001). Mismatch: Historical perspectives on schools and
students who don't fit them. Teachers College Record, 103(4), 525-547.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's
children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Delpit, L. (2002). No kinda sense. In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that we speak:
Thoughts on language and culture in the classroom (pp. 31-48). New York: The New
Press.
Delpit, L. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The
New Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative
research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks, CA:: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Dewey, J. (1964). The child and the curriculum. In R. D. Archambault (Ed.), John Dewey on
education (pp. 339-358). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Dimitriadis, G., & Hill, M. L. (2012). Accountability and the contemporary intellectual
[Electronic Version]. Occasional Papers, 27, 9-11. Retrieved March 16, 2012, from
bankstreet.edu/occasionalpapers/27
Esquith, R. (2007). Teach like your hair's on fire: The methods and madness inside room 56.
New York: Penguin Books.

241

Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2010). Cracks in the ivory tower?: The views of education professors
circa 2010. Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Ferguson, R. F., Hackman, S., Hanna, R., & Ballantine, A. (2010). How high schools become
exemplary: Ways that leadership raises achievement and narrows gaps by improving
instruction in 15 public high schools. Report of the 2009 Annual Conference of the
Achievement Gap Initiative, Harvard University.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York:
Pantheon Books.
Freedom Writers, & Gruwell, E. (1999). The freedom writers' diary. New York: Broadway
Books.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: The Seabury
Press.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Giroux, H. A. (2009). Teacher education and democratic schooling. In A. Darder, M. P.
Baltodano & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (Second ed., pp. 438459). New York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A., & McLaren, P. (1996). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The
case for democratic schooling. In P. Leistyna, A. Woodrum & S. A. Sherblom (Eds.),
Breaking free: The transformative power of critical pedagogy (pp. 301-331). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Educational Review.
Giroux, H. A., & Simon, R. (1989). Popular culture and critical pedagogy: Everyday life as a
basis for curriculum knowledge. In H. A. Giroux & P. L. McLaren (Eds.), Critical
pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle. Albany, New York: State University of New
York Press.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (Third ed.). Boston:
Pearson.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994).
Grant, C. A. (1978). Education that is multicultural: Isn't that what we mean? Journal of Teacher
Education, 29(5), 45-48.
Grant, C. A. (1995). Praising diversity in school: Social and individual implications. In C. A.
Grant (Ed.), Educating for diversity (pp. 3-16). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn
& Bacon.
242

Greer, C. (1972). The great school legend. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching
and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205.
Guggenheim, D., & Kimball, B. (Writer) (2010). Waiting for superman. In E. Hindmarch, J.
Skoll & D. Weyermann (Producer): Paramount Vantage and Paramount Media.
Gutierrez, R. (2008, July 23-24, 2008). What is "nepantla" and how can it help physics
education researchers conceptualize knowledge for teaching? Paper presented at the
Physics Education Research Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Gutierrez, R. (2009). Embracing the inherent tensions in teaching mathematics from an equity
stance. Democracy & Education, 18(3), 9-16.
Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B. (2006). Introduction. In E. Gutstein & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking
mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers (pp. 1-6). Milwaukee, WI:
Rethinking Schools, Ltd.
Hilliard III, A. G. (2002). Language, culture, and the assessment of African American children.
In L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and
culture in the classroom (pp. 87-105). New York: The New Press.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools: Oxford
University Press.
Hollins, E. R. (2011). The meaning of culture in learning to teach. In A. F. Ball & C. A. Tyson
(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 105-130). Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Hollins, E. R., & Spencer, K. (1990). Restructuring schools for cultural inclusion: Changing the
schooling process for African American youngsters. Journal of Education, 172(2), 89100.
Hollins, E., & Torres Guzman, M. (2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse
populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 477-548). Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Humphrey, D. C., & Wechsler, M. E. (2007). Insights into alternative certification: Initial
findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 483-530.
Jacobs, J. (2005). Our school: The inspiring story of two teachers, one big idea, and the school
that beat the odds. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2002). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity.
In S. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis (pp. 163-177). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
243

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). The bizarre, complex, and misunderstood world of teacher education. In
J. L. Kincheloe, A. Bursztyn & S. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Teaching teachers: Building a
quality school of urban education (pp. 1-49). New York: Peter Lang.
Kincheloe, J. L., hayes, k., Rose, K., & Anderson, P. M. (2006). Preface. In J. L. Kincheloe, k.
hayes, K. Rose & P. M. Anderson (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of education (Vol. 1,
pp. xi-xv). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Kozol, J. (1995). Amazing grace: The lives of children and the conscience of a nation. New
York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in America.
New York: Three Rivers Press.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2009). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice
(Revised Edition ed.). New York: Routledge.
Labaree, D. F. (1996). The trouble with ed schools. Educational Foundations, 10(3), 1-19.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational
goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally
relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory into Practice, XXXI(4), 312-320.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives: Preparing teachers to teach African American
students. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 206-214.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2007). Pushing past the achievement gap: An essay on the language of
deficit. The Journal of Negro Education, 76(3), 316-323.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Race still matters: Critical race theory in education. In M. W. Apple,
W. Au & L. A. Gandin (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of critical
education (pp. 110-122). New York: Routledge.
Lee, V. E., & Smith, J. B. (2001). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Levine, E. (2002). One kid at a time: Big lessons from a small school. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform.
New York: Routledge.

244

Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the
right to the city. New York: Routledge.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Lynd, A. (1950). Quackery in the public schools. The Atlantic, CLXXV, 33-35, 37-38.
Mann, H. (1842). Fifth annual report to the State Board of Education of Massachusetts. Boston.
Macaluso, T. L. (2010, March 9, 2010). City graduation rates fall. City Newspaper. Retrieved
November 11, 2010, from
http://www.rochestercitynewspaper.com/news/articles/2010/03/EDUCATION-Citygraduation-rates-fall/
Massey, C., & Szente, J. (2007). Building partnerships to prepare teachers for urban schools.
Childhood Education, 83(3), 136-141.
McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M.
Baltodano & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 69-96). New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Meier, D. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.
Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mirel, J. (1999). The rise and fall of an urban school system: Detroit, 1907-81 (2nd ed.). Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Monroe, L. (1997). Nothing's impossible: Leadership lessons from inside and outside the
classroom. New York: Times Books.
A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. (1983). National Commission on
Excellence in Education.
Neckerman, K. M. (2007). Schools betrayed: Roots of failure in inner-city education. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual
quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nieto, S. (2004). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education
(Fourth ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

245

Nieto, S. (2009). Bring bilingual education out of the basement and other imperatives for teacher
education. In A. Darder, M. P. Baltodano & R. D. Torres (Eds.), The critical pedagogy
reader (Second ed., pp. 469-482). New York: Routledge.
Nieto, S., & Bode, P. (2012). Affirming diveristy: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education (Sixth ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
No child left behind act of 2001, Public Law 107-110. (2002).
Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2003). City schools and the American dream: Reclaiming the promise of public
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2012). Creating the schools we need [Electronic Version]. Occasional Papers,
27, 34-36. Retrieved March 22, 2012, from bankstreet.edu/occasionalpapers/27
Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A culturalecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Otterman, S. (2010, October 28, 2010). In sharp rise, 47 city schools may close over
performance. The New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2010, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/29/nyregion/29closings.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=failing
%20schools&st=cse
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Phillips, K. R. (2004). Testing controversy: A rhetoric of educational reform. Cresskill, New
Jersey: Hampton Press, Inc.
Pollock, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., & Shalaby, C. (2010). "But what can I do?": Three
necessary tensions in teaching teachers about race. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3),
211-224.
Race to the top program: Executive summary. (2009). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Report of the Committee of Ten: Report of the Committee on Secondary School Studies
appointed at the meeting of the National Education Association. (1893). Washington
D.C.: NEA.

246

Resnick, L. B., & Glennan Jr., T. K. (2002). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for
urban school districts. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh & M. W.
McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 160-172). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to
close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Schmerler, G. (2012). Silver linings [Electronic Version]. Occasional Papers, 27, 30-33.
Retrieved March 22, 2012, from bankstreet.edu/occasionalpapers/27
Schubert, W. H. (1996). Perspectives on four curriculum traditions. Educational Horizons, 169176.
Schultz, B. D. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban
classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sizer, T. R. (1984). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools. Journal of Teacher
Education, 52(2), 94-106.
Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in the standardsbased classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sleeter, C. E., & Bernal, D. D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and antiracist
education: Implications for multicultural education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks
(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (Second ed., pp. 240-258). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the United States.
Harvard Educational Review, 57(4), 421-444.
Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2003). Making choices for multicultural education: Five
approaches to race, class, and gender (Fourth ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Solomon, R. P., Manoukian, R. K., & Clarke, J. (2007). Pre-service teachers as border crossers:
Linking urban schools and communities through service learning. In R. P. Solomon & D.
N. Sekayi (Eds.), Urban teacher education and teaching (pp. 67-87). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Solomon, R. P., & Sekayi, D. N. (2007). Introduction. In R. P. Solomon & D. N. Sekayi (Eds.),
Urban teacher education and teaching (pp. 1-13). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Spring, J. (2004). The American School, 1642-2004 (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

247

Stake, R. E. (2004). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage
handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stovall, D. (2006). We can relate: Hip-hop culture, critical pedagogy, and the secondary
classroom. Urban Education, 41(6), 585-602.
Sugrue, T. J. (2005). The origins of the urban crisis: Race and inequality in postwar Detroit.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Thernstrom, A., & Thernstrom, S. (2003). No excuses: Closing the racial gap in learning. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Tidwell, M., & Thompson, C. (2009). Infusing multicultural principles in urban teacher
preparation. Childhood Education, 85(2), 86-90.
Toch, T. (2003). High schools on a human scale: How small schools can transform American
education. Boston: Beacon Press.
Tozer, S. (1985). Dominant ideology and the teacher's authority. Contemporary Education,
56(3), 148-153.
Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
New York: State University Press.
Walcott, J. R. (2011). Beliefs and practices of urban-focused teacher educators. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association.
Weiner, L. (1993). Preparing teachers for urban schools: Lesson from thirty years of school
reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weiner, L. (2006). Urban teaching: The essentials (Revised ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press.
Wells, A. S., Slayton, J., & Scott, J. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter
school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal,
39(2), 337-361.
Whitman, D. (2008). Sweating the small stuff: Inner-city schools and the new paternalism.
Washington D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute Press.

248

Wilson, S. M., Floden, R. E., & Ferrini-Mundy, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research:
Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle: Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Wodak, R. (2008). Introduction: Discourse studies - important concepts and terms. In R. Wodak
& M. Krzyzanowski (Eds.), Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences (pp. 129). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wood, G. H. (1999). A Time to Learn. New York: Plume.
Yin, R. (2003). Designing case studies. In Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.,
pp. 24-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zeichner, K. M. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit,
prepare, and retain the best teachers for all students. Teachers College Record, 105(3),
490-519.
Zygmunt-Fillwalk, E. M., & Leitze, A. (2006). Promising practices in preservice teacher
preparation. Childhood Education, 82(5), 283-288.

249