EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES OF TEACHTOWN MKE: USING LOCAL CULTURAL
INSTITUTIONS TO SUPPORT NOVICE TEACHERS’ ACCESS TO COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
By
Tamara M. Shattuck

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Curriculum, Instruction and Teacher Education – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITIES OF TEACHTOWN MKE: USING LOCAL CULTURAL
INSTITUTIONS TO SUPPORT NOVICE TEACHERS’ ACCESS TO COMMUNITY
RESOURCES
By
Tamara M. Shattuck
Cultural institutions have the capacity to provide teachers with material resources for
curriculum use in the classroom, professional support through connection to professional learning
communities, promotion of self-confidence in teaching, and gains in subject content knowledge.
There is building evidence that these types of support systems help novice teachers (i.e., teachers
in their first three year of teaching), however many teachers do not have access to such support.
And while access to resources is important for novice teachers, there is also evidence that access
does not guarantee the use of resources. This descriptive study explores the inclusion of cultural
institutions as partners in novice teacher support programs though the investigation of Milwaukee,
Wisconsin’s Key to the City Pass (KCP), which provides new teachers access to over 22 local
cultural institutions. I also investigate how novice teachers develop and use the skill of relational
agency —the ability to “work fluidly across professional boundaries” (Edwards, 2005a p. 177) and
understand the utility of materials for problem solving. I hypothesize building the skill of relational
agency helps novice teachers’ better access KCP resources for professional use. Thus, four
research questions drive this study; 1) How do teachers use KCP benefits? 2) Do teachers who
participate in the KCP program incorporate community/cultural institution resources in their
teaching practices, and if so how? 3) What barriers exist, and how can the KCP program be made
more accessible for teachers? 4) Do participant teachers display the skill of relational agency, does
this skill apply to KCP use?

I used both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze data and document teachers’
use of the KCP through: (1) a teacher survey, (2) semi-structured focus group interviews, and (3)
case study teacher interviews and artifact analysis. The quantitative survey data was analyzed first
to gather general patterns of KCP use across participant teachers. I analyzed survey data using
descriptive and inferential statistics. The qualitative data was analyzed in a second phase to gather
information about how teachers use KCP resources. For the qualitative data analysis, I used
deductive coding. Findings indicate that participants were mostly using the KCP program for
personal reasons (e.g., trips with friends and family), and that they were able to connect with the
local community through these trips. Through personal trips, teachers were also able to assess
whether taking field trips to certain cultural institutions was appropriate for their students. Few
teachers used the skill of relational agency in connection to the KCP and noted they were more
likely to use cultural institution resources if they were clearly connected with state and district
standards. Teachers were also more likely to use cultural institution resources if they had the
opportunity to collaborate with cultural institution staff. This study enabled me to observe barriers
to KCP use before generalizing how such a program might be created in other cities. Which in turn
allowed me to understand the steps other cities should take in order to build stronger partnerships.
Based on my findings of the barriers to KCP use I suggest cities who wish to form partnership
programs: 1) gather input from all constituents, 2) create a strong mission statement, 3) connect to
district wide initiatives, and 4) ensure a pathway for clear and continual communication between
partners and participants.

Copyright by
TAMARA M SHATTUCK
2017

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people I would like to thank for their support through this process. First, I
would like to thank Anne-Lise Halvorsen, my advisor and committee chair. Without her
encouragement, emotional support, and guidance I would not have completed this research
study. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee: Amelia Wenk Gotwals, Marsha
MacDowell, Michael Sedlak, and Avner Segall. Each committee member brought fresh
perspectives to this study and pushed me to make my dissertation stronger. And I thank Suzanne
Wilson who brought me to Michigan State University to work on her Learning Science as
Inquiry grant project and supported me as my advisor during my first two years as a graduate
student.
A big thank you to the GMC staff who introduced me to Teachtown MKE and the KCP
program, and who gave me access to the program.
I am grateful to my friends who cheered me on throughout my time at Michigan State
University, and continue to support and inspire me today. And to my family, particularly my
mother who took time out of her life to watch my children while I wrote and edited my
dissertation.
I am thankful for my twin daughters, Hazel and Linnea. While they were not with me
when I started graduate school they were with me at the end. They help me see the world
differently and I cannot imagine life without them. And last, but certainly not least, I am so
appreciative of my husband James. He encouraged me to attend Michigan State University and
has been my champion since day one.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
Networks of Support ..........................................................................................................5
Teacher networks ...................................................................................................5
Concerns with current support systems for novice teachers ..................................8
Focus of This Study......................................................................................................................10
Significance of This Study ...........................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 2 Cultural Institution Resources and Relational Agency: A Review of the
Literature ......................................................................................................................................13
Cultural Institutions: Resource and Role for Novice Teachers ........................................14
Resources across content areas ............................................................................14
Professional learning communities ......................................................................17
Teaching in an informal setting............................................................................19
Teacher Resource Use and Relational Agency ................................................................23
Defining and finding resources ............................................................................23
Relational agency .................................................................................................27
CHAPTER 3 Method ...................................................................................................................32
Study Context ...................................................................................................................32
GMC and Teachtown MKE .................................................................................33
Cultural institutions ..............................................................................................34
Participants .......................................................................................................................36
Data Sources .....................................................................................................................39
Survey...................................................................................................................41
Focus group interviews ........................................................................................41
Case study interviews ...........................................................................................42
Artifact analysis....................................................................................................43
My Role as Researcher .....................................................................................................44
Analysis ............................................................................................................................46
Quantitative analyses............................................................................................47
Qualitative analyses..............................................................................................49
Case study interviews and artifacts ......................................................................50
CHAPTER 4 General Patterns of Teachers’ Key to the City Use ...............................................51
Initial Patterns ..................................................................................................................52
vi

KCP use ................................................................................................................53
Benefits.................................................................................................................59
Constraints............................................................................................................60
Expanding on Initial Patterns ...........................................................................................65
KCP use ................................................................................................................66
Benefits.................................................................................................................68
Constraints............................................................................................................69
Summary of Survey and Focus Group Interview Findings ..............................................73
KCP use ................................................................................................................73
Benefits.................................................................................................................74
Constrains and missed opportunities ....................................................................75
Teacher suggestions .............................................................................................77
CHAPTER 5 Case Study Teacher Resource Use.........................................................................81
Artifacts ............................................................................................................................82
Greg ......................................................................................................................83
Wanda...................................................................................................................85
Lisa .......................................................................................................................86
Personal Resources ...........................................................................................................89
Greg ......................................................................................................................89
Wanda...................................................................................................................91
Lisa .......................................................................................................................93
Conventional Resources ...................................................................................................95
Greg ......................................................................................................................95
Wanda...................................................................................................................98
Lisa .....................................................................................................................100
Environmental Resources ...............................................................................................102
Greg ....................................................................................................................102
Wanda.................................................................................................................104
Lisa .....................................................................................................................105
Relational Agency and Expertise ...................................................................................106
Greg ....................................................................................................................106
Wanda.................................................................................................................108
Lisa .....................................................................................................................109
Collective Analysis of Teacher Resource Use ...............................................................111
Environmental resources outside of the classroom ............................................111
School culture.....................................................................................................111
KCP resource use ...............................................................................................113
CHAPTER 6 Discussion ............................................................................................................116
Summary and Grounding of Findings in the Scholarship ..............................................118
Benefits...............................................................................................................118
Missed opportunities ..........................................................................................125
vii

Limitations .....................................................................................................................132
Survey.................................................................................................................132
Focus group and case study teachers..................................................................134
Implications ....................................................................................................................135
Suggestions to strengthen the KCP program .....................................................135
Lessons learned: suggestions for cities looking to form similar programs ........141
Areas of Future Research ...............................................................................................149
Significance of Study .....................................................................................................150
A return to the beginning, a retelling of Luke’s story ........................................152
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................155
Appendix A Teachtown MKE Educators Resource Guide.............................................156
Appendix B Teachtown MKE Monthly Newsletter .....................................................158
Appendix C Teacher Survey ........................................................................................159
Appendix D Focus Group Interview Protocol ................................................................163
Appendix E Case Study Teacher Interview Protocol .....................................................165
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................168

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Research Questions and Connected Data Sources ............................................................... 40
Table 2 Teacher Survey Coding Scheme .....................................................................................48
Table 3 Focus Group Interview Coding Scheme .........................................................................49
Table 4 Case Study Teacher Interview and Artifact Coding Scheme ..........................................50
Table 5 Teacher Year of Participation .........................................................................................52
Table 6 Teachers Beliefs about KCP Use ....................................................................................53
Table 7 ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Pabst Theater, Personal ..........................................57
Table 8 ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Milwaukee Art Museum, Personal .......................58
Table 9 ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by United Performing Arts, Field Trip ........................58
Table 10 ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Milwaukee Public Museum, Field trip

ix

............59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Teachtown MKE Study Framework .............................................................................27
Figure 2. Section One: Teachers’ Beliefs about KCP Use...........................................................54
Figure 3. Section Two: Organizations Visited .............................................................................56
Figure 4. Original Teachtown MKE Webpage ..........................................................................139
Figure 5. Revised Teachtown MKE Webpage ...........................................................................139
Figure 6. MAM Cheat Sheet ......................................................................................................140
Figure 7. Teachtown MKE Educators Resource Guide .............................................................156
Figure 8. Teachtown MKE Monthly Newsletter ........................................................................158

x

CHAPTER 1
Introduction

Late on a school night many years ago, I found myself in a local elementary school with a
friend, Luke (pseudonym), who had in the fall accepted a half-time position as an art teacher—
his time split between two schools in the district. He had recently received news that a full-time
art teaching position was about to open in the very school that I was visiting him in that night.
Glancing around the room I could see various replicas of ancient Greek black-figure pottery that
his third-grade students had recently made (the third-grade Social Studies curriculum at the time
required teachers to cover global communities). Luke often was the go-to source for teachers in
the school when they wanted to integrate their curriculum with art. This particular night I had
offered to help Luke with the most recent project his third-grade art class had taken on, the study
of ancient Egypt. In an attempt to help his students understand the ancient Egyptian burial
process, and the elaborate art that has been found in connection with this process, Luke had his
third-graders create a full sized sarcophagus. In preparation for the upcoming parent-teacher
conference Luke wanted this giant piece of student artwork prominently on display. He needed
the support of parents to secure the full-time position at the school. The problem being, and the
main reason for my visit that night, was the time needed to have students complete the
sarcophagus themselves was not achievable before the parent-teacher conference. I was called in
by Luke to help prep and begin painting the students’ sarcophagus.
I often think back to this moment, remembering the stresses felt by a first-year teacher,
particularly an art teacher. The feeling that you could be replaced at any time; the struggle to
attain one of the few full time teaching positions; the battle to integrate curriculum in a

1

meaningful way that reinforced art as a necessary subject in school; the need for outside support
but often limited time or resources to identify this support yourself. I find myself wondering was
a flashy life-sized sarcophagus really the best way to teach about ancient Egypt, or was there a
better solution? I believe that there was a better solution. Not far away, in the same city as this
particular elementary school, was a small free public museum. The museum had a traveling
exhibition space, which happened to have a show on ancient Egypt. Had Luke known about the
exhibit perhaps he could have used the museum as an outside resource to help students further
research Egypt and create their own (more manageable) piece of art based on the museum
exhibit.
The more I think about this missed opportunity, the more I ponder, what makes someone
resourceful—able to understand and use resources purposefully and effectively, in both their
surrounding environment and an environment unfamiliar to them? These questions may seem
better fit for someone who is a survivalist, but it is this line of thinking that led me to the
question: how does a teacher become a resourceful practitioner?
Edwards (2005a) has a similar interest in the idea of resourceful practitioner, in
particular, professionals who are able to maneuver between different communities and
environments, and uses the term “relational agency” (p. 168) to delineate this skill. Relational
agency is used to describe people who have the capability to identify others as resources, “work
fluidly across professional boundaries” (Edwards, 2005a p. 177) and understand the utility of
materials for problem solving. To better understand how a teacher might develop the skill of
relational agency, in this study, I focus on the establishment of support systems for novice
teachers which have the potential to build relational agency. Specifically, I examine the use of
cultural institutions as support systems for novice teachers.

2

I use the term novice teacher to represent teachers within their first three years of
teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). I focus on novice teachers in their first three years of teaching
because this is a crucial time in a teachers’ development. Feiman-Nemser (2000) writes: “The
first years of teaching are an intense and formative time in learning to teach, influencing not only
whether people remain in teaching but what kind of teacher they become” (p. 1026). Because of
the tenuous nature of learning to teach Feiman-Nemser argues that new teacher induction should
take place not only in the first year of teaching, but should also expand into the second and third
years. I hypothesize that novice teachers’ introduction to cultural institutions through induction
programs, during their first three years of teaching, will positively influence teachers’ use of
cultural institutions as a resource throughout their teaching careers—potentially helping teachers
to build the skill of relational agency. Thus, my research will examine the potential contributions
of a city-sponsored induction program that includes cultural institutions as part of the support
system provided for novice teachers.
Cultural institutions provide teachers access to material resources and professional
communities outside of K-12 schools (the use of cultural institutions as a resources is discussed
in detail in chapter 2). However, the question remains: does access help develop the skill of
relational agency? What types of support systems are necessary for novice teachers to become
familiar with and see cultural institutions as useful for teaching within the K-12 school
environment? These two research questions drive this dissertation.
These questions are ideal for studying a program, Teachtown MKE (MKE stands for
Milwaukee), created for the Milwaukee Public School system (MPS). I selected to research a
program within MPS because it is a large urban school district which is in the process of
implementing a district wide initiative available to all MPS novice teachers. This initiative gives

3

all MPS novice teachers access to local cultural institutions, and is driven by a partnership
between MPS, a non-profit business organization, and local cultural institutions. Teachtown
MKE is unique in the fact that it is a district-wide initiative that is intended to provide novice
teachers induction support outside of the K-12 school, as opposed to within.
MPS has high teacher attrition, with many teachers leaving within their first three years.
Additionally in 2012 MPS estimated that the district would experience the retirement of over 700
staff (Teachtown MKE Yearbook, 2015). In an attempt to mitigate the impact of the large
number of retirements, the MPS superintendent requested that the Greater Milwaukee Committee
(GMC) assist in attracting novice teachers to MPS while also providing a support system to help
lower the attrition rate. The superintendent’s request spurred the creation of Teachtown MKE, an
initiative which provides novice teachers relocation assistance and connects teachers with local
community organization resources. The leaders at Teachtown MKE believe no single
organization has the ability to provide all of the supports that a novice teacher will need. Thus,
Teachtown MKE seeks the assistance and partnership of multiple community organizations and
locates novice teachers through both traditional and non-traditional means (e.g. working directly
with MPS, Teach for America [TFA], City Year, and AmeriCorps).
My study looks at a specific support program within Teachtown MKE, the Key to the
City Pass (KCP), which provides novice teachers (teachers in their first three years of teaching)
access to over 22 cultural institutions in Milwaukee. I examine how the pass is used by
Teachtown MKE teachers. This line of research allows me to: (1) investigate how teachers use
Key to the City (KCP) benefits, (2) examine if teachers who participate in the KCP program
incorporate community/cultural institution resources in their teaching practices, (3) explore what
barriers exist, and how the KCP program can be made more accessible for teachers, and (4)

4

understand whether participant teachers display the skill of relational agency, and its application
to KCP use. Teachtown MKE and the KCP program are discussed in more detail in chapter 3
Networks of Support
In the following section I examine research about community partnerships and networks
of support to better understand how these networks have been used to help novice teachers
navigate the beginning of their teaching careers. Current concerns with support systems provided
to teachers are also reviewed.
Teacher networks. Research around teacher networks seems to be divided into two subcategories, networks within the workplace, and social networks outside of the workplace, with
the majority of the research falling into the first category. However, there is a growing number of
researchers who recognize the importance of networks outside of the workplace in supporting
teachers. Johnson et al. (2014) study novice teachers’ experiences looking specifically at social
networks and their contribution the development of resilience. Johnson et al. (2014) argue,
“What is currently lacking in the literature is an in-depth understanding of the inter-play of
personal and contextual factors around early career teachers’ experiences” (p. 532). Many other
researchers have also noted the tendency to limit the exploration of teacher support systems to
the work setting, falling to take into account the relevance of networks outside the K-12 school
(Anderson, 2010; Baker-Doyle 2012; Bullough 2012; Coburn & Russell, 2008). These
researchers have found that outside networks help teachers in a variety of ways. For example,
outside networks: 1) provide additional support to try new techniques in the classroom; 2) reduce
the feeling of isolation when appropriate support is not provided in the workplace; and 3) give
teachers access to and help in the creation of new classroom materials.

5

Like Johnson et al. (2014), Anderson (2010) approaches research regarding novice
teacher agency through the lens of support offered outside of the K-12 school setting. Anderson
explores who beyond the teachers’ workplace is supporting them, and found that the teachers she
followed had an expansive network of support outside of the schools they worked in. For
example, one case study teacher finds her support from a local bookstore owner and a non-profit
that offers to help tutor her students after school. Anderson notes, “Liz seemed to feel more and
more efficacious as she accumulated and wielded micropolitical, political, organizational, and
community-based capital in the interest of school change. At the same time, her support network
provided a safety net that emboldened her work” (p. 559).
Additionally, some researchers who intended to focus mainly on networks within the
school system found that social networks outside the school provided important support to
teacher as well. For example, Coburn and Russell (2008) conducted research to better understand
how policy and reform efforts affected the types of support created for teachers. They focused on
in-school supports (e.g. mentoring, coaching, and instructional guidance) and also examined
teachers’ social networks. This led Coburn and Russell to discover that most teachers in the
study went outside of the school for support. Coburn and Russell suggest that due to this finding
other researchers should take a broader approach when examining teacher support systems. This
finding also reflects a concern voiced by Anderson (2010)—that policy often times dictates the
type of support teachers partake in, which is a passive way to look at support systems for
teachers. That is, when a teacher is assigned a mentor without the freedom to decide who the best
fit is, it is taking away the teachers decision to find support that aligns with their individual
needs. And as Coburn and Russell (2008) discovered when teachers are forced to participate in a
support system that does not meet their needs they will eventually seek support which they deem

6

a better fit. Likewise, Baker-Doyle (2012) when analyzing first-year teachers’ support networks
discovered that teachers were creating their own informal networks. “Participants sought
professional support mainly from other early career professionals located outside of the teachers’
school” (Baker-Doyle, 2012 p. 71).
Fox and Wilson (2009) followed three case study teachers to better understand the
support networks these teachers were using. They found “strong external links” (p. 716), as well
as important connections to peers and mentors within the school the case study teachers were
working in. However, Fox and Wilson also found that encouragement of peers and mentors to
look for external supports was a factor in whether first-year teachers ventured outside of the K12 school to look for additional professional resources. External supports were used by the case
study teachers in a variety of ways—to access and create new classroom resources, to gain
additional knowledge about teaching practices, to connect with like-minded professionals, and as
networking opportunities. Similarly, Bullough (2012) posits, “Long term, teacher retention and
improved teaching is less a matter of helping a beginning teacher find a comfortable place in a
school than it is a matter of creating a role and set of relationships that allow and support the full
investment of the self in teaching” (p. 71).
These researchers have provided evidence that support networks help novice teachers
experiment with new techniques in the classroom, help reduce the feeling of isolation, and give
teachers access to classroom materials. My research builds on the notion that professional
networks outside of K-12 school are important in supporting teachers in the following ways: 1)
connecting teachers to professional communities outside of the K-12 school system gives
teachers resources they would normally not have access to; 2) helping develop teachers’ to pick
and choose which professional communities/ resources they see as useful. It is important to note

7

that teachers are not required to participate in the KCP. Participation is voluntary, and therefore
allows me to investigate teachers’ use of the KCP and development of relational agency as a
proactive rather than passive action by the teachers.
Concerns with current support systems for novice teachers. While there is building
evidence that specific types of support systems help novice teachers, such as support found
outside of the K-12 school, there is also evidence that many teachers do not have access to these
types of support systems, and are particularly vulnerable in their first three years of teaching.
“Up to one third of new teachers leave the profession within the first 3 years, a fact that falls
heaviest on urban schools” (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 1030). The high attrition rate of novice
teachers has drawn attention for some time; several researchers have attempted to uncover the
reasons behind teachers leaving the profession (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Fry, 2007; Haun &
Martin, 2004; Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004; Kaiser, 2011; Liu, 2007; Merill, 2006; Schaefer,
2013; Torres, 2012). Some of the patterns from this research indicate that novice teachers leave
due to school climate, location, and conditions (DeAngelis & Presley, 2011; Gallant & Riley,
2014; Hanushek et al., 2004; Liu, 2007; Torres, 2012). Lack of access to quality induction also
contributes to teacher attrition (Fry, 2007; Kaiser, 2011). From a psychological perspective
novice teachers often leave due to low self-efficacy, or lack of confidence (Hong, 2012;
Schaefer, 2013). Low self-efficacy can stem from a variety of factors, but many teachers that left
the profession early identified lack of support—both professional and emotional (Clandinin et al.
2015; Fry, 2007; Gallant & Riley, 2014; Haun & Martin, 2004).
Induction programs tend to be the most common support offered to teachers. However,
teacher induction is not uniform and can include various types of support, such as mentors and
out-of-school programs (Fry, 2007; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Stanulis, R., Ames, K., & Burrill,

8

G, 2007: Stanulis, Fallona, & Pearson, 2002). Induction can offer both professional and
emotional support to novice teachers. Yet, when discussing commonalities between novice
teachers experiences with induction Fry (2007) states, “One common experience seemed to be
the inadequate nature of the induction support each participant received” (p. 230). Fry (2007)
found that while all of her case study teachers did have some form of induction, none felt entirely
supported by the induction programs offered to them. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) also found
different teacher experiences with induction, which they classified into three different induction
“packages” (p. 704): 1) basic induction; 2) basic induction, and collaboration in a teacher
network; and 3) basic induction, collaboration in a teacher network, and extra resources. Smith
and Ingersoll (2004) discovered that each form of induction reduced the probability that novice
teachers would leave the teaching profession. Package three had the greatest reduction in the
number of teachers leaving. Smith and Ingersoll (2004) note that, “The most salient factors were
having a mentor from the same field, having common planning time with other teachers in the
same subject or collaboration with other teachers on instruction, and being part of an external
network of teachers” (p. 706). Although additional resources were found to be an important
factor in reducing teacher attrition, only 1% of teachers in Smith and Ingersoll’s study had access
to additional resources, such as external teacher networks.
Grossman and Thompson (2008) also examined novice teachers’ access to curriculum
resources and found that novice teachers struggled to find such resources. Additionally
Grossman and Thompson discovered the “curriculum materials first encountered by these
secondary teacher were particularly powerful in shaping their ideas about teaching language arts
as well as their classroom practice” (p. 2020). Induction support which includes access to a

9

variety of curriculum resources could therefore help novice teachers as they develop their ideas
of what it means to teach and support the use of varied instructional practices.
Uncertainty as to who should be providing support systems for novice teachers adds to
the inconsistency and availability of such supports. Addressing the lack of support for novice
teachers Feiman-Nemser (2001) succinctly states, “No single institution has the expertise,
authority, or financial resources to create the necessary structures and learning opportunities” (p.
1037). Feiman-Nemser identifies a point for concern, if no one institution has the ability to create
the support a novice teacher needs, it is imperative that varied institutions form partnerships to
provide consistent access to support services. Recently, cultural institutions have been forming
partnerships with school districts, college of education, and business to assist novice teachers as
they learn to teach. Cultural institutions have been found to provide not only material resources
for curriculum use in the classroom, but emotional support through the connection to
professional learning communities, promotion of self-confidence, and gains in subject content
knowledge, all which have been found lacking or inconsistently provided in current induction
support (Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006; Aquino, Kelly, & Bayne, 2010; Barry 2012;
Cox & Barrow, 2000; Dentith & McCarry, 2003; Gregg & Leinhardt, 2002; Gupta & Adams,
2012; Jeffers, 2003; Kasten, 1999; Kisiel, 2013; Miele, Shanley & Steiner, 2010; Spybrook &
Walker, 2012; Shattuck, 2014; Stone, 2013; Unrath & Luehrman, 2009). My study explores the
inclusion of cultural institution as partners in novice teacher induction programs though the
investigation of a specific program—the Teachtown MKE, KCP program.
Focus of This Study
Through the creation of the KCP, Teachtown MKE is seeking to help novice teachers
adjust to a new professional environment through introduction to local cultural institutions and

10

community resources. The purposeful partnership between local cultural institutions, Teachtown
MKE, MPS, and alternative teacher education programs provides novice teachers support
systems that a single organization cannot provide. However there are several unanswered
questions regarding the support that such partnerships afford: how do teachers use these
additional support systems? Do cultural institutions provide an extra outlet for novice teachers
which helps them develop relational agency? Can a complex network of cultural institutions, a
large urban public school system, and a not-for-profit organization form a partnership that results
in an effective support system that offers the external support that Smith and Ingersoll (2004)
discuss? Thus, there are four main questions driving my research:
1) How do teachers use Key to the City (KCP) benefits?
2) Do teachers who participate in the KCP program incorporate community/cultural
institution resources in their teaching practices, and if so how?
3) What barriers exist, and how can the KCP program be made more accessible for
teachers?
4) Do participant teachers display the skill of relational agency, does this skill apply to
KCP use?
Significance of This Study
I hypothesize the KCP program will offer teachers additional resources and support, and
that teachers will bring these resources into the classroom. However, if I discover that many
novice teachers’ stories mirror or resemble that of Luke’s, it is my goal to uncover the reasons
why. Through my investigation of the KCP I examine a support system that incorporates the use
of cultural institutions. Teachtown MKE provides an example of a large urban district working
with a not-for-profit organization and several cultural institutions as a way to seek outside

11

support for their teachers. If more districts are to take on this type of model it is important to first
understand whether teachers accept outside resources as viable for both their own professional
development and as a classroom resource. Specifically, there are three major implications for my
dissertation research. First, because this is a descriptive study I am able to unveil detailed
information about the KCP and the different situations teachers find themselves in MPS, before
generalizing how such a program might be used in other cities/ school districts. Second, my
study helps unpack what support systems foster or inhibit the development of relational agency.
Third, my study assists in better understanding how a large network of organizations can work
together, as suggested by Feiman-Nemser (2001), to better provide the type of supports that
novice teachers need.

12

CHAPTER 2
Cultural Institution Resources and Relational Agency: A Review of the Literature

There are many terms used to define learning contexts that do not fit traditional school
settings: museums, informal learning environments, informal science education institutions,
cultural institutions, and out of school learning centers. Kendall, Murfield, Dillion, and Wilkin
(2006) broadly define learning in educational contexts outside of the classroom as;
Any structured learning experience that takes place beyond the classroom environment
during the school day, after school or during the holidays. It can include, amongst other
activities, cultural trips, science and geography fieldwork, environmental and countryside
education, outdoor and adventurous group activities, learning through outdoor play, and
visits to museums and heritage sites (pp. i).
For this study I use the term cultural institution as inclusive of science museums, natural history
museums, children’s museums, historic sites, art museums, libraries, zoos and aquariums.
Cultural institutions offer many resources for teachers, which vary from curriculum materials
and professional development events, to structured class field trips. And while cultural
institutions have assisted in training and providing resources for teachers since the late
nineteenth century (Rathmann, 1914), there has limited research conducted around the use of
cultural institutions to provide support services to new teachers. The few researchers who have
examined the use of cultural institutions to support new teachers have highlighted several
benefits of using cultural institutions as a resource. Three overarching arguments are made by
these researchers to demonstrate the importance of connecting new teachers to cultural
institutions. First, cultural institutions connect teachers to resources across content areas. Second,
cultural institutions give teachers access to professional learning communities that they may not

13

otherwise have access to. And third, cultural institutions allow teachers to experience and
practice teaching in an informal setting with difference audiences.
The purpose of chapter two is to elaborate on these three arguments, providing scholarly
evidence of the benefits of using of cultural institutions as additional support systems for new
teachers. I also discuss the importance of relational agency as a lens to help understand how
teachers identify and use the resources they are introduced to through interaction with cultural
institutions. This chapter is broken into two sections: (1) cultural institutions and (2) resource use
and relational agency. The discussion of cultural institutions is further broken into three subsections: resources across content area, professional learning communities, and teaching in an
informal setting. The resources use and relational agency section is also broken down into two
sub-sections: defining and finding resources, and using relational agency in framing teacher
interpretation and use of resources.
Cultural Institutions: Resource and Role for Novice Teachers
Resources across content areas. Education programs in cultural institutions span across
content areas including but not limited to: art, social studies, math, science, and literacy (Barry
2012; Cox & Barrow, 2000; Dentith & McCarry, 2003; Gregg & Leinhardt, 2002; Jeffers, 2003;
Kasten, 1999; Kisiel, 2013; Miele, Shanley & Steiner, 2010; Spybrook & Walker, 2012). The
vast range of content area resources that cultural institutions offer allow teachers not only to
study and gain knowledge in a particular content area, but also promote multidisciplinary
learning (Barry 2012; Dentith & McCarry, 2003; Spybrook & Walker, 2012).
For example, Gregg and Leinhardt (2002) examined the effects of a museum field trip
assignment in an elementary social studies methods course. Data were collected from 49
undergraduate pre-service teachers using a pre- and post-activity. In this pre/post activity pre-

14

service teachers created concept maps of the Civil Rights Movement and responded to discussion
prompts. Gregg and Leinhardt’s study addresses the question of how experiences at the
Birmingham Civil Rights Institute affect pre-service teachers’ understanding of the Civil Rights
Movement. Through the use of a pre/post concept map activity, Gregg and Leinhardt
demonstrate that pre-service teachers’ interactions with the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
not only add to the pre-service teachers’ understanding of the Civil Rights Movement but, “the
extent of change documented highlights the importance of crafting authentic experiences for preservice teachers”(p. 582). The examples of pre/post concept maps in the article provide strong
evidence that teacher content knowledge changed due to the application of a museum experience.
In another study, Dentith and McCarry (2003) observed graduate-level teachers enrolled in an
instructional methods and curriculum design course. These teachers used a community based war
museum and memorial to construct units on the Vietnam War based on the exhibits at the
museum. Although the methods course was not explicitly described as social studies based the
focus on the creation of unit plans around the Vietnam War allowed teachers to explore themes
within social studies education such as history and social justice.
Barry (2012), studied whether pre-service middle and secondary teachers accepted the
use of an art museum as a tool for literacy and learning content. Barry taught an undergraduate
course in reading and writing across the curriculum and wanted teachers to become more aware
of multiple literacies through the use of art. Barry collected several forms of data including:
classroom notes, field observations, interviews, and teacher artifacts. Each teacher in the class
was required to pick a piece of artwork and explain how they would use it to teach a concept.
Barry reports that initially teachers did not consider an art museum as a content area resources.
However, after their experience each teacher was able to explain how art could be used in

15

different content areas including: science, social studies, literacy, math, and foreign language
studies.
One teacher program that focused on math content relied on a partnership with the
Museum of African American History in Detroit. In this math focused program, pre-service
teachers from Eastern Michigan University and Henry Ford Community College created middle
school math content and materials. The goal of this particular partnership was to increase the
number of beginning teachers who choose to teach in an urban setting as well as to train teachers
to integrate multicultural mathematics instruction through use of museum artifacts (Kasten,
1999). In regards to how math content connected with the museum Kasten writes, “the
mathematical content focuses on methods of calculation and measurement, mathematical
recreations and reasoning and patterns of shapes found in architecture and throughout African
culture” (para. 1).
Miele, Shanley and Steiner (2010) studied how the creation of Seminar on Science (SoS)
courses offered by a natural history museum helped integrate science content into a master’s
degree program. Data was collected from 761 CUNY graduate students between the years 20032009 who participated in the SoS. Data collection included informal feedback from participants
of the SoS program, surveys collected by external evaluators, and anonymous online course
evaluations. Miele et al. used quantitative methods to report on several aspects of the Seminar on
Science seminars run by American Museum of Natural History. One of the major findings was
“83% of participants reported that they had gained valuable scientific knowledge with the same
percentage reporting an increase in their understanding of how scientists in different disciplines
carry out their research” (p. 259). The addition of a science course based in a museum allowed

16

SoS teachers to not only gain science content knowledge, but a better understanding of how
scientific research is conducted.
Professional learning communities. Access to cultural institutions gives novice teachers
the chance to network and learn from professional communities outside of the K-12 school
system (Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006; Shattuck, 2014; Spybrook & Walker, 2012;
Stone, 2013). Teachers’ interaction with professional communities can affect their identity
formation, boost motivation, and raise awareness of how other professional communities
function (Beauchamp &Thomas, 2009; Cornu, 2009; Etelapelto, Littleton, Lahti, & Wirtanen,
2005; Miele et al., 2010; Shattuck, 2014). Beauchamp and Thomas (2009) state: “participating in
a community of professionals, a teacher is subject to the influences of this community on identity
development. It might be expected that new teachers, whose identities are only tentative, will
particularly feel the impact of a community context” (p. 180). Cornu (2009) discovered
professional learning communities can assist new teachers in developing agency and resilience.
While Etelapelto et al.’s (2005) research revealed that new teachers who choose to engage in
professional learning communities derive positive motivation from these communities, while
those that actively choose not to engage often feel a sense of isolation.
For example, Kisiel (2013) examined pre-service elementary science teachers’
perceptions about the use of science museums as resources for teaching. In this study, Kisiel uses
a pre- and post-semester survey given to pre-service teachers taking a science methods course.
The survey data is based on experiences pre-service teachers have while conducting a
“community based learning assignment” (p. 73) within a science methods course which requires
students to investigate informal science education institutions. The questions that were being
examined in the survey connected with two main research questions: “1) what are pre-service

17

elementary teacher’s perceptions of [Informal Science Education Institutions] ISEI’s resources as
aids to classroom science instruction? 2) What extent does the community based learning
assignment in the science methods course change elementary credential students’ awareness of
community science resources” (p. 76). One hundred sixty-eight pre-service teachers took the pre
and post survey. Overall these teachers felt that the science communities they were introduced to
provided resources that often schools could not provide. Many teachers reported an increased
awareness of support provided by science communities outside of the K-12 school system, and
“motivating experiences” (p. 83) through the community based learning assignment.
In my own work (Shattuck 2014), I followed three pre-service teachers through a 15month Master of Art in Teaching (MAT) program that took place in a museum in the United
States. My research explored the significance of professional communities and networks that go
beyond college and K-12 schools and the relationship of these communities to pre-service
teacher role identification. All pre-service teachers in the study had initial ideas of what teaching
should look like based on previous experiences. When examining role identification, I found preservice teachers’ past experiences played a critical role in explaining how they viewed teaching
and learning in the MAT program. My study also connects pre-service teacher role identification
to preservice teacher interaction with professional communities. I found that preservice teachers’
prior roles and beliefs about teaching influence which communities of practice they engaged
with, and ultimately which communities they identified as resources for teaching. Additionally, I
discovered that professional communities within the museum played an important role in helping
pre-service teachers identify resources for use as first year teachers. I explained:
All three pre-service teachers in my study indicated that their interactions with museum
scientists and post-doctoral student provided opportunities to build teaching collections
for their classrooms. The teaching collections varied between physical objects, personal
stories and experiences to share with students from field work, and online resources
18

gathered from lab experiences. Through introduction to professional communities within
the museum pre-service teachers were able to identify supplementary resources to use as
first year teachers (pp. 33).
Jeffers’ (2003) programmatic description focuses on a teacher program that promotes
participants’ understanding of learning, their own and the children that they work with. This goal
was achieved by allowing both pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and children to lead
group discussions about artwork viewed in an art museum gallery. The thought behind this
program was to create a community that learned together, constructed meaning about the artwork
and the artist’s purpose for creating the artwork. Jeffers comments that participants felt as though
they were co-learners throughout the process, and the art museum provided a space which
allowed pre-service teachers, in-service teachers, and children to create a “communal context”
(p. 22). Jeffers states, “To see through the eyes of others, to participate actively in a listening
community, proved to be as enjoyable and memorable as it was powerful” (p. 21).
Similarly, Stone (2013) looked at the use of a university art museum as a space for preservice art teachers to link theory and practice together. Stone specifically advocates for the use
of the college art museum because of the local artists’ work that is often displayed in these
college art galleries. Stone posits that teacher interaction with local artists work will later on help
connect pieces of art with their students own experiences. In addition Stone discovered that
having pre-service teachers work alongside art historians, art educators, and other museum staff
allowed them to develop close relationships with the museum staff. Stone believes “teaching
experiences at a university art museum can assist students in acquiring [advocacy principles and
skills] as they interact with professionals from outside of their field” (p. 17).
Teaching in an informal setting. Working with cultural institutions provides teachers
the opportunity to teach in an informal setting. Teaching in an informal setting can help novice

19

teachers gain confidence, learn new instructional techniques, and better understand how to work
with people from varied and diverse backgrounds (Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006;
Aquino, Kelly, & Bayne, 2010; Gupta & Adams, 2012; Kasten, 1999; Tschannen-Moran,
Woolfolk, Hoy, 1998; Unrath & Luehrman, 2009). In the classroom, a teacher’s confidence can
play a huge role not only in how he or she approaches certain situations but also how he or she
interacts with students. A teacher with high self-efficacy (e.g. confidence) will feel more
comfortable interacting with students and often give students more freedom in the learning
process (Davis, Petish, & Smithey, 2006; Klassen, Tze, Betts & Gordon, 2010; TschannenMoran et al., 1998), while teachers with low self-efficacy tend to have higher stress levels, have
trouble interacting with students, and often concentrate on students’ behavior not on learning
(Davis et al. 2006; Klassen et al., 2010; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk, Hoy, 1998). In addition
Gupta and Adams (2012) argue, “active engagement and participation in low-stakes teaching
activities within informal science institutions mediates the development of practices,
understandings, and local theory about teaching and learning” (p. 1147).
Jung and Tonso (2006) discovered that novice teachers who were introduced to the use of
cultural institutions early on in their teaching career felt more confident using cultural
institutions as resources, and continued to use cultural institutions throughout their careers. Jung
and Tonso (2006) did an ethnographic study examining two practicum experiences for preservice elementary teachers (one in a science museum and one in a nature center). They
conducted this research with the hypothesis that non-school experiences expand what teachers
see as teaching contexts. They focused on three main questions in their investigation: 1) what
teachers learned about science and teaching science 2) how pre-service teachers sense of
themselves as science teachers change 3) what extent do such settings promote scientific literacy.

20

Jung and Tonso collected their data through observations of eight pre-service teachers teaching
in the science museum and nature center, individual pre-service teacher interviews, and a focus
group interview. They also included a quasi-longitudinal piece looking at classroom practice—
42 teachers who had participated in the practicum in previous years agreed to fill out a survey
and 13 of these teachers agreed to individual interviews. This additional data allowed Jung and
Tonso to provide evidence of the long term effects the museum practicum experience had on
participants as they became teachers of record. For example, Jung and Tonso were able to state,
“once familiar with an out-of-school institution, practicing teachers in this study brought their
students to out-of-school science sites on field trips, in many cases coming to the same institution
where they previously taught”(p. 27). Jung and Tonso’s main research foci are the outcomes of a
museum practicum for pre-service teachers. However, their additional quasi-longitudinal
research piece assists in providing evidence that such a practicum experience influences future
teaching practices.
Spybrook and Walker (2012) studied 33 pre-service teachers enrolled in an early
childhood literacy course. They use grounded theory to examine an assignment where preservice teachers created a literacy based environment in a local children’s museum. Data for the
study were collected over three months and sources included lesson plans, brochures created by
pre-service teachers, and a reflective paper based on pre-service teacher observations of children
interacting with their literacy based environments. The main focus of this research was to
determine whether pre-service teachers could connect course theory to the practice of theory in a
museum setting. Spybrook and Walker demonstrated that pre-service teachers were able to use
theory discussed in class in the creation of the museum exhibits. Most notable about this study is
not the connection of theory to practice, but the authors’ ability to demonstrate the power of a

21

teacher education experience that incorporates the creation of a built environment. While
examining implications of their research to the broader field of teacher education Spybrook and
Walker succinctly note, “designing, creating, observing, and refining physical learning
environments should be an important part of initial teacher education” and that “providing
alternative field placements might be a solution to this missing component of undergraduate
teacher education” (p. 388).
While researching the effects of a practicum experience within an aquarium, Anderson,
Lawson, and Mayer-Smith (2006) discovered that pre-service teachers changed their beliefs
around a variety of topics related to teaching. To determine the effects of the practicum
experience Anderson, Lawson, and Mayer-Smith held focus groups, collected reflective writing
pieces from the teachers each week of the practicum, and collected field notes. After analyzing
these data, Anderson, Lawson, and Mayer-Smith determined ten themes in which they noticed a
change in teachers’ beliefs and teaching practices. These ten themes include: 1) “broader views
of education” (p. 346); 2) being able to critically think about “the ‘big picture’ in teaching” (p.
346); 3) an “increased understanding of the educational theory of constructivism and of
teachable moments” (p. 347); 4) “broader skills in teaching students from K-12” (p. 347); 5)
acquired a vast range of “skills in flexible pedagogy” (p. 348); 6) an appreciation for “working
collaboratively” (p. 349); 7) “gains in self-confidence and self-efficacy as teachers” (p. 349); 8)
growth in managing student behavior; 9) understanding of the importance of “hands-on
experiences in learning science” (p. 350); and 10) “improved preparation to take students on
field trips” (p. 350).
Aquino, Kelly, and Bayne (2010) conducted a mixed-methods study over a period of nine
years. A survey was given to 128 participants in a master’s level teaching program at Lehman

22

College. The survey was designed to provide evidence of what teachers learned through a course
based around the use of teaching with informal science resources and in an informal science
context. Qualitative data was collected from course portfolios and student thesis work. Four
types of data were collected to examine course outcomes, these included: responses to
evaluations, participants’ accounts of planning field trips, student work done in prep of field trip,
and culminating thesis work. Teachers’ responses to the survey “indicated that the Museum was
a rich context for preparing them to teach science in meaningful ways. The curriculum specialists
and Museum educators were instrumental in modeling the use of informal resources in effective
teaching” (p. 234). Aquino et al. also discovered that “teachers recognized the advantages of
using the Museum as a learning resource” (p. 235), and “they could readily contrast the Museum
with the formal classroom environment” (p. 235).
Working with cultural institutions provides teachers the opportunity to teach in an
informal setting, gives new teachers the chance to network and learn from professional
communities outside of the K-12 school system, and promotes multidisciplinary learning.
Cultural institutions are also settings which give novice teachers the opportunity to experiment
and gain confidence with different teaching styles. For all of these reasons, cultural institutions
can be an instrumental portion of a novice teacher support system.
Teacher Resource Use and Relational Agency
Defining and finding resources. One goal of my research is to better understand how
teachers identify and use the resources they are introduced to through interaction with cultural
institutions. In order to study resource use, it is first important to identify how other researchers
have defined resources, and how resource use has been studied in conjunction with teacher
learning. Concerning the use of resources Cohen, Raudenbush and Ball (2003) identify three

23

main resources that teachers come in contact with: conventional resources, personal resources
and environmental resources. Cohen et al. (2003) describe conventional resources as traditional
material resources (e.g. books, time, class size, monetary resources); personal resources are
considered to be a teacher’s background knowledge, views about students, and motivation; and
environmental resources are collegial support, administrative support, interactions with students
and parents. In other words, environmental resources can be considered the human resources
that teachers interact with. Cohen et al. have a unique take on what a resource is and what is
important when considering teacher resource use. They believe it is important to take into
consideration not only the availability of resources but how teachers use the resources they have
access to. Cohen et al. concisely state, “the best materials are of little use if teachers cannot turn
them to advantage in framing tasks” (p. 124).
Similarly, Grossman and Thompson (2008) examine the issue of teacher resource use by
following three new teachers, observing how they navigate curriculum material decisions.
Grossman and Thompson’s examination of different curriculum materials, and teachers’ use of
materials led them to uncover similar patterns between teachers’ engagement with curriculum.
One pattern revealed that when teachers discover curriculum materials early on in their careers
they tend to keep reusing these materials. The second pattern uncovered the way in which
teachers adapted these curriculum materials. Grossman and Thompson found that teachers
“began by sticking closely to the materials that they had at hand. Then, over time, as they
learned more about the students and curriculum, they began to adapt and adjust what they did,
and their use of the materials opened up” (p. 2020).
Grossman and Thompson also discovered that new teachers struggled to find resources.
In the opening paragraph of their article Grossman and Thompson highlight a first year teacher’s

24

concerns about curriculum materials, they state: “Nancy’s plaintive quotation speaks to one of
the critical issues facing beginning teachers- finding resources to support instruction” (p. 2014).
Grossman and Thompson argue that beginning teachers need assistance in learning to think
critically about curriculum materials. They believe through critical thinking teachers will be
“able to overcome the inevitable limitations of any curriculum materials” (p. 2025). However, I
would like to raise the question: how can teachers learn to think critically about resources
without engaging with many kinds of curriculum resources? Alternately, what good will come
of assisting teachers to think critically about curriculum materials if they do not have access to,
or knowledge of, how to seek out curriculum materials? In that vein one could argue that the
explicit emphasis on accessing resources (as defined by Cohen et al. 2003) in a teacher induction
initiative, such as KCP, could introduce new teachers’ to resources that could be leveraged
throughout their professional careers. Yet, as Cohen et al. (2003) posit— a teacher’s access to
resources is only one piece of a larger puzzle. Teachers need both access to resources and an
understanding of how to use the resources in an instructional setting, as Grossman and
Thompson also point out.
Thus, to understand teachers’ use of the KCP, I must examine not only the types of
resources (conventional, personal and environmental) that teachers have access to, but how
teachers understand and use these resources in the classroom. I need to take into account the
different context that these resources come from, and whether teachers understand how to take
resources from one context (cultural institution) to use in a different context (public school
classroom). To do this I adapt a framework created by Borko (2004) to investigate teacher
professional development (PD), see Figure 1. Borko’s (2004) framework breaks down teacher
PD programs into four main components— 1) the facilitators that oversee the program; 2) the

25

teachers that participate in the program; 3) the PD program; and 4) the context that the PD
program is held in. Borko’s framework places the teacher as learner, this is an important
distinction. To adapt Borko’s framework to my study of the KCP, I have integrated Cohen et
al.’s (2003) definition of resource, see Figure 1. I replace facilitators with environmental
resources—the professional community that teachers interact with through the KCP and the
professional community that teachers interact with in the public school. I also replace PD
program with conventional resources—field trips, curriculum, material resources, that are
provided through the KCP. In addition my framework has two circles which incorporates the
many context teachers come into contact with through the KCP— Teachtown cultural
institutions and the public schools they teach in. To connect the different context I use the lens of
relational agency.
Edwards (2005a) coined the term relational agency (p. 168), relational agency describes
people who have the capability to identify others as resources, “work fluidly across professional
boundaries” (p. 177) and understand the utility of materials for problem solving.
Here the starting point for analysis is not individual cognition, but is instead the resources
that are to be found outside the individual mind. It recognizes that cultural tools, both
material and representational, are loaded with intelligence, which enhances action.
(Edwards, 2005a, pp. 172).
This is where I begin my analysis of the Teachtown MKE program—examining the resources
that teachers are introduced to through the KCP, and looking for development of teachers’
relational agency within a framework that allows them to move between the role of learner and
teacher, through the context of cultural institutions and public schools. I hypothesize that the
introduction of new teachers to cultural institution resources through the KCP will help teachers
develop relational agency.

26

Figure 1. Teachtown MKE Study Framework

Relational agency. The term relational agency was created by Edwards (2005a) to
describe the use of resources from multiple contexts by an individual to solve a problem.
Edwards developed the ideas around relational agency through several studies of working
professionals and specific interventions. One study investigated England’s social inclusion
strategy—England’s attempt to identify individuals who are more apt to be excluded or feel
isolated from society, defined by: “detachment form social networks that bind people into
socially beneficial systems” (Edwards & Mackenzie 2005, p. 288). To study the relational
agency of people “‘at risk” for social exclusion Edwards and Mackenzie followed two women
who were identified as at risk. They observed how these women integrated themselves into new
networks though a social inclusion intervention. Using the lens of relational agency Edward and
Mackenzie studied how the women engaged in different settings, and how they interpreted the
help offered to them in these different settings. Edwards and Mackenzie felt that the lens of
relational agency would capture the interpretations of the women as well as how the actions of
professionals helping the women (e.g. the resources the women were introduced to) effected the
27

uptake of resources and therefore the actions of the women in the study. In their 2005 study
Edwards and Mackenzie also introduced the concept of resilience when discussing relational
agency. To describe those who are at risk, yet overcome social exclusion, Edwards and
Mackenzie use the term resilience. They state, “Resilience in these circumstances can be seen as
a dynamic state which enables individuals to make the most of the opportunities for positive
participation available to them” (Edwards & Mackenzie 2005, p. 289). In other words, Edwards
and Mackenzie believe that resilience is an important aspect of relational agency. Whereas
relational agency allows an individual to interpret resources from different context, resilience
allows the individual to expand their interpretation, helping them use the new resource for a
more positive outcome.
Are first-year teachers also “at risk” for social exclusion? Often they are not yet
acclimated to the schools or communities they are teaching in, or to the professionals that they
work with. Many researchers have found that teachers feel overwhelmed by the tasks given to
them in the first years of teaching, feel isolated, and lack time to complete what needs to be
completed. Thus, I would classify many first-year teachers as “at risk” for social exclusion in
their profession. It is during this time that it is important to introduce teachers to resources that
can mediate the feeling of isolation and exclusion. It is my belief that programs such as the KCP
introduce new teachers to social networks, with similar benefits as the social inclusion
intervention that Edwards and Mackenzie were studying. These types of programs in turn can
lead to a sense of empowerment and control when entering a new school environment.
In a separate article Edwards (2005b) reviews ideas around learning through
participation. She stresses the importance of researchers going beyond simply examining an
individual’s participation in a particular community and what a particular community offers

28

individuals through participation. Rather, Edwards suggests looking not only at the context in
which the resource is being offered, but how the individual interprets the resources, and how the
individual responds and changes due to the interpretation of the resource. For example, in my
study of the KCP this would mean looking at the resources offered by Teachtown cultural
institutions, how KCP participant teachers understand these resources, and how teachers then
come to use these resources in their personal and professional lives.
More recently Edwards (2011) revisited relational agency in a review of research on
social workers. Her analysis of these studies further expands the definition of relational agency
to include the term relational expertise. Edwards posits, practitioners that come from different
context but are working on similar problems, such as a child’s welfare, “come to recognize the
specialist expertise that is distributed across practices and settings” (p. 33) and they also “bring
to bear both their core expertise and an additional form of expertise, which I have called
relational expertise” (p. 33). She believes that it is relational expertise—shared knowledge that
helps practitioners’ construct relational agency. Regarding her expanded definition of relational
agency Edwards writes:
In brief, relational agency involves a capacity for working with others to strengthen
purposeful responses to complex problems. It arises in a two stage process within a constant
dynamic which consists of:
(i)

(ii)

working with others to expand the “object of activity” or task being worked on by
recognizing the motives and the resources that others bring to bear as they, too,
interpret it; and
aligning one’s own responses to the newly enhanced interpretations with the
responses being made by the other professionals while acting on the expanded
object. (pp. 34)

Edwards’s expanded definition of relational agency is important to note for my study. The
addition of relational expertise indicates that Teachtown cultural institution staff members’
29

interactions with KCP teachers and their interpretations of resources will be an important
component in understanding teachers’ uptake of KCP resources. As Edwards (2011) suggests,
practitioners may develop relational agency through participating in a specific program.
However, the development of relational agency is strengthened when there is common
knowledge shared between practitioners (e.g. relational expertise). So while I am interested in
KCP teachers’ development of relational agency, it will be important that I also understand if
there is relational expertise shared between teachers and cultural institution staff. The presence or
lack of relational expertise may explain why some teachers develop a strong sense of relational
agency while others struggle to understand how to use the resources offered by Teachtown
cultural institutions.
In Edwards and Mackenzie’s (2005) study, participants that understood how resources
might help them achieve personal goals were more apt to become integrated into the social
network that were providing the resources. I posit that there might be similar experiences for
KCP teachers. Teachers who interpret the Teachtown cultural institution resources as useful
might also be more apt to integrate these resources into their professional lives—as instruments
to use in the classroom, and identifying additional professional communities to reach out to when
needing help. However, each teacher is different and they will therefore have diverse
interpretations of the resources they are given access to. It is important for me to examine not
only teachers’ access and interpretation of the resources, but the enactment of the resource as a
professional tool. As Edwards (2005b) states, “acting on our worlds requires us to read the
situation and draw on the most effective resources available in it to support our actions” (p. 60).
For my study of the KCP this will mean understanding the goals of teachers, understanding how

30

they interpret resources, and understanding if their interpretation leads them to believe that the
KCP resources are the most effective for supporting their goals/ actions as a teacher.

31

CHAPTER 3
Method

This is a descriptive study (Saldana, Leavy, & Beretvas, 2011) of the Teachtown MKE
program, KCP. I used both quantitative and qualitative methods to analyze data on Teachtown
MKE and its effects on teachers. The former allowed me to draw conclusions about overall
teacher use of the KCP program. The latter allowed me to develop a fine-grained portrait of how
Teachtown MKE creates and enables the use of various resources for professional community
support and instructional improvement. The four questions that drive this research are:
1) How do teachers use Key to the City (KCP) benefits?
2) Do teachers who participate in the KCP program incorporate community/cultural
institution resources in their teaching practices, and if so how?
3) What barriers exist, and how can the KCP program be made more accessible for
teachers?
4) Do participant teachers display the skill of relational agency, does this skill apply to
KCP use?
Study Context
My study examined the effects of the KCP program, which took place across three
different organizational settings. The first setting was the Greater Milwaukee Committee (GMC),
which created the Teachtown program and KCP; the second were all of the local cultural
institutions that have partnered with the GMC to provide teachers access to the institutions
resources; and the third were the MPS classrooms that Teachtown teachers taught in.

32

GMC and Teachtown MKE. The GMC is the driving force of the Teachtown MKE
program. The GMC is “a private sector civic organization whose mission is to contribute to the
cultural and economic base of the Milwaukee Metropolitan area. The organization was formed in
the late 1940s and is comprised of leaders in business, the professions, labor, education and
philanthropy, nonprofit community development” (GMC About, 2015). The GMC has three
main initiatives: Education, Economic Development and Effective Government (GMC
Initiatives, 2015). The Teachtown MKE program was developed by the GMC’s education
committee, and was prompted by a request for help from the MPS superintendent in 2012 to
provide resources and attract new MPS teachers to replace the estimated loss of 700 teachers in
the district (GMC Teachtown MKE, 2017). As reported by Richards (June 26, 2013) in the
Journal Sentinel,
Milwaukee Public Schools has hired or extended offers to about half of the nearly 600
new educators it needs by fall to replace a wave of retiring teachers and principals, and
it's working on a campaign to build energy and excitement around the millennial
workforce entering the district. Young professionals born after 1981 make up about 80%
of the district's new hires so far, and they need to see MPS as well as Milwaukee as a
place they can be successful, Superintendent Gregory Thornton said in a meeting this
week with Journal Sentinel reporters and editors. The changeover in staff is a major
disruption for MPS. Thornton estimated that by the time all staff positions have been
filled, about 1,200 people will be new to the district.
The “major disruption” of staff in MPS initiated conversations between the superintendent, the
GMC, Teach for America, City Year, Art Milwaukee, Bucketworks, and 88Nine Radio
Milwaukee (Richards, June 26, 2013). The end result was the creation of what now exists as
Teachtown MKE, which is run solely by the GMC.
The Teachtown MKE program offers several forms of support for new teachers
including: relocation assistance, long term teacher housing, and access to community
organizations. I focused my research on community support offered to teachers through the

33

Teachtown MKE KCP. The KCP is available to first- and second-year teachers in MPS, and
introduces them to local community and cultural organizations through memberships, free
passes, discounts, and events. The GMC creators of the KCP believe that connecting teachers to
community resources help teachers’ better transition and feel accepted in a new city, while also
giving them additional resources for classroom use, and professional networking outlets.
Cultural institutions. In the 2014-2015 school year, there were 22 local organizations
that partnered with the GMC. I consider 11 of these organizations to be cultural institutions:
Discovery World, Milwaukee Art Museum, United Performing Arts Fund, Milwaukee Public
Library, Milwaukee Public Museum, Boerner Botanical Garden, Historic Milwaukee, Pabst
Theater, Alverno Present, Milwaukee Film, and Skylight Music Theater. For an overview of the
educational offerings provided by these cultural institutions see Appendix A, Teachtown MKE
Educators Resource Guide. The benefits that teachers received from these organizations varied.
Some organizations agreed to give teachers yearlong memberships, while others offer free tickets
to select performances. Many of the partner organizations have additional teacher resources and
events beyond what is offered through the KCP. For example the Milwaukee Art Museum offers
teachers an additional 20% discount on yearly dual memberships, and access to MAM After
Dark events (Teachtown MKE, 2017). Organizations benefit from partnering with Teachtown
MKE because they are able to promote these additional resources through monthly GMC
newsletter emails to Teachtown teachers (Appendix B), and initial teacher visits made possible
by the KCP. Often teachers’ first visit to cultural institutions are personal. The theory is through
personal visits teachers will see the potential of the cultural institution resources for professional
and classroom use. It is important to note that each of the 11 cultural institutions differs in
location, setting, and resources offered. These differences in turn played a role in teachers’

34

decisions to use the organizations personally and professionally. To expand on this point I
illustrate the differences between two of the cultural institutions— the Milwaukee Public
Museum and Boerner Botanical Garden.
Milwaukee Public Museum. The Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) is a natural history
museum located in downtown Milwaukee. MPM is directly across the street from the Milwaukee
Public Library’s central branch, and is easily accessible by public transportation. Large glass
windows make up the front entrance of the tan building which prominently sits on Wells Street,
one of the main streets in Milwaukee. Upon entering visitors are confronted with a sterile tan
tiled open area. On the left there is an arch way which leads to the ticketing area, café, and
lockers. Before entering the museum’s exhibit space visitors must show purchased passes to the
docents standing at the main staircase. The permanent exhibit spaces give visitors the option of
exploring artifacts and dioramas from “Africa, Asia, Europe, the Arctic, South and Middle
America, the Pacific Islands and a Costa Rican Rainforest” (Milwaukee Public Museum, 2017).
Two of the more popular permanent exhibits at MPM are the “The Puelicher Butterfly Wing”
and “Streets of Old Milwaukee” (Milwaukee Public Museum, 2017).
Boerner Botanical Garden. The botanical garden is a lesser known cultural institution far
from the center of Milwaukee. It is not as easily accessible by public transportation. For
example, from MPM a visitor could get to the botanical gardens by bus, however two transfers
would be required and the entire trip would take almost two hours. Driving by car from the
center of Milwaukee would take approximately 20 minutes. The feeling of the two cultural
institutions is completely different. The botanical gardens welcome center looks more like a
stone house than museum, and in the spring is surrounded by bright yellow, orange, and red
tulips. Visitors enter through glass doors and step into the main lobby which like MPM has tan

35

tiles, but the lobby of the botanical garden is made less sterile through warm wood accents.
Visitors pay for tickets in the lobby, are given a map of the grounds and are encouraged to
explore what the gardens have to offer. Guided group tours are offered to “groups of 15 or more”
(Friends of Boerner Botanical Garden, 2017) April through October and include:
•Forty plus acres of formal gardens
•Professionally labeled and evaluated plant collections
•One of the largest crab apple collections in Wisconsin
•Wetland area (rainwater harvesting and recycling)
•Beautiful display of over 500 varieties of roses
•Visual links to surrounding 1,000 acre Arboretum
•Individual gardens including herbs, annuals, shrubs, daylilies and peonies (Friends of
Boerner Botanical Garden, 2017)
Participants
The participants of this study are MPS teachers who have joined the Teachtown MKE
program. As of June 2015, 990 MPS educators had participated in the program. Six hundred
eleven teachers were eligible for and invited to complete the survey. The first page of the survey
provided an overview and consent form. The 2014-2015 cohort of 548 Teachtown MKE teachers
consisted of 57% MPS teachers and 24 % TFA teachers, while the remaining 19% of teachers
came from other MPS partner organizations such as Schools that Can and Urban Fellows; 68%
of the teachers were female and 26% were male, while 6% did not respond. The majority of
teachers were under the age of 25 (61%), 16% of teachers were between the ages of 25 to 34
years old, while 17% of teachers were 35 years or older. The majority of teachers were White
(61%), 15% were Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian, 2% reported other, 9% did not respond. Most
teachers in the 2014-2015 cohort reported working in a K-8 classroom (63%), while 34%
reported working in a secondary classroom, and 3% did not respond.
Using the GMC’s participant contact list I sent out an email to all 611 KCP teachers
asking for participation in the survey. Ninety-nine teachers completed the survey, reflecting a
36

participation rate of 16.2%. At the end of the survey teachers were asked if they would be willing
to continue on as study participants, those who were interested entered their contact information
verifying their desire to be included in my study as focus group teachers. Out of the teachers who
completed the survey and indicated they were willing to participate as focus group teachers, I
selected six teachers. I selected these six teachers to represent both Teach for America and MPS
teachers across grades K-12. Teachers who actively used the KCP, and those who did not were
included in focus group interviews. Teachers who were asked to participate in the focus group
were given an additional consent form separate from the survey.
The six teachers that I selected were Greg, Lucy, Wanda, Becca, Lisa, and Ellen
(pseudonyms). Greg was a high school special education teacher who was in his third year
teaching with MPS, it was also his third year with Teachtown and the KCP program. He became
a teacher in MPS through TFA. Lucy was a second-year elementary school teacher in MPS.
Lucy joined Teachtown midway through her first year as a teacher, and continued with
Teachtown and the KCP in her second year. Wanda was a second-year middle school teacher in
MPS, this was also her second year with Teachtown. Becca was a first year middle school
teacher who entered MPS through TFA, this was her first year using the KCP. Lisa was a first
year fourth grade teacher in a dual language classroom, she joined the KCP mid-year and had
been using the KCP for about six months at the time of our interview. Lisa also joined MPS
through TFA. Ellen began her teaching career in MPS, but after her first year moved out of the
district, she returned and was in her second year teaching elementary special education for MPS.
She was also a second-year teacher with the KCP program. She does not have a classroom of
her own and pushed into three different classrooms to help special education students in their
regular classrooms.

37

Based on the focus group and the initial survey I selected three case study teachers:
Greg, Wanda, and Lisa. Greg came to teach in MPS through Teach for America. Greg teaches in
a self-contained special education classroom, where “90-some-odd percent of our students are
African American.” It was his third year teaching at MPS, and he was with the same group of
students for the past two years. He started with the students when they entered high school in
ninth grade and has continued on as their tenth-grade teacher. Greg was not given a set
curriculum to follow with these students. He found not having a set curriculum in his first year to
be a source of stress, stating; “I’m thinking back to last year, that was really when I was feeling
lost without any sort of curriculum.” Greg decided what to teach students in his class based on
feedback about their performance from general education teachers, as well as his own goals for
students—which often was based around his hope that students are able to successfully function
outside of the school in their communities.
Wanda was a seventh grade teacher, it was her second year teaching for MPS. Her school
does not have teachers rotate for different subject areas, she was required to teach all subjects to
her students, eight in total—reading/ language arts, math, social studies, science, art, music,
physical education/health, and technology literacy. Unlike Greg and Lisa, Wanda’s school did
give teachers a set curriculum to follow. Along with the set curriculum Wanda was also required
to use certain textbooks with her students, for example the district required her to use the
Glencoe Math textbook when teaching math to her students. She was also required to submit
weekly lesson plans to her school’s principal for each separate subject area the she was teaching.
Lisa was a first-year teacher who started working in MPS through Teach for America.
She taught fourth grade in a dual language school. Her students were English dominant and were
learning Spanish as a second language. Lisa was responsible for teaching math, science, and

38

literacy—because Lisa’s students were learning Spanish as a second language she taught all
subjects in Spanish. Lisa was paired with another teacher in the school who taught her students
English and social studies. The other fourth-grade teacher taught solely in English which placed
the responsibility of teaching students Spanish on Lisa. Due to the unique nature of Lisa’s
teaching position she was paired with a support teacher to assist in the integration of Spanish
language learning into her classroom. This extra support only lasted for part of the year as the
position was removed with district budget cuts.
Data Sources
I documented teachers’ use of the KCP through: (1) a teacher survey which examined the
cultural institutions teachers have visited, the nature of the visit— personal (e.g. visit with
friends/ family) or professional— (e.g. visit to collect resources, or visit with students), the
number of Teachtown MKE events that the teachers have participated in, and how they are using
cultural institution resources in the classroom; (2) semi-structured focus group interviews which
examined participant teachers use of KCP benefits; and (3) case study teacher interviews and
artifact analysis which delves deeper into resources teachers’ use in the classroom and whether
these resources connect back to the KCP program.
Recall that I hypothesized the introduction of new teachers to cultural institution
resources though the KCP would help teachers develop relational agency: the ability to identify
resources and use these resources across context (e.g. cultural institutions and public schools).
Thus, my documentation of teacher resource use included instruments which allowed the
examination of teacher interaction with KCP cultural institutions and the use of resources within
public schools. Instruments included: (1) teacher focus group interviews: I recruited six teachers
who discussed their use of KCP resources, during the interviews we focused on their use of field

39

trips, professional development events, curriculum materials, and benefits and constraints of the
KCP program; and (2) case study interviews and artifact analysis: based on initial survey and
focus group interviews I selected three case study teachers. Each case study teacher provided
three to four examples of resources they had used while teaching. Each teacher was asked to
provide one lesson plan as a resource, while the other resources could include: 1) any resources
they created, 2) school/ district curriculum, 3) textbooks, 4) websites used to create lessons/
gather information, 5) human resources: other educators/ colleagues/ groups who helped plan
lessons gather ideas for your classroom, 6) manipulatives/ objects students have used, or 7)
examples of field trips they had taken with students. Table 1 provides an overview of the data
sources and the research questions each data source is designed to answer.
Table 1
Research Questions and Connected Data Sources
Research Questions

Data sources

1) How do teachers use Key to the City (KCP)
benefits?

Collection of artifacts; teacher focus
group interviews; teacher survey; case
study teacher interviews

2) Do teachers who participate in the KCP
program incorporate community/cultural
institution resources in their teaching practices,
and if so how?

Collection of artifacts; focus group
interviews; case study teacher interviews

3) What barriers exist, and how can the KCP
program be made more accessible for teachers?

Focus group interviews; teacher survey;
case study teacher interviews

4) Do participant teachers display the skill of
relational agency, does this skill apply to KCP
use?

Collection of artifacts; case study teacher
interviews

40

Survey. Survey data collection was embedded into Teachtown MKE program events and
monthly e-mail newsletters. There were a total of 990 teachers who participated in the
Teachtown MKE program to date. Six hundred eleven teachers received the survey through
distribution of paper surveys at MPS new teacher institutes and online surveys through the
monthly Teachtown newsletter. I designed the teacher survey to examine general patterns of use
of Teachtown MKE resources, such as the KCP (Appendix C). The first five questions of the
teacher survey asked teachers to rate, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, how well the
Teachtown KCP connected them with the local Milwaukee community, other educators,
classroom resources, and local programs/ organizations for both professional and personal use.
The second half of the survey asked teachers to note the organizations that they visited using the
KCP, and how they used the organization (personal, field trip, professional development,
classroom resources, other). The third and final section of the survey asked teachers to identify
obstacles in using the KCP as well as the most and least useful aspects of the pass. As an
incentive teachers who completed the survey were entered into a drawing to win one of two $250
donations to DonorsChoose.org for participation in the survey.
Focus group interviews. I held focus group interviews (Saldana, Leavy, & Beretvas,
2011), with six Teachtown teachers. The focus group teachers were self-identified. Teachers who
participated in the survey were asked if they would be willing to continue their participation as
focus group teachers. If they were willing teachers left their contact information indicating their
desire to continue as focus group teachers. From the teachers who indicated interest I selected six
teachers who varied in grade level and year of participation in the KCP program. Two teachers
were first-year teachers, three were second-year teachers, and one was a third-year teacher. Two
focus group teachers were middle school teachers, one was a high school teacher, and the

41

remaining three were elementary school teachers. Three out of the six teachers entered MPS
through Teach for America.
The focus group interviews were conducted over the phone, and if participants gave
consent the interviews were audio recorded. Each focus group teacher was given a $25 gift
certificate, as appreciation for their participation. I designed the focus group interview protocol
(Appendix D) to expand upon survey data. There were nine focus group questions in total which
reviewed in detail how the KCP had been used as a curriculum resource. The questions began
generally, asking teachers to describe how they have used the KCP (professionally or
personally), and then moved to more specific questions such as: Can you describe a specific time
that you used KCP resources in your classroom? This can be a specific lesson, curriculum,
preparation for a field trip, organization staff visiting your classroom. The final questions were
designed to capture reasons that teachers were not using the KCP, and what in their opinion
could be done to make the pass more accessible to teachers.
Case study interviews. I used semi-structured interviews with case study teachers. I
began each interview with a conversation about the artifacts that each teacher submitted (see
artifact analysis for details on how the artifacts were selected). Having each teacher describe how
they used their artifacts enabled our discussion to open to a broader conversation around other
resources they draw from while teaching (including KCP resources). I designed the case study
teacher interview protocol (Appendix E) to move from general teaching strategies to specific
explanations of how KCP resources are used. The first three questions focused on general
teaching practice— description of a recent lesson taught, materials and curriculum used
throughout the year, and the goals of the teacher. The next three questions asked teachers to
describe specific resources they have used in connection with the KCP (field trip, lesson plan,

42

website, curriculum material, pre/ post visit worksheet, object/ artifact/ primary source); whether
the resources offered through the KCP are useful; and how students have reacted to these
resources. The final section of the interview focused on the environmental resources teachers
used—professional development events and professional communities.
Artifact analysis. Teacher submission of artifacts had three main purposes—1) the
artifacts allowed me to examine the types of conventional resources teachers were frequently
using with students, 2) they allowed me to study the types of lessons teachers were regularly
using in their classrooms, and 3) opening my case study interviews with the discussion of the
teacher’s artifacts gave participants a tangible example in which to describe their teaching style.
Each case study teacher was sent the following prompt:
To better understand the resources that you use in the classroom I will be asking case
study teachers to provide 3-4 examples of resources that you have used this year while
teaching. I would ask that every case study teacher email one lesson plan from this year
and a list of materials that you used for this lesson (material examples: worksheet,
textbooks, websites, manipulatives/ objects that students used for the lesson) as one of the
resource examples. The other 2-3 resources that you select are up to you. Some ideas for
these resources are: 1) Any resources that you have created yourself, 2) School/ district
curriculum that you use often, 3) Textbooks that you use often, 4) Websites that you use
to create lessons/ gather information, 5) Human resources: other educators/ colleagues/
groups that help you plan lessons gather ideas for your classroom, 6) Manipulatives/
objects that you have had students use in the classroom, 7) examples of field trips that
you have taken.

43

Case study interviews allowed me to analyze teacher artifacts with the help of the teachers who
submitted the artifacts. Teachers were able to explain why they selected the artifacts; how the
artifacts connected to school, district, and state curriculum; and how students used the artifacts. I
was able to ask questions about the artifacts in “real time.” For example, case study teacher
Greg, had submitted an image of a class Magna Carta, which to me looked like a standard set of
classroom rules. However, when we discussed this image Greg informed me that his students had
made the suggestion to make a classroom Magna Carta based on a social studies lesson. All
students in the class were involved in the creation of this document and signed the bottom,
signaling the adoption of the new set of classroom rules. Greg described how his students had a
deeper connection to these rules which made teaching easier for him. The Magna Carta was in its
second year of use, and Greg’s students make changes to the document when needed. Had I not
reviewed the artifacts with each teacher I would have analyzed Greg’s students’ Magna Carta as
just an ordinary set of classroom rules. I would not have the detailed story of how these rules
were formed, or that the Magna Carta is a living document that continues to hold importance for
Greg’s students.
My Role as Researcher
I became aware of the KCP program through a personal relationship—I was a participant
of a trail running club in Wisconsin. At one of the clubs potluck dinners I had a discussion with
another member about her work with the GMC— she helped the GMC connect with potential
partners for the KCP program. After telling her about my background and area of research
(teachers’ use of cultural institutions) she introduced me (through email) to the director of
Teachtown MKE. Because of my research interests, I was invited to the GMC to discuss ways in
which I could help the GMC gather data to inform Teachtown MKE programmatic changes. The

44

director of Teachtown MKE was interested in programmatic data collection and evaluation
because the program had been running for two years. The GMC had collected anecdotal quotes
from teachers describing the benefits of the KCP, but the program had not yet begun any official
program evaluation. Our discussion resulted in the development of this study. I was an unpaid
evaluator of the Teachtown MKE program, and was the first researcher brought in to assist the
GMC in data collection. The director gave me access to Teachtown MKE participants, in return
as I collected data I provided the GMC with suggestions on how to strengthen the KCP program.
For example, as I analyzed teacher survey responses I noticed teachers were requesting more
information be provided about KCP partner institutions. This information resulted in the
development of a document which provided teachers with a description of each partner
institution, links to curriculum materials, and lists a contact person for each institution
(http://www.teachtownmke.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Teachtown-MKE-ResourceGuide-Updated-8-23.pdf).
I was seen as a participant observer (Glesne, 2010) by those with whom I work with at
the GMC, cultural institutions, and MPS. Because of my role as participant observer a good
majority of the time that I spent at the GMC during the first summer of my research study was
dedicated to assisting the program with documentation to be used for program evaluation. Due to
my participation in documenting the program I worked closely with the director of the
Teachtown program. The director of the Teachtown program assisted in distributing the teacher
survey through the Teachtown monthly newsletters. I must acknowledge that teachers’
perceptions of my role in the GMC might have influenced how they responded to my case study
interviews and focus group questions.

45

Analysis
I used two different sets of analyses: (1) a quantitative analysis of the teacher survey to
assess the overall use of the Teachtown MKE program; and (2) a qualitative data analysis of
written survey responses, teacher focus group interview transcripts, case study teacher interview
transcripts, and all submitted artifacts. This mixed-methods (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004)
approach to data analysis enabled me to study overall teacher use of the KCP, while also
allowing me to develop a fine grained portrait of how Teachtown MKE empowered teachers
through access of various cultural institution resources and supports. I consider this approach
mixed methods rather than mixed model (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004), as the quantitative
and qualitative data were collected and analyzed in separate phases. The quantitative survey data
was analyzed first to gather general patterns of KCP use across participant teachers. The
qualitative data was analyzed in a second phase to gather detailed information about how KCP
teachers’ use resources (conventional, personal, and environmental), with a specific focus on the
use of KCP resources.
I used a six step approach to data analysis. I summarize the steps here and provide more
detail in the subsequent sections. First, I analyzed descriptive and inferential statistics of the
teacher survey using the program SPSS. Second, for qualitative data analysis of the case study
teacher and focus groups interviews I used deductive coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana,
2014). Identifying categories and themes that came from my conceptualization of professional
communities, relational agency, and cultural institution resources that influenced Teachtown
MKE teachers teaching practice. Third, I analyzed my transcripts of case study teacher and
focus group interviews through line-by-line coding (Glesne, 2010). Fourth, I pulled excerpts for
each of the categories and themes and organized the excerpts by participant. Fifth, I wrote

46

analytic memos which I used to create a case study profile for each participant. Sixth, I used case
study profiles to look for patterns across and within individual profiles relating to my four
research questions. I also created resource maps from survey and focus group data to better
understand general patterns of KCP use, characterizing resource availability/use and estimating
the influence of resource availability/use across the Teachtown participant population.
Quantitative analyses. The survey results were analyzed quantitatively. The purpose of
the survey analysis was to describe and explain general patterns across teachers’ use of the KCP.
The first section of the survey had five variables: teachers’ connection to the local Milwaukee
community, help finding resources for classroom use, introduction to other teachers/ educators,
access to local programs/ organizations for personal use, and access to local programs/
organizations for professional use. Each of the five variable’s frequency were run using the
statistics program SPSS. Teachers rated each of the five variables from strongly disagree to
strongly agree, this rating system was converted to a numerical scale before frequencies were run
(strongly disagree 0, somewhat disagree 1, neutral 2, somewhat agree 3, and strongly agree 4).
All five variables used an ordinal scale that is discrete. Ordinal variables are considered discrete
because variables can only have a finite number of values and are categorical. Thus, the
frequency of these five variables were displayed using a bar graph.
The second section of the survey focused on the types of organizations that the teachers
visited, and includes a list of 16 organizations that the teachers may have visited using the KCP.
Descriptive statistics were run using SPSS to determine the frequency of which organizations the
teachers visited. The purpose for the teacher visit, (personal, field trip, professional development,
classroom resources, other), was also analyzed. Purpose of visit was determined to be a nominal
scale that is discrete. Nominal variables are considered discrete because variables do not have a

47

numerical or ordered meaning and are categorical. The frequencies of discrete variables are best
displayed using a bar graph. Thus, I created a bar graph of the 16 organizations to display the
number of teachers that visited and the purpose of the visit. I also ran inferential statistics
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The ANOVA test was used to test hypotheses for one factor
with two or more levels for the variance among group means. To determine whether the year a
teacher is in the KCP program is associated with their use of KCP cultural institutions, I
examined teacher year (year 1, year 2, and year 3) and organization use (personal, field trip,
professional development, and classroom resource) using one-way ANOVA. For items that were
found to be statistically significant I ran contrast test between year 1 and year 2, year 1 and year
3, and year 2 and year 3.
The third and final section of the survey included three open-ended questions. These
questions were analyzed using deductive coding (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). I focused
on three main themes (obstacles, benefits, and professional development and curriculum
resources). As I coded I populated the three main themes with more specific sub-codes. Table 2
reflects the final coding scheme that I used in my analysis.
Table 2
Teacher Survey Coding Scheme
Obstacles
(O)

Benefits
(B)

Communication (C):
(CGMC), Cultural
institution (CCI)
Time (T): Personal (TP),
Professional (TPro)
Money (M)

Tickets (T)
Site visits (SV)
Personal (P)
Professional (Pro)

48

Professional development
and curriculum resources
(PD/ CR)
Books (B)
Teaching resources(TR)
Student resources (SR)

Qualitative analyses. Teacher focus group interviews were audio recorded. I used lineby-line coding (Glesne, 2010) to analyze focus group transcripts. I centered my coding around
three main categories (personal use, professional communities/ professional use, and pass
accessibility). Personal use included any mention of visiting cultural institutions with family,
friends, or by one’s self— without a connection to classroom research. Professional
communities/ professional use included any interaction with communities directly connected to
the Teachtown program— specifically cultural institutions linked to the KCP; as well as
resources that teachers were introduced to through belonging to these communities (field trips,
curriculum, online resources, objects, classroom collections, textbooks). Pass accessibility
included explanations teachers gave for not using the pass, reasons why the pass was useful, and
suggestions for pass improvement. As I coded, I populated the three main categories with more
specific sub-codes. Once teacher focus group interview coding was complete I categorized and
pulled excerpts from the transcripts to support patterns I found in the quantitative analysis of the
teacher survey. Table 3 reflects the final coding scheme that I used in my analysis.
Table 3
Focus Group Interview Coding Scheme
Personal use
(Per)
Tickets (T)
Site visits (SV)

Professional use and
communities
(Pro/ PC)
Teachers (T)
Administration (A)
Peers (P)
Teachtown (TT)
Classroom (CR)
Field trip (FT)
Professional
Development (PD)
Online resource (OR)
Research (R)
Demographic info (D)
49

Pass accessibility
(PA)
Obstacle (O)
Communication
(C)+, (C)Teacher suggestion
(TS)

Case study interviews and artifacts. Similar to the focus group interviews, case study
teacher interviews were audio recorded. I used line-by-line coding (Glesne, 2010) to analyze
interview transcripts and artifacts. I used three main categories to code the teacher interviewsgeneral teaching practice, KCP resource use, and professional development and professional
community resources. As I coded I populated the three main categories with more specific subcodes. Once coding was complete I wrote analytic memos which I used to create profiles for
each case study teacher. Notes from the discussion of teacher artifacts were used to gather
information on teacher lesson structure: what topics were covered and what materials were used
in instruction. I cross referenced case study transcript data with focus group interviews and
teacher survey data to identify patterns in Teachtown MKE teachers’ use of cultural institution
resources linked to the KCP. Pictures of artifacts teachers submitted were inserted into case
study teacher memos where appropriate to highlight instructional strategies and resources used.
Tables 4 reflects the final coding scheme for the case study teacher interviews and artifact
analysis.
Table 4
Case Study Teacher Interview and Artifact Coding Scheme
General teaching
practice
(GT)

Key to the City
resource
(KR)

PD and community
resource
(PDC)

Demographic info (D)
Goals (G)
Online resource (OR)
Textbook (TB)
District curriculum(DC)
School curriculum (SC)

Classroom (CR)
Field trip (FT)
Professional
Development (PD)
Online resource (OR)
Research (R)

Teachers (T)
Administration (A)
Peers (P)
Teachtown (TT)
District (D)
University (U)

50

CHAPTER 4
General Patterns of Teachers’ Key to the City Use

In this chapter I analyze the teacher survey and focus group interviews to ascertain
general patterns of Key to the City Pass (KCP) use by teachers. The chapter is divided into two
main sections: 1) initial patterns and 2) expanding on initial patterns. Within each of the two
main sections are three subsections: 1) KCP use, 2) benefits, and 3) constraints. In this chapter I
address the following research questions: (1) How do teachers use KCP benefits? (2) What
barriers exist, and how can the KCP program be made more accessible for teachers? and (3) Do
teachers who participate in the KCP program incorporate community/cultural institution
resources in their teaching practices, and if so how?
I begin the chapter with an analysis of the 99 completed teacher surveys. I have three
goals for my analysis, the first goal being to describe and explain teacher beliefs about the KCP
program using descriptive statistics. The second goal is to understand how teachers use the
various KCP cultural organizations. To accomplish this I first used descriptive statistics to
examine teachers’ use of cultural institutions for personal visits, field trips, professional
development, and as a classroom resource. I then used one-way ANOVA to determine whether a
teacher’s year (year 1, year 2, and year 3) of participation in the program is associated with their
use of KCP cultural institutions. Third, I analyzed teacher survey written responses to illustrate
the benefits and constrains of KCP use. My analysis of the survey is important in building an
understanding of general patterns of KCP use, identifying barriers that exits, and examining
ways to make the KCP more accessible to teachers. This analysis adds an important piece of
evidence to my discussion around how other cities should attempt the creation of similar support
51

systems for novice teachers. In the second section of the chapter—expanding on initial patterns, I
also focus on teacher use of KCP programs and the benefits and constraints of KCP use. I used
six focus group interviews to expand upon patterns that emerge from my analysis of the survey
data. I conclude the chapter with a summary of survey and interview findings and teacher
suggestions on how to strengthen the use of the KCP program.
Initial Patterns
This section of the chapter the subcategory, KCP use is devoted to the analysis of the first
two segments of the survey (Appendix C). The first segment of the survey contained five
questions, and asked teachers to rate, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, how well the KCP
connects them with the local Milwaukee community, other educators, classroom resources, and
local programs/ organizations for both professional and personal use. The second segment of the
survey asked teachers to identify all of the KCP organizations they have used/visited, and the
reason for their use of the organization (personal, field trip, professional development, classroom
resource, other). The benefit and constraint sections were dedicated to the analysis of the third
segment of the survey. The third segment of the survey contained teachers written responses to
three prompts: 1) obstacles in using the KCP, 2) the most and least useful aspects of the KCP,
and 3) additional information that would be helpful in understanding teachers use of the KCP
(Appendix C). Ninety-nine teachers completed the survey, 44% of teachers were in their first
year of teaching and also first year participants of the KCP, 48% of teachers were second-year
teachers and in their second year of the KCP, and 7% of teachers were third-year teachers and in
their third year of the KCP.
Table 5
Teacher Year of Participation

52

Table 5 (cont’d)
Year
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3

Frequency
44
48
7

% of teachers
44.4
48.5
7.1

KCP use. The majority of teachers somewhat agreed (43.4%) to strongly agreed (40.4%)
the KCP connected them with the local Milwaukee community. Teachers also somewhat (28.3%)
to strongly agreed (57.6%) the KCP give them access to local programs and organizations for
personal use. Teachers responses for the KCP helping them find classroom resources was
slightly less positive, with the majority of teachers reporting neutral (33.3%) to somewhat agree
(36.4%). Similarly teachers ranked the KCP as neutral (27.3%) to somewhat helpful (35.4%) in
giving them access to local programs for professional use. Teachers somewhat disagreed (21.2%)
or were neutral (32.3%) that the KCP helped to introduce them to other educators. These
findings highlight teachers’ propensity to use the KCP for personal reasons (visits by themselves
or with family and friends) versus professional (field trips, professional development, and
curriculum resources). See Table 6 and Figure 2.
Table 6
Teachers Beliefs about KCP Use
Percentage of Teachers
Strongly
Disagree

Somewhat
Disagree

Neutral/ No
Opinion

Somewhat
Agree

Strongly
Agree

%(n)

%(n)

%(n)

%(n)

%(n)

1.0 (1)

5.1 (5)

10.1 (10)

43.4 (43)

40.4 (40)

Questions
Connects me to
local community

53

Table 6 (cont’d)
3 (3.0)

16.2 (16)

33.3 (33)

36.4 (36)

11.1(11)

Introduces me to
other teachers

7.1 (7)

21.2 (21)

32.3 (32)

22.2 (22)

17.2 (17)

Gives me access
to programs
(personal)

3.0 (3)

2.0 (2)

9.1 (9)

28.3 (28)

57.6 (57)

Gives me access
to programs
(professional)

3.0 (3)

9.1 (9)

27.3 (27)

35.4 (35)

25.3 (25)

Percentage of Teachers

Helps me find
resources

Figure 2. Section One: Teachers’ Beliefs about KCP Use

54

Teachers’ pattern of using the KCP for mainly personal reasons is also reflected in the
second section of the survey (Figure 3). The KCP cultural institutions teachers identified visiting
were: Discovery World (A), Milwaukee Art Museum (B), United Performing Arts (C),
Milwaukee Public Library (D), Milwaukee Public Museum (E), Boerner Botanical Garden (F),
Historic Milwaukee (G), Pabst Theater/ Riverside Theater/ Turner Hall (H), Alverno Presents (I),
Milwaukee Film (J), and Skylight Music Theater (N). Teachers indicated personal visits as the
main reason they used all 11 cultural institutions, with 46 teachers visiting Discovery World,
Milwaukee Art Museum (66 teachers), United Performing Arts (18 teachers), Milwaukee Public
Library (52 teachers), Milwaukee Public Museum (62 teachers), Boerner Botanical Garden (25
teachers), Historic Milwaukee (18 teachers), Pabst Theater/ Riverside Theater/ Turner Hall (43
teachers), Alverno Presents (13 teachers), Milwaukee Film (17 teachers), and Skylight Music
Theater (15 teachers). Out of these 11 cultural institutions, nine were used for field trips:
Discovery World (20 teachers), Milwaukee Art Museum (9 teachers), United Performing Arts (6
teachers), Milwaukee Public Library (10 teachers), Milwaukee Public Museum (18 teachers),
Boerner Botanical Garden (2 teachers), Historic Milwaukee (1 teacher), Milwaukee Film (2
teachers), and Skylight Music Theater (1 teacher). Only seven out of the 11 cultural institutions
were identified as being used by teachers for professional development purposes. The
Milwaukee Public Library was the institution used most often as a place for professional
development, yet only six teachers indicated using the library for this purpose. The Milwaukee
Public Library was also the cultural institution used most as a classroom resource, with 26
teachers identifying the library as a place they visited for classroom resources.

55

Number of Teachers

Organizations

Organization Key
A: Discovery World, B: Milwaukee Art Museum, C: United Preforming Arts,
D: Milwaukee Library, E: Milwaukee Public Museum, F: Boerner Botanical
Garden, G: Historic Milwaukee, H: Pabst Theater, I: Alverno Presents,
J: Milwaukee Film, K: Stone Creek Coffee, L: Milwaukee Bucks, M: Milwaukee
Wave, N: Skylight Music Theater, O: FUEL Milwaukee, P: YMCA
Figure 3. Section Two: Organizations Visited

Teacher year and organization use. To determine whether the year a teacher was in the KCP
program is associated with their use of KCP cultural institutions, I examined teacher year (year
1, year 2, and year 3) and organization use (personal, field trip, professional development, and
classroom resource) using one-way ANOVA. Conventionally statistical significance is
determined when p<.05, following this convention only one item in the survey was found to be
statistically significant, the personal use of the Pabst Theater by teacher year, F (2, 96) = 5.974,
p= .004. I then ran a contrast test between year 1 and year 2, year 1 and year 3, and year 2 and
year 3. The contrast test between year 1 and year 2, t=-3.395, p=.001, indicated that teachers who
56

were in their second year of the KCP program were more likely to use the Pabst Theater as a
personal resource than teachers in their first year.
Table 7
ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Pabst Theater, Personal
Teacher Year

M

SD

N

Year 1

.25

.438

44

Year 2

.58

.498

48

Year 3

.57

.535

7

Regarding statistical power Alyounes (1999) writes,
The relation between a level and statistical power is direct. That is, the higher the a level,
the smaller the P, and, hence the higher the statistical power. Other factors being equal,
the statistical power with a equal .05 is higher than that with a equals 0.01. Larger
samples have smaller error combined with them, so by increasing the sample size,
sampling error decreases; consequently, researchers need little magnitude of an effect to
achieve statistical significance. However, with a small sample size, researchers need a
large magnitude of an effect to achieve statistical significance” (p .27).
Due to the small sample size for this study I also ran a contrast tests when p<.10 to increase
statistical significance (Pritschet, Powell, & Horne, 2016). When p<.10 three other items in the
survey (personal use of the Milwaukee Art Museum, field trips to United Performing Arts, and
field trips to Milwaukee Public Museum) were also considered to have statistically significant
differences. Using p<.10, I ran a contrast test between year 1 and year 2, year 1 and year 3, and
year 2 and year 3 for each of these items. Personal use of the Milwaukee Art Museum by teacher
year was F (2, 96) = 2.728, p= .070, again p=.070 is taken as statistically significant only if
significance is accepted at p < .10 (Pritschet, Powell, & Horne, 2016). The contrast test between
year 1 and year 3, t=-2.327, p=.022, indicated that teachers who were in their third year of the

57

KCP program were more likely to use the Milwaukee Art museum as a personal resource than
teachers in their first year.
Table 8
ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Milwaukee Art Museum, Personal
Teacher Year

M

SD

N

Year 1

.55

.504

44

Year 2

.77

.425

48

Year 3

.71

.488

7

Field trips to United Preforming Arts by teacher year was F (2, 96) = 2.699, p= .072. The
contrast test between year 1 and year 2, t=-2.237, p=.028, indicated that teachers who were in
their second year of the KCP program were more likely to take field trips to United Preforming
Arts than teachers who were in their first year.
Table 9
ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by United Performing Arts, Field Trip
Teacher Year

M

SD

N

Year 1

.00

.000

44

Year 2

.10

.309

48

Year 3

.14

.378

7

Field trips to the Milwaukee Public Museum by teacher year was F (2, 96) = 2.592, p= .080. The
contrast test between year 1 and year 2, t=-2.258, p=.026, indicated that teachers who were in
their second year of the KCP program were more likely to take field trips to the Milwaukee
Public Museum than teachers who were in their first year.

58

Table 10
ANOVA Results: Teacher Year by Milwaukee Public Museum, Field Trip
Teacher Year

M

SD

N

Year 1

.09

.291

44

Year 2

.27

.449

48

Year 3

.14

.378

7

While only four items in the survey were found to be statistically significant, assuming p<.10 is
acceptable, this finding identifies a trend of more seasoned (year 2 and year 3) teachers using
KCP benefits more frequently than first-year teachers. This finding is echoed in the focus group
interviews, and is discussed in more depth in the expanding on initial patterns section of this
chapter.
Benefits. Out of the 99 surveys completed, there were 40 written responses by teachers to
describe the most useful aspects of the KCP. These responses can be broken down into three
main benefits, 1) free tickets, 2) stress relief, and 3) greater ease of exploring the city. Seventeen
of the 40 teacher responses mentioned free tickets/ free access to cultural institutions as the most
useful benefit of the KCP. Out of these 17, eight were first-year teachers, seven were secondyear teachers, and two were third-year teachers. For example one teacher wrote, “Being able to
attend things for free! It has been a great excuse to get out of the house and do something with
friends/family.” Another teacher stated, “I love the passes to the museums and the free ticket
offers—thank you so much! I can honestly say that having a fun activity helps ease the stress of
teaching.” The description of KCP benefits and activities as stress relieving was another theme
seen throughout the written responses. Four second-year teachers and one third-year teacher
reported KCP benefits linked to stress relief. With teachers writing, “The free tickets to games—

59

allows me to take time to enjoy myself after stressful times at work.” And, “Getting to take a
much needed break with family with the treasured tickets. Continue to recognize educators and
our work with the children through the gift of giving. Thank You.” Being able to explore the city
and feeling a greater connection to the community was often cited by teachers as a major benefit
of the KCP— 19 of the 40 (13 first-year, four second-year, and two third-year) teacher responses
related to this theme. One teacher described the freedom to explore new cultural institutions
lending to classroom use,
I love having access to so many Milwaukee sites. It is a great offering for teachers to
explore these places that can help them improve their own education or knowledge about
topics and be able to extend that information to their students. It excites me to know I can
visit many of the museums and the like free of charge that I wouldn’t normally be able to
afford. All in all I absolutely love being a part of this program. Thank you!
Another teacher wrote, “Most useful, being able to connect with institutions in Milwaukee both
personally and professionally, develop a sense of belonging to the city, seek out resources for my
classroom.” Alternatively, one of the teacher responses indicated connecting to the Milwaukee
community with family as a valuable experience.
I love that I get to use my Key to the City pass to explore more parts of Milwaukee free
of charge. It makes me more willing to share these places with family and friends. It
would be great if more organizations got on board and offered teachers such great options
to be more involved in the Milwaukee community. I would just like to say, “Thank you!”
for setting up such a wonderful program! I have thoroughly enjoyed my time in
Teachtown MKE and with my Key to the City. I’ve been able to explore all over
Milwaukee and am really thankful to have been a part of this.
Overall, teachers appreciated the variety of opportunities the KCP provided them. Teachers
identified the KCP as both professionally and personally useful, but were most excited about the
personal (as opposed to professional) advantages of the pass.
Constraints. Teachers identified several obstacles to KCP use. Fifty-one teachers left
written responses regarding obstacles. These obstacles can be broken down into three themes, 1)

60

lack of information on how to use the pass, 2) lack of personal time, and 3) lack of information at
the cultural institutions about KCP benefits. The most mentioned obstacle was lack of
information, 26 out of the 51 responses link to the theme of information. Ten first-year teachers,
13 second-year teachers, and three third-year teachers wrote about the lack of information.
Within this theme teachers mentioned the need for more information about the organizations. For
example teachers wrote, “It would be nice to have more information about the organizations and
what is all included when using the Key to the City pass and how to use the pass.” And “the Key
took a while to obtain. The website is difficult to get information about available organizations.”
Other teachers indicated more information was needed about KCP benefits. “Maybe I missed it,
but I feel like I need a handout or a website that tells me exactly what I can use the card for. I
forget to take it with me, and often don’t know exactly what I can use it for.” And “there was not
enough info on how to use the resources and what exactly was provide. To add to this I never
received my pass/membership card to any of the places that were listed (art museum, public
museum, etc).” Additionally, teachers thought more communication from the GMC to
participating teachers about upcoming events would be helpful. One teacher stated, “I thought
the timing of events announcements were not timely or entirely clear in participating.” While
another teacher would have liked more email communication and wrote, “There was nowhere
near enough communication. I also never actually received the “Key to the City” pass... I added
my email multiple times.”
The next most mentioned constraint was lack of personal time, 13 out of 51 teachers
responses connected to this theme. Four first-year teachers, eight second-year teachers, and one
third-year teacher wrote about lack of personal time. One of the concerns for teachers was the
timing of KCP events, “I don’t think all the days and times are helpful especially for teachers

61

who have graduate school on the weekdays.” Even teachers who did not reference attending
graduate school mentioned weekdays as a difficult time to attend KCP events, “Some events that
have been chosen are during the work week, which makes it difficult to attend. More events
should be during the weekend.” While other teachers indicated they did not have the time to look
up additional information which would help them use the KCP, “Time- I carry it with me, but I
often have to search out the piece of paper listing what I can access with the “Key.” As a result, I
don’t use it as much as I could because I haven’t memorized the list.”
Only four teachers (one first-year, two second-year, and one third-year) mentioned lack
of information at participating institutions as a constraint. However, I believe it is important to
analyze all of these instances as it connects back to the problem of teacher confusion due to a
lack of communication from the GMC. The first teacher who wrote about issues within KCP
cultural institutions discussed the need for staff to be more informed,
At times I feel like I am not receiving information about what is currently available for
one-time events. It seems like many of these places are not yet familiar to the Key to the
City pass so I feel like employees of the museums and such need to be a bit more
informed. I never know when I go somewhere new if I am going to have a problem using
the pass because it is not yet established.
This teacher identified two problems that can arise when working with multiple partner
institutions which offer different benefits. The first problem is making sure when new partners
are added a point person from the new institution is briefed. The point person must also be
willing to brief the other staff members who will be interacting with KCP teachers, such as front
desk staff. This teacher’s statement identified the breakdown of communication between the
GMC, the point person at the cultural institution, and the many staff members within the cultural
institution. The second problem this teacher focused on is the varying benefits offered by each
institution, and the need for the GMC to notify participating teachers of changes or additions to

62

these benefits. This problem connects to the necessity for the GMC to create a more consistent
means of communicating to participating teachers. This issue is also discussed by teachers during
focus group interviews. Many teachers who were interviewed suggested a form of social media
as a better communication platform for the GMC to reach teachers. The next teacher who
mentioned concerns with a partner institution identified a specific problem within the public
library,
When I talked to the library about the teaching pass, some libraries never heard of it and
when I finally got it at the one downtown, they asked 4 people before I was connected to
someone that knew what I was talking about — and they still had no clue about the
resource I thought was listed by helping compile books and resources for units.
When the KCP program first began only teachers that lived in the city of Milwaukee were
allowed to use the Milwaukee Public Library. Staff at the GMC worked with the Milwaukee
Public Library to allow teachers who participated in the KCP program and lived outside of
Milwaukee to also access library resources. The teacher who wrote the statement above is
currently a third-year teacher. She was describing an experience she had as a first year teacher
who lived outside of the district. At the time she had this experience allowing a teacher who
taught in Milwaukee but lived in a different district, access to Milwaukee library resources was a
novel idea. However, this experience again points to the need for better communication between
the GMC, the point person at the cultural institution, and staff members within the cultural
institution. Interestingly, during the second year of KCP program implementation the Milwaukee
Public Library decided to allow all teachers who taught within MPS, whether they lived in
Milwaukee or not, access to all Milwaukee libraries. This change in policy was partially
attributed to the success of the KCP giving Milwaukee Public Library access to all first-year
teachers. The teacher who identified lack of communication with cultural institution partners as
a concern wrote,
63

The only issue I had was with the Botanical Gardens. They were not aware of the Key to
the City pass but once they looked it up they were able to proceed offering a one day
admission. There was only one or two days that they could register someone for the
yearly pass. I have yet to do that.
Similar to the other comments teachers made about partner institutions this experience identified
the need for all staff at partner institutions to be informed of KCP benefits. This comment also
highlighted a change in benefits offered by an institution. During the first and second year of the
KCP program the Botanical Garden offered a free yearly pass. In the third year the Botanical
Garden offered a free pass on two specific days for teachers, eliminating the free yearly pass.
This change caused confusion for second and third-year teachers who had been participating in
the KCP program from its inception. The fourth and final written response that mentions
communication issues with a partner institution refers to a teachers experience trying to obtain
tickets to an individual event,
I attempted several times to use my teach town pass for Milwaukee Bucks tickets. I
wanted to get some tickets to treat a parent volunteer (and his son) to a basketball game.
Several times I brought my teach town pass in, and I was told by the person at the counter
that this promotion would have to be looked into. My name and information was taken by
an employee on three of the times that I walked into the Bradley center— no call backs
were given and the ticket offer was not honored by the Bucks. I was happy to purchase
tickets for our special volunteer and his son, but certainly disappointed by the Bucks
response to the promotion.
This comment identified two problems—first the teacher who wrote this response does not
understand what the actual benefit is from the Bucks, and second the Bucks staff does not know
enough about their KCP benefit to explain to the teacher when their event occurs. KCP partner
institutions offer different kinds of benefits, some offer a free pass for teachers to use at any
time, while others allow teachers to attend a specific event for free. The Milwaukee Bucks offer
free tickets to teachers for specific games throughout the year. The GMC is responsible for
informing teachers when the event is to be held and sending the tickets to teachers to redeem

64

with the Bucks organization. This teacher believed the Bucks KCP benefit was a free ticket to be
redeemed for any game. This misunderstanding caused confusion and frustration for the teacher.
She was unable to get correct information from the Bucks organization about KCP benefits, and
she did not know GMC staff would also be able to provide this information to her.
Expanding on Initial Patterns
In this section I analyze focus group interviews. There are six focus group teachers, two
were first-year teachers, three were second-year teachers, and one was a third-year teacher. The
subjects and grades that they teach vary: two were middle school teachers, one was a high school
teacher, and the remaining three were elementary school teachers. Three out of the six teachers
entered MPS through Teach for America. Each teacher was asked nine questions (Appendix D):
1) Has the Key to the City pass helped you learn more about the city of Milwaukee, if
yes how?
2) How have you used the Key to the City pass (personally/ professionally)?
3) For teachers that have used/ visited Key to the City pass organizations professionally,
can you expand on your use (field trips, PD events, classroom resources)?
4) Describe a specific time that you used Key to the City pass resources in your
classroom?
5) Has the Key to the City pass connected you to other education professionals? Who
are they, what organizations do they belong to?
6) What have been the most beneficial aspects of Teachtown MKE and the Key to the
City pass? What has been the least beneficial?
7) If you could change one thing about the Key to the City pass to make it more
accessible to teachers, what would you change?

65

8) Are there any other suggestions about what Teachtown MKE can do to make it more
likely that you would use the Key to the City pass?
9) Is there anything else you think is important for me to know about your thoughts on
the Key to the City pass or Teachtown more generally?
I reviewed teachers’ answers to these nine questions to investigate the use of the KCP program,
the benefits and constraints of KCP use, and teacher suggestions on how to improve the KCP.
KCP use. Similar to what the survey data suggest, focus group interviews also show the
majority of teachers using the KCP for personal reasons. Many teachers mention visiting the art
museum, the science museum, and the natural history museum. A few teachers visited the
botanical gardens—and highlighted that if not for the KCP they probably would not have visited.
For example Greg stated, “But I think that things like the botanical gardens or some of the more
obscure, lesser known museum and attractions, it definitely brought my attention to Boerner
botanical gardens. I probably never would have gone to those if not for the key to the city.”
Focus group teachers also went to KCP events such as teacher nights. Lucy remembered her first
year as a teacher and going to one of the KCP teacher events, “I went to the event last year with
the other teachers and I really liked it. I got to meet many other teachers, and then there was the
mayor of the city, and it was a really nice.” Lucy focused on being able to meet other teachers as
a positive experience the KCP was able to provide. Greg also mentioned his attendance to
Newaukee events as a positive KCP experience which allowed him to meet other Milwaukee
professionals. Greg stated,
I know from emails Teachtown partners pretty closely with Newaukee, which is
professionals networking organization. I know there are co-sponsored events or they
would promote each other’s events, so I attended a handful of those, with non-educator
friends but then I ended up meeting other educators so that was helpful. And I think
sometimes new teachers don’t get lumped in with the young professional crowd. You
know what I mean? Like the young professional crowd is usually people working in
66

cooperate jobs and they are the young professionals, but I feel like that partnership really
brings teachers into the realm with the other young professionals.
Greg’s comment highlights an important aspect of the KCP program, the recognition of teachers
as valuable Milwaukee professionals.
Focus group teachers discovered through personal visits to KCP cultural institutions
which institutions were possible sites for student field trips. Wanda illustrated the benefit of
personal trips, “As far as going to Discover World Museum, I use that for education as far as the
key has gone for field trips. So not having to pay I can go in and see just what they have to offer
without paying for it.” Ellen mentioned that she went to a theater production she would not have
normally attended because of tickets she received through the KCP. Because of this experience
Ellen also planned a field trip for her students to the same theater. Conversely, through personal
visits teachers were also able to decide which KCP cultural institutions did not align with their
teaching goals. For example, after a personal visit to the science museum Greg decided this
museum was not appropriate for his high school students, but encouraged a colleague who taught
middle school students to bring them on a trip to the museum.
The survey data indicates the library was the KCP cultural institution most often used for
classroom resources, 26.3% of teachers used the library as a classroom resource. The teachers
who were interviewed elaborated on this point. For example, “Checking out books from the
library, and taking my kids to the library to help them understand how a library works and what
you can use library resources for.” Teachers who went on class field trips frequently had access
to pre and post visit materials. For example Lisa explained, “The science museum field trip there
was preparation in the classroom beforehand, and it tied into our science unit. It was materials
that the museum gave us ahead of time that they wanted us to teach our kids, a PowerPoint was
included.” Lisa’s statement indicated teachers were using classroom resources from cultural
67

institutions other than the library. Teachers who participated in the survey, however, may have
not indicated the use of such resources in the classroom because the resources were perceived as
a part of the field trip experience.
Benefits. Focus group teachers identified several benefits of participating in the KCP
program—free tickets to local events, networking opportunities, access to information about
lesser known cultural institutions, and feeling connected to the community. The benefit teachers
discussed most was access to free events. For example when I asked Ellen what she most
appreciates about the KCP she clarified,
To be honest with you it was good discounts. It was a nice chance to do some different
things and I went to some things that I normally wouldn’t go to see for example free
Bucks tickets. Why not you know? Those kinds of things, I just felt you know a little bit
appreciated for doing what you do as a teacher.
Ellen’s sentiment of feeling appreciated as a teacher because of the KCP was also reiterated by
several other teachers. Three of the six focus group teachers went a step further and said the KCP
not only made them feel appreciated, but increased their desire and commitment to remain a
teacher in MPS. Greg succinctly stated,
I don’t feel like I used it a ton professionally, but personally it really has connected me to
Milwaukee and helped me find my roots. I have no intention of moving. I feel like part of
my decision to stay in Milwaukee instead of moving somewhere else is definitely
because I’m connected to the place where I am, and part of the reason I am connected to
the place that I am is because I have done so many cultural things here in the city.
Similarly, Lisa explained,
I think getting comfortable in the community and learning what’s out there that I can use
as a resource for my classroom. Yeah, definitely learning more about the city I think it
helps you become more grounded in the city and feel more a part of it like you’re
belonging to a city or something if you have connections with different places.
Through participation in the KCP, several focus group teachers also joined as members of
different cultural institutions. For example, Greg became a member of the science museum and

68

art museum educator groups. With these memberships he received email blasts alerting him to
different museum events. This added benefit helped teachers keep track of both KCP events and
other cultural events in Milwaukee, further connecting teachers to the community they are
teaching in.
Constraints. Similar to the survey data, teacher interviews indicate that two of the main
constraints of KCP use are lack of communication and lack of time. The problem of
communication can be broken down into several issues: 1) not providing teachers with specifics
about what is offered by each KCP institution, 2) KCP partner institution staff not being
provided proper information about what they offer to teachers with KCP membership, and 3) not
specifying a designated location, such as a website, for teachers to look up KCP benefits.
Teachers found their first year as KCP participants particularly confusing. Becca who
was new to the city of Milwaukee had never heard of the GMC, thus, had no context for why the
GMC would be handing out free memberships. Becca recalled being skeptical about the KCP, “I
heard about it from Teach for America I was like oh what is this is there some sort of catch or
something are they trying to sell something?” Becca was fearful that signing up for the KCP
program meant she would be charged a membership fee in the future. It was not until Becca
heard about the KCP for a second time at a MPS new teacher institute that she felt safe signing
up for the program. Once new teachers registered many did not know how to use KCP benefits.
Lucy recalled her first experience with the KCP, “I received in the mail the card and a piece of
paper. I read all of the things that I could do with it, but I wasn’t sure, it wasn’t clear for me what
I could do with the card.” Lucy is referring to the pamphlet all teachers receive when they sign
up for the KCP. This pamphlet provided teachers with a list of all the organizations that partner
with the GMC to create the KCP. However, the pamphlet did not always provide detailed

69

information on the benefits that each organization offers. The GMC does have a website
dedicated to Teachtown, but the link is buried at the bottom of the pamphlet given to teachers.
When Greg, who was in his third year of the KCP program was asked about the website he
stated, “I don’t even know what is on the website, but just make sure that whatever is the policy
make sure that is clear on the website because that will be the number one place that people
check.” For the teachers who did know about the website, important information about the
program is still missing. Becca described her experience with the website and her attempt to find
more information about Teachtown and the KCP,
I did a project for grad school, just kind of like a resource guide about Teachtown. When
we were looking it up we are all like what is Teachtown? We all have it, but it wasn’t
necessarily clear, so we looked it up and it was kind of unclear and hard to find
information even on their website. So we met with someone and we interviewed them
about Teachtown. And it wasn’t until then that we understood... it’s from the Greater
Milwaukee Committee which is like this organization. It made more sense than the
website, we couldn’t figure out where Teachtown was located, we couldn’t find a contact
very easily, it was kind of hard to figure out what it’s all about.
Becca is correct, the website does not provide contact information for teachers who have
questions about the KCP, the only contact information on the website is designated for potential
partner institutions (http://www.teachtownmke.com/). There is a small hyper link for educators
to click on to move to the section of the website dedicated to the KCP. This page again lists all of
the partner institutions and gives vague descriptions of the benefits
(http://www.teachtownmke.com/teachtown/welcome-kit/new-teachers-welcome-kit). For
example, under Milwaukee Public Library is the text, “Present your Key to the City to secure a
special MPL Teacher Card. This card provides a range of special benefits to teachers”
(Teachtown MKE, 2017). However, there is no clarification about what the “special benefits”
are.

70

The written survey responses echo the sentiment there needs to be more clarity around
what benefits are offered. Several teacher survey responses described misunderstandings—
teachers trying to use what they believe to be the “special benefits”, only to find partner
institution staff unaware of the benefit. This illuminated another communication constraint, lack
of clarity leads teachers to interpret the benefits to be different than what is truly offered by the
KCP. Becca highlighted examples of these misinterpretations,
I’ve also heard about it from other people and it’s mostly been comments like... “Oh I
tried to use it but it didn’t work” or “I tried to use it to take my students to discovery
world and couldn’t get in.” They had to pay, so teachers ended up paying for their
students because they thought “Oh I could take my students on a field trip over the
weekend.” But it ended up not being what they thought it was actually going to be.
Because of that I haven’t really tried to use it as much because of what I’ve heard from
other people.
In Becca’s quote there were several misunderstandings. The first was her own misreading of
what the art museum offers through the KCP. With the KCP teachers could get free general
admission to the museum. In order to get into the after dark art museum events for free, teachers
must sign up for a separate membership with the museum. The art museum membership was not
attached to the KCP benefits and did require teachers to pay an additional fee. Teachers often
equated participation in the KCP with being members of KCP cultural institutions. However,
membership in the KCP did not guarantee teachers membership at the cultural institutions, which
led to added confusion. The claim “I tried to use it but it didn’t work” likely connects to KCP
organizations who only offer free admission on specific days. For example, the benefit listed
under the botanical garden was, “Use your Key to the City for free entrance to the Botanical
Gardens on two designated Teachtown days” (Teachtown MKE, 2017). Variation of benefits
between KCP cultural organizations, coupled with teachers not knowing where to look up KCP
benefit information created uncertainty for teachers. The statement, “I tried to use it to take my

71

students to discovery world and couldn’t get in” indicates a misunderstanding by teachers about
who was covered under the KCP. Again this misunderstanding was likely due to differing
cultural institution benefits. Many KCP institutions offered free pairs of tickets, extending
benefits to teacher acquaintances. While other institutions offered a general explanation of
benefits, which could lead teachers to believe the benefit extends to their class. For example, on
the website under zoological society is the text, “Teachtown educators will be offered free
opportunities for the Zoo” (Teachtown MKE, 2017). Using the language “free opportunities” is
vague, which led to teachers forming their own interpretation of what a “free opportunity” might
be.
Staff at the GMC did send teachers email blasts about specific KCP events as well as a
monthly newsletter (Appendix B). In an attempt to better inform teachers about the different
KCP cultural institutions GMC staff highlighted a different institution in each newsletter. The
newsletter also provided teachers with information about upcoming events at KCP cultural
institutions. Focus group teachers identified both the email blasts and the monthly newsletter as
helpful in providing current information about KCP program offerings. When I was interviewing
the teachers it became clear—all teachers were receiving the KCP email blasts, however, not all
teachers were receiving monthly newsletters. For example, when I asked Ellen how she would
improve KCP communication she suggested, “I did get some emails from the Milwaukee Public
Museum on things that were going on there. Newsletters maybe?” When I questioned whether
Ellen was already receiving the monthly newsletter, she was confused and did not know a
monthly newsletter was offered through the KCP. Ellen requested that she be added to the
newsletter mailing list, because she did not know who to contact at the GMC, I facilitated this
request. This highlighted the need for the GMC to have a point person for teachers to contact

72

regarding questions about the KCP. Giving teachers access to a point person at the GMC would
alleviate some of the communication problems mentioned by teachers in both the survey and
interviews.
The second most perceived constraint to KCP use in the survey was time (13 out of 51
responses), this was also noted by focus group teachers. For example Wand mentioned the
pressure of being a first year teacher, “I was just trying to get my feet wet as far as just getting
adjusted to class load and you know staying above water, being on time, doing the educator
effectiveness program. It was too overwhelming.” The stress of being a first year teacher and
acclimating to her class led Wanda to feel like she did not have time to take advantage of all the
benefits of the KCP. Becca also mentioned feeling overwhelmed during the school year, “It’s
hard to use given the time. I don’t get out a lot, which is what a lot of teachers say about it. In the
summer I plan to use it, but in the school year it’s just so busy.”
Summary of Survey and Focus Group Interview Findings
KCP use. The survey and interview results suggest that teachers use the KCP as a way to
engage with the Milwaukee community, learn about the area, participate in local programs, and
visit local organizations. Both survey and teacher interviews indicate the most useful aspect of
the KCP is the variety of options new teachers are given to help interact with local organizations
in Milwaukee on a personal level. The use of the KCP professionally was not as strong. In the
survey, 39.4% of teachers somewhat to strongly agreed the KCP helped them connect with other
educators, and 47.5% of teachers somewhat to strongly agreed the KCP helped them identify
classroom resources. Specifically, in the survey 26.3% of teachers mentioned the Milwaukee
Public Library as an institution that they gathered resources for classroom use. The Milwaukee
Public Museum had the next highest rate of teachers using classroom resources at 8.1%. The

73

survey findings indicate teachers use the KCP primarily for personal visits to cultural
institutions; the focus group interviews expand on this finding. Many of the teachers interviewed
noted that while they did mostly attend cultural institutions for personal visits, these visits
allowed them to experience the cultural institution, enabling them to decide whether a class field
trip would be appropriate for their students. Teacher interviews corroborate the survey finding
that teachers personally visit the art museum (66.7%), science museum (46.5%), natural history
museum (62.6%), and library (62.6%) most often. There were several cultural institutions that
teachers indicated they visited less often, for example only 25.3% of teachers surveyed took a
personal trip to Boerner Botanical Garden. However, teachers who were interviewed elaborated
that the KCP program alerted them to these lesser-known organizations, and the free admission
to these organizations was a driving force for the visit. For example Wanda mentions,
Milwaukee has a lot to offer but some of the things I didn’t know about. So I do agree
that Teachtown opened me up to going to things I wouldn’t have gone to if I didn’t have
a key to the city. I’m sorry but what I really enjoy is the free tickets. As a teacher
sometimes you don’t get out as much so it’s nice to have something to do that is free and
being able to access things is just nice.
Benefits. Both survey and interview teachers identified several benefits of participating
in the KCP program. The four main benefits described by teachers were, 1) free tickets, 2) stress
relief, 3) greater ease of exploring the city, and 4) feeling connected to the community. Ellen
explained,
I lived here for many years prior. I don’t know if I learned much more, but I did do things
that I wouldn’t have done if I hadn’t participated. Yeah, it has increased my commitment
to remaining in Milwaukee as a teacher. I think it was really nice because it wasn’t
offered to me when I first started teaching at MPS. It was a really nice perk that I
received when I returned to MPS.
Even with the communication problems mentioned in teacher surveys and interviews, the KCP is
able to provide participants validation of their worth as teachers. Several teachers mentioned

74

feeling they are appreciated members of the Milwaukee professional community because of the
KCP. Other teachers such as Ellen noted how the free passes, welcoming atmosphere of KCP
events, and the ability to relax using the KCP for personal visits is one reason they decide to stay
and teach in Milwaukee. This finding echoes research that supportive networks outside of the
workplace reduce the feeling of isolation (Anderson, 2010; Baker-Doyle 2012; Bullough 2012;
Coburn & Russell, 2008). Researchers who investigate teacher attrition note teachers often leave
the profession early due to lack of professional and emotional support (Clandinin et al. 2015;
Fry, 2007; Gallant & Riley, 2014; Haun & Martin, 2004). One of the goals of the KCP program
is to reward/ show appreciation to teachers in Milwaukee. The creators of the KCP believe it is
important to demonstrate to teachers they are valued members of the Milwaukee professional
community. While the goal of my research was not to investigate the attrition rate of KCP
teachers, anecdotally, teachers who were interviewed indicated feeling more connected to the
Milwaukee community because of the KCP. Several teachers like Ellen and Greg believed one of
the reasons they remained teaching in the MPS district was because of the support provided to
them through the KCP.
Constrains and missed opportunities. The two main constrains noted by survey and
interview teachers were lack of communication and lack of personal time to use KCP benefits
(e.g., institution visits and KCP events). The issue of limited communication was expressed by
teachers in several different ways. Teachers believed there was a lack of communication from
the GMC about how to use the pass. Teachers commented that it would have been helpful for the
GMC to provide specific examples of what was offered by each KCP cultural institution.
Teachers also felt KCP partner institution staff were not being provided proper information about

75

what they offer to teachers through KCP membership. Greg highlighted his thoughts about
relying on KCP cultural institution staff to explain KCP benefits to teachers,
I mean in theory I think that would work better I mean it sounds like there are still things
to be figured out. But that does just increase the amount of reliability you place on the
people at the art museum and people at the public museum, and people at the bucks
game. You are putting a lot of onus on those other people which is either a good or bad
thing just depending on the organization.
Many teachers also recommend specifying a designated location, such as a website, for teachers
to look up KCP benefits would be helpful.
Findings from the survey and interviews indicate teachers are taking field trips that are
not connected to the KCP. For example Becca explained, “Yes we’ve gone to Redline and we’ve
done Gear Up field trips and a lot of them are mostly through the school. We’ve done Redline,
I’ve collaborated with Redline and we did a series of six field trips.” She went on these trips with
her students because the Redline and Gear Up organizations offered pre-made lesson plans or
activities connected to the field trips. These lesson plans and activities helped teachers integrate
the field trips with content they were currently teaching in their classroom. KCP cultural
institutions do offer pre and post field trip activities, however, these activities can be difficult to
find through web searches. Ellen suggested, “If there are educational programs maybe provide a
brief overview of them to see if it’s something that is suitable for what the classroom is learning
about. And that would be like a preview to what they offer.” The KCP may have more success
with teachers using KCP cultural institution resources in their classrooms if the KCP compiled
and made easily accessible pre and post visit activities.
Another missed opportunity was identified by Becca when she was discussing her
understanding of what the KCP is, “It’s an initiative that helps teachers but why? What’s the
purpose? What’s the mission?” Becca brought up a good point, there does not seem to be a

76

consistent mission. The lack of a clear mission contributed to one of the main constrains, an
absence of clarity for teachers about what the KCP is, how to use it, and what the benefits were.
The KCP program needs to streamline their mission and purpose. Making this statement
available to participants would help teachers form a better understating of the goals behind the
creation of the KCP. These missed opportunities are discussed in depth in Chapter 6.
Teacher suggestions. Focus group teachers and teachers who completed the survey had
several suggestions for how to strengthen the KCP program, their suggestions can be broken into
three main categories—1) creation of social media and networking opportunities, 2) compilation
of KCP cultural institution resources for easier access, and 3) expansion of how teachers are
recruited and who is allowed to sign up for the KCP. When teachers mentioned communication
as a constraint, I asked the following question, “What would you do to make communication
better for teachers?” Many teachers thought adding a social media component would help the
GMC clarify KCP benefits, as well as provide more consistent updates about KCP cultural
institution events. For example Lucy suggested,
For me what would work would be a Facebook page because we always use Facebook
with friends. Maybe for this Facebook page with the events would be easier to see it,
because you receive a notification and you will be able to read it instead of going on the
website and checking for the information. Because you don’t check for information on
Facebook, you get it, you see it and this would be nice for Teachtown. And it would be
easier to receive information about events and other stuff. And it’s free I think, to do a
page, and maybe they can create the event and invite people. In this case it would be
much, much easier, and they remind you when it is, and you don’t forget.
Lucy highlighted the use of Facebook as a social media component for the KCP. She focused on
Facebook newsfeed when talking about “receiving notifications” and not having to check a
webpage but just “seeing it.” Lucy was correct, if the KCP were to create a Facebook page and
invite teachers to join the page any participant would receive KCP updates on their Facebook

77

newsfeed, rather than having to search through a website or relying on receiving emails from the
GMC. Becca also mentioned Facebook as a way to communicate with teachers,
A lot of people use Facebook for communication, so a page that has updates every now
and then of like if there’s a new exhibit at the art museum. Or something like Instagram
or anything like that, that just posts what’s out there in terms of the museums— the
different things, what’s going on there and can use your key to the city pass? Can you
bring your students? I would say social media is the best platform for getting information
out like that. People could just like it and share then other people could see and then
make contact. I think that is the most prevalent mode of communication.
Becca thinks of social media as a way for the GMC not only to update current KCP participants,
but attract new participants to the program. The process of a teacher “liking” a Facebook or
Instagram post from the GMC would allow anyone who is friends with a teacher on Facebook or
follows a particular teacher on Instagram to also see KCP updates. It is important to note that
Becca was the teacher who was skeptical of the KCP at first, she was worried about signing up
and being charged a fee in the future. Having the KCP program vetted by other teachers would
alleviate that fear for new participants.
Another teacher suggestion was for the KCP to create more networking opportunities.
The KCP already offers networking opportunities through Newaukee, a young professional’s
network organization in Milwaukee. However, teachers thought that online networking
opportunities may be better received by teachers and fit the hectic work schedule new teachers
have. Wanda suggested, “A teacher online community. It would be nice if we were able to
collaborate with other teachers. Just to get a mindset of what they are doing at home so we can
take their ideas but everything is about time.” Wanda’s comment connected with two issues the
KCP struggled with— getting teachers to use KCP cultural institution resources professionally,
and giving teachers access to KCP benefits while working around busy schedules. Creating an
online community where teachers could connect with each other and share ideas about how they

78

use KCP cultural institutions would allow teachers to use KCP benefits when time permits.
Similarly, Ellen proposed,
Host a virtual meeting, like group Skype or something that you could meet face-to-face at
a certain time. The only reason I suggest that is because I enjoy a leadership program, and
they tried to host two student gatherings, but I don’t think they were really successful
because people are just busy in the evening. So instead they created this online meeting
that you could register for and just login or click on the link to join the group.
Again the use of a virtual meeting platform would allow teachers to use KCP resources and
benefits, and network with other teachers from home at any time.
Teachers also believed a compilation of resources would help participants to use the KCP
professionally. Again Wanda advised colleting lessons teachers had already created and sharing
them in an online platform. She also suggested categorizing the lessons by grade level so
teachers could easily search for lessons that fit what they are teaching in the classroom,
You could put it out there to other teachers that are interested because you just never
know. Maybe you could have some teachers that incorporate going to the museum or
going to Discover World, the botanical garden. I think that would be a great idea and let
me add just don’t have it be something k-8 or even up to high school because it can be
overwhelming when you have to grade papers and looking at being an effective educator.
You don’t have the time you wish you could have, you know, to make those lessons, so
to already have something in place would be awesome.
Survey teachers had similar ideas, “It would be easier for me if I had an electronic copy or way
to monitor it electronically. It sounds like there is a vast amount of information/resources that I
am not aware of.” Survey teachers also mentioned creating a list about KCP field trips,
“Something saying how much a field trip would cost to each location (an estimate).”
In order to get more teachers to sign up for the KCP and attend KCP events survey and
interview teachers suggested updating outreach efforts. For example Greg advised that senior
teachers’ pay a small fee for ongoing access to the KCP,
Right exactly because there are too many teachers for it to be like, it wouldn’t be
financial stable to allow every teacher in Milwaukee to get free admission for a year. But
79

I think you could sell it as the third plus year. Experienced teachers would pay something
minor. I declined renewing my membership because it was like $80 or something for the
art museum, no I’m not going to pay that, but would I pay $20/ $25? Yeah, probably and
so I feel like that might be a potential negotiating piece to consider.
One teacher from the survey recommended promoting KCP events to participants as an
experience they could share with friends and other educators,
It would be cool to get email updates about events, exhibits, etc. happening at the
different Key to the City partners/organizations. I would be more likely to bring it up to a
friend and attend if that were the case. Or if Teachtown organized days where teachers
went to one of the organizations on a tour or trip, just to make more of an active
effort/push to get teachers to go, even like “Teachtown Milwaukee Art Museum day”
where teachers had a reason to attend.
Lisa endorsed the use of MPS schools to promote the KCP program and connect with new
teachers,
If you got buy in from schools the schools could promote the program with their new
teachers. It would help Teachtown connect to new educators too because schools are
going to be the first ones that know of new educators coming in. So maybe if there was a
way to promote the program or say hey are you looking for [xyz] when you do a new hire
something like that.
My analysis of survey and focus group data revealed several patterns of teachers’ KCP use. The
main benefits included: access to free tickets; stress relief; greater ease of exploring the city; and
teachers’ feeling a connection to the community. Through my examination of patterns of
teachers’ KCP use I also identified barriers that exits (e.g., lack of communication and lack of
personal time to use KCP). I continue my discussion of benefits, barriers, and teacher
suggestions in chapter 6 to advise the GMC on ways to make the KCP program more accessible
to teachers. In the chapter 6 discussion I also further evaluate these patterns to highlight best
practices for other cities interested in forming large community support networks for novice
teachers.

80

CHAPTER 5
Case Study Teacher Resource Use

In this chapter I discuss my three case study teachers, their artifacts, and the resources
they use while teaching. The chapter is divided into four main sections: 1) artifacts, 2) personal
resources, 3) conventional resources, and 4) environmental resources. Within each of the four
main sections are three subsections dedicated to each of the case study teachers—Greg, Wanda,
and Lisa. In this chapter I address the following research questions: (1) Do teachers who
participate in the KCP program incorporate community/cultural institution resources in their
teaching practices, and if so how? (2) What barriers exist? and (3) Do participant teachers
display the skill of relational agency, does this skill apply to KCP use?
My analysis of case study teacher data in connection to the three research questions listed
above allows me to better understand whether teachers accept and use outside resources in the
classroom and for their own professional development. The use of cultural institution resources
has been shown to help teachers gain access to a wide range of subject area content; promote
multidisciplinary learning; and impact student motivation and achievement (Abazaoglu &
Aztekin, 2016; Barry 2012; Dentith & McCarry, 2003; Hopkins, Rulli, Schiff, & Fradera, 2015;
Spybrook & Walker, 2012). However, access to resources does not always guarantee teachers
will use these resources. Thus, identifying teachers’ application of relational agency— the ability
to use resources from multiple contexts to solve a problem (Edwards, 2005a) is imperative.
Examination of case study teachers’ use of resources (personal, conventional, and
environmental) also helped me unpack what support systems fostered or inhibited the
development of relational agency.

81

I begin the chapter with an overview of the artifacts each teacher provided me. Each case
study teacher was sent the following prompt:
To better understand the resources that you use in the classroom I will be asking case
study teachers to provide 3-4 examples of resources that you have used this year while
teaching. I would ask that every case study teacher email one lesson plan from this year
and a list of materials that you used for this lesson (material examples: worksheet,
textbooks, websites, manipulatives/ objects that students used for the lesson) as one of the
resource examples. The other 2-3 resources that you select are up to you. Some ideas for
these resources are: 1) Any resources that you have created yourself, 2) School/ district
curriculum that you use often, 3) Textbooks that you use often, 4) Websites that you use
to create lessons/ gather information, 5) Human resources: other educators/ colleagues/
groups that help you plan lessons gather ideas for your classroom, 6) Manipulatives/
objects that you have had students use in the classroom, 7) examples of field trips that
you have taken.
I then analyzed the resources teachers used through the lens of personal, conventional, and
environmental resources. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of relational agency and
expertise connected to use of resources, and a collective analysis of teacher resource use. The
analysis here was used to examine in detail individual teachers’ goals in order to offer an
explanation and expand on general patterns of KCP use seen in Chapter 4, and which I explore in
more depth in Chapter 6.
Artifacts
The artifacts that each case study teacher submitted had a dual purpose—1) they allowed
me to examine the types of lessons these teachers were regularly teaching in their classrooms,

82

and 2) opening my interviews with the discussion of the teacher’s artifacts gave participants a
tangible example in which to describe their teaching style. This in turn enabled our discussion to
open to a broader conversation around other resources they draw from while teaching. In this
section I discuss each case study teacher’s artifact, in each instance teachers submitted several
lesson plans or an entire unit as their artifact. The subject area that teachers’ artifacts focused on
differ for two reasons: 1) each teacher taught different grade levels and subject areas and 2) the
prompt I sent each teacher allowed for subject variation because KCP cultural institution
resources have the potential to connect to a variety of subject areas (e.g., science, math, art,
social studies). In this section I also review the resources that teachers used in conjunction with
the lessons submitted. Any additional resources not connected to the artifacts are analyzed in the
conventional, personal, and environmental resource sections.
Greg. Greg selected a unit on inference to send as his artifact. The unit was comprised of
three lesson plans: 1) Inferential vs. Explicit Reading Comprehension; 2) Inference Practice
using a Photograph; and 3) Inferring by Citing Textual Evidence. Greg included all of the
instructional materials used for each of the three lessons. This packet contained worksheets, an
image of a daily effort and behavior tracker, a sample class agenda from lesson one, an image of
the weekly schedule, and an image of classroom rules.
Due to the fact Greg was not given a set curriculum we spent a good amount of time
discussing who he reached out to when developing lesson plans for his students. Within his
school he worked closely with the general education teachers who also taught his students. For
example when discussing how he created the unit on inferences Greg mentioned the English
teacher, “she identified a specific standard, and that was a ninth and tenth English standard. She
provided me a little bit of baseline data just with how successful my students had been

83

previously with inferences, and they weren’t very successful.” From the data that the English
teacher provided Greg identified three different skills that he focused on for the unit,— 1)
helping students distinguish between explicit reading comprehension and inferential
comprehension, 2) having students practice making inferences using pictures, 3) using text to as
evidence for making an inference. Greg designed the unit so that each of the skills built on the
other, scaffolding student learning around inferences.
Each of the three lessons had a worksheet connected to the lesson, Greg and I discussed
what resources were necessary for him to create the worksheets. Greg recalled, “I started with a
very simple Google search of high school inference worksheets. And that was where some of the
text came from.” Greg could not remember the name of website that he used but believed that “it
was one of those like not teachers’ pay teachers but something comparable, just like a place
where teachers upload stuff for other teachers to download.” After he downloaded worksheets
from the website he would edit the worksheet to fit the needs of his students and his unit goals.
For example he inserted his own pictures for the worksheets using resources such as Teaching
Tolerance: The Perspectives for Diverse America.
The unit plan that Greg submitted as his artifact demonstrated one of the main goals that
he had for his students—to help them succeed in their general education courses. Greg noted that
he was often working with the general education teachers to figure out where his students were
struggling, what material they needed to review, and whether there was any work that they
needed to make up. Analysis of my interview with Greg revealed that he did use cultural
institution resources. However, these resources did not connect back to the KCP program. I
discuss these findings in more detail in the conventional resource and relational agency sections.

84

Wanda. Wanda sent me an entire week of lesson plans for each of the subjects that she
taught. She elected to use the math unit as her artifact, along with the resources connected to the
math unit. The resources that she used included: Glencoe Math textbook, paper, pencil, colored
pencils, YouTube video on integers, smartboard, and www.ixl.com. While Wanda did designate
the math unit as her main artifact she also attached a list of other resources that she uses in other
subject areas. These resources include: Kahootit.com, Classzone.com, and Brainpop.com.
Wanda’s math unit was typed into a lesson template that was given to her by the school.
She was required to provide very specific information about each subject each week. The
template the school provided its teachers ensured each teacher provided uniform lesson plan
information. The items that each teacher must fill out and build their lesson around included:
common core standards, state standards, cultural relevance, Webb’s depth of knowledge usage,
learning intentions, success criteria, assessments, how the teacher will launch the lesson, have
students explore the content, and how the teacher/ students will summarize what has been
learned.
The strand that her lesson was connected with was—”Apply and extend previous understandings
of addition and subtraction to add and subtract rational numbers; represent addition and
subtraction on a horizontal or vertical number line diagram.” When asked what her goals for
students were in this lesson Wanda explained,
Well, integers are hard for students, so giving them other opportunities, that’s why a
number line was provided, showing them using colored pencils. Using that, because
sometimes you have your visual learners or sometimes people need to hear it. So I was
just trying to touch on those intelligence with them so they can understand how to add
and subtract integers. So I think my goal was successful, somewhat. I mean, you still
have students that sometimes they don’t get what you’re doing so you have to go over it.
But I think, for the most part, they caught on to it.

85

Wanda referred to “those intelligences” giving a nod to Gardner’s multiple intelligences, she was
trying to explain that she liked to help both audio and visual learners during math lessons.
Wanda also clarified that when students did not understand certain topics she also used videos to
help students visualize what they were struggling with. For this math unit she incorporated a
YouTube video on integers to help students. During math lessons Wanda liked to use the website
www.ixl.com, she explained, “you have to pay for it, but they give you a few problems where
you can work with the integers. So I’ll put that up on the SMART Board and I’ll work with
them.” She also encouraged students to follow along at their desks and solve the problem that
she was working on with the students at the front of the classroom. She believed that requiring
the rest of the class to follow along and solve the same problem allowed for more practice as
well as offered another visual representation of the math content they were working on.
The lessons that Wanda submitted as artifacts are telling of the school environment that
she teaches in. Much of what she did as a teacher is scripted by the school and district, not giving
her much leeway to create her own lessons or to seek outside resources to bring into her
classroom. She had to be particular about the resources that she did use and made sure they
aligned closely with school and district goals. Wanda did use cultural institution resources,
however these resources were not highlighted by the artifacts that she submitted. I discuss
Wanda’s use of cultural institution resources in the convention resource and relational agency
sections of this chapter.
Lisa. Lisa decided to send a six-week science unit, one of the experiments connected to
the unit, and the materials that were used to teach the unit as her artifacts. The science unit was
based on natural resources—how humans use natural resources, and the effect humans have on
the environment through use of natural resources. Lisa collaborated with the other fourth-grade

86

teacher to create the unit, she recalled, “we don’t follow a specific science curriculum at my
school. So this is just coming from NGSS and state standards. So I chose natural resources
because it went along with the social studies unit that the English teacher was teaching.”
Although the school did not have a set curriculum, teachers were required to use a “bilingual unit
framework (BUF)” when planning a unit or lesson. Lisa explained a BUF included,
all the vocabulary for English and Spanish, and typically we start our units by teaching
different new vocabulary using TPR, total physical response— it’s a strategy used for
second language learners. To build oracy [public speaking skills] we start the unit with
TPR and learning our vocabulary using PowerPoints, word searches— different things to
build oracy with all of the new vocabulary.
Several different nonfiction text were used along with unit. Lisa included an article about
Chilean miners, books from the school library on rocks, minerals, and water. She also used the
websites Science A to Z and Raz Kids, which provided leveled reading materials for elementary
students. From these sites she found readings focused on different natural resources, the ways
humans get energy, and consequences of humans using the earth’s natural resources. Lisa also
included two fiction texts, A Featherbed for Agatha, and The Lorax—students were given the
Spanish version of these texts to read. Along with the readings Lisa also used video clips to
illustrate content discussed in the readings. For example she searched for and included a clip on
the Chilean miners to accompany the article that she gave students to read. Lisa also used
BrianPOP videos, and commented, “I used that a lot because it’s a really great resource in
English and it’s also in Spanish.”
The lesson plan that Lisa included along with her unit was an experiment called “Cookie
Mining.” Lisa explained,
This experiment was part of the larger natural resources unit, and focused in on one
specific way that humans can affect the earth. Basically what the kids did was they had
two different chocolate chip cookies, one hard one and one soft one. And they used
toothpicks to act like they were mining - the chocolate chips are like the coal out of the
87

cookie, and basically use a graphic organizer and a recording sheet to record all the data.
What it was like to—how they affected their cookie. How the mining affected it. Was
it— did it break the cookie? What happened to it? And thinking really critically about the
environmental damages that mining can cause.
Lisa included pictures of the students working, how the cookies looked after the students had
“mined” for the chocolate chips/ coal. Each image contained two cookies that were shattered by
the mining experiment. The goal of this experiment was to help students understand that when
humans take natural resources, such as coal, from the ground the end result is often the
destruction of the surrounding environment. From the images that Lisa provided it appeared that
students were successful in mining their chocolate chips, but understood to do so they had to
destroy their cookies. At the end of the experiment students were given a worksheet to calculate
how much money they made from mining coal, they also had to calculate the amount of carbon
that was used in the process. Lisa mentions that the worksheet “tied in with a math unit that we
are doing also on multiplication so I tried to integrate those two things together.”
The artifacts that Lisa submitted illustrated the complexities of teaching in a dual
language classroom. As a teacher she was tasked with teaching general education subjects, such
as science, but also needed to consider how she would teach these subjects in a second
language—Spanish. Lisa’s school did not provide her with a set curriculum for general education
subjects, but did require her to use a set framework when planning her lessons. The framework
ensured that Lisa was teaching students using strategies that were appropriate for second
language learners. Such strategies included beginning all lessons with new vocabulary—
presenting all new vocabulary first in English and then in Spanish, while the reminder of the
lesson was taught primarily in Spanish.

88

Personal Resources
In this section I review the personal resources that each case study teacher discussed
during his or her interview. Recall that personal resources are considered to be a teacher’s
background knowledge, views about students, and motivation. Due to the nature of personal
resources much of this sections analysis is framed by what teachers identified as their goals for
their students.
Greg. While the lessons that Greg shared did reflect his goal of working with general
education teachers to help his students succeed in general education classes, one of the
documents that he provided was more telling of his own personal goals and teaching style. At the
very end of his materials packet was a picture of two bright orange pieces of poster board, the
top of the first poster read: “Rules.” Although these poster boards did not seem connected to
Greg’s inference lessons he decided to include them. Curious, I inquired as to why these images
were attached in his materials packet. He explained that at the beginning of his first year he tried
to create a set of classroom rules,
It was pretty chaotic and I had published rules in the start of the school because you know
everyone said you need to post rules, you need to do all of these things. And so I gave
them rules that were also hanging up in the room.
However, Greg found that students did not always follow his rules until one of his students
suggested that they build the class rules together,
My students’ social studies curriculum is citizenship, that’s the content. And so at one
point, they were learning about the Magna Carta in October of 2014 and they were like,
“We need to do a Magna Carta in this class and we need to make the rules.” And I was
like, “That actually sounds really cool.”
At first glance the posters seemed like a normal set of classroom rules, but when looking closer
you can see the list created by the class contains rules such as, “Care for each other even outside
89

class” and “Stay focused, stay on task, work hard, don’t give up.” The bottom of the last poster
reads: “We agree: to the rules and procedures WE created as a class; to make changes as we see
fit as a class; to accept consequences when we are not being our best selves”, faintly below were
the signatures of each student in Greg’s class. Greg refered to the classroom rules as a living
document, one that the class has revisited. Greg described the beginning of the first year with
these students as chaotic, conversely, having the class Magna Carta provided a stable
environment in the second year for his returning students.
Greg took care to integrate what students were learning in their general education classes
into his own curriculum, and also acted on student suggestions when they were interested in a
particular aspect of their general education courses. The rules poster offered and excellent
example of Greg’s drive to integrate student interest and content within his own classroom.
Another example was the use of a Beyoncé music video to discuss social justice issues with his
students. For this lesson Greg worked with the school psychologist. The school psychologist
helped him to break down the symbolism in the video before they presented it to students. Greg
explained,
And so that was a unit that students were really engaged in, but again it was really just,
really—well in that instance, they worked with the school psychologist just because
there’s very few of us who are teachers and who have seen the Beyoncé music video. Just
age-wise in the building, there’s most of the teachers are significantly older and not really
into Beyoncé. And so that disconnect can be challenging sometimes. The school
psychologist and I actually worked together to break down some of the symbolism in the
music video. And then worked with students as they were watching it to be like, “Hmm,
what does this image mean?” And they were researching it so that was a really fun
lesson. But again, it was very much labor intensive on my part.
One of the main goals Greg had for his students was to help them succeed outside of school. To
do this Greg integrated learning experiences into his class that dealt with day to day life skills.
Greg noted,

90

So I will say that my primary focus with my students has been more on developing those
soft skills. Obviously, you can’t teach behaviors and transition skills in a vacuum, like
academics are really important for teaching those skills, however, I will say that I really
place a lot of emphasis on restorative practices and the social and emotional learning
component. And so I would say that if I had one goal it would really be about
demonstrating professional behavior and exhibiting themselves in a way that makes them
employable and just successful in their regular education classes. So I will definitely say
like my one goal for them is more behavioral than I think a lot of teachers would be just
because that is A, where their primary deficits and needs are but also B, where we’ve
made the most growth.
Another example of Greg focusing on skills needed outside of the classroom was his
incorporation of a financial literacy curriculum into his class. He took his students on a field trip
where “[they] go to this very authentic experience of like paying bills and buying a car.” It is
important to note that Greg decided to take his students on a field trip even though they are often
excluded from such trips because of behavior issues. Greg could view his students as the
administration does—unable to handle learning experiences outside of the school. However,
Greg stressed the importance of such trips in fostering student’s life skills. Greg also used this
reasoning when explaining why he did not use KCP cultural institutions with his students. “I did
not personally take my students because I work with high school and I didn’t feel like it was the
most applicable for them but I really encouraged one of my co-workers to organize a field trip
for her middle school students.”
Wanda. Much of what Wanda did as a teacher was driven by school and district goals
and standards. When discussing how and why she chooses the lessons she did as a teacher she
stated, “Well, it’s certain stuff as a teacher that we have to teach and still—because our
curriculum is designed with standards that need to be met before they go on to the next grade
level. So I do it because I know—that’s my job. I have to do it.” Wanda elaborated that what she
added with her own personal teaching goals was,

91

Really work[ing] on differentiated learning because everybody really does not learn the
same way. So giving them other avenues to learn things, I think that’s very helpful.
That’s my goal. I want to make sure that no matter how you learn or which way you may
learn, you need to understand this material going forward.
Another goal that Wanda had as a teacher was to keep students moving, to have several
“interactive” moments during a lesson. She believed that, “with all this technology that’s going
on now, their [students] attention span is about five seconds at the most. It could be less than
that. So it’s hard to keep their attention.” The way that Wanda keept students attention was to
integrate as many technology based moments into a lesson as she could. This tendency was
shown through the many websites and smart board activities that she integrated into her lessons:
YouTube.com, Kahootit.com, Classzone.com, Brainpop.com, Achieve3000, and www.ixl.com,
to name a few. She lamented about the way teachers use to teach,
The process that we had as a student - I couldn’t say how old you are - but as for myself,
I might have went through as a student, I can’t do what my teacher did for me. So just
trying to keep it interactive so I keep their attention.
She remembered having to sit still while being lectured to as a student, but realized that this
method of teaching would not work for her own students. Her solution was to integrate as many
technology based activities into her lesson as possible. When her students were required to read
from the textbook she used ClassZone to read passages to her students. She explained this was
both to help students comprehend the text and to help her scaffold the reading:
Literature, I think sometimes they don’t understand it. So, to me, having them actually
read it to them, it kind of puts the kids at more of an advantage, to me, that they’re not
stumbling over words they don’t know, you know? So we can set the tone. “Okay, this is
ClassZone and it’s reading to you. You’re not going to be sitting there. You need to make
sure you’re taking active notes.” And then I sit and have dialogue with them as they’re
reading. “How can you connect with this?” or, “What do you think is going to happen
next?” Having them predict. Or, “What can you infer about this picture in the text?” So I
think they understand it a little bit more. So I kind of— I love it, honestly. It’s able to

92

read to them so they understand these words. But there are times when they don’t
understand words. They just chop it up. Like they look for the teacher to explain it.
In addition Wanda had attended several professional development events. The theme of the
majority of the professional development events that Wanda elected to take part in connects to
how to better reach her students. For example she attended a culturally responsive teaching PD,
and another on how to deal with student aggression—not student on student aggression, but how
to deal with students that were being aggressive towards the teacher.
Lisa. Lisa strived to integrate the subjects that she taught, most often she integrated
literacy and science. Lisa did this through the use of nonfiction and fiction readings in science,
and gave the example of a science lesson on chives—“I taught non-fiction text features, when we
studied chives. So we look at the non-fiction text about a topic and they learn about text features.
So that’s what I do for science and literacy is integrated.” She also used this strategy for her unit
on natural resources, where she introduced students to several different kinds of text—articles,
leveled books, and fiction such as The Lorax. Lisa mentioned that math was regularly taught
separately, but integrated it into science when she could. She used the example of the cookie
mining worksheet where students were asked various multiplication questions, thus, connecting
the mining experiment to her student’s math unit on multiplication.
Due to the fact that Lisa taught students in a dual language classroom she often used
acting as a teaching strategy, she reasoned, “especially with second language learners. It gives
them a really great opportunity to practice their oral language skills, their listening skills,
comprehension. It’s really, really ideal for any language learners.” Lisa helped her students with
their reading skills through a “daily size framework”, she began the lesson as an entire class, “on
whatever readings skill we’re working on for a whole group for 20 minutes.” Lisa then broke the

93

students up into five different reading stations and required them to “read to yourself, read to
your partner, listen to readings, word work, and writing.”
When asked what her main goal is for students Lisa answered,
Let’s see. I guess, my biggest goal for my students is literacy, like academic-wise.
Because that’s one of the big focuses at our school is bilingualism and bi-literacy. So my
goal— and this is related to my SLL this year, my educator effectiveness goal, was to
bring up my kids’ reading level. So that was a big one. So I guess also one of my big
goals is for my students to be self-motivated and independent learners. And I really try in
my classroom to make things really student-centered and more student talk than teacher
talk. I create these and facilitate these opportunities for them to learn, but I want them to
be the main drivers of their learning.
Based on her answer of what her goals were as a teacher, I prompted Lisa to describe how she
made her classroom an environment that promoted her students to be independent learners. Lisa
explained that she tried to do project-based learning and inquiry- based learning, using strategies
where “they [students] can do a lot of exploring and make their own discoveries.” To illustrate
this point Lisa gave the example of a science lesson based on natural disasters:
We studied them in general what they were all about and then we kind of did a research
project to go along with it. And I let my kids kind of decide on their own what they
wanted to study and what they were interested in, and it really helped them be— they
were engaged in it because they could choose what they wanted to learn about. They
were more engaged to find out about their topic. So, I guess they just kind of took the
reins on that, and I obviously had guidelines and things for them to follow, but it was
very open in terms of what they could research.
Lisa, like Greg, was not restricted with a set curriculum, this left her open to plan lessons with
other teachers in her school when she deemed the collaboration to be appropriate. Unlike Wanda,
Lisa did not appear to be as stressed about the amount of material that needed to be covered.
Again this may be due to the fact that Wanda had a set curriculum, and needed to meet very
specific goals set by the school, while Lisa did not. Lisa’s school did require teachers to have an
educator effectiveness goal, but teachers were able to set this goal for themselves. Because Lisa
taught in a dual language classroom, her goal was tied to her students building bi-literacy skills.
94

Wanda connected her goals with school and district goals because that was required for her to be
considered a “good” teacher in her school. She stressed the use of technology in her lessons
because she believed technology would keep her students attention. This belief at times created a
surface level integration of technology into Wanda’s lessons. In other words, she would use a
website or video clip, not because it fit well into her lesson, but because she thought she had a
better chance of holding students attention. Greg associated his goals with his aspirations for
students outside of his classroom— to function in society, and this drove his lessons, and
directed the types of out of school activities that he pursued with his students. Greg also wanted
to help his students succeed in their general education classes. This led him to work closely with
the general education teachers in his school to help shape the topics and skills he focused on with
students in his own lessons.
Conventional Resources
In this section I review the conventional resources each case study teacher discussed
during their interview. Conventional resources are considered to be what most people think of as
traditional material resources (e.g. books, time, class size, monetary resources). I elaborate on the
materials connected to teacher artifacts as well as additional conventional resources teachers use
in their general teaching practice.
Greg. While discussing his inference unit Greg mentioned using Diverse Perspectives for
America: Anti- bias Framework,
Teaching Tolerance’s Anti-bias Framework is a groundbreaking set of anchor standards
and grade-level outcomes divided into four domains: Identity, Diversity, Justice and
Action. The Anti-bias Framework is ideal for teachers who embrace social justice and
backward planning. It also supports the creation of essential questions to drive student
inquiry (Perspectives for a diverse America, 2017).

95

After reviewing his artifacts we revisited this resource, which led Greg to talk about several other
websites related to reading,
I know I’ve mentioned Diverse Perspectives for America and Teaching Tolerance. That’s
one that I love and I feel like I use it a decent amount, but would love to use it more
because I feel like it’s an incredible resource. News E-L-A or Newsela, I’m not really
sure how you pronounce that one, is a website where it has Associated Press news
articles, and you can differentiate the reading level. CNN News, that’s like a big one. In
terms of quantity, like the ones I’ve used most, it’s probably Newsela and the CNN
Student News just given the structure of my class. The one that I would think is the most
helpful long-term would probably be that Diverse—The Diverse Prospectus for America,
the Teaching Tolerance curriculum just because it’s common core aligned. It’s just an
amazing curriculum.
Greg used CNN often as a way to connect his students to the world around them. He discovered
early on in his teaching career that many of his students did not follow the news,
So we started getting that last year just because one student made reference to something
going on in Ferguson, Missouri, and the other students were like, “What’s going in
Ferguson, Missouri?” and I was like, “Okay, well you are all 15 to 17-year-old African
American teens in an urban center. We need to know what’s going on.” So I started using
CNN Student News and that kind of became a stable continuous thread throughout the
school year. So yeah, between units we’ll do a lot with that.
As a teacher Greg strived to help his students prepare for life outside of school. Greg saw being
connected and aware of the world as an important life skill. He used CNN regularly with his
students to help them build this skill.
In addition to Newsela and CNN Greg also used Achieve 3000 for student reading. He
chose to use Achieve 3000 because, “it is like Newsela and as the teacher you can build class
lists.” The website also contained leveled articles and the students could answer reading
comprehension questions to earn points.
Greg also found Google to be a helpful resource for him and his students. He explained,
It’s not so much curricular but I do use Google, not Google Classroom because my
students don’t really have access to technology at home or outside of school. So I don’t
use Google Classroom in the way that I think it’s designed to where students and teachers

96

are interacting. But Google Spreadsheets, Google Docs, Google Presentations, Google
Forms, I’ve used that as a resource pretty substantially.
He chose to use Google when in the classroom because students could invite others to edit the
documents they were working on, this way he could see students working in “real time” as they
completed class assignments.
One resource that Greg mentioned time and again during our interview was Junior
Achievement. When I asked him to talk a bit about the program and why he uses it he stated,
Junior Achievement is a non-profit. It’s national. The Wisconsin branch has a facility
where kids can— teachers can bring their students and learn about financial literacy.
Prior to that, there is a curriculum that Junior Achievement gives to teachers. We attend a
half-day training, full-day training a lot - six hours, so more than half day - where we
kind of are taught how to do it, how to teach the curriculum and then get to go through
the simulation that the students go through on the field trip, we go through it ourselves.
And so that was one of the units that I did.
Aside from Junior Achievement providing curriculum along with training, Greg decided to use
this resource because it aligns with his desire to help students function outside of the classroom.
Greg understood that financial literacy was a skill his students would need in the “real world.”
He also knows that Junior Achievement was a field trip that all MPS students took in eighth
grade. While Greg’s students were in high school he recognized that many of his students were
not given the chance to participate in Junior Achievement in eighth grade because of their
behavior problems. Essentially Greg is trying to make up for opportunities his students missed
and which he believed to be important for their growth, not only as students, but as adults. The
use of Junior Achievement reflected Greg using the skill of relational agency, however, this skill
was not connected to the KCP program. Greg did not use KCP resources professionally.
Conversely, I am not stating that Greg did not use KCP cultural institutions, he did personally,
which I discussed in chapter 4.

97

Wanda. Wanda relied heavily on web based resources in her classroom. As I mentioned
in the personal resources section she believed that using a variety of technology-based materials
would help keep her students’ attention longer. Wanda stressed that for many of these web-based
materials a SMART board was necessary. Her school provided each teacher with a SMART
board, and each student in the class had access to a Chromebook. Below I expand on the
websites that she used in the classroom and in what context she used each.
Wanda explained that during math lessons she would often use YouTube videos to
expand on a topic that students were struggling with. This connected to her intention of helping
students that were visual learners. When reviewing subjects (including math) she would use
kahoot.it. She saw this website as an assessment tool that encouraged competition in the class,
and kept students engaged in a lesson. Wanda elaborated,
I use it as an assessment and at times it’s just fine with the kids because it’s competitive,
and they love to compete. So normally, with kahoot.it, you can create your own kahoot or
you can look for a public kahoot. Somebody else made it and made it public. And then,
when I do play it in the class, the student that won the game, I give them a nice treat
because that kind of empowers them to say, “Okay, I get this. I understand it.” So it kind
of puts that competition piece in the classroom.
Wanda used ClassZone in language arts and science class. She explained that the students’
science text books were pre-loaded into the website, as well as their literature books, “all I have
to do is pick the page number, and it starts reading to them. We can pause it. We can start back
up. Really, the kids don’t need a textbook, but it’s helpful because they can keep along, take
notes while being on task.” An additional online tool that Wanda used that was similar to
ClassZone is Achieve3000. Achieve3000 helps differentiate the readings for students, Wanda
stated, “they get the article based on their reading level at the time, most of the kids will increase
their reading level. So it kind of closes the achievement gap.” Another resource that she used
during science lessons is BrainPOP, which provided videos on a variety of science topics. She
98

tended to use this resources “once or twice a week” depending on how closely the video content
connected with the content that was being discussed in science for the week. Wanda’s use of
BrainPOP videos again illustrated her goal of reaching visual learners in her class.
While discussing the types of field trips she takes her students on, Wanda noted the
majority of the field trips were dictated by the school/ district. For example Wanda recalled
going to an iFair, “we went to iFair twice. But like I said, that was all MPS-geared, so I really
didn’t have leeway.” iFairs were events where local technology and engineering business had
booths and could speak to students about the skills needed to work in these fields. The iFair was
often held in a local high school, but middle school students were allowed to participate. The
only field trip that Wanda could recall initiating was a college tour— she wanted to take her
students to the University of Madison. In response to this request the principal allowed Wanda’s
students to participate in GEAR UP. GEAR UP is a college program to help students understand
that there are options when they graduate— community college, university, and scholarships if
they decide to go to college. GEAR UP essentially followed students from the time they entered
the program (for Wanda’s students, seventh grade) until they graduated from high school. Along
the way GEAR UP helped students apply for and receive scholarship at money. Wanda recalled,
MPS, pretty much paid for it because they have a GEAR UP program. So I would say for
the most part, they tell us where we need to go, but we do have leeway to ask the
principal, “Where can we go?” It’s just you have to make your plans accordingly.
Wanda was not able to take her students to the local natural history museum (a KCP cultural
institution), however, she did use material from the museum while teaching. She explained,
We were just looking at the geological timeline. Just looking at that timeline and showing
the crustaceous period, you know the different types of eras. Just looking at that aspect
and that they had that at the Milwaukee Public Museum just using that as an outing.

99

Saying it’s there if you go on, you know sometimes they go on outings with their families
so that they can look at those types of things.
Although Wanda could not take her students physically to the museum she did see the
applicability of museum resources to her science lesson. She also recognized that students may
be able to visit the museum on their own time, and stressed to students that they could view the
content they were learning about at the museum with their families. Wanda’s use of the Public
Museum’s geological timeline demonstrated the skill of relational agency in connection to the
KCP program. While, Wanda’s school’s field trip policies prohibited her from taking students on
KCP cultural institution field trips, she was still able to integrate KCP cultural institution
resources into her curriculum.
Lisa. Because Lisa’s school did not provide a set curriculum for general education
subjects she conducted her own searched for a curriculum that she could pull from. She found an
open source online curriculum called Engage New York (https://www.engageny.org/) that she
used often. Engage New York is a K-8 curriculum which was designed to support the New York
State Board of Regents Reform Agenda and provides scripted lesson plans for English Language
Arts and math, worksheets, students workbooks, and assessments (Engage New York, 2017).
Engage New York also provides teachers with online professional development and information
on data driven instruction (Engage New York, 2017). Lisa clarified,
It’s really integrated with the Common Core, so it’s a pretty rigorous curriculum. Often
times I’ve had to change things or edit things or make things shorter because the lessons
are often super long and they could go for two or three days. But I try and get most of my
stuff from there just because it’s a good place to start.
Although Lisa used Engage New York as a starting point for her lessons she frequently had to
adjust or create her own worksheets because her students were learning in a second language.

100

Lisa also found that she needed to modify the teaching style promoted in the lessons to better
match her schools BUF framework and dual language learning strategies.
Lisa’s students used Tesoros, a Spanish reading textbook for their literacy curriculum.
As an additional artifact Lisa sent an excerpt from their text book. The story she provided was an
Aesop’s fable about the sun and wind. The story was set up as a play would be, with a narrator,
and the three characters—the sun, the wind, and the boy. To help students better understand the
story she had them act it out as they read it out loud. This strategy aligned with Lisa’s belief that
acting out a reading was a good teaching strategy to use with dual language learners. The other
resources that she used often in her literacy class were Reading A-Z and Science A-Z, both were
online resources that provided leveled reading materials in English and in Spanish.
Lisa was able to bring her students on several field trips during her first year as a teacher,
including: the art museum (KCP cultural institution), the science museum (KCP cultural
institution), Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra (KCP cultural institution), Indian Summer Festival,
and a Milwaukee Brewers baseball game (KCP partner organization). She emphasized that she
was able to go on these field trips for two reasons—1) her school has a grant program that funds
several field trips throughout the year, and 2) the field trips were aligned with what her students
were learning in the classroom. The art museum trip was tied to the fourth-grade state standard
of learning about Wisconsin National Parks. Students were able to learn about Wisconsin history
through the museum’s art collection. The science museum field trip was prompted by a district
wide initiative called Learning Journey. Learning Journey is a program which connects MPS
students to learning opportunities outside of school. All fourth grade students in MPS visited the
science museum to learn about water, this trip connected directly to fourth grade state science
standards. Even what Lisa called “non-academic” field trips linked with content her students

101

were learning. For example, students went to the Indian Summer Festival because they were
working on a Native American unit.
Lisa demonstrated strong relational agency in connection to the KCP. Lisa was able to
take students on four field trips which linked to KCP partner organizations, three of which were
cultural institutions. The visit to the science museum was prompted by a district initiative which
all fourth grade students must take. However, without help Lisa was able connect her students’
social studies curriculum (learning about Wisconsin National Parks) to an art museum visit. Lisa
was able to connect KCP cultural institution resources to a wide range of subject matter (science,
social studies, art, and music) demonstrating the potential for other teachers to integrate KCP
resources into a variety of curriculum.
Environmental Resources
In this section I review the environmental resources that each case study teacher
discussed during their interview. Environmental resources are peers, collegial support,
administrative support, and interactions with students and parents—or the human resources that
teachers use. It is important to note the environmental resources examined often go beyond the
school the teacher works in. This in turn indicates there is potential to include KCP
environmental resources, such as access to museum educators, as a support for novice teachers.
Thus, in this section I include outside resources as well as the environmental resources teachers
have access to within their schools.
Greg. Although Greg considered the first year of teaching a challenge due to a lack of
curriculum, he did find additional support through mentors in the community. One of the main
resources was his mentor from Teach for America. Greg explains, “A lot of resources came

102

directly from her. She worked as a special education teacher so some of the materials were
literally hers.” Greg was also encouraged to go on a specific field trip by his TFA mentor,
And so, my Teach for America mentor is the one who specifically— because I assumed
that it was just for eighth-grade students because that was my awareness of Finance Park
and she said, “No. There are actually whole days of high schoolers going.” And so, she
was the one who really pushed me to reach out to Finance Park, and then I scheduled the
field trip, and the training, and got the curriculum, and that’s all free.
When talking about what resources he would consider using with his students Greg continuously
referenced the field trip experience with Finance Park. He felt that this type of experience was in
line with his goals for his students—helping them to understand how to function in the world
after high school. When he explained his reservations about using the KCP professionally, Greg
mentioned his concerned about the applicability of the cultural institutions connected KCP to his
students’ lives beyond school, he stated, “I did not personally take my students because I work
high school and I didn’t feel like it was the most applicable for them but I really encouraged one
of my co-workers to organize a field trip for her middle school students.” When he discussed the
type of resource that he would use with his students, Greg referenced Finance Park again,
You teach this curriculum leading up to the field trip and then you go to this very
authentic experience of like paying bills and buying a car and all of these things. And I
did that with my students like when you are saying using it for professional reasons it’s
things like that, that like jump in to my mind that I would never ever use junior
achievement in my personal life but I’m thinking if the key to the city exposed me to that
I would have jumped on it in my first year rather than waiting and finding out about it
and using it in my second year.
Another concern for Greg, and reason he did not regularly use cultural institutions as a resource
in his class was constraints the school places on his students, “again, given their disabilities,
they’re often excluded from opportunities to leave the school.”
Through TFA Greg was taking graduate courses. The school that he was taking courses
through provided students with a mentor, which Greg explained was usually a senior teacher,

103

So in addition to professors who share resources and recommendations [they give us a]
mentor. So that person comes into our classes, observes, makes recommendations.
They’re usually pretty senior teachers. My mentor was a gentleman who had retired from
Milwaukee Public Schools working in a classroom just like mine. So he had a lot of
insight and resources.
Greg also found the peers that he worked with in the graduate program a reliable source of
information,
My classes are primarily comprised of other teachers, and they’re in Teach for America.
And they teach in similar settings to mine, so we’ve exchanged resources. They work in
other, more public, high schools as special-education teachers, so we’ve exchanged some
resources throughout the year, and they’re very, very helpful, too.
Within his school Greg often worked with general education teachers to help determine the skills
his students needed assistance with. The artifact he submitted was created with help from the
English teacher. Greg also discussed working with the school psychologist to create a lesson
based on social justice.
Wanda. Wanda used few environmental resources. She was given a mentor through MPS
for her first year of teaching, Wanda mentioned that the mentor was useful, “because some
things you just don’t know. In the district, there’s so much going on. So using them as a resource
and asking them, ‘Hey, where can I find this?’ is helpful.” However, in her second year she no
longer had an assigned mentor. When I asked if she worked with or has a mentor in her school
Wanda stated,
I would say I kind of get help sometimes from teachers. We may not teach the same way,
but as a middle school team, we do come together and see what is working for that one
teacher, what is not working, or just offer advice on what we’re doing at that time.
However, Wanda also specified this help only came during the schools required grade level
planning meetings—outside of these meetings she did not seek help from other teachers in her
school. Wanda has also received support from her school principal. For example, Wanda showed
104

interest in learning more about Wisconsin’s implementation of a new state wide exam to help
students meet state testing goals. She notified the principal of her interest and she was chosen to
participate in a professional development event which trained teachers about the new test. Wanda
then became her middle school team’s go to person for information on the test and how to best
prepare students to take the exam.
Lisa. While discussing support given to her at the school Lisa mentioned the school
support trainer, “I originally worked a lot with the school support teachers. But then that position
was removed from our school, so I kind of had to figure out a lot of stuff on my own.” She did
not work with other teachers in the school to plan lessons because she found herself in a “unique
position— it’s just me and another teacher. And then, the other teacher teaches all of the opposite
subjects that I teach, the subjects that I don’t teach, and then in English. So, we don’t plan
together, really, because she teaches different subjects in a different language.”
Lisa did not feel like she had the support of colleagues in her school but she did find
support outside of school. MPS gave all first-year teachers a mentor, Lisa found working with
her MPS mentor teacher somewhat helpful because the mentor could give an outside perspective
on her teaching. However, Lisa also felt a disconnect between the MPS mentor she was assigned
and what she was required to do as a teacher. Lisa elaborated, “She [the mentor] didn’t speak
Spanish, so it was really hard for her to comprehend what was going on in the classroom and
things like that. So in that sense, having someone in my school who understood the program and
understood Spanish was more helpful.” One more form of support Lisa received is through
Teach for America. TFA provides Lisa with an additional mentor. Lisa often used her TFA
mentor teacher to help with planning, “he sits down with me and we work on units together and
lesson plan together, and finding resources.” Additionally, Lisa was required to go to all MPS

105

New Teacher Institute sessions—topics ranged from the Charlotte Danielson Framework, to
classroom management, reading practices, literacy, and math. Teachers were allowed to choose
which topic they would attend based on the content area and grade level they were hired to teach.
Lisa choose to attend the professional development on effective literacy instruction and math
instruction for elementary students.
Relational Agency and Expertise
Relational agency is the skill of identifying resources outside of one’s professional work
environment and using these outside resources to assist in problem solving in the current work
environment (Edwards, 2005a). Edwards (2005b) states, “acting on our worlds requires us to
read the situation and draw on the most effective resources available in it to support our actions”
(p. 60). Thus, examining relational agency in the profession of teaching means looking not only
at teachers’ access and interpretation of resources, but the enactment of resources as a
professional tool. In this section I analyze each case study teacher’s use of resources through the
lens of relational agency, answering the following questions—Did I see teachers going beyond
the classroom for resources? Who did they interact with to obtain these resources? Did they
share resources with other teachers? Each case study teacher had a separate set of goals for their
students based on set curriculum, requirements of the school, and their hopes for students outside
of the classroom. These goals often had influence on the types of resources teachers were willing
to use with their students, thus, impacting their connection of relational agency to KCP program
resources.
Greg. Outside of his school Greg often found resources through TFA, specifically the
mentor that he was assigned to in TFA. Greg’s mentor gave him curriculum resources to review,
lessons to use in his own class, and also encouraged him to look into Junior Achievement as a

106

field trip for his students. Greg’s TFA mentor was also a special education teacher in MPS; their
shared subject area expertise allowed Greg to trust his mentor and feel confident using the
resources she gave him. Greg also found working with peers in his graduate courses helpful, as
they would regularly share resources with each other. Greg did not identify the KCP program as
a place he drew professional resources from. He believed that KCP cultural institution resources
were a better fit for younger students, not his high school students. However, through the KCP
program Greg was able to take a personal visit to the science museum. Because of this visit he
saw the connection of KCP resources to MPS middle school science curriculum and encouraged
a colleague, who is a middle school teacher, to bring her students on a field trip to the science
museum.
Greg had two primary goals for his students, 1) help students succeed in their general
education courses, and 2) aid students in the development of skills to help them as adults outside
of the school system. Because of these two goals Greg often integrated resources connected to
content students were interested in when creating lessons. For example, when students were
learning about social justice Greg used a Beyoncé song to discuss themes within social justice.
Many of Greg’s students had behavioral issues. To help students understand how to interact with
one another, and others outside of the classroom Greg allowed students to build their own
classroom Magna Carta. Creating the classroom rules gave students ownership of how they
should act towards other people, Greg used this resource through two years of teaching. Greg did
not integrate KCP cultural institution resources into his classroom. However, Greg did use
cultural institution resources, such as Junior Achievement. Greg believed programs like Junior
Achievement would assist him to reach his goal of helping students build “real world skills.”

107

Greg did not connect KCP resources with building real world skills, which was one reason he did
not use the KCP program professionally.
Wanda. Even with the constraints of a scripted curriculum, Wanda used the natural
history museum’s (a KCP cultural institution) online materials to teach about geological
timelines. Wanda noted that she was able to better understand how to use science museum
resources because of the free personal visit the KCP provided, “not having to pay I can go in and
see just what they have to offer without paying for it.” The use of this KCP cultural institution’s
online resource matched Wanda’s main mode of resource use in her class—the use of web based/
technology driven materials. Wanda was not able to take her students on a physical field trip to
the natural history museum due to time constraints, lack of funding, and the fact all field trips
were predetermined by her school. However, she did encourage students to visit with their
families. Wanda recognized that some students may be interested in the content they were
learning about in school and might want to continue learning with an out of school visit to the
museum. Wanda’s use of the natural history museums’ geological timeline demonstrated the
skill of relational agency in connection to the KCP program. While, Wanda’s school’s field trip
policies prohibited her from taking students on KCP cultural institution field trips, she was still
able to integrate KCP cultural institution resources into her curriculum. Wanda did not often
interact with peers outside of her school to obtain resources. She was given a mentor her first
year of teaching, but as a second-year teacher she did not have a mentor as a resource. Her
mentor was the only environmental resource Wanda mentioned outside of her school.
Wanda’s main goal for students was driven by state, district, and school learning
standards. Associated with this goal was Wanda’s concern that she would not be able to hold
students attention long enough to learn all of the content required by the school. Thus, Wanda

108

focused on finding resources that had the potential to rein in her student’s short attention spans.
The majority of the resources that Wanda used in her classroom were digital/ web resources. She
believed technology was the answer to capturing her students attention long enough to get
through a lesson.
Lisa. Lisa used several of the KCP cultural institutions as a resource; she was able to
make the connection between what the museums offered and what her students were learning.
This may be due to the fact that she had more freedom in planning her students’ activities
because of the type of class that she taught. Equally, Lisa may take more field trips to KCP
institutions because her school provided grant funding that allowed teachers to take several field
trips throughout the year. Unlike at Wanda’s school, these field trips were not dictated by the
administration, although one field trip to the science museum as required by the district, the rest
are decided upon by the teachers. Lisa, like Greg, also used TFA as a resource. She was given a
TFA mentor as well, and found planning lessons with him useful because he had experience with
teaching students a second language.
Lisa’s main goal for her dual language students was to increase their literacy—connected
to “bilingualism and bi-literacy.” This led Lisa to search for resources that would help with
students reading skills, such as Reading A-Z and Science A-Z. Both of these resources offered
leveled readings for students, and more importantly had materials in English and in Spanish.
Similarly, Lisa also searched for bilingual video resources, and used websites such as BrainPOP
in science class because these videos were available in Spanish. Even though Lisa’s main
concern for students was to build their skill of bi-literacy, she demonstrated strong relational
agency in connection to the KCP. Lisa linked her students’ social studies curriculum (learning

109

about Wisconsin National Parks) to an art museum visit and connected KCP cultural institution
resources to a wide range of subject matter (science, social studies, art, and music).
Edwards (2011) posits that relational expertise, or shared knowledge among practitioners
helps construct relational agency. While case study teachers do display the skill of relational
agency—going beyond the walls of their school to gather resources for their classroom, the
instances teachers are applying this skill are often not connected with the KCP program. An
explanation for the lack of the use of KCP resources is the role relational expertise plays in
developing relational agency. The occasions that case study teachers go beyond the classroom to
gather resources often connect with programs such as TFA, where teachers are interacting with
other teachers. While this may seem logical—it highlights one of the missed opportunities by the
developers of the KCP program. The GMC staff who created the KCP program worked with the
MPS school district, they met with each of the KCP cultural institutions individually to make
sure the goals of the KCP program were understood by the participating organizations. However,
one of the main constituents were left out of the development of the KCP—the teachers.
Teachers were never consulted on what they would find most helpful as professionals, they were
not asked to share their expertise, and are therefore passive participants in the KCP program.
Thus, teachers were able to build the skill of relational agency when given the opportunity to
interact with other teachers, who had similar relational expertise, but often did not see the
connection between their teaching goals and KCP cultural institutions because they were not
given the opportunity to explicitly share their relational expertise with KCP cultural institution
and GMC staff. This missed opportunity is discussed in further detail in Chapter 6.

110

Collective Analysis of Teacher Resource Use
Two main themes appeared when examining case study teacher interviews and artifacts:
1) the role of environmental resources outside of the classroom and 2) the role of school culture.
These two themes played a part in how teachers sought out new resources and how the resources
were used in the classroom. For Wanda school cultural was a major factor in deciding what field
trips to take with students, what resources she felt comfortable using in her classroom, and who
she decided to look to for help in building her class curriculum. Greg’s school culture promoted
the sharing of conventional resources between teachers, thus he had greater access to
environmental resources within his school. Conversely, Lisa found herself looking for
environmental and conventional resources outside of her school.
Environmental resources outside of the classroom. Teachers who were in contact with
peers outside of their school often were influenced by resource suggestions given by these peers.
For example, Lisa worked with her TFA mentor to plan lessons and find curriculum and
resources for her dual language classroom. Greg also planned lesson with his TFA mentor; at
times he noted that his TFA mentor would give him lessons that she had used in her special
education classrooms and he would repurpose those lessons with his own students. In addition,
Greg’s mentor encouraged him to go on the Junior Achievement field trip with his students.
Wanda on the other hand did not have as much contact with peers outside of her school. She
mentions being paired with a mentor through MPS for her first year of teaching. However,
during her second year she had no mentor, and finds herself responsible for ascertaining the
majority of the resources she uses with students.
School culture. The culture of the school case study teachers found themselves in
frequently determined the amount of freedom teachers had in determining what resources to use

111

in their classrooms. Wanda was under strict restraints when teaching; she was required to use
specific curriculum, teach with specific textbooks, and turn in weekly lesson plans to be
reviewed by the school principal. She was also required to teach every subject to her students.
This places massive time constraints on Wanda. She only took the field trips that she was
required to take by the school, and the majority of her time as a teacher was dedicated to
teaching the curriculum designated for her students. The professional development opportunities
that she took advantage of were connected to learning more about a new test being implemented
and how to better connect with her students through culturally responsive teaching. The
resources that Wanda frequently used in her classroom were websites that she discovered herself,
several of which she used to help her students read the textbooks they were required to use in
class.
Lisa’s and Greg’s schools were very different; neither Lisa nor Greg had a set
curriculum. The lack of a set curriculum was a stress for Greg during his first year of teaching.
He found himself having to search for a curriculum to use and struggled to connect with his
students. Greg took the lessons learned his first year and applied them to his second and third—
armed with resources and curriculum that he found and was comfortable with he was more
successful, and was able to teach in a manner that matched his goals as a teacher. For example,
with less stress and more time Greg was able to take a field trip with students that helped them
learn about financial literacy—a skill that matched Greg’s goal for students to help them function
outside of the school as adults. Lisa, on the other hand did not seem to struggle as much as a
first- year teacher. Early on she discovered the online curriculum Engage New York, and used
this as a starting point for the majority of her lessons. Lisa found the framework her school
required her to use when creating lesson plans helpful. The BUF assisted Lisa to integrate dual

112

language learning strategies into all of her lessons, while giving her the freedom to decide the
content of the lesson, and the resources that were most appropriate.
Another difference among school cultures for each of the case study teachers were their
interactions with school colleagues. Lisa was isolated within her school and did not take
advantage of the environmental resources connected to her school. At the beginning of Lisa’s
first year as a teacher the school provided support personnel for the dual language teachers. Lisa
relied heavily on the support person to help her plan lessons in Spanish. However, this position
was removed from her school due to MPS budget cuts. Lisa worked with the other fourth-grade
teacher at times, but found that she was often left to plan alone because she was the only fourthgrade teacher with a dual language classroom. Wanda was also isolated in her school, however,
she did have a limited connection to the environmental resources within her school. There were
required team planning times where Wanda interacted with the other teachers. Beyond these
required planning times, Wanda did not reach out to other teachers in her school for assistance.
Unlike Lisa and Wanda, Greg often sought help from other teachers in his school. Thus, Greg
was extremely connected to the environmental resources within his school. This was partially
due to his position as a special education teacher. Greg was tasked with helping his students
build the skills they need to succeed in general education courses. This role required Greg to
interact with general education teachers in the school to figure out where his students were
struggling. In turn the general education teachers in Greg’s school were willing to work with him
to create lesson plans that pinpointed areas, such as inference, where his students still needed
assistance.
KCP resource use. All three themes also related to whether case study teachers use KCP
resources. Lisa uses KCP resources most often; this is due to the culture of her school. The

113

school Lisa taught in had a grant program that encouraged teachers to take multiple field trips
throughout the school year. In addition there were no predetermined field trips so teachers chose
which trips best matched the content they were teaching students. With the conventional resource
of school grant money, and the freedom to choose, Lisa took students on several trips to cultural
organizations linked with the KCP, such as the science and art museum. Wanda used KCP
cultural institution online resources, specifically a geological timeline from the science museum.
However, she was unable to take students on a field trip to the science museum, or other KCP
cultural institutions, because her school had predetermined field trips for students to take and a
limited amount of funding to send students on field trips. Greg’s decision not to use KCP cultural
institution resources was linked to his goals for students. Greg believed that KCP institutions
were better suited for younger students, thus, he encouraged a middle school colleague to take
her students on a KCP cultural institution field trip. He also wanted the field trips his students
took to connect to larger life skills such as financial literacy, which is why he decided to
participate in Junior Achievement.
It is important to note, that one of the limitations of this chapter is the difficultly to parse
apart the effect of Learning Journey, an MPS initiative, on teacher uptake of KCP cultural
institution resources. For example, a teacher like Wanda may have wanted to take students on
other field trips connected to the KCP, such as the science museum. However, she was not able
to because 1) the school had predesignated field trip money for the required eighth grade
Learning Journey trip to Junior Achievement, and 2) the science museum field trip is reserved
and required for all fourth-grade students. Conversely, a teacher like Lisa may have taken
students on a KCP cultural institution field trip solely because it was required by Learning
Journey—in Lisa’s case all fourth-grade students were required to visit the science museum, a

114

KCP cultural institution. On the other hand, Learning Journey may have no effect on a teachers’
decision to use, or not use, KCP resources. For instance, Junior Achievement is designated as an
eighth-grade field trip through Learning Journey. Nonetheless, Greg took his high school
students to Junior Achievement because he wanted them to develop financial literacy skills. In
Chapter 6 this limitation is discussed in detail, as well as the connection between the KCP and
Learning Journey as a potential missed opportunity.

115

CHAPTER 6
Discussion

The art of listening to teachers’ needs [is] the starting point for successful partnerships.
As museums position themselves as resources for students and teachers, they need to start
with understanding how and what to provide as support materials and services. Where to
begin? Ask a teacher.
– Marable-Bunch, 2010, p. 9

The resources teachers are introduced to in their first years of teaching shape what
resources they are confident using later on in their careers (Grossman & Thompson, 2008).
“Museums have clearly changed what and how they present objects, ideas, and information, as
well as the types of exhibitions and programs they present” (Falk & Dierking, 2000, p. 2). Thus,
the inclusion of cultural institutions in teacher support networks has increased, as they provide a
range of benefits—material resources for classroom use, emotional support, and gains in subject
content knowledge (Anderson, Lawson, & Mayer-Smith, 2006; Aquino, Kelly, & Bayne, 2010;
Barry 2012; Cox & Barrow, 2000; Dentith & McCarry, 2003; Gregg & Leinhardt, 2002; Gupta
& Adams, 2012; Jeffers, 2003; Kasten, 1999; Kisiel, 2013; Miele, Shanley & Steiner, 2010;
Spybrook & Walker, 2012; Shattuck, 2014; Stone, 2013; Unrath & Luehrman, 2009). However,
as important as introductory resources are, Grossman and Thompson (2008) also found novice
teachers struggled to find resources they felt comfortable using with students—access to
resources does not necessarily lead to teachers’ use of resources. Regarding teachers’ comfort in
accessing museum resources Marable-Bunch (2010) writes,
Many teachers stressed the need to build a comfort level. Introduction to the museum by
museum educators helped them [teachers] become better acquainted with the museum’s
environment. Such an approach also helped them understand how to incorporate the
resources into their teaching and thus better prepare their students for the museum
116

experience. With such exposure, teachers said that they were more likely to plan a
museum visit for their students (pp. 11).
Similarly, Edwards (2011) highlights the importance of practitioners sharing common
knowledge to build trust—shared knowledge or relational expertise was an important factor in
the uptake of resources. As Marable-Bunch’s (2010) research indicates, when teachers are given
explicit opportunities to interact with other practitioners, such as museum educators, they are
able to share their relational expertise. As Edwards (2011) posits, the sharing of relational
expertise between practitioners helps build relational agency. In turn, building the skill of
relational agency helps teachers understand how to take resources from outside of the K-12
school setting and use these resources inside the classroom. My study of the KCP program
revealed similar findings. I discovered the KCP did not provide teachers explicit opportunities to
interact with KCP cultural institution staff, which led to few teachers using the skill of relational
agency in connection with the KCP. In other words, teachers were not able to build their comfort
level around KCP cultural institution resource use in the classroom. However, teachers did see
the benefit of the KCP for personal use—a perhaps unintended but positive consequence of the
program. They were able to connect to the community in which they taught, and felt valued as
professionals in the city of Milwaukee. This finding is a new contribution to the scholarship, as
most research around communities of practice focus on professionals within specific
communities (Cornu & Ewing, 2008; Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006; Etelapelto et al., 2005; Sim,
2006). My finding expands communities of support to encompass professionals outside of the K12 school system.
There are five main sections in this chapter: 1) summary of findings and their relationship
to the broader scholarship, 2) limitations, 3) implications, 4) areas of future research, and 5)
significance of the study. My study contributes to the scholarship base that examines teachers’
117

interactions with communities outside of the school system by investigating the benefits and
constraints of a large teacher support network (KCP program) comprised of cultural institutions.
My research specifically connects to relational agency—the ability to “work fluidly across
professional boundaries” (Edwards, 2005a p. 177) and understand the utility of materials for
problem solving. I investigate teachers’ development of relational agency through the use of
cultural institutions as support systems for novice teachers. My introduction of the framework of
relational agency is unique to the scholarship of cultural institution support for teachers.
Perhaps making my research on the KCP program even more timely was the formation of
an American Educational Research Association (AERA) sponsored conference that was held at
Boston University on February 28, 2014 (BU School of Education, 2014). This conference
amassed experts to discuss the use of museums to support teacher education and professional
development. Those at the conference were charged with researching the state of the field
including, successful pedagogies and methodologies, and identify fundamental problems (BU
School of Education, 2014). In a museum list serve email Barton (electronic mailing list
message, April 9, 2014) announced that “the major finding of the conference was how wide-open
an area for investigation this topic provides. The limited research and researchers focusing on
such educational issues supports significant opportunities for defining research to come out of
this focus” (para. 3). My research responds to this charge through the investigation of the use of
cultural institutions as support systems for novice teachers—the benefit of accessing these
resources, and the barriers that prevent productive collaborations.
Summary and Grounding of Findings in the Scholarship
Benefits. In this section I address two of my research questions: How do teachers use
KCP benefits? And do teachers who participate in the KCP program incorporate

118

community/cultural institution resources in their teaching practices? There were several benefits
teachers identified when using the KCP program. I have grouped these benefits into three
themes: 1) teachers are seen as valued professionals, 2) teachers have the ability to research
potential field trip sites, and 3) teachers are able to connect to the community in which they teach
in.
Teachers are valued professionals. There is an ongoing argument in the United States—
is teaching a profession? Crowe (2008) debates that teaching is not yet a profession, thus,
teachers are not yet professionals, he states,
Successful professions function as communities. This makes professions different from
occupations. Occupations acquire professional status through a complex process that
entails a struggle for unity. Out of the context, a professional community arises with
shared norms, training, working practices, and regulatory mechanisms. In the wider
world, there is a struggle with potential competitors, with purchasers of goods and
services, and with agencies of government (pp. 990).
The topic of professionalism when applied to teaching is complex, as Lortie (1975)
explains “being a student is like serving an apprenticeship in teaching” (p. 61). In other words,
most people at one time or another have been students, have seen the act of teaching, and believe
they understand what is needed to become a teacher. However, Lortie (1975) posits, “students
have no reliable basis for assessing the difficulty or demands of various teaching acts” (p. 63).
Teaching is also unlike other professions; it is funded by tax dollars, and consequently there are
many stakeholders weighing in on the debate of teaching as a profession. Thus, the question of
“Am I seen as a professional?” is one that teachers encounter often.
The Greater Milwaukee Committee (GMC), as an organization, has taken the stance that
teaching is indeed a profession, and as professionals’ teachers are over worked and at times
undervalued. The KCP program was created to help teachers feel they are welcome and
respected members of the Milwaukee community. The GMC writes,
119

In Milwaukee, we value our teachers. To prove it, the Greater Milwaukee Committee
formed Teachtown MKE at the request of former Milwaukee Public Schools
Superintendent Dr. Gregory Thornton. We are working with local partners to fuel a
community dedicated to providing local educators with a warm welcome and continued
gratitude. Our goals include: 1) Showcasing Milwaukee as a city that appreciates its local
educators, 2) Retaining and rewarding talented teachers, and 3) Facilitating networks
between educators and our community. (Teachtown MKE, 2017).
One of the more salient quotes regarding the KCP program helping teachers feel more like a part
of a professional community came from Greg, a case study teacher who teaches high school
special education. He succinctly states,
I know from emails Teachtown partners pretty closely with Newaukee, which is
professionals networking organization. I know there are co-sponsored events or they
would promote each other’s events, so I attended a handful of those, with non-educator
friends but then I ended up meeting other educators so that was helpful. And I think
sometimes new teachers don’t get lumped in with the young professional crowd. You
know what I mean? Like the young professional crowd is usually people working in
cooperate jobs and they are the young professionals, but I feel like that partnership really
brings teachers into the realm with the other young professionals.
Greg’s quote highlights my finding that participants felt appreciated for the job they did
and emotionally supported through access to local events, such as those provided by Newaukee.
Similarly, Cornu (2009) and Etelapelto et al. (2005) discovered being a part of professional
learning communities help new teachers develop motivation and resilience. Building teachers’
motivation, or more specifically, self-efficacy, can assist teachers in having more positive
interactions with colleagues and students. “Those who have a high sense of efficacy visualize
success scenarios that provide positive guides and supports for performance. Those who doubt
their efficacy visualize failure scenarios and dwell on the many things that can go wrong”
(Bandura, 1993 p. 118). High self-efficacy helps teachers feel more comfortable trying new ideas
in the classroom, while low self-efficacy leads to stress and may cause teachers to focus on
students’ behavior rather than learning (Davis et al. 2006; Klassen et al., 2010; TschannenMoran et al., 1998). Teacher motivation has also been linked to student achievement. Abazaoglu
120

and Aztekin (2016) discovered high morale and motivation in teachers linked to greater student
achievement in science and math. Likewise, Hopkins, Rulli, Schiff, and Fradera (2015) posit,
“networking links teachers directly to resources that improve classroom environments and
support the generation of instructional tools, which directly impacts student learning” (p. 1). And
while teachers did not always use KCP cultural institution resources in their classrooms, the KCP
program as a whole enhanced teachers’ motivation and resilience by providing teachers with the
understanding that the city of Milwaukee views them as valued professionals in the community.
This finding further supports literature promoting the use of professional learning communities
for teachers. However, where other researchers consider professional learning communities as
inclusive of only teaching professionals (Cornu & Ewing, 2008; Dinsmore & Wenger, 2006;
Etelapelto et al., 2005; Sim, 2006), I have expanded these communities to encompass
professionals outside of the K-12 school system.
Ability to research potential field trip sites. Survey findings indicate teachers used the
KCP primarily for personal reasons. For example, 66 teachers visited the Milwaukee Art
Museum for personal reasons (e.g., visits with family and friends), while only 15 teachers used
the art museum for professional reasons (e.g., field trip, professional development, and
classroom resources). However, teacher interviews revealed that personal trips to cultural
institutions often helped teachers decide whether specific cultural institutions would be
appropriate for classroom use. Wanda states, “I can go in and see just what they have to offer
without paying for it.” Another case study teacher, Greg, also used a personal visit to the science
museum to decide that he would not take his students. Conversely, Greg encouraged a colleague
to visit the museum with her students because he saw a connection to the middle school
curriculum.

121

The KCP program gives teachers access to cultural institutions which connect to a wide
range of curriculum topics—art, science, history, and literacy to name a few. Research conducted
by Barry (2012), Dentith and McCarry (2003), and Spybrook and Walker (2012) indicates
teachers who participate in programs at cultural institutions are able to gain knowledge in
different content areas and experience multidisciplinary learning. The variety of cultural
institutions teachers have access to through participation in the KCP allows them to not only
decide what field trips fit into their curriculum, but how they can use institution resources in
different subject areas. For instance Wanda, uses the Milwaukee Public Museum’s geological
timeline in a science class. She cannot bring students on a field trip to the museum. However, she
encourages students to visit the museum with their families because she realizes some of her
students may be interested in seeing physical objects connected with the science lesson.
Similarly, Katz and Halpern’s (2015) study suggests showing students’ virtual museum resources
(e.g., objects students’ may encounter at the museum) increases their connection to the physical
museum collection.
Ellen, a focus group teacher, mentions that she attended a theater production with free
KCP tickets, because of this experience she also planned a field trip for her students to the same
theater. While Lisa, another case study teacher was able to bring her students on several field
trips including: the art museum, science museum, and Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra. Lisa
emphasized she was able to go on these field trips because they were aligned with what her
students were learning in the classroom. For example, the art museum had paintings which
connected to the history of Wisconsin. Marable-Bunch (2010) notes the importance of making
this connection for students “Museums are great resources because their unique learning
experiences are built around the “real stuff”—the authentic materials that connect students to the

122

world around them” (p. 9). In addition, museum-school partnerships along with visits to cultural
institutions have been shown to boost students’ test scores, motivation, and curiosity in school
based subjects (Holmes, 2011; Paris, Yambor, & Packard, 1998; Sturm, & Bogner, 2010; Suter,
2014; Weinstein, Whitesell, & Schwartz, 2014; Whitesell, 2016; Yilmaz, Filiz, & Yilmaz, 2013).
Furthermore, Barry (2012), Cox and Barrow (2000), Dentith and McCarry (2003), Gregg and
Leinhardt (2002), Jeffers (2003), Kasten (1999), Kisiel (2013), Miele et al. (2010), Spybrook and
Walker (2012) all research the use of museums in a variety of subject areas. However, each of
these researchers focus on programs which assist teachers in one particular subject. For example,
Dentith and McCarry (2003), and Gregg and Leinhardt (2002) emphasize teachers’ use of
cultural institutions for social studies education. My study expands on this research and
illustrates that a single community partnership program can give teachers options in multiple
subject areas, providing support to a wider range of teachers in the district. Through recruiting a
variety of cultural institution partners the KCP program is able to offer resources to K-12
teachers in multiple subject areas (e.g., math, science, art, music, social studies).
Connecting to the local community. Through KCP use, teachers were able to connect to
the community in which they teach. Teachers were able to learn about different cultural
institutions, attend local events, and meet other professionals in Milwaukee. For example Lisa
explains,
I think getting comfortable in the community and learning what’s out there that I can use
as a resource for my classroom. Yeah, definitely learning more about the city I think it
helps you become more grounded in the city and feel more a part of it like you’re
belonging to a city or something if you have connections with different places.
Likewise, Anderson, Lawson, and Mayer-Smith (2006), Stone (2013), Shattuck (2014),
and Spybrook and Walker (2012) found that teachers who have contact with cultural institutions
have more opportunities to network and learn from communities outside of the K-12 school
123

system. Specifically, Anderson, Lawson, and Mayer-Smith (2006) discovered through their
interactions in cultural institutions teachers developed “broader views of education” (p. 346),
were able to think critically think about “the ‘big picture’ in teaching” (p. 346), and developed an
appreciation for “working collaboratively” (p. 349). While I found professional communities
within museums helped teachers construct their identities as teaching professionals and identify
resources to use as first-year teachers (Shattuck, 2014).
Feeling connected to the local community outside of K-12 schools was a benefit for
teachers, but also appears to have benefited MPS. Several teachers mentioned their connection to
the community as one reason for staying with MPS to teach. Ellen illustrates this point when she
states “[the KCP] has increased my commitment to remaining in Milwaukee as a teacher.” Smith
and Ingersoll (2004) similarly discovered teacher attrition was reduced when an “external
network” (p. 706) was included in teacher induction programs. Many researchers who study
teacher retention focus on the impact of induction, particularly mentoring (Clandinin et al. 2015;
Fry, 2007; Gallant & Riley, 2014; Haun & Martin, 2004; Kaiser, 2011; Kardos & Johnson, 2010;
Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). However, many of these researchers revealed teacher induction often
is not uniform and can be inadequate. For example, Kardos and Johnson (2010) observed, “new
teachers often have inappropriate mentor matches, and low percentages of new teachers are
observed by or have conversations with their mentor about the core activities of teaching” (p.
23). This sentiment is reflected by case study teacher Lisa, who contends the mentor she was
assigned through MPS did not directly help with her bilingual classroom, “She [the mentor]
didn’t speak Spanish, so it was really hard for her to comprehend what was going on in the
classroom and things like that. So in that sense, having someone in my school who understood
the program and understood Spanish was more helpful.”

124

In line with my findings, several other researchers have linked teachers’ interactions with
communities outside the school system with positive benefits, such as increased motivation and
identity formation (Beauchamp & Thomas, 2009; Cornu, 2009; Etelapelto, Littleton, Lahti, &
Wirtanen, 2005; Miele et al., 2010; Shattuck, 2014). Furthermore, Anderson (2010), BakerDoyle (2012), Bullough (2012), Coburn and Russell (2008) also have studied the influence of
teachers’ connections to communities which are separate from the workplace. Through this
research they have found communities outside of the school system provide teachers with
confidence to try new learning strategies; deliver additional modes of support which reduce the
feeling of isolation; and give teachers access to new classroom materials. And while research
around the contribution of community support for teachers has grown, there is still a need to
understand how these communities’ impact novice teachers. For example, Johnson et al. (2014)
argue, “What is currently lacking in the literature is an in-depth understanding of the inter-play
of personal and contextual factors around early career teachers’ experiences” (p. 532). My study
begins to fill this gap through my deliberate observation of novice teachers’ use of KCP cultural
institution resources.
Missed opportunities. Through my analysis of survey, initial interviews, and case study
interviews, I discovered areas where teachers identified barriers to KCP program use. Here I
discuss three main missed opportunities which connect with two of my research question: What
barriers exist, and how can the KCP program be made more accessible for teachers? And, do
participant teachers display the skill of relational agency, does this skill apply to KCP use? First,
I found there was a lack of a mission statement, which led to communication issues between the
GMC, KCP partners, and participants. Second, I observed few teachers using the skill of
relational agency which I believe is due to KCP teachers being treated as passive participants.

125

And third, the KCP had no connection to the MPS Learning Journeys initiative. Relating the
KCP to this initiative would have provided a direct pathway for classroom use of KCP resources.
Specific ways in which these missed opportunities can be implemented by the GMC to
strengthen the KCP program are examined in the implications section of this chapter.
Lack of mission statement. Khalifa (2012) defines mission statement as a broad term that
“encompasses not only the basic role of an organization in society or the reason(s) for its
existence, but also its vision, values, scope of business, public image, and beyond” (p. 236). As I
discussed earlier in this chapter, the GMC lists the goals of the KCP program as: “1) Showcasing
Milwaukee as a city that appreciates its local educators, 2) Retaining and rewarding talented
teachers, and 3) Facilitating networks between educators and our community” (Teachtown MKE,
2017). This list does not clarify to teachers or partner institutions how the KCP appreciates its
educators, how the KCP program retains teachers, or why facilitating networks between
educators and the community is important to the GMC as an organization. These missing
components leave teachers guessing what the KCP is, how to use it, and what the benefits are.
Becca, a focus group teacher, who was new to MPS, was nervous that signing up for the KCP
program meant she would eventually be charged a fee. She recalls, “I heard about it from Teach
for America I was like oh what is this is there some sort of catch or something are they trying to
sell something?” Because of the lack of information provided Becca did not feel comfortable,
she waited to sign up for the KCP until she heard about the program a second time at a MPS new
teacher institute.
Johnson and Rassweiler (2010) similarly note when organizations collaborate to form
support systems for teachers and students, “Clarity of purpose, process, and outcome are needed;
communication is essential” (p. 66). In the survey and interviews, teachers indicated they would

126

have liked more information about the KCP cultural institution partners; more information about
the benefits offered by the KCP; and better communication from the GMC. Lucy, another focus
group teacher remembers the confusion she had when she received her KCP card in the mail, “I
read all of the things that I could do with it, but I wasn’t sure, it wasn’t clear for me what I could
do with the card.” Because Lucy needed more information and was unable to easily find
additional information she did not use the card at all during her first year as a KCP participant.
Other teachers felt they had to go to extreme measures to get information about the KCP
program. For example, when Becca and a group of graduate students were unable to retrieve the
information they needed about the KCP they decided to set a meeting with GMC staff, “we met
with someone and we interviewed them about Teachtown. And it wasn’t until then that we
understood... it’s from the Greater Milwaukee Committee which is like this organization. It made
more sense than the website, we couldn’t figure out where Teachtown was located, we couldn’t
find a contact very easily, it was kind of hard to figure out what it’s all about.”
Matejka, Kurke, and Gregory (1993) argue creating a mission statement is of utmost
importance,
The mission melds the inspiration of the vision (what we want to become) with the
realities of who we are and what we do for whom. The mission paints the present and the
destination. From the mission, the organization generates appropriate targets
(goals/objectives). These targets become barometers along the way, helping the
organization to move towards the vision and providing checkpoints to evaluate its
progress (pp. 34).
Because the GMC does not have a mission statement there are no “checkpoints” to evaluate the
progress of the KCP program. Furthermore, a mission statement can help organizations develop
what Ready and Truelove (2011) deem as “collective ambition” (p. 94)—“how leaders and
employees think about why they exist, what they hope to accomplish, how they will collaborate
to achieve their ambition” (p. 94). Having a clear mission that outlines programmatic goals and
127

outcomes provides partner organizations with a rationale as to why they are supporting teachers,
while indicating to participants what they can expect from partner organizations—it is a map for
all who are involved.
Relational agency and the KCP. Regarding the potential strengths of partnership
programs Green, Daniel, and Novick (2001) writes, “A partnership can minimize duplication of
efforts and resources, and act as a strategic vehicle to mobilize and leverage resources” (p. 22).
Green et al. (2001) found the community based partnerships he examined were less effective
when the partnership consisted solely of the university department and government agencies—
that is when the actual community was left out of the planning stage of the intervention the
program was less effective. Green et al. (2001) finding is similar to my own—teachers were left
out of the planning stages when the GMC was developing the KCP program, thus, teachers were
not able to share their relational expertise. Because teachers were not included in the planning
phase, there were key components of the KCP program that teachers would have used which are
missing. For example, teachers voiced concern about the methods of communication the GMC is
using to contact teachers— teachers would like to see a social media element. Teachers also had
a hard time linking KCP cultural institution resources to their classrooms (e.g., teachers did not
show relational agency). If the GMC included teachers in the planning phase, the disconnect
between resources offered and what is needed in the classroom would likely have been
addressed—teachers would have been able to share their relational expertise building their
relational agency in connection to the KCP program. Edwards and Mackenzie (2005) found that
social exclusion effected the uptake of intervention resources. In other words, the advantage of
including teachers in the planning phase of a program is the formation of ‘buy in’ from teachers.
Teachers who help develop a program will feel a sense of ownership and are more likely to

128

promote the use of the program to colleagues. Boyer, Fortney, and Watts (2010) give similar
advice, “Involving teachers in the entire process, from brainstorming through evaluation, will
hook them and improve the training itself. If successful, your program will hold them and word
will be spread between trusted colleagues and to curious newcomers” (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts,
2010 p. 63).
The sharing of expertise which occurs when practitioners are involved in program
development directly relates to the development of relational agency (Edwards, 2011). Edwards
posits that relational agency is built when,
(i)

(ii)

working with others to expand the “‘object of activity”‘ or task being worked on
by recognizing the motives and the resources that others bring to bear as they, too,
interpret it; and
aligning one’s own responses to the newly enhanced interpretations with the
responses being made by the other professionals while acting on the expanded
object. (pp. 34)

Unfortunately, KCP teachers had limited interaction with GMC and KCP cultural institution
staff. These practitioners (KCP partner and participants) were not provided explicit opportunities
through the KCP program to share relational expertise with each other. Because teachers were
not able to share their relational expertise they were not able to develop relational agency in
connection to the KCP program. While relational agency in conjunction with the KCP program
was not often apparent, through my interviews with KCP teachers I was able to uncover teachers
using the skill of relational agency in connection to other out of school resources. For example,
Becca mentions taking her students on Redline field trips, “I’ve collaborated with Redline and
we did a series of six field trips.” She took students on these field trips because there were premade lesson plans readily available for classroom use. Becca was able to connect these lesson
plans to what her students were already learning in the classroom. Becca also mentions the

129

aspect of collaboration with the Redline organization in planning the field trips. Likewise, case
study teacher Greg, uses a program called Junior Achievement with his students because,
We attend a half-day training, full-day training a lot - six hours, so more than half day where we kind of are taught how to do it, how to teach the curriculum and then get to go
through the simulation that the students go through on the field trip, we go through it
ourselves. And so that was one of the units that I did.
Collaboration is key, it allows the sharing of relational expertise and the development of
relational agency (Edwards, 2011), which Becca and Greg demonstrate through their integration
of Redline and Junior Achievement resources into student curriculum. Similarly, Boyer, Fortney,
and Watts (2010), Johnson and Rassweiler (2010), Marable-Bunch (2010), and Stone (2013) tout
the importance of giving teachers explicit opportunities to work with museum staff. Through
collaborative opportunities these researchers discovered teachers developed close relationships
with staff members; were more likely to use museum resources; felt more confident using
museum resources; and were able to better connect museum resources with their students own
experiences (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts, 2010; Johnson & Rassweiler, 2010; Marable-Bunch,
2010; Stone, 2013).
Connection to Learning Journeys. All K-12 students within MPS are required to attend
Learning Journey field trips each year. MPS describes Learning Journeys as,
High-impact educational experiences custom designed for MPS students to connect
classroom instruction with real-world learning opportunities. Students attend Learning
Journeys throughout Southeastern Wisconsin at the finest historic and living museums,
scientific venues, and educational simulation centers. These hands-on learning
experiences take students beyond their neighborhoods in order to develop applicable
knowledge based on exposure, grades K3-3; experience, grades 4-8; and exploration,
grades 9-12. (MPS: Learning Journeys, 2017).
Regarding teachers’ integration of museum resources into school curriculum, Marable-Bunch
(2010) writes, “Teachers need meaningful alignment with standards and existing curricula and
the resources should help alleviate the work of planning, not make more work” (p. 13). Four
130

KCP teachers whom I interviewed suggest had there been a direct link between KCP cultural
institution resources and district curriculum they would have been more likely to use these
resources in their classrooms. For example, Ellen , a focus group teacher who teaches elementary
special education recommends, “If there are educational programs maybe provide a brief
overview of them to see if it’s something that is suitable for what the classroom is learning about.
And that would be like a preview to what they offer.”
The MPS Learning Journeys program already provides this type of resource for teachers,
each Learning Journey is connected to district standards and curricula. Teaching guides and pre
and post visit activities are available for each Learning Journey so teachers can prepare students
for their visits and continue to tie the trip to student learning after the visit is complete. Several
of the Learning Journey sites are also KCP cultural institutions (e.g., Boerner Botanical,
Milwaukee Public Museum, and Discovery World). To help teachers recognize the potential use
of these KCP cultural institutions as a classroom resources, the GMC could link back to the
already created teaching guides from Learning Journeys. To help expand Learning Journey and
KCP teacher resource offerings, GMC staff, with help from cultural institution staff, could add
lessons for additional grade levels. For example, the Milwaukee Public Museum’s teacher guide
for Learning Journeys was created for third grade teachers. However, the Public Museum’s
collection is appropriate for multiple grade levels. Wanda, a seventh-grade case study teacher,
offers an excellent illustration of the potential to expand the Public Museum’s offerings. During
a science lesson Wanda used the Public Museum’s geological timeline, which connected directly
to her seventh graders science curriculum and district standards. To further help cultural
institutions expand resource offerings to teachers Marable-Bunch (2010) suggests the following:

131





Museum educators must open the door wider for inclusion, thus lessening the burden
for teachers to demonstrate that museum resources are the tools that matter most in
their tool box
Be an effective collaborator with teachers, demonstrating how museums can truly be
of educational value
Create programs that assist teachers and students in reaching their educational goals
(pp. 13-14).

Both Becca, a focus group teacher, and Greg, a case study teacher, are able to easily integrate
curriculum resources from outside the classroom (Redline and Junior Achievement) because
these programs offer explicit connection their students’ curriculum. De Freitas and Bentley
(2012), Holmes (2011), Longacre et al. (2013), Sturm and Bogner (2010), Suter (2014),
Weinstein et al. (2014), Whitesell (2016), and Yilmaz et al. (2013) argue that direct connection
between museum resources and school curriculum not only helps teachers; the integration of
standard-based museum resources can also improve students learning around school subject
matter. Conversely, I noticed teachers were not consistently using KCP cultural institution
resources because they were not explicitly linked to district standards. Thus, my research further
highlights the need to connect cultural institution resources to school curriculum and standards to
help teachers easily assimilate these resources for classroom use.
Limitations
Survey. There are two main limitations to survey findings. First, the term classroom
resources could have been defined differently by teachers. I intended classroom resources to
include all conventional resources a teacher was using (e.g., books, websites, lesson plans, preand post-activities, objects). However, teachers may have interpreted classroom resource in other
ways. For example, in the second section of the survey, teachers were asked to identify how they
were using KCP cultural institutions, and one of the uses teachers could choose from was
classroom resources. If teachers selected classroom resource for an institution they were then

132

directed to write what the resource was and how they used it. Many teachers (26.3%) in the
survey indicated they used the library for classroom resources. Other KCP institutions were
rarely used for this purpose, the next highest incidence was the Milwaukee Public Museum, with
8.1% of teachers specifying classroom resource use from this institutions. However, teacher
interviews indicate that teachers were indeed using resources from KCP cultural institutions
other than the library. These resources were often connected to field trip pre- and post-visit
materials. Teachers completing the survey may have designated pre- and post-visit materials as
solely field trip related. Thus, teachers would have not indicated on the survey they have used
classroom resources from these institutions, only that a field trip was taken. Either having the
teachers write how they define classroom resource, or providing a set definition of what a
classroom resource is, may have strengthened the construct validity (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002, p. 64-82) of my survey results.
The second limitation to my survey is the relatively small number of teachers who
completed the survey (N=99). Six hundred eleven teachers were eligible for and invited to
complete the survey, reflecting a participation rate of 16.2%. Moreover, the difference between
the number of first—(n=44), second—(n=48), and third—(n=7) year teachers also complicated
survey findings. “Larger samples have smaller error combined with them, so by increasing the
sample size, sampling error decreases; consequently, researchers need little magnitude of an
effect to achieve statistical significance” (Alyounes, 1999, p. 27). Had the survey’s sample size
been larger, I may have been more likely to have found more statistically significant findings.
Had the number of third-year teachers been similar to the number of first- and second-year
teachers, and the overall number of teachers who completed the survey been larger, the potential
for statistically significant findings would have been greater.

133

Focus group and case study teachers. Focus group teachers were split evenly between
those who joined MPS through TFA (three teachers) and teachers who were hired directly by
MPS (three teachers). The breakdown of high school, middle school, and elementary teachers
was not as even. There was only one high school teacher, two middle school teachers, and three
elementary school teachers. Focus group teacher numbers mimic those of survey teachers—there
was only one third-year teacher, while two teachers were in their first year, and three teachers
were in their second year of teaching. Similar to survey limitations—to help strengthen the focus
group data collection more teachers could have been interviewed. In particular, additional high
school teachers’ feedback would have been helpful, along with third year KCP program
participants.
It is also important to note the difficultly to identify overlap of the MPS initiative,
Learning Journey, on teacher uptake of KCP cultural institution resources. Several of the KCP
cultural institutions were also designated as Learning Journey sites. A teacher like Lisa may have
taken students on a KCP cultural institution field trip solely because it was required by Learning
Journey—in Lisa’s case all fourth-grade students are required to visit the science museum, a
KCP cultural institution. On the other hand, Learning Journey may have no effect on a teacher’s
decision to use, or not use, KCP resources. For instance, Junior Achievement is designated as an
eighth-grade field trip through Learning Journey. Nonetheless, Greg takes his high school
students to Junior Achievement because he wants them to develop financial literacy skills.
Learning Journey may also prevent a teacher’s use of KCP cultural institutions. For example, a
teacher like Wanda may have wanted to take students on other field trips connected to the KCP.
However, she was not able to because her school had predesignated field trip money for the
required eighth-grade Learning Journey trip to Junior Achievement. Teachers may also be wary

134

of taking older middle school or high school students on a trip to the science museum because
the district has designated the science museum as a fourth-grade learning experience.
Implications
Suggestions to strengthen the KCP program. The suggestions I present in this section
are meant to strengthen what the KCP program already provides teachers. I suggest practical
ways that the KCP can take advantage of the missed opportunities I outlined in the findings
section of this chapter. I offer ways to reformat this type of program for other cities in the lessons
learned section of this chapter. There are three main areas where the GMC can strengthen the
KCP program. The first area is constructing a clear mission statement for the KCP program, and
making this statement accessible to partners and teachers. Second, the GMC needs to create more
consistent ways to communicate with partners and participants. Third, to help teachers integrate
the KCP program into their classrooms, the GMC should highlight KCP cultural institution
curriculum offerings.
Mission statement. Green et al. (2001), and Johnson and Rassweiler (2010) study
community support programs created through organization partnerships. Their research suggests
the first step in the successful creation of these types of programs is to craft a mission with clear
goals and outcomes. The current statement provided by the GMC is not specific enough to
explain to potential partner institutions the type of benefits the KCP program offers to teachers.
Thus, there is no way for an organization to tell if the structures in place at their organization
would match the goals of the KCP program by reading the GMC’s present statement. KCP
teachers whom I interviewed mentioned feeling confused about the KCP—they wanted to know
more about the connection between the GMC and partner institutions, and the purpose of the
KCP program. Becca, a focus group teacher, specifically suggested creating a mission statement

135

to clarify what the KCP is, “It’s an initiative that helps teachers but like why? What’s the
purpose what’s the mission?” Adding specific information about the KCP program to the GMC’s
current statement would clear up some of this confusion. My objective here is to reformat the
GMC’s current statement to include information which would present the goals and outcomes of
the KCP program. The following reformatted statement is one concrete example of how the
GMC could update their statement to include more information for teacher and partners—
lessoning confusion about what the KCP program is.
The Greater Milwaukee Committee (GMC) is a civic organization whose mission is to
contribute to the cultural and economic base of the Milwaukee Metropolitan area. One of the
three main initiatives of the GMC is education. Therefore, at the request of former Milwaukee
Public Schools (MPS) Superintendent Dr. Gregory Thornton the GMC formed Teachtown MKE
and the Key to the City. The purpose of Teachtown MKE is to work with MPS and local partners
to fuel a community dedicated to providing educators with a warm welcome and continued
gratitude. With help from our local partners we provide relocation assistance, long term teacher
housing, and access to community organizations at low or no cost to educators. Our Key to the
City pass provides first through third year teachers access to local community organizations,
such as the Milwaukee Art Museum, Discovery World, and Boerner Botanical Garden, so that
they may orient themselves with the personal and professional resources Milwaukee has offer.
We have also created an Educator’s Toolkit to Discover Milwaukee Neighborhoods: including
moving checklists, useful resources and links, lease signing tips and more.
Communication. Communication was a major concern for KCP participant, thus, many
teachers provided suggestions on how to strengthen communication between the GMC and
participants. For example, Lucy, a focus group teacher proposes, “For me what would work

136

would be a Facebook page because we always use Facebook with friends.” Likewise Becca
states, “I would say social media is the best platform for getting information out like that. People
could just like it and share then other people could see and then make contact. I think that is the
most prevalent mode of communication.” I recommend three ways in which the GMC can
strengthen their communication efforts based on feedback from teachers. First, the GMC should
use a social media platform such as Facebook. Jamro and Shaikh (2016) posit, “Social media
networks, offer face-to-face interactive platforms which can be adopted in both formal and
informal learning. The communities connect with each other share ideas, knowledge, discuss
various issues and remain more active” (p. 626). The use of social media as a way to market
educational programs is growing (Constantinides, & Zinck Stagno, 2011). Specifically, the use of
Facebook has been shown to help educational institutions, such as universities, reach out to
students prior to on campus registration, thus, integrating students into a social network before
physically arriving on campus (Madge, Meek, Wellens, and Hooley, 2009). Facebook is free,
and can be easily managed by GMC staff. There are several advantages of using Facebook to
promote the KCP program and keep teachers abreast of KCP events. If the GMC wishes to only
allow access to teachers who are KCP participants, the manager of the account may set account
settings so that the page remains private— teachers must request access, or conversely the GMC
may invite teachers to join. Another benefit to using Facebook is real-time event updates. One of
the complaints teachers had about KCP benefits was not finding out about events in a timely
manner through GMC’s current communication method of email blasts. Creating an event on
Facebook and inviting teachers to participate would place the event in teachers’ Facebook feed—
the event would appear as a main ‘news story’ alerting teachers to the event and teachers would
have easy access to event details. Through Facebook the GMC would also be able to track the

137

number of teachers who plan on attending specific events. When an event is created on Facebook
individuals who are invited may select the options: accept, maybe, or decline. This feature would
alert the GMC of the events potential attendance number.
Second, the GMC should be specific about the benefits of the KCP program and make
this information easily accessible. One way to accomplish this would be to make the current
website a more prominent source of information. “Overall website quality is viewed as a
function of site accessibility, navigation, visual attractiveness, and information content” (Perdue,
2002, p. 21). The Teachtown MKE website is difficult to navigate, information on the KCP
program is limited, and the link which brings teachers to the KCP benefits page is hidden in a
paragraph of text. Presently the KCP introduction page reads (Figure 4),
Educators fuel our future. The least we can do is greet you with a welcome package. The
Greater Milwaukee Committee partners with area businesses and representatives to
deliver the Key to the City (the “Welcome Kit”). Teachtown MKE educators, click here
to check out everything the Key to the City provides (and details on how to redeem)!
(Teachtown MKE, 2017)
To help teachers better navigate the website I recommend the GMC replace the current
explanation of Teachtown MKE with a mission statement and a large link to the KCP benefit
page (Figure 5). The proposed changes to the website would provide teachers with a
comprehensive overview of the Teachtown MKE program and a clear and direct link to the KCP
benefits page. “Content is the most important part of a web site. If the content does not provide
the information needed by users, the web site will provide little value” (Tran, 2009, p. 100).

138

Figure 4. Original Teachtown MKE Webpage

Figure 5. Revised Teachtown MKE Webpage
Third, the GMC should create a plan with KCP cultural institutions on how to keep staff
informed of KCP benefits. The goal would be helping staff easily communicate with participants
about the KCP and answer questions for those who are interested in additional museum benefits.
Many cultural institutions struggle with how to train their staff to better interact with visitors.
Through an audience research study Wilkening and Chung (2009) discovered many visitors felt
museum staff did not care about them—in science museums only 8% visitors felt the staff cared.
This study points to a problem within museums, many visitors are not getting an engaging
experience with museum staff. One way to help KCP cultural institution staff interact with KCP
participants would be to produce a “cheat sheet” for front desk staff, or any staff who interact
139

with teachers. Figure 6 is an example of a simple paper based document or “cheat sheet” which
highlights key information for staff. I created this example using the Milwaukee Art Museum’s
KCP benefit statement.

Milwaukee Art Museum Key to the City Benefits
Below is an image of the Key to the City pass.





Benefits
Teachers show their Key to the City and matching photo ID for free general
admission.
Membership Discount for Key to the City holders: Take 20% off a 1-year Family or
Dual Membership ($68 instead of $85).
Teachers can call 414-224-3284 for more details.

Figure 6. MAM Cheat Sheet
Creating this type of document for each partner institution would streamline the process of
informing all staff about KCP program benefits. The information on this document prominently
displays what the KCP looks like, gives a brief overview of the benefits offered, and also allows
staff to direct teachers to a contact number if they require additional information.
Highlight KCP cultural institution curriculum offerings. As I gathered data from the
teacher surveys and interviews I periodically gave initial finding reports to the GMC. Based on
my discussions with teachers and from my own personal experience working with teachers in
museums I advised the GMC create a document which highlighted KCP cultural institution
offerings. I suggested this document contain an overview of each institution, links to curriculum
offerings, field trip information, and contact information for the education staff at each
institution. The resulting document can be found at http://www.teachtownmke.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/08/Teachtown-MKE-Resource-Guide-Updated-8-23.pdf. After completing
140

data collection, I would advise the GMC to also include curriculum offerings by grade level for
each institution along with the appropriate district standards the curriculum connects to. Adding
this information would further assist teachers to better integrate KCP cultural institution
resources into their classrooms. In addition I would suggest putting a link to this document on
the Teachtown MKE website. Currently teachers are provided with a link to this information
through the monthly newsletter, but the link does not exist on the webpage.
Lessons learned: suggestions for cities looking to form similar programs. Green et al.
(2001) outlines the necessary steps to building successful partnerships. These steps include:





Partners must agree on mission, goals, and outcomes
Partners should have mutual trust, respect and commitment
Good partnerships should have clear communication among partners and transparency in
the decision making process
Partnerships evolve using feedback to, among, and from all partners (pp. 25)

Similarly, Johnson and Rassweiler (2010) have a compilation of ten actions which they have
found lead to successful partnerships. The following six actions overlap with Green et al.’s,
1.
2.
3.
4.

Be clear about mission and goals
Develop a shared vision
Be realistic and question your assumptions
Don’t underestimates the need for communication. Communication must exist within
and across all organizations.
5. Obtain commitment and support from senior personnel in each organization.
6. Review and evaluate (pp. 67)
I have purposely fashioned my suggestions for other cities using the guidelines provided
by Green et al. (2001) and Johnson and Rassweiler (2010), as well as taking into account the
successes and missed opportunities I observed through examination of the KCP program. This
section is divided into five key recommendations: 1) gather input from all constituents, 2) create
a strong mission statement, 3) connect to district wide initiatives, 4) help schools support
teachers in their use of cultural institution resources, and 5) ensure a pathway for clear and

141

continual communication. I provide these recommendations to assist cities in the creation of
programs which provide support systems to teachers through a complex network of partnership.
Input from all constituents. One of the first steps to creating a support program that relies
on a network of partnerships is to identify all of the partner organizations and the population of
teachers that the support program is meant to help. During the planning stages it is imperative to
receive input from all who will be involved in the program, including the teachers (MarableBunch, 2010). Forming an advisory board comprised of partner institution staff and teachers will
ensure that feedback is received from those providing the support and those who are receiving
the support. Advisory board discussions between partner institutions and teachers will allow for
the sharing of relational expertise between all involved.
Seeking input from all who were involved was a missing component in the KCP
program. The GMC created the KCP program with input from the district, however, not all
partner institutions were involved in the creation of the KCP program. Teachers were also left
out of the planning stages of the KCP. Teachers who participated in the KCP program did show
instances where they were using relational agency, however, these occurrences were few and far
between. One of the few examples of relational agency in connection with the KCP was when
Greg decided not to bring his students to the science museum, but recognized the potential link
to middle school curriculum and encouraged a colleague to take her students. Edwards (2011)
posits that while practitioners can develop relational agency through participation in support
programs, relational agency is strengthened when common knowledge/ relational expertise is
shared between practitioners involved in the program. Likewise, I believe instances of relational
agency would have been observed more often in the KCP program had teachers and museum
staff been given the opportunity to share their relational expertise with each other. The sharing of

142

relational expertise between practitioners was a key factor in the success of a district wide
professional development program in New York City called Urban Advantage. Boyer, Fortney,
and Watts (2010) note, “Teachers entered UA with a desire to collaborate with cultural
institutions for the experiences that it would bring both personally and professionally, but the key
decision to make them equal members of the professional development team made this
partnership sustainable” (p. 62). Similarly, in a study focused on how to meet teachers’ needs
through cultural institution support Marable-Bunch (2010) discovered “teachers who had been
invited to collaborate with museum educators on resource development were more inclined to
use the product” (p. 10).
Creating a mission statement. “Increasingly museums can be described as public
institutions for personal learning, places people seek out to satisfy their learning needs” (Falk
and Dierking, 2000, p. xii). Equally, cultural institutions have realized they cannot be everything
to everyone. To better serve visitors learning needs museums have turned to mission statements
to clarify to visitors the purpose of the museum. An excellent example of a clear mission
statement comes from the Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) in Philadelphia, PA,
CHF is a library, a center for scholars, and a museum and an archives. We preserve,
study, and interpret the history of chemistry, chemical engineering, and the life sciences.
Our staff and fellows study the past in order to understand the present and inform the
future. We focus on matter and materials and their effects on our modern world in
territory ranging from the physical sciences and industries, through the chemical sciences
and engineering, to the life sciences and technologies. We collect, preserve, and exhibit
historical artifacts; engage communities of scientists and engineers; and tell the stories of
the people behind breakthroughs and innovations (Chemical Heritage Foundation Who
We Are, 2017).
This mission statement explains to anyone who wishes to visit the CHF the museum focuses its
efforts on the study and “history of chemistry, chemical engineering, and the life sciences.”

143

Thus, visitors who are looking to fulfill their “learning needs” around the study of chemistry
know the CHF is a museum that will fit those needs.
Similarly, support programs cannot be everything to everyone—crafting a mission
statement which is consistent and clear will advise teachers what needs will be met through
participation. The mission statement should be formed with the input received from the advisory
board. This will ensure all partner organizations, from conception, understand the purpose of the
support they are providing, and participants have a say in the resources being offered to them.
Included in the mission statement should be who will benefit from the program, specific goals of
the program, and program outcomes (Green et al., 2001).
Connect to district-wide initiatives. During program development examine the district(s)
that participants teach in, do not try to reinvent the wheel—connect to district wide initiatives
and curriculum standards already in place. Does the district already have something in place
which could help the program connect with teachers, and make certain the program remains
relevant to those it aims to serve? An example of this concept in practice is the Urban Advantage
program in New York City. “This initiative brought together science institutions to address the
middle school science Exit Project, which all eighth grade students in New York City are
required to complete” (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts, 2010, p. 60). Through connecting the
professional development program to a project all eighth grade students must complete, the
creators of Urban Advantage were able to attract more participants. They also ensured the
professional development program was directly applicable to classroom use through the Exit
Project. The developers of Urban Advantage followed a principle which Marable-Bunch (2010)
discovered to be a driving force of museum resource use in the classroom, “When the objectives

144

and expected outcomes of museum resources mirror academic standards, curricula requirements,
and skill-building activities, they are more likely to be used in the classroom” (p. 10).
If there isn’t a district wide initiative already in place, such as the eighth-grade Exit
Project in New York City, or Learning Journeys in Milwaukee, another way to connect with
teachers is to examine district curriculum. Boyer, Fortney, and Watts (2010) suggest, “For the
target audience, obtain the utilized standards and curricula in the broadest range of content areas
that apply to your institution. These documents may be national, state, local or, very likely a
combination” (p. 62). An example of a network of museums partnering with a large school
district to assist with lesson development is the Museums and Public Schools (MAPS) project in
Chicago, IL (Marable-Bunch, 2010). “Chicago Public Schools and nine Chicago area museums
partnered to create curricula that integrated the Chicago area museums’ resources with the
Chicago Academy Standards through development of comprehensive thematic units. The
curricula included teacher resource guides and student workbooks” (Marable-Bunch, 2010, p.
12). Creating curriculum that directly matches district standards and clearly connects cultural
institution resources to these standards streamlines teachers’ uptake of these resources. Programs
like MAPS allows teachers to integrate cultural institution resources into their classroom without
additional work.
Help schools support teachers’ inclusion of cultural institution resources. “If museums
want teachers and administration to seriously consider student visits, they must articulate the
value of the experience for students in relation to what is being learned at school” (Fortney 2010,
p. 32). Traditionally the inclusion of cultural institution resources in the classroom is thought of
as a field trip. Fortney (2010) argues that the term field trip is out of date and implies “a free-forall” (p. 31) where student and teachers are left to wander aimlessly with little or no guidance on

145

how the trip connects back to what student are learning in the classroom. Rather than use the
term field trip, Fortney suggests the use of “museum experience” (p. 31), which she feels better
describes a trip which connects to applicable curriculum standards. Using the term museum
experience may delineate a more relevant way to speak about the infusion of cultural institution
resources into the classroom, however it is important to note that teachers must also embrace a
new way of thinking about cultural institution resources to help cultivate pertinent experiences
for their students. In this section I use the program Urban Advantage (UA) as an example of how
school culture can play a role in teachers’ adoption of cultural institution resources.
The UA program has created a culture where entire schools consider themselves UA
schools and researchers have discovered,
Students at UA schools outperform students at non-UA schools. In 2006-07, the third
year of the program, 44.2% of students at UA schools are proficient on the Intermediate
Level Science Test (ILS) exam, compared to 40.5% at non-UA schools. In 2008-09,
55.5% of students at UA schools are proficient, compared to 46.2% of students at nonUA schools (Weinstein & Ruble, 2011, p. 1).
The UA program helped with school wide adaption of UA practices and resources through the
inclusion of school administration and staff in program activities.
School administration and staff were included in the UA program through professional
development events. Each UA school had parent coordinators who were “members of schools’
administrative teams and work with school staff, parent associations, and community groups to
increase parent involvement in schools” (Weinstein & Ruble, 2011, p. 3). Parent coordinators
were required to attend one professional development session which focused on “using the
resources offered by UA to further support family engagement at their school” (Williams, 2016,
p. 59). UA school administration, such as principals, were required to attend “administrator’s
breakfast events four times annually, as well as one administrator’s kickoff event” (Williams,

146

2016, p. 58). School administration professional development focused on several topics
including: “UA science leadership team schools, UA investigations as a DOE-aligned common
core literacy task, using field trips to support New York State science core curriculum, and
creating critical friends groups to explore teacher and student work” (Williams, 2016, p. 58). The
inclusion of UA school administration and staff in professional development events helped
infuse the idea that cultural institutions can be used for more than just field trips, and shifted UA
school cultural toward more of a “museum experience” (Fortney, 2010, p. 31) framework.
While the KCP program did not include programmatic offerings for school
administration, I did discover that school culture played a role in how KCP participant teachers
approached cultural institutions as resources. For example Lisa, a case study teacher, was able to
take several field trips to KCP cultural institutions because the administration at her school
encouraged such trips. On the other hand, Wanda, a case study teacher at a different MPS school,
was not able to bring her students on any KCP field trips due to her school’s administration
designating specific field trips for students to attend. UA was successful in creating a positive
UA school culture by providing professional development for school administration. Through
my research I also found that school administration plays an important role in teacher uptake of
cultural institution resources. Thus, I would encourage cities which are creating community
support programs for teachers to consider including school administration as part of the
community of support.
Clear and continual communication. Part of the job of the advisory board should be to
decide on the best modes of communication. How will the program continue to update teachers?
How will partner institutions be informed of program changes? How will new teachers be
recruited? One way to be sure that partner institutions stay informed of programmatic changes is

147

to designate a senior point person at each institution (Johnson & Rassweiler, 2010). The point
person will be responsible for being the link between the advisory board and their designated
partner institution. The point person should make sure that any staff at their organization who
interact with teachers are aware of program benefits, and can explain these benefits to teachers.
Another successful communication strategy which has been implemented by the UA program is
the designation of “Lead Teachers” (Boyer, Fortney, & Watts, 2010, p. 61).
Teachers from the first year of the program were invited to become “Lead Teachers,” and
serve as mentors to new participants. These Lead Teachers brought first-hand classroom
perspectives to implementing Exit Projects, generally helped with professional
development at each partner institution, provided practical advice and maximized UA
opportunities (pp. 61).
Continuing program engagement for senior teachers through roles like Lead Teacher
helps to recruit new teachers, and provides in school communication channels back to the
program. One of the concerns for new KCP participants was not knowing why the GMC was
offering free benefits to teachers. New teachers had no connection to the GMC, Lead Teachers
could have provided a trustworthy link and alleviated concerns of being taken advantage of by
the GMC. Fox and Wilson (2009) also discovered that encouragement of peers and mentors to
look for external supports was a factor for first-year teachers who decided to look outside of the
K-12 school for additional classroom resources. In addition to assigning communication roles for
individuals within the program there needs to be a form of digital communication for ease of
reaching many participants at once. There are several forms of digital communication to choose
from: email blasts, e-newsletters, and social media—such as twitter and Facebook. Whichever
form of communication is chosen participants and partners need to be made aware of how to gain
access, and a point person needs to be assigned to manage these communication efforts.

148

Areas of Future Research
There are several areas where my study can be expanded upon for future research. First, a
longitudinal study of the KCP could be conducted to examine ongoing programmatic changes
designed to strengthen teachers’ professional use of the KCP program. If the GMC were to adopt
the suggestions I put forward to strengthen the KCP program, do the changes help teachers
integrate cultural institution resources into their classrooms?
Second, due to my finding that teachers were not regularly integrating KCP cultural
institution resources into their classrooms I made the decision not to interview cultural institution
staff—teachers indicated that interactions with cultural institution staff were few and far
between. To better understand how to include cultural institution staff in programs like the KCP,
a research study should be piloted which examines different models of practitioner interaction to
support the sharing of relational expertise. For example, as Marable-Bunch (2010) suggests
would a simple introduction to a cultural institution by museum educators build teachers’
comfort levels promoting the use of museum resources by teachers? Or would an alternate space
need to be provided where both teachers and museum educators speak as experts, thus, sharing
their relational expertise and building teachers’ skill of relational agency?
Third, through my research I discovered that KCP teachers were remaining in MPS to
teach and attributed their decision to stay in the district to the KCP benefit of connecting to the
local community. A statistical study could be conducted to validate teachers’ self- reporting that
the KCP program is linked to lowering teacher attrition in MPS (Donaldson, 2012; Sass, Seal, &
Martin, 2011; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). This line of research would require statistical analysis of
first through third-year teachers in MPS. District-wide data on teacher retention would be
required. The focus of the data analysis would be to examine first-year teachers who signed up

149

for the KCP versus first- year teachers in the district who did not sign up for the KCP. This line
of research would be designed to answer the question: is there a difference between the number
of KCP teachers who still remain in the district versus non KCP teachers?
Fourth, I began my research of the KCP program once it had already been created. I was
not privy to the planning stages of the program. Should another school district decide to
implement a community partnership program, such as the KCP, examination of the planning
stages would be useful in gathering information about the sharing of relational expertise among
practitioners. This line of research would assist in better understanding the development of
relational agency in conjunction with relational expertise. In other words, when practitioners
(teachers and museum educators) share their professional knowledge with each other to build a
support program, does this sharing of information help teachers better utilize the resources made
available through the support program?
Significance of Study
There are three areas of significance for my study. First, because this was a descriptive
study, I was able to unveil detailed information about the KCP program and the teachers who use
KCP resources. Having this information allowed me to examine barriers to KCP use before
generalizing how such a program might be created in other cities/ school districts. I discovered
that participants were mostly using the KCP program for personal reasons (trips with family and
friends). However, these teachers were also able to connect with the local community through
these trips and examine whether taking students to visit particular cultural institutions was
appropriate. Teachers indicated that they did not use the KCP professionally. The two main
barriers to KCP use noted by survey and interview teachers were lack of communication and
lack of personal time. Teachers believed there was a lack of communication from the GMC

150

about how to use the pass. Teachers also felt KCP partner institution staff were not being
provided proper information about KCP membership benefits. Often teachers connected feeling
there was a lack of time to the pressures of being a first-year teacher. For example Wanda states,
“I was just trying to get my feet wet as far as just getting adjusted to class load and you know
staying above water, being on time, doing the educator effectiveness program. It was too
overwhelming.” The stress of being a first-year teacher and acclimating to her class lead Wanda
to feel like she did not have time to take advantage of KCP benefits.
Second, my study helped unpack what fosters or inhibits the development of relational
agency. Initially I hypothesized the KCP would build teachers’ skill of relational agency—that
is, membership in the KCP would increase teachers’ use of cultural institution resources in the
classroom. However, the results of my study reveal this is not the case. Teachers were using
resources they had come in contact with outside the K-12 school, conversely these resources
often were not connected to the KCP program. Teachers noted that they were more likely to use
cultural institution resources if these resources were clearly connected with state and district
standards, and if they were given the opportunity to collaborate with cultural institution staff. My
findings support the research of Marable-Bunch (2010); Boyer, Fortney, and Watts (2010); and
Johnson and Rassweiler (2010) who similarly discovered when museums provide a strong
connection to the curriculum teachers’ use with students’, they are more likely to use museum
resources with their students. Edwards (2011) and Marable-Bunch (2010) also found the sharing
of relational expertise/ collaboration between practitioners builds confidence in using resources
found outside of the workplace. For teachers who participated in the KCP, opportunities to share
relational expertise were not explicitly built into program events, therefore teachers were unable
to build relational agency around KCP resources.

151

Third, my study examined how a large network of organizations works together to
support novice teachers. This enabled me to understand the steps other cities should take in order
to build stronger partnerships. Based on my findings of the barriers to KCP use I suggest cities
who wish to form partnership programs, first gather input from all constituents; second, create a
strong mission statement; third, connect to district wide initiatives; and fourth ensure a pathway
for clear and continual communication between partners and participants. My suggestions mirror
those of Green et al. (2001) who focuses his research on community based partnerships, and
Johnson and Rassweiler (2010) who examine museum, school and community collaborations.
These researchers likewise discovered communication between partners and participants is key
in providing successful interventions.
A return to the beginning, a retelling of Luke’s story. The following is what I envision
might have happened had Luke been offered and acted on support similar to that of the KCP.
Luke was recently hired as a part-time art teacher in a small urban school district.
Because he is a first-year teacher he is required to participate in monthly meetings as part of the
district’s induction program. Before the end of the first meeting a veteran teacher steps up,
introduces herself and a program that she helped develop to support novice teachers in the
district. Teachers are not required to sign up for the program, but many do because it is free,
gives novice teachers access to local cultural institutions, and a well-known teacher from their
district is promoting the program. Luke happens to be one of the teachers who decides to sign up.
Luke gets monthly newsletters from the organization that highlights some of the educational
opportunities the local cultural institutions offer. While he doesn’t take advantage of all the
resources mentioned in the newsletter, he does follow updates about some of the local museums
and art galleries. One of the art museums holds teacher appreciation events, and because Luke is

152

the only elementary art teacher in the district he has found going to the events helpful, as other
art teachers from surrounding districts also attend the event. Here he is able to talk with fellow
art teachers about projects they are doing with students, where they get their materials for class,
and problems and successes in the classroom. At one of these events Luke mentions he will be
starting a lesson about ancient Egypt with his third grade students, and he is trying to decide on a
project that would impress parents at the upcoming parent-teacher conference. One of the
teachers he is talking to asks him if he has heard about the public museum’s exhibit on ancient
Egypt. Luke had not known about the exhibit, but the public museum was featured in one of the
newsletters. After the art museum event Luke looks back at the newsletter and finds the public
museum education director’s contact information listed. He calls the education director and with
her help they create an art lesson that ties into the information the third graders have been
learning in social studies. While Luke’s district does not have the budget to take multiple field
trips and so cannot visit the public museum, the education director is kind enough to bring in
artifacts to his classroom and has a discussion about the artwork found on the artifacts with his
students.
Late on a school night many years ago I found myself in a local elementary school with a
dear friend, Luke, who had recently accepted a half time position as an art teacher— his time
split between two schools in the district. He had recently received news that a full time art
teaching position was about to open in the very school that I was visiting him in that night.
Glancing around the room I could see various replicas of ancient Greek black-figure pottery his
third grade students had recently made (the third grade social studies curriculum at the time
required teachers to cover global communities). Luke often was the go to source for teachers in
the school when they wanted to integrate their curriculum with art. This particular night I had

153

offered to help Luke with the most recent project his third grade art class had taken on, the study
of ancient Egypt. I helped Luke take down the pottery displayed around the room placing each
piece carefully on student’s desks. We sat for a while staring at the now blank shelves and walls.
We talked about the best way to display his students newly created Egyptian art inspired by the
education director’s visit. His main concern—how to display each students work prominently for
their parents to see when they entered the art room, along with the pictures taken from the
director’s visit.
While the above story is my reconstruction of an event which may have taken place had
Luke been given additional resources in his district, it illustrates what support systems I believe
should be made available to all novice teachers through the development, maintenance, and
continuation of programs like the KCP. To ensure the success of these programs from their
conception it is imperative to keep in mind, in a true partnership the constituents who you wish
to serve cannot be left out of the equation.

154

APPENDICES

155

Appendix A
Teachtown MKE Educators Resource Guide

Figure 7. Teachtown MKE Educators Resource Guide
156

Figure 7 (cont’d)

157

Appendix B
Teachtown MKE Monthly Newsletter

Figure 8. Teachtown MKE Monthly Newsletter

158

Appendix C
Teacher Survey

Dear Teacher,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a research study examining how the Teachtown MKE,
Key to the City pass is used by teachers. Your participation in this study will help document and
better understand how Teachtown MKE and local organizations can better support teachers.
Please answer all questions to the best of your ability. Please note, if at any time you need to
pause the survey, you need to click the NEXT button to ensure that your information and
answers will be stored until you resume. Participation in this research project is completely
voluntary. You are under no obligation to participate and, if you choose not to participate, no
penalties will occur. You may refuse to release certain data, if you wish. You may discontinue
participation at any time without penalty. There will be two $250 drawings for
DonorsChoose.org for participation in the survey. Donors Choose will allow funds to be directed
to the two participants’ classrooms that win the drawing.
All data collected will be securely stored. Only researchers and Teachtown MKE staff working
with the study, all of whom are bound to maintain confidentiality, will review the data collected.
Every effort will be made to protect information about teachers, for example, by keeping data in
secure locations and by using pseudonyms and disguising identifies in any written reports,
publications, and presentations. Results of the study will be reported so that neither individuals
nor their schools can be identified. The data collected for this research study will be protected on
a password protected computer or in a locked file cabinet for a minimum of three years after the
close of the project. Only the appointed researchers, Teachtown MKE staff and the Institutional
Review Board will have access to the research data. Your confidentiality will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.
If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or
to report an injury, please contact Tamara Shattuck, N14W29542 Golf Rd. Pewaukee, WI
53072, shattu31@msu.edu, (518)424-6808 or Anne-Lise Halvorsen, 359 Erickson Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824; (517) 355-9603; annelise@msu.edu.
If you have any questions regarding your role and rights as a research participant, or would like
to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the
Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, FAX 517432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI
48824.
By clicking on the button below, you are agreeing to participate in the research study.
Please write your name for identification purposes
Name: __________________________
159

Teachtown MKE TEACHER SURVEY
Section One: Key to the City Use
This survey is designed to help us gain a better understanding of whether, and if so how you use
the Teachtown Welcome Kit (now called Key to the City). Please indicate your opinion about
each of the statements below. Your answers are confidential.
The Welcome Kit…
Strongly Somewhat
Disagree Disagree

Neutral/
No
Opinion

Somewhat Strongly
Agree
Agree

a. Connects me to the local
Milwaukee community
b. Helps me find resources for
classroom use
c. Introduces me to other
teachers/ educators
d. Gives me access to local
programs/ organizations for
personal use (e.g. visit with
family/ friends)
e. Gives me access to local
programs/ organizations for
professional use (e.g. field trips,
professional development,
curriculum resources)

Section Two: Organizations Visited
Please mark organizations that you have used/ visited, and all of the reasons you used the
organization; Personal (e.g. visit with family, friends, or by myself); Field trip; Professional
Development; Classroom Resources; Other
Organizations...
Personal

Field
Trip

a. Discovery World
b. Milwaukee Art Museum

160

Professional Classroom
Development Resources

Other

c. United Performing Arts
Organization (UPAF)
d. Milwaukee Public Library
e. Milwaukee Public Museum
f. Friends of Boerner
Botanical Garden
g. Historic Milwaukee
h. Pabst Theater/ Riverside
Theater/ Turner Hall
i. Alverno Presents
j. Milwaukee Film
k. Stone Creek Coffee
m. Milwaukee Bucks
Basketball
o. Milwaukee Wave
p. Skylight Music Threater
q. FUEL Milwaukee
r. YMCA of Metropolitan
Milwaukee
s. If you selected professional development for any of the above organizations please briefly
explain the professional development event you attended.
t. If you selected classroom resources for any of the above organizations please briefly explain
what resources you used and how you used them in your classroom.
Section Three: Key to the City Use
1. Please list any obstacles in using the Key to the City pass (e.g. transportation, time,
money, not enough information available about organizations).

161

2. What has been the most useful aspect of the Key to the City pass for you and why? What
has been the least useful and why?
3. Please add anything else that would be helpful for us to know in order to understand your
use of the Key to the City pass.
Section Four: Additional Information
In addition to the survey you just participated in researchers will be looking for participants for a
focus group. In the focus group you will be asked questions about your background, your use of
the Key to the City pass, and your experience as teacher in the Teachtown MKE program. All
focus group participants will be given a $25 gift card. Participation in this research project is
completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to participate and, if you choose not to
participate, no penalties will occur.
If you are willing to participate in the focus group please write your name and your contact
information below (phone and email).
Name: __________________________
Phone: __________________________
Email: __________________________

162

Appendix D
Focus Group Interview Protocol

Teachers Name:_________________________________________________
Start Time: _________

End Time: ___________

INTRODUCTION
Thank you for taking time to talk with me today. As you know, as teacher in the Teachtown
program, you have agreed to participate in a research study examining how the Key to the City
pass is used both personally and professionally. In particular, the purpose of the study is to
document and better understand how local organizations support teachers. The main purpose of
today’s interview is to get a better sense of your perspective on the Key to the City pass, and will
take about 45 minutes.
In this interview I will be asking you questions about:
 Your background
 Your use of the Key to the City pass
 Your experience as teacher in the Teachtown MKE program
I want to remind you that this is voluntary. You may stop at any time or refuse to answer any
question without penalty. Feel free to let me know if you would like me to repeat or explain a
question. I also want to remind you that what you share will be confidential and your privacy
will be protected to the fullest extent possible.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin. ASK FOR PERMISSION TO AUDIOTAPE. If provided, then turn on
digital voice recorder (State the date, my name, and the focus group location). If not, then take
detailed notes during the focus group (take notes even if they do provide permission for
audiotape)

163

Questions:
1. Has the Key to the City pass helped you learn more about the city of Milwaukee, if yes
how?
2. How have you used the Key to the City pass (probe: personally/ professionally; do you
find you use the pass for one more than the other?)
3. If you have used/ visited Key to the City pass organizations professionally can you
expand on your use (field trips, PD events, classroom resources)?
4. Can you describe a specific time that you used Key to the City pass resources in your
classroom? (Probe: this can be a specific lesson, curriculum, preparation for a field trip,
organization staff visiting your classroom).
5. Has the Key to the City pass connected you to other education professionals? Who are
they, what organizations do they belong to? (Probe: this can include teachers/
professionals from MPS).
6. What have been the most beneficial aspects of Teachtown MKE and the Key to the City
pass? What has been the least beneficial?
7. If you could change one thing about the Key to the City pass to make it more accessible
to teachers, what would you change?
8. Are there any other suggestions about what Teachtown MKE can do to make it more
likely that you would use the Key to the City pass?
9. Is there anything else you think is important for me to know about your thoughts on the
Key to the City pass or Teachtown more generally?

At the end of the interview state: Thank you all for your participation and time
today.

164

Appendix E
Case Study Teacher Interview Protocol
Interview Date:

Location: ____________________________

Teacher’s Name:___
Current Position/Title: __________________________
School: _______________________
Grade Level(s)/Course(s) Currently Teaching: ____
Interview Start Time:

______

Interview End Time: ___
INTRODUCTION

Thank you for taking time to talk with me today.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a research study examining how the Teachtown MKE, Key to the
City pass is used by teachers. Your participation in this study will help document and better understand
how Teachtown MKE and local organizations can better support teachers.
In this interview I will be asking you questions about:
□ your teaching practices and lesson planning/ curriculum development;
□ the types of resources you use while working with your students;
□ your views on and engagement in professional development (in and outside the Teachtown
program).
I want to remind you that this interview is voluntary. You may stop the interview at any time or refuse to
answer any question without penalty. Feel free to let me know if you would like me to repeat or explain a
question. I also want to remind you that what you share will be confidential and your privacy will be
protected to the fullest extent possible.
Do you have any questions before we begin?
OK, let’s begin. ASK FOR PERMISSION TO AUDIOTAPE. If provided, then turn on digital voice
recorder. If not, then take detailed notes during the interview (still take notes even if they do provide
permission for audiotape).
Please say your first and last name, today’s date, and your current position and/or title. (Do not audio
record this information, mark it on the paper protocol). Verify information noted above and check to be
sure digital voice recorder is turned on and operating.

165

GENERAL TEACHING PRACTICE
I’d like to begin by talking about your teaching practice in general, and then more specifically about how
you use what you learned in Teachtown MKE.
1. Can you describe a recent lesson that you taught? What kinds of materials did you use? Any
special strategies you used? If so, tell me about them.
(Probe: Is that typical of how you teach? Note: If they say something about hands-on learning, ask them
to define it.)
2. What types curriculum did you use in your class this year?
(Probe: How are you using it? (e.g. do you stick closely to the curriculum, do you modify it for your
students or add your own lesson?)
3. In general, what are your goals of teaching? What do you want students to learn?
(Probe: For example a goal could be to strengthen students skills in constructing explanations)

KEY TO THE CITY RESOURCE USE
As you know, the Key to the City pass gives you access to several different cultural institutions (hand
teacher a list of the cultural institutions). I’d like to learn about if and how you use cultural institution
resources in your teaching.
4. Can you give me an example of when you have used a resource from any of these institutions?
(field trip, lesson plan, website, curriculum material, pre/ post visit worksheet, object/ artifact/
primary source)
(Probe: For each mentioned ask them to describe how they used each too)
5. Which resources seem most useful to you? Which are least useful to you so far? Can you
explain how or why?
(Probe: Any modifications to these resources? Which? Why?)
6. In what ways are you seeing your students use cultural institution resources? What challenges do
they face? What aspects of the resources seem less difficult for them?

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
7. Talk about any Teachtown events/workshops you were involved in (if any) this year. Why did
you choose to participate in these particular events?
8. Have you used anything from these events in your classroom? If so, ask for an example.
9. What workshops or other PD opportunities outside of Teachtown have you participated in this
year?
10. Have you used anything from these workshops in your classroom? If so, ask for an example.
11. Which ones are the most useful to you? Which ones are the least valuable? Why

166

12. Could you tell me which professional development initiatives are more of a priority in your
school? Please explain.

COMMUNITY and GENERAL REFLECTION
13. Looking back on your experience across the Teachtown program (events, cultural institution
visits) is there a professional community (museum educators/ staff, peers) that you found have
helped you as a teacher? (Probe: If yes, how and do you see yourself continuing to use any of
these communities as resources in your teaching?)
14. Is there anything else you would like me to know?

Thank you again for your time and for sharing your ideas with me today.

Interview End Time: ______

167

REFERENCES

168

REFERENCES

Abazaoglu, I., & Aztekin, S. (2016). The role of teacher morale and motivation on students’
science and math achievement: Findings from Singapore, Japan, Finland and Turkey.
Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4.
Alyounes, Y. M. (1999). A realistic look at one-way ANOVA: A comparison of parametric and
nonparametric omnibus tests and their post hoc comparison procedures.
Aquino, A., Kelly, A., & Bayne, G. (2010). Sharing our teachers: The required graduate class at
the American Museum of Natural History for Lehman College (CUNY). The New
Educator, 6, 225-246.
Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: support-seeking and
teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational Review, 80, 541-586.
Anderson, D., Lawson, B., & Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the impact of a practicum
experience in an aquarium on pre-service teachers. Teaching Education, 17, 341–353.
Baker-Doyle, K. (2012). First year teachers’ support networks: intentional professional networks
and diverse professional allies. The New Educator, 8, 65-85.
Bandura. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28, 117-148.
Barry, A. (2012). “I was skeptical at first”: Content literacy in the art museum. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 597-607.
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: an overview of issues in
the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education,
39, 175-189.
Borko. H. (2004). Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain.
Educational Researcher, 33, 3-15.
Boyer, J., Fortney, K., & Watts, S. (2010). The changing landscape of museum-provided
professional development for teachers. In An Alliance of Spirit: Museums and School
Partnerships. DC: AAM Press, 57-64.
BU School of Education. (2014). Resources: What are history teachers learning from historic
sites? Retrieved: 2014 from http://www.bu.edu/sed/history-aera/resources/
Bullough, R. (2012). Mentoring and new teaching induction in the United States: a review and
analysis of current practices. Mentoring and Tutoring: partnership in learning, 20, 57-74.
169

Chemical Heritage Foundation. (2017). Who we are. Retrieved: March 2017
https://www.chemheritage.org/who-we-are
Clandinin, J. D., Long, J., Schaefer, L., Downey, A. C., Steeves, P., Pinnegar, E., . . . Wnuk, S.
(2015). Early career teacher attrition: Intentions of teachers beginning. Teaching
Education, 26(1), 1-16.
Coburn, C., & Russell, J. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203-235.
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, Instruction, and Research.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119-142.
Constantinides, E., & Zinck Stagno, M. C. (2011). Potential of the social media as instruments of
higher education marketing: A segmentation study. Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 21, 7-24.
Cornu, R., Ewing, R. (2008). Reconceptualizing professional experiences in pre-service teacher
education…reconstructing the past to embrace the future. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24, 1799-1812.
Cornu, R. (2009). Building resilience in pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education,
25, 717–723.
Crowe, E. (2008). Teaching as a profession: A bridge too far? In M, Cochran-Smith., S, Feiman
Nemser., D. J, McIntyre., K, Demers (Eds) Handbook of research on teacher education:
enduring questions and changing contexts. (pp. 989-999). Florence, KY: Routledge
Cox, L., Barrow, J. (2000). On display: Preservice teachers in the museum. Social
Education, 64, 364-367.
Davis, E., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of
Educational Research, 76, 607-651.
de Freitas, E., & Bentley, S. J. (2012). Material encounters with mathematics: The case for
museum based cross-curricular integration. International Journal of Educational
Research, 55, 36-47.
DeAngelis, K., & Presley, J. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understating of new teacher
attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43, 598- 626.
Dentith, A., & McCarry, D. (2003). Community inquiry and curriculum development a relevant
education for teachers about the Vietnam War. The Clearing House, 77, 57-61.
Dinsmore, J., Wenger, K. (2006). Relationships in preservice teacher preparation: From cohorts
170

to communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 57-74.
Donaldson, M. L. (2012). The promise of older novices: Teach for America teachers’ age of
entry and subsequent retention in teaching and schools. Teachers College Record, 114,
37.
Edwards, A. (2005a). Relational agency: Learning to be a resourceful practitioner.
International Journal of Educational Research, 43, 168-182.
Edwards, A. (2005b). Let’s get beyond community and practice: the many meanings of learning
through participation. The Curriculum Journal, 16, 49-65.
Edwards, A. (2011). Building common knowledge at the boundaries between professional
practices: Relational agency and relational expertise in systems of distributed expertise.
International Journal of Educational Research, 50, 33-39.
Edwards, A., & Mackenzie, L. (2005). Steps toward participation: the social support of learning
trajectories. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24, 287-302.
Engage New York. Retrieved: March 2017, from https://www.engageny.org/
Etelapelto, A., Littleton, K., Lahti, J., & Wirtanen, S. (2005). Students’ accounts of their
participation in an intensive long-term learning community. International Journal of
Educational Research, 43, 183–207.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
Fortney, K. (2010). Museum program for school audiences: the basics. In An Alliance of Spirit:
Museums and School Partnerships. DC: The AAM Press, 31-39.
Fox, A., & Wilson, E. (2009). ‘Support our networking and help us belong!’: listening to
beginning secondary school science teachers. Teachers and Teaching, 15, 701-718.
Friends of Boerner Botanical Garden (2017). Guided garden tours. Retrieved: May 2017, from
https://boernerbotanicalgardens.org/guided-garden-tours/
Fry, S. (2007). First-year teachers and induction support: ups, downs, and in-betweens. The
Qualitative Report, 12, 216-237.
Gallant, A., & Riley, P. (2014). Early career teacher attrition: New thoughts on an intractable
problem. Teacher Development, 18, 562-580.
Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction, 4th edition. Boston:
Pearson.
GMC: About. Retrieved: October 2015, from http://gmconline.org/about.
171

GMC: Initiatives. Retrieved: October 2015, from http://gmconline.org/category/initiatives.
GMC Teachtown MKE (2017) GMC launches Teachtown initiative. Retrieved: May 2017, from
http://gmconline.org/category/initiatives/education/teachtownmke-2/page/3Gregg, M., &
Leinhardt, G. (2002). Learning from the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute:
Documenting teacher development. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 553587.
Green, L., Daniel, M., & Novick, L. (2001). Partnerships and coalitions for community-based
research. Public Health Reports, 116, 20-31.
Grossman, P. & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new
teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 2014-2026.
Gupta, P., & Adams. J.( 2012). Museum-university partnerships for preservice science
education. Second International Handbook of Science Education. 24, 1147-1162.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. The
Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.
Haun, D. D., & Martin, B. N. (2004). Attrition of beginning teachers and the factors of
collaboration and school setting. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 27,
1-7.
Holmes, J. A. (2011). Informal learning: Student achievement and motivation in science through
museum-based learning. Learning Environments Research, 14, 263-277.
Hong, J. Y. (2012). Why do some beginning teachers leave the school, and others stay?
understanding teacher resilience through psychological lenses. Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 18, 417-440.
Hopkins, A. P., Rulli, C., Schiff, D., & Fradera, M. (2015). Teacher networks companion piece.
Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 12, 3.
Jamro, W. A., & Shaikh, H. (2016). Exploring the educational and research insights of social
networks. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 14, 626631.
Jeffers, C. (2003). Gallery as nexus. Art Education, 56, 19-24.
Johnson, B., Down, B., Cornu, R., Peters, J., Sullivan, A., Pearce, J., & Hunter, J. (2014).
Promoting early career teacher resilience: a framework for understanding and acting.
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 20, 530-546.
Johnson, J., & Rassweiler, J. (2010). Connecting museums, school and community:

172

collaborations for learning. In An Alliance of Spirit: Museums and School Partnerships.
DC: The AAM Press, 65-71
Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time
has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
Jung, M., & Tonso, K. (2006). Elementary preservice teachers learning to teach science in
science museums and nature centers: A novel program’s impact on science knowledge,
science pedagogy, and confidence teaching. Journal of Elementary Science Education,
18, 15-31.
Kaiser, A. (2011). Beginning teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the first through third
waves of the 2007-08 beginning teacher longitudinal study. first look. NCES 2011-318
National Center for Education Statistics. , P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398.
Kardos, S. M., & Johnson, S. M. (2010). New teachers’ experiences of mentoring: The good, the
bad, and the inequity. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 23-44.
Kasten, P. (1999). Multicultural mathematics: A university/K-12 museum. The Mathematics
Teacher, 92, 376.
Katz, J. E., & Halpern, D. (2015). Can virtual museums motivate students? toward a
constructivist learning approach. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 776788.
Kendall, S., Murfield, J., Dillon, J., & Wilkin, A. (2008). Education outside the classroom:
research to identify what training is offered by initial teacher training institutions.
National Foundation for Educational Research, 802, 1-76.
Khalifa, A.S. (2012). Mission, purpose, and ambition: Redefining the mission statement. Journal
of Strategy and Management, 5, 236-251.
Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing future teachers to science beyond the classroom. Journal of science
teacher education, 24, 67-91.
Klassen,R., Tze, V., Betts, S., & Gordon, K. (2010). Teacher efficacy research 1998-2009: Signs
of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23, 21-43.
Liu, X. S. (2007). The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: A
multilevel analysis of the schools and staffing survey for 1999-2000. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 13, 1-16.
Longacre, M. R., DeFrancis, G. F., Fenzel, M., Drake, K. M., Langeloh, G. E., & Dalton, M. A.

173

(2013). Student scientists learn about energy balance through science museum-academic
partnership. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 45, 90-93.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Madge, C., Meek, J., Wellens, J., & Hooley, T. (2009). Facebook, social integration and informal
learning at university: ‘it is more for socializing and talking to friends about work than
for actually doing work.’. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 141-155.
Marable-Bunch, M. (2010). Meeting teachers’ needs. In An Alliance of Spirit: Museums and
School Partnerships. (pp. 9-14). DC: AAM Press.
Matejka, K., Kurke, L.B. and Gregory, B. (1993). Mission impossible? Designing a great
mission statement to ignite your plans. Management Decision, 31,34-7.
Merill, S. (2006). Is the glass half full or half empty: newly qualified teachers’ perceptions of
their progress at the midpoint of their induction year. Management in Education, 20, 2935.
Miele, E., & Shanley, D. (2010). Online teacher education: A formal-informal partnership
between Brooklyn College and the American Museum of Natural History. The New
Educator, 6, 247-264.
Miles , M., Huberman, A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Milwaukee Public Museum (2017) Permanent exhibits. Retrieved: May 2017, from
https://www.mpm.edu/plan-visit/exhibitions/permanent-exhibits
MPS: Learning Journeys. (2017). Retrieved March, 2017 from
http://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/en/Programs/Learning-Journeys.htm
Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M., & Packard, B. W. (1998). Hands-on biology: A museum-school
university partnership for enhancing students’ interest and learning in science. The
Elementary School Journal, 98, 267-288.
Perdue, R. (2002). Internet site evaluations: The influence of behavioral experience, existing
images, and selected website characteristics. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 11,
21-38.
Perspectives for a diverse America, (2017). Retrieved March, 2017 from
http://perspectives.tolerance.org/

174

Pritschet, L., Powell, D., & Horne, Z. (2016). Marginally significant effects as evidence for
hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychological Science, 27, 10361042.
Rathmann, C. (1914). The educational museum of the St. Louis Public Schools. U.S Bureau of
Education Bulletin, 48, 5-50.
Ready, D.A. and Truelove, E. (2011). The power of collective ambition. Harvard Business
Review. 89, 94-102.
Richards, E. (June 26, 2013). MPS gears up for influx of young professionals. Journal Sentinel.
Retrieved: May 2017, from http://archive.jsonline.com/news/education/mps-gears-up-forinflux-of-young-professionals-b9941633z1-213241481.html
Saldana, J., Leavy, P., & Beretvas, N. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, USA.
Sass, D. A., Seal, A. K., & Martin, N. K. (2011). Predicting teacher retention using stress and
support variables. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 200-215.
Schaefer, L. (2013). Beginning teacher attrition: A question of identity making and identity
shifting. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19, 260-274.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.
Shattuck, T. (2014). I am scientist, teacher, and student: The relationship between professional
communities and pre-service teacher role identification. Manuscript in preparation.
Sim, C. (2006). Preparing for professional experiences—incorporating pre-service teachers as
‘communities of practice’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 77–83.
Smith, T., & Ingersoll, R. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning
teacher turnover? American Education Research Journal, 41, 681-714.
Spybrook, J., & Walker, S. (2012). Creating inclusive, literacy-embedded play centers in a
children’s museum: Connecting theory to practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 33, 382-391.
Stanulis, R., Ames, K., & Burrill, G. (2007). Fitting in and learning to teach: Tensions in
developing a vision for a university-based induction program for beginning teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 135-147.

175

Stanulis, R.N., Fallona, C.A., & Pearson, C.A. (2002). ‘Am I doing what I am supposed to be
doing?’: Mentoring novice teachers through the uncertainties and challenges of their first
year of teaching. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 10, 71-81.
Stone, D. (2013). Hands-on teaching in a campus museum: Linking theory and practice. Art
Education, 16-21.
Sturm, H., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Learning at workstations in two different environments: A
museum and a classroom. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 6.
Suter, L. E. (2014). Visiting science museums during middle and high school: A longitudinal
analysis of student performance in science. Science Education, 98, 815-839.
Teachtown MKE Yearbook: 2013-2014. Retrieved: July 2015, from
http://www.teachtownmke.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/GMC_TeachtownMKE_Yearbook_Web.pdf.
Torres, A. S. (2012). “Hello, goodbye”: Exploring the phenomenon of leaving teaching early.
Journal of Educational Change, 13, 117-154.
Tran, L. A. (2009). Evaluation of community web sites. Online Information Review, 33, 96-116.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and
Measure. Review of Education Research, 68, 202-248.
Unrath, K., & Luehram, M. (2009). Brining children to art-bringing art to children. Art
Education, 62, 41-47.
Weinstein, M., & Ruble, E. (2011). Can formal-informal collaborations improve science literacy
in urban middle schools? the impact of urban advantage. IESP policy brief. 03-11.
Weinstein, M., Whitesell, E. R., & Schwartz, A. E. (2014). Museums, zoos, and gardens: How
formal-informal partnerships can impact urban students’ performance in science.
Evaluation Review, 38, 514-545.
Whitesell, E. R. (2016). A day at the museum: The impact of field trips on middle school science
achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 1036-1054.
Wilkening, S., Chung, J.(2009). Does Anyone Care About Me? In Life Stages of the Museum
Visitor: Building Engagement Over a Lifetime. (pp. 18-19). DC: The AAM Press.
Williams, M. (2016). Coalescence of research: Urban advantage as a learning organization
structured to support a culture of inquiry (Order No. 10006577). Available from
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
176

Yilmaz, K., Filiz, N., & Yilmaz, A. (2013). Learning social studies via objects in museums:
Investigation into turkish elementary school students’ lived experiences. British
Educational Research Journal, 39, 979-100.

177