Authentic care in an urban high school

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 1

Authentic Care in an Urban High School
by
Kristin Moody

__________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Proposal Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 13, 2017

Copyright 2017 Kristin Moody
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 2
DEDICATION

For my children and husband who are my everything: Thank you for the absolute magic of
caring for you and being cared for by you. We got that attitude.

For my dad: You have been my hero since I was born. Thank you for being someone I am
inspired by every day.

For my clients, colleagues, students, family, and friends:
Ubuntu. I am because you are. Thank you.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, thank you to my crazy, wonderful family. I am grateful to be your
mother/wife/friend. I appreciate all the missed bedtime stories and special moments you allowed
of me to make this happen. For my sweet husband, thank you for always bringing me down to
earth when I spin out. Thank you for all the love and support—for believing in me. And for
letting me blow all our money on another degree.
To my wild and wonderful dissertation chair, Dr. Jennifer Crawford: Your kindness,
direction, and vision propelled me through this process many times I felt tempted to phone it in.
Your belief in me commanded excellence, and I am grateful for you. To my talented, insightful,
committee members Dr. Alan Green and Dr. David Cash: Thank you for your encouragement,
your expertise, and your support. To my dissertation support partners Dawn Janke and Amanda
Holdsworth: One of the greatest gifts of this program has been learning from each of you. Thank
you for your heart, critical feedback, and willingness to answer texts at all hours of the night.
To the principal, staff, and students of the school in which I conducted my study: I see
you working hard, changing the narrative about urban schools, and creating an incredible family
in which I was grateful to briefly participate. I appreciate your honesty, thoughtfulness, and
willingness to participate in my research when so, so much is already asked of you every day.
To my clients over the past nine years: I have learned so much from all of you that
inspired this work and for which I am eternally grateful. No schooling could begin to compare to
all that I have learned from you, and I am grateful for the work you do every day to change kids’
lives. You have become extended family to me, and I hope to continue to grow and collaborate
with you in service of caring, empowering schools for every student in this country.
To Dr. Owen: Looks like I do know how to write a scholarly paper.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 4
Finally, to the teachers who took the time to care about me and really know me at
Baltimore Schools for the Arts: My experience at that school changed my life because of the
relationships teachers had with students. You are the vision I have in my head for what an
excellent school looks like, and I am so, so grateful. Wheel in a wheel.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication 2

Acknowledgements 3

List of Tables 7

List of Figures 8

Abstract 9

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 10
Introduction to the Problem of Practice 10
Care Theory in Education 13
The Study Site 21
Importance of the Evaluation 29
Purpose of the Project and Questions 30
Methodological Framework 31
Definitions 31
Organization of the Project 33

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 34
Theoretical Foundation 35
Impact of Authentic Teacher Care 45
KMO as a Framework to Investigate Authentic Care 52
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, 78
and Organizational Context on Authentic Care for Students
Conclusion 81

Chapter Three: Methodology 82
Study Site and Samples 83
Data Collection 88
Data Analysis 96
Credibility and Trustworthiness 98
Ethics 99
Limitations and Delimitations 102
Conclusion 105

Chapter Four: Results and Findings 106
Sample Participants and Study Site 106
Results 111
Conclusion 147

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 6
Chapter Five: Recommendations 151
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences on Authentic Care 150
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 166
Future Research 173
Conclusion 174

References 183

Appendix A: Student/Parent Notification Information Sheet 196

Appendix B: Teacher Informed Consent/Information Sheet 198

Appendix C: Student Focus Group #1 Protocol 201

Appendix D: Teacher Focus Group #1 Protocol 203

Appendix E: Student Focus Group Protocol #2 205

Appendix F: Teacher Focus Group Protocol #2 206

Appendix G : Observation Notes Template 208

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 7
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Stakeholder Knowledge Influence and Type 60
Table 2. Motivational Influence and Assessment 68
Table 3. Organizational Influences on the Formation of Authentic Care 78
Table 4. Knowledge Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments 94
Table 5. Motivation Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments 95
Table 6. Organizational Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments 95
Table 7. Recommendations, Strategies, and Projected Impact to Promote Authentic
Care in Urban Secondary Schools 171
Table 8. Possible Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Authentic Care
Recommendations 176

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 8
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of Teacher Care 79

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 9
ABSTRACT

The positive effects of caring, empathy-based relationships between teachers and students are
well-documented. Those effects include the promotion of student-to-student empathy, self-
esteem, motivation, and engagement (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994); improved
student and school performance (Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; McCroskey & Teven, 1997;
Noddings, 2013; Klem & Connell, 2004; Wentzel, 1997); higher rates of teacher satisfaction,
engagement, and retention (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Kraft et al., 2015); and more effective
classroom management and student behavior (Stronge et al., 2011; Helker & Ray, 2009;
Okonofua et al., 2016; Cothran, Kulinna, & Garrahy, 2013). Despite the significant benefits of
authentic teacher care, care theory is absent from nationwide accountability measures, public
policy, teacher training, and school improvement initiatives (Cohen et al., 2009). Urban schools
that have been identified as in need of improvement provide the least access to authentic care
(Rolón-Dow, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2015; Darling-Hammond, 2004). To bridge this gap
between research and today’s urban schools, this case study examines the influences on teachers’
formation of authentic care for students and the behaviors students perceive as indicative of
authentic care. In this study, the most critical influences on teachers’ formation of authentic care
were organizational clarity of vision for relationships and access to reliable feedback from
students and coaches to inform caring behaviors. Students described the most important indices
of teacher care as teachers’ fairness, authenticity, access for informal interaction,
joy/temperament, and cultural responsivity. Recommendations to promote authentic care in
urban high schools include clearly-articulated goals, metrics of success (that are based on student
feedback), and resources such as teacher coaching and designated time for teacher-student
relationship-building.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 10
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY

The proper education of any people includes sympathetic touch between teacher and
pupil; knowledge on the part of the teacher, not simply of the individual taught, but of his
surroundings and background, and the history of his class and group….
-W.E.B. Du Bois, Does The Negro Need Separate Schools, 1934
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
More than two decades of reform era schooling have been dedicated to facilitating
increased accountability for the academic outcomes of students in order to mitigate the inequities
of the public education system. Yet, after more than twenty years of school improvement
initiatives, new education legislation, and reform investments upwards of $100 million
(Tanenbaum et al., 2015), significant gaps in educational equity persist (Elias, White & Stepney,
2014; Orfield & Lee, 2005). The gap between the average performance of White students and
their Black and Latino peers on standardized assessments is wide, and the gap between high-
income and low-income students even wider. Some reports have identified an average gap as
large as six years between the testable outcomes of affluent, White students and low-income,
Black students (Rutledge, Cohen-Vogel, & Roberts, 2015). The overall impact of the
accountability movement has been negligible according to many studies (Figlio & Loeb, 2011;
Lee & Orfield, 2006; Tanenbaum et al., 2015), and socio-economic status (SES) and race
continue to be the most predictive variables in student performance, over all other variables
including class size, teacher retention rates, and school size (Elias, White & Stepney, 2014;
Orfield & Lee, 2005).
Most racially and socio-economically isolated schools, which are defined as schools with
largely homogenous student populations of minoritized students, have lower performance
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 11
designations based on standardized measures, fewer highly-qualified teachers, higher rates of
teacher turnover, lower average performance on standardized assessments, and lower rates of
graduation (Orfield & Lee, 2005). Although many researchers suggest these deficits result in
equity gaps, some researchers maintain that accountability-based performance designations and
school improvement strategies further damage schools by labeling them and their students as
failures (Darling-Hammond, 2004). In urban centers, where these racially- and socio-
economically-isolated schools are most prevalent, the responsibilities of public schools and staff
are more complex, ubiquitous, and yet largely ignored within the structures imposed through
accountability measures (Crosby, 1999). Low performance designations often result in the
removal of leader autonomy (Figlio & Loeb, 2011), a hyper-focus on testable outcomes in
curriculum and teacher training (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009), and compromised
teacher quality and retention (Crosnoe, Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson, & Elder, 2004; Darling-
Hammond, 2004; Ingersoll, 2001; Kraft, Marinell, & Yee, 2015). This suggests that current,
popular approaches to school improvement may not be meeting the needs of minoritized students
in urban school settings.
School climate and culture are critical considerations in the improvement of schools
despite their absence in teacher preparation programs (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral,
2009) and school improvement initiatives (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Specifically, research has
demonstrated that student-teacher relationships play a critical role in short-term student
performance and long-term student outcomes (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray & Malmgren,
2005; Ramsden, 1987), school quality (Kraft, Marinell, & Yee, 2015; MacNeil, Prater & Busch,
2009), student engagement and school connectedness (Painta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; Patrick,
Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Roorda, Koomen, Split & Oort, 2011), and student behavior (Baker,
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 12
Grant & Morlock, 2008; Okunofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016; Rutledge, Cohen-Vogel, &
Roberts, 2015). School climate has been demonstrated to be less positive in lower performing
schools (MacNeil, Prater & Busch, 2009), and urban and minoritized students are less likely to
perceive their teachers as caring (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006; Crosnoe et al., 2004;
Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Morris, 2016; Noddings, 2013; Noguera, 2004;
Valenzuela, 2010). In short, in addition to gaps in resources, staffing, and student performance,
most low-performing urban schools also experience disproportionately lower perceptions of
school climate and culture.
It is unclear if a less than positive school culture is influenced by failing school
performance designations or if the performance is hindered by school culture. Regardless,
School Improvement Grants (SIGs) and related resources to improve student outcomes are
primarily invested in instruction and curriculum, without inclusion of affective elements of
schooling (Baker, 1999; Cohen, McCable, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2004;
Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Tanenbaum et al., 2015). Student-teacher relationships are absent from the
policies and structures guiding school reform (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009;
Darling-Hammond, 2004). Likewise, new teachers are largely trained in pedagogy and
curriculum implementation, without explicit training or support for affective elements of
schooling (Freeman, Simonsen, Briere & MacSuga-Gage, 2014; Golann, 2015; Johnson et al.,
2004; Ramsden, 1987). The implications of an approach to school improvement strategy that is
hyper-focused on testable skills results in gaps of reliable measures of culture and the
deprioritization of affective elements of learning in schools with low performance designations
(Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2004).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 13
Given the importance of teacher-student relationships in student and school outcomes,
and the persistence of the equity gap experienced by urban, minoritized students, the problem of
practice being investigated in this study is the absence of and barriers to authentic caring
relationships between teachers and their students in urban secondary schools.
Care Theory in Education
The role of teacher as guide, built on a relationship of trust and mutual respect, is
paramount in the earliest writings of education, such as those by Plato and Confucius (Shim,
2008). Some of the most preeminent influences in modern American education identify teacher-
student relationships and the care students perceive from their teachers as the foundation of an
effective learning environment (Dewey, 2004; Freire, 1996; Vygotsky, 1980). The conditions
and characteristics of effective teacher-student relationships have been analyzed through a
myriad of paradigms and contexts, and this study will use Nel Noddings’ theory of authentic care
(2013) as the framework through which these relationships are discussed. Noddings’ concept of
authentic care stipulates empathy for the cared-for (rather than sympathy), authenticity of
feeling, and active receipt of the care from the cared-for as requisite to her model. Authentic care
is described as a contrast to aesthetic care, which is rooted in sympathy (rather than empathy),
connectedness based on an external goal, and does not require the cared-for to perceive caring
(Noddings, 2013). This model has been selected for this study because it addresses two key
elements of teacher-student care in the urban context: 1) Noddings’ model of authentic care
requires empathy, which is inherent in the cultural responsiveness necessary to effectively serve
minoritized students (Roberts, 2010), and 2) Noddings’ model of authentic care stipulates the
importance of the cared-for perceiving and receiving the caring, which is a common theme in
students’ feedback on effective teaching (Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 14
Likewise, many researchers like Rolón-Dow (2005), Shiller (2009), and Valenzuela (2010) have
adopted the Noddings model because of its application to urban and minoritized students.
Although the authentic care concept is readily applicable for an examination of teacher-
student relationships in an urban, secondary school, the genderization and absence of
intersectionality in Nodding’s framework do not specifically address the importance of cultural
relevance in authentic care (Hankivsky, 2014; Roberts, 2010). Because the majority of the urban
teaching force does not match the cultures of the students they are teaching, the concepts of
intersectionality and cultural relevance are necessary to explicate as components of effective
teacher-student relationship-building (Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Morris, 2015; Valenzuela,
2010). By definition, empathy would position the feelings of the cared-for as shared with the
one-caring (Noddings, 2013), facilitating conscientization (Friere, 1996) and cultural relevance
(Roberts, 2010; Watson, Sealy-Ruiz, and Jackson, 2014). However, the critical response to
Noddings’ White, feminist approach to authentic care notes its lack of explicit reference to
intersectionality as a glaring gap (Hankivsky, 2014). True empathy requires the teacher to
consider students’ intersectionality and the cultural implications thereof, even if Noddings’
framework does not specify this. This study therefore will explore teacher care using the
Noddings’ framework of authentic care with the stipulation that care can only be authentic if it
considers the intersectionality of the teacher and student (Hankivsky, 2014), is culturally relevant
(Roberts, 2010; Watson, Sealey-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014), and addresses the inherent power
differential of teachers of minoritized students (Friere, 1996).
Authentic teacher care is not the panacea to the equity gap in American schooling;
however, its prevalence in higher performing schools and absence in lower performing schools
suggests the need to examine how the formation of authentic care may be influenced. To that
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 15
end, this study investigates how current schooling contexts for accountability-era urban high
schools may affect the formation of care. The study identifies the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences on urban, secondary teachers’ formation of authentic care for students
to determine the assets and barriers to care formation. Identification of these influences enables
schools to determine how they are supporting or impeding the formation of authentic care for
students and the role this may play in effective, sustainable school improvement strategy.
Through an evaluation of how teachers at one urban high school develop authentic care for their
students and what their students perceive as demonstrative of that care, this study will identify
considerations for urban high schools who prioritize authentic teacher care.
Care in Modern Urban Schools
Impact of care on students. The role teacher care plays in modern, urban schools could
be significant in assessing and planning sustainable school improvement strategies. Two case
studies across eight urban high schools found that the highest performing schools had effectively
implemented structures designed to meet students’ personal academic and social learning needs
(Rutledge et al., 2015; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016). Another study of three urban schools
over seven years found that intentional design of interpersonal relationships within classroom
communities positively correlated to outcomes for students, including increases in demonstrated
student empathy, self-esteem, motivation, engagement, and even reading comprehension
(Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994). These studies suggest that intentional structures
designed to support and monitor positive teacher-student relationships can positively influence
relationship formation. The formation of structures to facilitate relationships is an approach
largely absent from school improvement initiatives and the inflexible, unresponsive policies and
structures often implemented in urban schools (Golann, 2015; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 16
Impact of care on teachers. Caring relationships are not only beneficial to students and
schools: they are beneficial to teachers. As a result of caring relationships with their students,
teachers demonstrate increased retention and stability (Ingersoll, 2001; Kraft et al., 2015), higher
levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Kraft et al., 2015), and
more effective classroom management and instruction (Stronge et al., 2011). Urban schools have
higher rates of teacher attrition than other schools (Simon & Johnson, 2013), leaving urban
schools with a less experienced teaching force (Darling-Hammond, 2004). Researchers have
found that teachers who feel respected and have reciprocity in caring relationships with their
students are more satisfied, engaged, and likely to stay in their jobs (Stipek, 2006). These data
are especially important given that nearly half of all new teachers and more than 60% of teachers
from alternative certification programs leave within their first five years (Cohen et al., 2009).
This suggests that structures to facilitate authentic care between teachers and their students could
benefit teachers and reduce the attrition and disengagement many urban teachers experience.
Beyond the impact of teacher satisfaction, studies that provided teachers with empathy
training found significant decreases in student behavioral infractions and classroom management
challenges (Helker & Ray, 2009; Okonofua et al., 2016). Given that classroom management and
student behavior are most often named by teachers who leave the profession as barriers to their
retention and effectiveness (Chesley & Jordan, 2012; Freeman et al., 2014), formalized supports
for building teacher-student relationships could positively affect urban teacher retention and
satisfaction. Through teacher interventions to promote care, the most commonly referenced
barrier to new teachers’ success could be mitigated.
Teacher training in care behaviors. Despite the role teacher care can play in student
and teacher success, most urban teachers are not formally prepared, assessed, or supported in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 17
developing their capacity to form caring relationships. Urban teachers have a more complex set
of responsibilities that result from the complexity of many minoritized urban students’ needs
(Antrop-Gonzalez & DeJesus, 2006; Crosby, 1999; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016). Yet, urban
teachers report that mandates and structures focused on testable skills do not meet their needs or
those of their students (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Rutledge, Cohen-Vogel, & Roberts, 2015;
Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Valenzuela, 2010). The intensified stressors and demands of
urban schools can impede teacher retention and satisfaction (Crosby, 1999; Summers, Davis, &
Hoy, 2017; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Waxman & Huang, 1998), and the lack of sufficient
training and support for teachers on affective elements compromise teachers’ self-efficacy
(Freeman et al., 2014; Helker & Ray, 2009; Ingersoll, 2001; Johnson et al., 2004a). The gap
between the job for which urban teachers are prepared and the job they are asked to do
detrimentally impacts teachers’ engagement with their students, satisfaction, and ultimately, their
retention.
Furthermore, for the majority of urban teachers whose culture is different from that of
their students, the cultural disconnect can exacerbate gaps in teacher preparation (Brown, 2004;
Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Morris, 2016; Thompson, 2002). For
example, as of 2014, 70% of New York City Public Schools (NYCPS)’ students are minoritized,
whereas more than 80% of NYCPS teachers are White (Goldenberg, 2014). Teachers in these
settings must consider the cultures, experiences, and positioning of their students to form the
authentic caring relationships that facilitate success (Watson, Sealy-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014);
however, teacher training and evaluation largely excludes this aspect of teachers’ roles (Chesley
& Jordan, 2012; Freeman, et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2004). The absence of this necessary
support subordinates cultural relevance and affective elements of schooling.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 18
Minoritized Students in Urban School Settings
Urban public schools currently have the highest populations of low-income students of
color in the country (NCES, 2016), positioning race and class as integral aspects of urban
education. A report prepared for Congress by the United States Government Accountability
Office in 2016 showed the nation’s schools are more segregated by race and socio-economic
status than prior to Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and the majority of urban students are
enrolled in racially and socio-economically isolated schools. Sixty-one percent of high poverty-
schools (where ≥75% or more of students qualify for free/reduced meals) also had a racial
composition of ≥75% students of color. According to the same study, racial and socio-economic
isolation in public K-12 schools increased to 16% of all schools by 2014 and is projected to
continue to increase (GAO, 2016). Seventy-three percent of Black and 77% of Hispanic students
attend “majority-minority” schools (≥50% students of color), and only 12% of White students
attend majority-minority schools. Three times as many Black and Latino students than White
attend schools deemed “intensely segregated” (≥90% students of color). Eighty-eight percent of
intensely segregated schools are also high poverty (≥ students eligible for free reduced meals).
The majority of these schools are located in urban centers, and the majority of persistently low-
performing urban schools are racially and socio-economically isolated (Orfield & Lee, 2005).
The context for students of color and low-income students, herein described as minoritized
(Benitez, 2010), is therefore critical to understanding the urban school context. As such, this
study applies research that specifically address race and socio-economic status to urban students
and school settings.
Accordingly, the site chosen for this study is a public high school in an urban center,
where 97% of students are low-income (students qualify for free or reduced meals) and 98%
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 19
identify as Black (2% of students identify as Hispanic or multi-racial). This homogeneity in
student enrollment is consistent with national trends in urban schools that have been identified
for improvement (Orfield & Lee, 2005). Although the study site has not been identified as a
school in improvement status, it was specifically designed for and actively recruits minoritized
students who have limited access to high performing school options. The study site is also a
charter school, which positions it to have similar accountability constructs and strategies as many
schools in improvement status. These elements of the school make it an appropriate choice for
the setting in which to investigate influences on authentic care in urban secondary schools.
Importance of the Problem
Given the proportion of racially and socio-economically isolated schools in urban centers,
studies that show a lack of access to teacher care for urban students is disproportionately
affecting minoritized students. Early 20
th
century writings of Du Bois establish that a quality
education must include teachers who understand and believe in their students, providing a
“sympathetic touch” (Du Bois, 1935, p. 238). Although Du Bois (1935) specifically addressed
the desegregation of schools for Black students, his work is applicable to today’s K-12 urban
student, who is likely to be minoritized and enrolled in a racially and socio-economically-
isolated school. Specifically, Du Bois argues that the beliefs of White teachers and absence of
care for Black students in desegregated schools would outweigh any benefits of desegregation.
Du Bois (1935) advocated for resources and equitable educational access, and he also maintained
that community and teacher-student relationships could not be ignored in the pursuit of school
integration. This call for a teacher who understands the history and culture of the students served
is in stark contrast to the current mismatch between the cultural identities of most urban teachers
and their students (Goldenberg, 2014). The need for a teacher who engages with students
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 20
interpersonally is at cross-purposes with the popularized “no excuses” models of schooling,
championed in many urban schools that specifically recruit minoritized students (Golann, 2014).
More recent research into culturally relevant pedagogy supports the premise that
relationships are important: without curricular experiences in a school culture with which
students can identify, students’ capacity to activate schema and engage in learning is
compromised (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Watson et al., 2014). Student perception of teacher care is
enmeshed in this concept: cultural relevance requires recognition of students in the space in
which they exist and demonstrated responsiveness to that positioning (Delpit, 2006; Emdin,
2016; Watson et al., 2014). For the students of Du Bois’ time and those of today, teachers’
participation in a racist and classist system that reinforces structures of oppression undermines
the intent of education (Friere, 1996) and widens gaps in educational equity.
The gap between the needs of urban students and the capacity of the teachers to meet
those needs is exacerbated by higher rates of turnover and inexperience in urban school teachers
(Darling-Hammond, 2004; Simon & Johnson, 2013). In the new era of accountability-focused
schooling, urban teachers are now asked to respond to more intensified roles that meet more
diverse and extreme needs and often do so in deteriorating work environments (Valli & Buese,
2007). Urban school teachers are less experienced and less trained, with higher rates of attrition
and instability than their suburban colleagues (Crosby, 1999; Loeb et al., 2005). Some studies
have found that teachers in low-income schools have significantly less professional and
emotional support (Johnson et al., 2004), and urban teachers cite the disconnect in relationships
with students and the school as a primary cause of dissatisfaction (Simon & Johnson, 2013).
Despite evidence that urban teachers need more support around the affective elements of
schooling, school improvement strategies and teacher training programs focus largely on
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 21
curriculum and instructional strategies for testable outcomes (Cohen et al., 2009; Figlio & Loeb,
2011; Freeman et al., 2014). This illustrates the gap between what teachers need to do to be
successful and the guidance they are provided to do so.
Research shows that implementation of systems and structures to facilitate teacher care
could effect school-wide improvement in a number of outcomes for which schools are
accountable (Rutledge et al., 2015; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Watson et al., 2014;
Waxman & Huang, 1998). Studies like that of Okonofua et al. (2016) demonstrate that teacher
training on empathy can build behaviors that positively impact student behavior, teacher
capacity, and reduce time missed for disciplinary infractions. For the more than 15,000 public,
K-12 schools in a formal state of school improvement (NCES, 2016) and 27 states that report
their school turnaround initiatives have been unsuccessful (Tanenbaum, et al., 2015), strategies
that empower teachers to build authentic care for their students may be a missed opportunity for
school improvement.
The Study Site
This dissertation is organized around a case study of a public charter high school in an
urban school district to identify influences on urban, secondary teachers’ care for their students.
The site was chosen because of its location in an urban school district, the racial and socio-
economic isolation of its student body, its increased accountability to testable outcomes as a
charter school, and its focus on relationship-building with students through an amalgamation of
formal and informal initiatives. This case study incorporates observations and student and
teacher focus groups to glean the skills, beliefs, motivational influences, and organizational
aspects that impact if and how teachers develop authentic care for their students. In addition, the
study identifies students’ perceptions of caring behaviors. The use of two forms of data
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 22
collection at the site facilitated data triangulation and a means of testing and confirming trends
across different participants within the same stakeholder group (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Organizational Context and Mission
The school selected for the case study is referred to herein using the pseudonym
Collegiate Charter High School (CCHS) to protect anonymity of participants. The school is a
college-preparatory, open-enrollment public charter high school in a large, urban school district.
CCHS is a member of a national charter network, as well as the city’s school district. The
mission of CCHS is focused on building academic and character skills that will facilitate college
completion for students who are under-represented at the university level. The student
population is comprised of more than 750 ninth through twelfth graders; 97% identify as low-
income, 98% identify as Black, and 2% identify as Hispanic or multi-racial (primary document,
August 17, 2016). The demographic composition of the student body is consistent with that of
the other high schools in the same school district, and most students reside in the predominantly
low-income area of the city in which the campus is located. All student and school information
was obtained from the school’s leadership team through interviews and primary documents, such
as the student information system spreadsheets, school handbook, and internally-devised school
documents. Specific sources are not named to protect the anonymity of the organization.
School Model
CCHS was opened nearly nine years ago, and first enrollment preference for up to 200
seats per grade goes to students who matriculate from local middle schools in the same charter
network (personal communication with school principal, August 15, 2016). The remaining seats
are primarily filled by students from the immediate community, most of whom are zoned for
low-performing traditional district schools (personal communication with school principal,
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 23
August 15, 2016). The regional charter network office provides guidance and support to the
school, including principal evaluation and development, input on instructional decision-making
and goal setting, and most of the operational and financial management. The school leader has
the autonomy to set internal goals and make decisions about the school program; however, the
college-going mission for all students and the academic performance goals that accompany this
mission are non-negotiable. Some of the elements of the national model adopted by CCHS
include Advanced Placement (AP) participation for all students, an extended school day and
year, and frequent use of assessment data to drive decision-making.
Staffing. There are currently 78 members of the CCHS staff, including the principal,
several assistant principals and deans, an operations team, a student support team (made up of
counselors, college counselors, and Restorative Practices coaches), and 47 teachers. The
teaching staff is diverse: approximately 73% of teachers and leadership staff identify as African
American or multi-racial; and more than one-half of the staff has four or more years’ experience
in education. The school has an average annual teacher retention rate of 89%, which has
increased annually over the past three years and is higher than that of the charter region and the
national network of high schools (primary document, August 3, 2017).
In addition to five instructional periods, all teachers also lead a single-gender advisory of
up to 15 students. Advisors loop with the same group of advisees from their first year of high
school through graduation, and each year the group engages in school-wide initiatives. The
advisory focus this year is three-fold: relationship-building, academic progress monitoring, and
Restorative Justice (RJ) circles. The RJ initiative is in its second year of implementation, so the
consistency and fidelity of implementation varies from classroom to classroom. Considered a
foundational element of the school’s model since inception, and revised several times to address
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 24
staff’s feedback, the advisory remains a daily expectation for most teachers and some non-
instructional staff (personal communication with school principal, August 15, 2016).
The CCHS approach to relationships. The school leader reports that his vision for the
school has consistently been rooted in an expectation that all staff lead with a love for all
students. Of the three criteria used to vet applicants, the first is evidence that the candidate will
prioritize building relationships with students. This is primarily assessed through interview
questions about the candidate’s approach to building and repairing student relationships. The
coaching model at the school provides each teacher with a dedicated coach who observes at least
each month (and more often for newer and struggling teachers). The principal uses information
from the coaches and informal feedback from students as the primary methods of determining
the quality of teacher-student relationships (personal communication with school principal,
August 23, 2017).
Although the national network of charter schools to which CCHS belongs has historically
implemented a “no excuses” model in each school (which includes an extrinsic reward and
demerit system), the high school has deviated from this approach and began piloting the RJ
model in the 2015-16 school year. The leadership team initiated this shift after analyzing
stakeholder survey results and discipline data, both of which revealed that the discipline system
in place was not meeting the goal of effectively promoting appropriate student behavior and
engagement. The system was organized around every teacher assigning demerits and punitive
discipline for every infraction, with disciplinary penalties accruing over time. The leadership
believed this approach to behavior management was detrimentally impacting teacher-student
relationships, positioning those teachers who struggled most with relationships to have the
highest level of fidelity to the discipline model. Throughout the years this approach was in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 25
place, teacher satisfaction rates remained low and suspension and referral rates for students
remained high. These data were at cross-purposes with the school leader’s vision, which he
consistently describes as leading from a love for all students (interview with school principal,
August 23, 2017).
The shift to restorative practices in the 2015-16 year was initiated with formal training for
several leadership team members, a reduction in the list of offenses that would be assigned
demerits, and the development of a three-year restorative practices implementation plan.
Teacher satisfaction rates took a significant dive in the first year of the pilot, with 0% of teachers
reporting in the annual survey that they believed students and teachers interacted with respect
(primary documents, August 17, 2016). In 2016-17, leadership designated one Restorative
Practices Coach (RPC) for each grade level, and advisory teachers were encouraged to begin
using a restorative circle model to build community amongst their advisees. The demerit system
was eliminated. In that year, teacher satisfaction and retention rates both increased, and the
percentage of staff members who reported that students interacted with respect increased from
0% to 29% (primary documents, August 23, 2017). The RJ initiative is in its third year in 2017-
18, and all teachers are now trained on the use of restorative practices to repair trust between
teachers, students, and the community; the demerit system has been wholly eliminated; some
school leadership are participating in more advanced restorative trainings; and greater coaching
support is expected to be provided for teachers in restorative practices throughout the year
(interview with school principal, August 23, 2017).
Organizational Goal
As a member of the national charter network, the non-negotiable mission for CCHS is to
prepare 100% of its students to be accepted to and graduate from college (primary document,
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 26
June 30, 2016). School-specific short- and long-term goals are crafted through collaboration
between the school leader and regional executive director; goals are largely focused on student
performance in standardized measures such as the ACT, End of Course Tests (EOCTs), and
Advanced Placement (AP) exams in service of the 100% college graduation goal. These
academic goals are supplemented by specific goals articulated for each of the priorities named by
the school leader in collaboration with the leadership team (personal communication with school
principal, August 15, 2016).
2017-18 CCHS goals. For the 2017-18 school year, the school has three priorities:
implementation of the AP for All curriculum (an initiative of the national charter network),
systematization of data integration into the teacher coaching model, and an increased number of
teachers trained to use restorative circles. There are two goals assigned to each of the priorities.
1. The AP for All goals are an increased pass rate for math and ELA APs and teacher satisfaction
with training and support.
2. The coaching goals are an increase in students’ on-task percentage during observations and an
85% “Meet” or “Exceed” school-wide score on the procedures rubric.
3. The restorative justice implementation goals are an increase in the number of students who
participate in a restorative conference within 24 hours of removal from the classroom and an
increase in the percentage of teachers who report there are consistent consequences for student
behavior.
These six goals supplement the school’s annual targets around attendance, end of course pass
rates, and average ACT scores for juniors and seniors (interview with school principal, August
23, 2017).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 27
Despite studies that have shown that the focus on testable outcomes has resulted in a
complete omission of goal-setting and data collection around affective elements of schooling
(Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009), CCHS has established one priority and
corresponding goals around the implementation of restorative justice practices, a largely
affective initiative. The school leader anticipates a reduction in disciplinary infractions and
increased staff satisfaction as a result of the informal focus on relationships (as measured by the
teacher survey question about student respect) (personal communication, August 15, 2016);
however, the organizational goals are specific to the implementation of RJ, rather than an
assessment of relationships between teachers and students. Although there are at least two
formal student survey measures in place annually, the school leader notes that this data is not
perceived as reliable, and it is not used formally or informally in the assessment of culture,
relationships, or other priorities. The leader values positive relationships between teachers and
students, but this priority is not codified through organizational goals, formal feedback from
students, or metrics of relationships outside of the RJ implementation (interview with school
principal, August 23, 2017).
The creation of clear, measurable goals for organizational priorities is a critical step in
improvement of priority areas (Clark & Estes, 2008). In many school improvement initiatives,
the absence of clear goals and associated metrics is the barrier to improvement (Bryk et al.,
2015). Although CCHS has identified relationships as a priority, the articulated goals are not
indicative of relationships but a specific initiative—Restorative Justice implementation. Chapter
Five will outline the recommendation for appropriate organizational goals to drive increased
authentic care for students at CCHS.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 28
Description of Stakeholder Groups
As a public charter high school, CCHS’s stakeholder groups include students, parents,
community members, staff members, the leadership team, and the regional office employees.
The staff stakeholder group includes teachers, support staff (such as counselors and RPCs), and
administrative staff (such as the operations manager and technical support lead) (primary
document, August 17, 2016). The leadership team, which is comprised of the principal, assistant
principals, and deans, set the priority for developing teacher-student relationships at CCHS this
year and collaborated to set school goals associated with that priority. As such, the leadership
team is overseeing the implementation of the RJ initiative through feedback to students and staff,
data tracking, and observations (personal communication with principal, August 15, 2016).
Parents connect and commit to the goals through both the relationships they have with the school
team and any attitudes, engagements, or experiences they model or potentially pass on to their
students through their interactions.
Study focus groups. The two stakeholder groups of most direct significance to the
school’s proposed goals, and this study, are students and teachers. The framework for authentic
care considers the teacher as the one-caring, and the student as the cared-for (Noddings, 2013).
Noddings’ approach to authentic care posits that such care exists only when the cared for
perceives the caring. Furthermore, research in teacher-student relationships often finds a
disconnect between teachers’ reports of care for students and students’ perceptions of that care
(Morris, 2015; Valenzuela, 2010; Delpit, 2006). Therefore, the student stakeholder group is
included in this study despite the fact that student feedback and goals around student perception
are not part of the CCHS focus on relationships. Because this study seeks to advocate for the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 29
formation of authentic care through structures of support for teachers, they are the primary
stakeholders of this study.
Importance of the Evaluation
An evaluation of influences on authentic care at CCHS is important for both CCHS and the
similar schools. First, this study provides the school’s stakeholder groups with insight into
perceptions of care from both students and teachers, which could inform the school’s approach to
implementing other similar relationship-building initiatives. One intention of any restorative
approach to classroom management and school culture is to strengthen relationships within the
learning community (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013), and student and teacher perspectives on
relationships will be critical for the CCHS leadership team to assess their initiative. Further, the
study may inform necessary supports and an understanding of the school culture and setting
influences on those relationships to be addressed by leadership. Because the school leader
consistently describes the vision for the school as rooted in a love for all kids with relationships
at the epicenter of the work, a thorough evaluation of those relationships may be used to formally
organize around this vision.
As a high school in a national network of “no excuses” charter schools, CCHS seeks to
determine if relationships can be prioritized without compromising the high standards for
behavior and academic performance (personal communication with school principal, August 15,
2016). Data collection on perceptions of care from students and teachers in the context of this
significant organizational shift may provide the leadership team with more information to
support action planning and goal assessment. This information could also be helpful for leaders
of other schools in the network considering the benefits and limitations of a relational model on
student performance by showing some of the beliefs and influences on teachers’ capacity to form
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 30
authentic care for students.
Beyond CCHS, the evaluation of influences on authentic care and the impact of
significant culture shifts on teacher-student relationships could be helpful to other urban high
schools. Identifying strategies that facilitate the development of authentic care, especially in the
context of an organization that is shifting from a “no excuses” models of discipline, could
translate for other, similar urban high schools. Given the relationships between teacher-student
relationships and student and teacher outcomes, a better understanding of how and why authentic
care is enacted provides important information for schools that seek to sustainably improve their
performance.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on CCHS teachers’ capacities to form authentic care for their students. This study
will focus primarily on teachers to understand how their capacity to form and sustain authentic
caring relationships is impacted by their beliefs, understandings, and contextual influences (such
as current annual goals and strategies designed to support those goals). It will also investigate
what strategies students perceive as indicative of authentic caring relationships between
secondary, urban teachers and their students.
Therefore, the questions that guide this evaluative study are:
1. What actions, strategies, and habits of teachers do CCHS students perceive as
demonstrative of authentic care?
2. What are the knowledge and motivation influences on CCHS teachers’ formation of
authentic care for students?
3. How do the organizational context and culture promote or impede the formation of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 31
authentic care for students at CCHS?
Methodological Framework
For the purposes of this study, the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is used
to organize the influences on authentic care into the categories of knowledge/skills, motivational
influences, and organizational culture and setting influences. This provides a practical
application for organizations to assess the gap between performance and goals and align
strategies appropriate to the causes of the gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). Although CCHS does not
have stated goals for relationships to use in a formal gap analysis, the use of this framework to
organize requisite skills, beliefs, and context provides a clear map for implementation of
appropriate supports. Using an evaluative approach in the methodological framework will
facilitate identification of recommended strategies that align to specific categories of influence.
Definitions
Aesthetic Care: Aesthetic care is defined by the theories of Noddings (2013) and Valenzuela
(2010). Care provided by the one caring is formulated in the context of organizational goals,
policies, and structures. For teachers, aesthetic care is caring about students in service of the
school’s goals and/or performance outcomes.
Authentic Care: Authentic care is defined by the theories of Noddings (2013) and Valenzuela
(2010). It is care provided by the one caring that is rooted in empathy and positions the needs of
the cared-for as priority above all else. For teachers, authentic care is caring for students as
people and deprioritizes the goals of the organization as secondary to the student’s personal
needs.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 32
Charter School: A charter school is a public school that has received flexibility from local and
state regulations in exchange for greater accountability to increased student metrics (National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2017).
Conscientization: Conscientization (critical consciousness raising) is a concept articulated by
Freire (1996) in which an individual becomes aware of and acts against participation in
oppressive social structures. For teachers, conscientization includes dismantling the structures
that perpetuate oppression of students, with particular focus on the systems that reinforce the
subjugation of people by race, socio-economic status, gender, and culture.
Empathy: Empathy is the state of sharing feelings with another. Unlike sympathy, wherein the
agent feels for someone from his or her position, empathy requires the agent to share the feelings
and experience the other’s frame of reference (Noddings, 2013).
Low-Income Students: Low-income students, for the purposes of this study, are defined as those
students who are eligible for free or reduced meals through the National School Lunch Program.
Free meal eligibility is for those families who annually earn ≤130% of the poverty level and
reduced meal eligibility is for those families who annually earn ≤185% of the poverty level. In
2014, 130% of the poverty level is $30,615 for a family of four; 185% is $43,568 (United States
Department of Agriculture, 2014).
Minoritized Students: The term “minoritized” is used to refer to those students who, as a result of
their gender, race, religion, socio-economic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other
identifying culture or group, are stigmatized and/or marginalized as a group outside of a
theoretical majority (Benitez, 2010).
Restorative Justice: In this system of justice, the offender is coached through accountability to
the community and making amends for the offense as perceived as a harm to the community. In
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 33
schools, the Restorative Justice approach to discipline may replace standard disciplinary
procedures and create structures whereby students dialogue with one another about infractions in
service of community transformation and inter-relatedness (Restorative Practices International,
2017).
Subtractive Schooling: Subtractive schooling is a theory developed by Valenzuela (2010) to
describe the stripping away of Mexican and U.S.-Mexican youth culture as a component of the
public education system. It has also been applied to the experience of any students who do not
subscribe to the dominant culture advanced in public schools, and it is the result of a student’s
disempowerment through messaging and practices of a school that devalue or deny a student’s
culture (Valenzuela, 2010).
Organization of the Project
This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter introduces the problem, key
terms and relevant literature, as well as the organization being studied. The second chapter
reviews the literature on the gap analysis framework and current literature on authentic care,
including literature relevant to the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on the
formation of authentic care in urban high schools. The third chapter outlines the methodology
and conceptual framework for the study in detail. The fourth chapter outlines and analyzes the
data collected throughout the study. The final chapter recommends strategies and assessment
measures that consider the data analyzed herein.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 34
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. That
learning process comes easiest to those of us who teach who also believe that there is an
aspect of our vocation that is sacred; who believe that our work is not merely to share
information but to share in the intellectual and spiritual growth of our students. To teach
in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to
provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin.
-bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress, 1994

This chapter provides a more detailed investigation of the literature that informs the
study. The literature addresses the research questions by providing the theoretical foundation
and research base for the influences on authentic teacher care in urban secondary schools. It
demonstrates how the gap between research on teacher-student relationships and current codified
improvement priorities in urban public schools could present a problem of practice. It also
clarifies how knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture theory explain influences on the
formation of care that can be evaluated to improve teacher-student relationships.
The first section outlines how authentic care is defined. The second section provides an
overview of the impact that care may play in student, teacher, and school outcomes. The third
section outlines the gap analysis framework used to analyze care formation and the literature
about the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence on the formation of authentic
care. The fourth section provides the conceptual framework for the study, wherein the
framework for gap analysis is integrated into the relevant literature to provide a cohesive
approach to the evaluation of authentic care.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 35
Theoretical Foundation
Teacher care has been described as foundational to educational attainment over thousands
of years and across the globe. As early as 380 B.C., Plato described teachers’ care for students
as critical to their capacity to learn. He maintained that only with strong bonds of trust between
teacher and student, wherein students perceived a teacher as caring for their growth, could
meaningful learning take place (Shim, 2008). The southern African concept of Ubuntu, which
informed pre-colonized schooling models across the south of Africa for thousands of years,
necessitates communal care facilitated by teachers as imperative to student growth (Murithi,
2009). The Japanese approach to formalized education, largely unchanged for hundreds of years,
is also founded on teacher-student relationships. It is common for teachers to loop (one teacher
stays with the same group of students over several years) and take meals and breaks together as a
means of continually strengthening the informal teacher-student bond (Lewis, 1995). In the
United States, the role of teacher-student relationships has also been a critical consideration. For
academics like Du Bois, the greatest threat of desegregated schools in a racist society was the
need for teachers to have a “sympathetic touch” for their pupils, wherein they cared for their
students not just as learners, as a people whose history and culture they understood (1934).
Teacher care has been the cornerstone of educational theory within a range of cultures and
epochs.
The current approach to teacher care in the western classroom is frequently called
relational education (Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, 1997) and is a facet of social
constructivist theory (Pianta et al., 2012). Built on the belief that the educational environment is
the foundation for learning (Vygotsky, 1980), relational education theorists see the relationship
between the student and his/her classmates and teachers as a critical element of the educational
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 36
environment (Pianta et al., 2012). Relational education considers a range of interactions
including teacher-student; however, this study specifically addresses the relationship between
teachers and students and how this relationship is influenced.
Although there is a myriad of frameworks for teacher-student relationships, this study is
anchored specifically in the definitions of teacher care initially described by relational education
theorist Nel Noddings (2013). Noddings positions a teacher’s empathy and authenticity of
feeling for her students as pivotal to teachers’ self-actualization and students’ success. She
describes care for students as being authentic (driven by empathy and the consideration of a
student’s human needs first) or aesthetic (driven by sympathy and the consideration of an
organization’s or individual’s goals for that student first) (Noddings, 2013). Authentic care
encompasses principles and beliefs about education from across cultures and eras, and is
underpinned by the concept of empathy, which is foundational to culturally relevant approaches
to pedagogy and student-teacher interaction (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Authentic Care
The qualities and characteristics of a positive relationship vary by researcher and climate
assessment tool; however, teacher care is named across school climate research and other
measures of relationships as a foundational element of effective school learning environments
(Stipek, 2006; Valenzuela, 2010; Wentzel, 1998; Wentzel, 2002). Noddings’ (2013) paradigm of
authentic care is frequently referenced in analyses of relationships between teachers and students
because it addresses the conditions of care that are requisite for positive impact. Authentic care
is achieved when the one-caring feels with, or empathizes with, the cared-for in service of the
cared-for’s needs as a human. A misunderstood connotation of empathy might suggest the one-
caring feels sympathy for the cared-for, which is very different from empathy (Noddings, 2013).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 37
Empathy is literally defined as “the action of vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, or
experience of another” (Webster, 2016). Real empathy requires the one-caring literally to share
another’s feeling, positioning the one-caring to act with and in service of the needs of the cared-
for, even at the expense of organizational goals (Noddings, 2013). Noddings’ (2013) definition
of authentic care also includes the perception and active receipt of the caring by the cared-for.
This is critical given the research that shows disconnects between teachers’ reports of caring for
students, and students’ perceptions that teachers don’t care (Valenzuela, 2010).
Culturally relevant and responsive care. A defining aspect of authentic care is the
cared-for’s perception of the authenticity and receipt of the care (Noddings, 2013). In the
context of the classroom, this means the teacher’s care for the student is anchored in true
empathy (not sympathy) that focuses on the student’s human needs as the primary consideration
of the relationship. Authentic care in enacted, not in service of the teacher’s or school’s goals,
but the student’s needs. Although Noddings does not explicitly name the significance of cultural
relevance in authentic care, the Culturally Relevant Care (CRC) model (Roberts, 2010; Watson,
Sealey-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014) does. According to Watson, Sealey-Ruiz, and Jackson (2014), the
empathy required of authentic care for a student recognizes students’ cultural context and how
their race, culture, and socio-economic status position them within society. Likewise, Hankivsky
(2014) notes that authentic care cannot exist without an acknowledgement of intersectionality.
“Intersectionality rejects any a priori assumptions about the importance of any one constellation
of intersecting factors” (Hankivsky, 2014, p. 254), and this individualized understanding and
response is requisite to authentic care for minoritized students.
This consideration of cultural relevance, a student and teacher’s intersectionality, and
power inherent in the teacher-student relationship may be best articulated through Freire’s (1996)
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 38
concept of conscientization. Conscientization (Freire, 1996) pre-dates the terms cultural
relevance and authentic care and was specifically applied to the power constructs inherent in
class structures. However, the recommendation for teachers to unpack their role in student
oppression to dismantle oppressive systems positions teachers to explore their relationship with
students from a more intersectional lens. Friere’s (1996) explanation of the cultural and power
considerations of teacher-student relationships may be rooted in the context of economic class,
but the current practice of conscientization encourages teachers to engage in ongoing reflection
and response both to the personal and the political contexts of individual students. This
intersectional approach to forming relationships with students engenders the empathy for which
Noddings’ (2013) approach to authentic care advocates. Moreover, conscientization enables
teachers to embark on understanding through and with students, providing a lens through which
the teacher-student relationship can be analyzed in service of true empathy. Teachers’
understanding of themselves and their students through the lens of the power each students’
unique identity may or may not carry develops means of authentically caring for students in
ways the students can perceive and leverage.
Researchers like Delpit (2006) and Emdin (2016) have crafted entire approaches to
teacher-student interaction rooted in the reality that authentic relationships between minoritized
students and their teachers must be responsive to students’ cultural contexts. Even when teachers
are minoritized, the power structure at play in schooling structures requires teachers to consider
the needs of their students through the lens of their intersectionality to effectively form authentic
care that is culturally responsive (Freire, 1996: Emdin, 2015). Emdin (2015) specifies this with
his book title “For White Folks Who Teach in the Hood…and the Rest of Y’all Too,” which
communicates a need for any teacher in an urban setting to examine the structures and systems of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 39
power which may be at play. For any teachers working in urban schools where the majority of
students are likely to be minoritized, cultural responsivity requires cultural intelligence.
Culturally Relevant Care (CRC) underpins the research and recommendations of
educators like Delpit (2006), Emdin (2016), and Ladson-Billings (2009). Although Noddings
(2013) does not use the term “cultural relevance,” she emphasizes that teachers who belong to
groups with privilege have difficulty fully knowing (and thereby empathizing) with students in
groups that have been oppressed by the privileged (Noddings, 1996). Research shows that
students must perceive culturally relevant or responsive practices embedded in teacher care in
order to feel adequately supported by it (Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Morris, 2015), and a lack of
cultural understanding from teachers renders any care purported by teachers as potentially
harmful (Roberts, 2010; Rolón-Dow, 2005; Shiller, 2008; Valenzuela, 2010). Researchers like
Ladson-Billings (1995) maintain that caring for students in service of the health of a people, with
focus on the relevance to students’ communities and positions in society, is critical to the success
of both teacher and student. This is a modern affirmation of Du Bois’ (1935) admonition that
without “sympathetic touch,” students cannot learn.
The connection between authentic care and learning science. The impact of authentic
care on students’ capacity to learn is supported by theories of psychology and neuroscience,
which posit the importance of emotion and safety to learning. Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy, which
suggests that physiological, safety, love/belonging, and esteem needs must be met for new
meaning-making to take place, supports the idea that meeting needs for love and belonging are
integral to the capacity to learn. Likewise, recent developments in neuroscience show key
cognitive functions necessary for learning are affected by emotion, and emotions profoundly
impact students’ capacity to learn (Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). These theories support
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 40
the relational educator’s position that students are better able to learn in a space where they
perceive authentic care from a teacher. Lack of a teacher’s authentic care, or the perception
thereof, impedes the psychological and neurological conditions necessary for students to learn.
Aesthetic Care
In addition to authentic care, Noddings’ (2013) concept of care also addresses aesthetic
care, which is when the one-caring cares about but not with the cared-for. In essence, aesthetic
care is anchored in sympathy rather than empathy and external goals rather than a student’s
needs (Noddings, 2013). Aesthetic care may yield a lower bar for students based on a teacher’s
perceptions of a student’s circumstances (Antrop‐González & De Jesús, 2006) or a hyper-focus
on testable outcomes at the expense of engagement in a student’s interpersonal needs
(Valenzuela, 2010). In the context of a classroom, aesthetic care centers around the teacher’s or
school’s goals, priorities, and procedures, whereas authentic care centers around students’ needs,
cultures, beliefs, and aspirations (Rivera Maulucci, 2010).
Gaps in understanding of a student’s culture or societal context (Delpit, 2006; Emdin,
2016; Roberts, 2010; Watson, Sealey-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014) often result in aesthetic rather than
authentic care because whether teachers describe themselves as caring, if they lack cultural
understanding and/or engagement in students’ interpersonal needs, then students may perceive
them as uncaring. In this way, schools may have teachers who believe they are caring and who
advocate for students to meet goals, but who still may not engage with students in ways that
communicate authentic care (Rivera Maulucci, 2010). This disconnect is reported across a range
of studies of minoritized students (Bishop et al., 2012; Brown, 2004; Delpit, 2006; Thompson,
2002; Valenzuela, 2010). Noddings (2013) and other relational educators are quick to point out
that authentic and aesthetic care are not dichotomous or separate, but that the practice of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 41
aesthetic care does not facilitate the same outcomes as authentic care. In short, a teacher or
school practice of aesthetic care may help to explain gaps in perceptions between students and
teachers in urban schools serving minoritized populations (Valenzuela, 2010).
Current schooling strategies and care. Valli and Buese (2007) determined that
accountability-era driven teacher metrics encouraged caring for students in the context of
teachers’ academic goals and without personal engagement. Likewise, Valenzuela (2010) found
that teachers at her study site who reported they cared for students were largely motivated by the
school’s goals or their own lowered expectations. As a result, their students perceived them as
uncaring. For those teachers held only to testable student outcomes, this accountability may
compel teachers to prioritize organizational goals at the expense of human care (Darling-
Hammond, 2004; Delpit, 2006; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Valenzuela, 2010). In this way,
practices currently employed in many urban schools may foster aesthetic care at the expense
authentic care.
Models of discipline and school reform that are currently in favor in many urban schools
serving minoritized students, such as the no-excuses model, dismantle teachers’ capacity to meet
human needs by prioritizing uniformity in consequence (Golann, 2015). Although this approach
is widely hailed for its perceived role in facilitating structured learning environments (Golann,
2015), many maintain the expense of such an approach is the relationships between teachers and
students (Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016). Emdin (2016) describes a similar
phenomenon embodied in the common advice of seasoned teachers who advocate for the “no
smiles before Thanksgiving” (p.57) approach to student interaction. This common adage in
teaching advises teachers to operate at a professional distance from their students to facilitate a
respect for authority (Dobson, 1993), rather than a humanistic connection that requires
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 42
interpersonal engagement. Emdin (2016) notes that his greatest challenges in teaching and
classroom management were during a time when he complied with this advice, seeking to
distance himself from his students and their shared experiences. From formal teacher metrics to
the popular wisdom of teachers shared in a staff work room, current schooling practices
influence the ways teachers enact care and the ways students perceive that care.
Framing Authentic Care in Urban Schools
Aesthetic care as a means of subtractive schooling. The concept of care ethics in
schooling has evolved from the earlier relational education theories to include the specific
considerations that make empathy possible. One such study, conducted by Valenzuela (2010),
uses Noddings’ definitions of care to evaluate the disparity between the perceptions of Latino
students and their teachers in a Houston high school. In the study, Valenzuela determined
authentic care to be rooted in the needs of students, focused on interpersonal interactions and
classroom structures that respond to the culture and needs of the students in them. She described
the aesthetic caring observed in her study as focused instead on the organizational goals and
structures, promoting the programming, rules, and academic accountability to the forefront of
concern (Valenzuela, 2010). According to Valenzuela (2010), the prioritization of aesthetic care
over authentic care creates “subtractive schooling,” wherein students are disempowered and
disengaged through the stripping of their cultural resources and frame of reference.
The concept of subtractive schooling has been applied in the analyses of other teacher-
student relationships, wherein a dominant culture to which the teacher adheres is used in the
classroom, thereby disempowering students who do not identify with that culture (Antrop‐
González & De Jesús, 2006; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Delpit, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2009).
Emdin (2016) describes low-income students of color as neoindigenous, in that the challenges
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 43
and inequities faced by minoritized students are similar to indigenous people, who were also
intentionally disempowered and miseducated. He argues that the same approaches used in early
American Indian Schools to rob indigenous children of their communities and cultures are part of
the current approach to public education in America (Emdin, 2016). This phenomenon is the
focus of Delpit’s (2006) book. She notes that minoritized students in a school and system
comprised largely of non-minoritized people “…look at ‘other people’s children and see
damaged and dangerous caricatures of the vulnerable and impressionable beings before them”
(Delpit, 2006, pp. xxv). The subtractive capabilities of schooling are also explored, using
different language, by Freire (1996), who maintained that the banking method of depositing
information from an oppressor class into an oppressed student serves only to disempower
students and gird the structures by which students and their people are oppressed.
Student perceptions of care. McCroskey and Tevin (1997) specifically examine how
students interpret care and argue that it is student perception of care that is most crucial to
building the trust and safety necessary to learn. Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan (2007) found in their
study of early adolescents that perceptions of teacher support were critical to motivation.
Valenzuela (2010) observed a disconnect between students’ and teachers’ perception of care, and
the students in her study primarily complained that their teachers didn’t care. In many instances,
this perception did not match feedback from the teachers, who self-reported care for students. In
the absence of a perception of teacher care, students could not benefit (Valenzuela, 2010).
Other studies have validated this mismatch in perception. A 2016 study sponsored by
Pearson found that of the 6,853 6
th
-12
th
graders surveyed across fourteen states, 54% did not
believe their teachers cared if they were at school, and 53% did not believe their teachers cared
about them personally. These numbers conflicted with the 83% of teachers in the same study
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 44
who reported care for their students (Quaglia, 2016). Likewise, the new teachers studied in
Rivera-Maulucci’s (2010) science classrooms claimed to care for students, but they did not do so
in a way that was interpreted by students as such. Teachers in the two high schools in the
Antrop-Gonzalez and DeJesus study (2006) also described themselves as caring for students, but
did so in ways the students did not perceive as care. This disconnect highlights a critical
distinction between aesthetic and authentic care: it is not enough for teachers to care if students
do not perceive that care. Noddings (2013) clarifies this disconnect as the distinction between
authentic and aesthetic care.
Despite the plethora of studies that interview urban students and find them unlikely to
believe teachers care for them, there is an absence of quantitative data that outlines the
prevalence of teacher care in urban schools. Emdin (2016) notes that caring teachers are a
primary focus in suburban schools but an afterthought in urban schools, and this premise is
supported by the dearth of data on urban student perceptions. The national network of schools in
which CCHS belongs, for example, requires each school to administer an annual student survey.
Of the 73 questions asked of students for the last two years, only seven questions ask students
how they feel about their school environment: 66 of the questions are focused on students’
perceptions of their own capacity and how they engage with others (such as “I can control my
temper” and “I get to work right away”). Of the seven questions that address student perceptions
of their environment, only one asks about teacher care. Sixty-eight percent of students,
nationally, reported they perceived their teachers care about them in 2014-15 and 2015-16
(primary document, August 17, 2017). According to the CCHS principal, these surveys are
administered annually, but they do not use the data (personal communication with school
principal, August 23, 2017).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 45
Impact of Authentic Teacher Care
Impact of Teacher Care on Students
The impact of an absence of teacher care. Teacher care for students has been attributed
to a wealth of positive outcomes for students; likewise, lack of access to care has been attributed
to a range of student challenges. In a recent study of adults who had dropped out of high school
(Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006), reasons for leaving school ranged from personal reasons
to academic experiences. Although 65% felt someone at school cared about their success, 59%
did not have someone at school they could talk to about personal problems. One
recommendation from this study was to provide greater access to advocacy so students at risk of
dropping out would have adults who cared for them as people, not just in terms of school goals
(Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006).
A 2002 study of Black high school students echoed such perceived gaps in care.
Although most students interviewed believed their teachers liked them, most did not believe their
teachers cared about them (Thompson, 2002), thus articulating what Noddings (2013) would
refer to as the distinction between authentic and aesthetic care. Morris’ (2016) respondents
noted their perception of uncaring teachers as pivotal in their experiences of criminalization.
Likewise, Cothran, Kulinna, and Garrahy’s (2003) interviews with students identified the
perception of teacher care as critical to classroom management, with students noting that those
teachers who were not perceived as caring most likely had challenges with student behavior.
This is a significant consideration for schools given that the most commonly given reason for
new teacher attrition is challenges with classroom management (Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012;
Kraft et al., 2015). Cushman’s (2005) interviews with high school students support this theme:
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 46
students noted they felt less willing to perform and/or comply in classrooms where teachers did
not appear to care about students as people.
Teacher care and student academic performance. Teacher care has been linked to a
number of positive student outcomes in academic engagement. Klem and Connell’s (2004)
investigation of the relationship between teacher support and student performance underpins the
importance of student perception, noting that students with more positive attitudes about school
and higher levels of academic engagement reported they felt adults knew and cared about them.
Their study of nine schools across two urban districts showed that students who perceived
teachers as caring were more engaged, had higher levels of school connectedness and were more
focused (Klem & Connell, 2004). Baker’s (1999) studies in relational education consistently
found students who perceived their teachers as caring had more positive perceptions of school
and greater interest in their education. Patrick, Ryan, and Kaplan (2007) determined that when
students in their study perceived their teachers as caring about them, they exerted greater
academic effort, reported increased interest in the content, and demonstrated more self-regulation
(than when they did not perceive teachers as caring about them). Muller’s 2001 study of the
National Education Longitudinal Study found that teacher care influenced the academic
engagement and performance of at-risk students, and students who perceived their teachers as
caring were more likely to exert academic effort. Another study of late adolescents found that
students who perceived their teachers as supportive and caring were more likely to engage in the
content, favorably rate their teacher, and participate in class more attentively (Teven &
McCroskey, 2009).
Beyond academic habits, research shows students who perceive their teachers as caring
have higher performance outcomes. Wentzel’s (1997) study of 248 early adolescents found that
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 47
students who perceived their teachers as caring had higher levels of academic performance and
demonstrated greater observable effort in their classes. Tichnor-Wagner and Allen (2016) found
that a school environment dedicated to and supportive of the facilitation of authentic care for
students achieved higher student outcomes and met students’ needs for connection and school
engagement. According to a study done by Murray and Malmgren (2005) at a large, urban high
school in the Midwest, supportive student-teacher relationships had a positive effect on students’
academic performance, and an intervention with teachers designed to strengthen relationships
with their students yielded an increase in student outcomes such as GPA.
In addition to these separate studies that conclude similarly, that teach care positively
impacts student academic achievement, a quantitative analysis of 92 articles and 99 studies that
included 129,423 students showed significant associations between teacher-student relationships
and student engagement and achievement (Roorda, et al., 2011). Perhaps most importantly, the
Roorda et al. (2011) study not only determined statistically significant associations between
positive teacher-student relationships and high levels of engagement, but also found statistically
significant associations between negative student-teacher relationships and low levels of student
engagement and performance (Roorda, et al., 2011). The studies analyzed by Roorda et al.
(2011) demonstrate that supportive relationships between teachers and students, wherein students
perceive their teachers as caring, influence student engagement, connectedness, and
performance.
Teacher care and student behavior. In addition to positive outcomes for student
academic performance, there is significant evidence to show that caring relationships with
teachers promote appropriate student behavior and reduce disciplinary infractions. In one study,
students who had negative perspectives of teacher relationships received five and half times
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 48
more feedback about inappropriate behavior than appropriate behavior (Baker, 1999). This is a
direct contrast to interventions like that studied by Okonofua et al. (2016), wherein empathy
training was administered to 39 K-12 teachers to shift their discipline approach from punitive to
relationship-based. The use of empathy-based training for teachers reduced suspensions by half,
controlling for student race, gender, and prior-year suspension status (Okonofua et al., 2016).
The same study showed that students who had previously been suspended perceived their
teachers to be more disrespectful toward them than peers who had not been suspended. Post-
intervention surveys showed that this gap also closed after the empathy-based intervention for
teachers (Okonofua, et al., 2016).
Other studies support Okonofua et al.’s (2016) finding that student perception of their
teachers’ care for them is correlated with behavior and cooperation. Crosnoe et al. (2004) found
that the likelihood of disciplinary referral in their study decreased by 39 percent for every unit
increase in reported bonding with the teacher. Brown’s (2004) study of classroom management
strategies for successful teachers found that students of teachers with the strongest classroom
management reported their teachers were more understanding and interpersonally engaged with
them than those with less effective classroom management. Klem and Connell’s (2004) study
showed a decrease in disruptive behavior and violence for those students who reported positive
relationships with their teachers. There is a significant body of work that demonstrates the role
teacher empathy plays in student behavior.
Removal from instruction for discipline is linked to negative life outcomes, and the
overall number of suspensions for misbehavior across the country has increased to more than 5
million as of 2011, representing an increase of more than triple that in 1974 (Okonofua et al.,
2016). The role of teacher-student relationships on student behavior is especially critical in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 49
urban school settings and for minoritized students. Minoritized students are over-represented in
these data, with males two times more likely to be suspended, and African Americans three times
more likely (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). Morris’ interviews with female, African American
adolescents in the recent publication Pushout (2016) echoes this disproportionality, noting the
higher prevalence of punitive disciplinary action for the young women she interviewed, and their
consistent perception that this punitive approach was rooted in a disconnect with the teachers
charged with their care. Given the implications of suspension, interventions to promote
authentic care could better position students for success in ways that are not currently leveraged.
Teacher care as a protective factor for students. Research based on the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which uses a stratified sample of 80 high schools from
across the country, showed that teacher relationships were positively related to achievement later
in students’ lives, and perceived teacher care served as a protective factor associated with a range
of positive interpersonal outcomes (Crosnoe, et al., 2004; Libbey, 2004). The same data set also
showed that although gender, race, and socio-economic status influenced the magnitude of the
impact of teacher relationships, interpersonal bonds with teachers affected all subgroups in ways
that were positive and statistically significant beyond the tenure of students’ schooling (Crosnoe
et al., 2004). A number of studies have suggested that students who perceive their teachers as
caring are more likely to build self-esteem, motivation, engagement, and empathy (Battistich,
Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994). This demonstrates the importance of authentic care for
students in ways that cannot be assessed during their schooling.
Teacher care and school-wide performance. Although the research does not decisively
distinguish if teacher care benefits school performance or if school performance benefits teacher
care, a number of studies have found that schools with higher performance have structures
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 50
designed to support teacher-student relationship building. A study of 29 southeast Texas schools
found a direct correlation between teacher-student cohesiveness (as reported by students) and the
ranking of schools by student performance measure. Those schools with the highest level of
student-reported cohesiveness had the highest performance rankings, and those with the lowest
levels had the lowest performance rankings (Klem & Connell, 2004). A 2015 study using a
seven-component framework analyzed the value-add for four urban high schools in the sixth
largest district in the country. Of the seven components (which included use of data and
integration of community, to name a few), the study showed that higher performing schools had
intentional systems and structures to build teacher relationships, and lower performing schools
deprioritized and did not systematize connectedness (Rutledge, et al., 2015).
Across multiple studies that evaluated differences between the highest and lowest
performing schools in a district or cohort, schools with higher performance and performance
rankings consistently demonstrated systems and intentionality around teacher-student
relationships and/or trainings designed to build empathy and relationships (Antrop-Gonzalez &
DeJesus, 2006; Bishop et al., 20120; Crosnoe et al., 2004; Klem & Connell, 2004; Kraft,
Marinell & Yee, 2015; Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray & Malmgren, 2005). For example,
Murray and Malmgren (2005) conducted a study in a Chicago high school where they provided
relationship-building training for a group of volunteer teachers. At the end of the study, students
whose teachers participated in the study demonstrated improved engagement, increases in GPA,
and higher levels of affinity for their teachers and learning (Murray & Malmgren, 2005). These
studies demonstrate the capacity for structures and trainings to influence care formation in ways
that may advance school performance, which is a significant finding for schools seeking
improvement.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 51
Impact of Teacher Care on Teachers
Authentic care for students has the potential to positively impact schools beyond the
effect it has on students and the school’s overall performance, which is an additional
consideration for schools seeking improvement. Relationships with students have been
identified as the most critical element of a teacher’s commitment to the role, and have been
correlated with teacher retention, attendance, satisfaction, and self-efficacy (Collie et al., 2012).
Teacher self-efficacy is demonstrably higher for teachers who perceive their relationships with
students as largely positive (Rutledge, et al., 2015), and relationships between teachers and
students are most positive in teachers with the strongest classroom management (Brown, 2004)
and highest student outcomes (Stronge, Ward & Grant, 2011), demonstrating a relationship
between teacher capacity and student perceptions of teacher care. In urban schools, where rates
of teacher dissatisfaction and attrition are highest (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Loeb et al., 2005),
this is a critical consideration.
Teacher turnover rates are at their highest in recent history, and teachers report that
student relationships and classroom management are the most often cited reasons teachers give
for leaving their jobs (Chesley & Jordan, 2012; Collie et al., 2012). If there is a positive
correlation between student perceptions of care and classroom management (Cushman, 2005;
Klem & Connell, 2004; Murray & Malmgren, 2005), then strategies to promote authentic teacher
care could positively impact one of the greatest challenges for new teachers. One externality of
the high teacher turnover rate is fewer opportunities to form teacher-student relationships, which
may impede teachers’ attachment to their role (Martin & Dowson, 2009). Collier (2005)
specifically notes that authentic care is important to teachers’ ultimate satisfaction and sense of
efficacy in the teaching role. Given that urban schools with low performance designations have
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 52
the largest percentages of new teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2004), the positive benefits of
teacher-student relationships on teacher satisfaction and retention yield benefits that may directly
bolster school performance.
The KMO Influence on Authentic Care
This study utilizes the gap analysis model devised by Clark and Estes (2008) to organize
the influences on care formation into actionable categories. This model organizes an evaluation
of performance against goals using three categories of influence: skills/knowledge, motivation,
and organizational culture and climate. Clark and Estes (2008) note that the investigation of
influences in these categories enables organizations to more reliably develop interventions to
improve performance. They note that without this categorical approach to evaluating
performance gaps, organizations may prescribe the wrong interventions due to misconceptions
about the root causes of gaps. CCHS has not determined formal goals around authentic care, and
the absence of codified goals and metrics around a priority is a common barrier to school
improvement (Bryk et al., 2015). The decision to use a gap analysis framework enables the
researcher to organize the evaluation and recommendations in ways that can be readily
implemented by practitioners.
Implementation of KMO. This section begins with summaries of theories on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture and climate used herein to determine how
those elements influence teachers’ formation of authentic care for students. Relevant literature
on care is organized into these categories to provide an overview of how different research on
care may be applied through these domains. The research questions and study being
implemented at CCHS are also organized into the KMO model. Observations and focus groups
are designed to provide insight into the knowledge/skills, motivations, and organizational context
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 53
that influence the formation of care. The final recommendations to support the formation of
authentic care, informed by the study findings, are also organized into the KMO framework. In
this way, the researcher has aligned the literature, study, and recommendations to specific
categories of influence to encourage a clearer understanding of the nature of those influences.
The skills/knowledge domain addresses the knowledge teachers must have to form
authentic care as well as the information, training, or support necessary to build the requisite
knowledge. The motivation domain considers teachers’ motivational influences and the beliefs,
rationale, and reinforcers that will compel teachers to develop authentic care for their students.
Organizational setting and culture contemplates the systems, structures, and culture as an
influence on teachers. Using this model, the data can be evaluated to see what helps or hinders
teachers’ formation of authentic care. Likewise, strategies to empower and equip teachers to
form authentic care for their students can be organized into the three domains to promote their
effective implementation.
Knowledge and Skills
General theory. Theorists posit there are four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge refers to the knowledge of facts, details, and
elements. Conceptual knowledge refers to knowledge of principles, theories, and models.
Procedural knowledge refers to familiarity with procedures, techniques, and methods.
Metacognitive knowledge emphasizes knowledge of cognition and awareness of one’s own
thoughts and actions (Krathwol, 2002). This theory suggests that requisite knowledge for any
task may require a specific skill-building intervention that would be more appropriate than
another.
Factual/Conceptual Knowledge. The factual knowledge that underpins this study is
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 54
teachers’ knowledge of authentic care. Although teachers may not know the Noddings (2013)
model or use the same language, they must have factual knowledge of what an authentically
caring relationship is, as well as the conceptual knowledge to understand that care for another is
rooted in empathy (Noddings, 2013). Teachers must have a factual understanding of empathy
and the need for care to be perceived by students in order for them to form authentic care for
their students.
For teachers of urban students, factual and conceptual knowledge about their students is
also critical. The factual knowledge about students may come from the students themselves,
requiring the teachers to seek information from students outside of the academic content.
Interviews with students consistently show that students’ need to feel personally known and
understood by their teachers is the most critical aspect of positive teacher-student relationships
(Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Ferreira & Bosworth, 2001; Morris, 2016). Given
that the majority of urban teachers do not have the same cultural perspectives as the students they
are likely to teach (Brown, 2004; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Morris,
2016; Thompson, 2002), the empathy required of urban teachers includes a conceptual
understanding of intersectionality; how the teacher and student identities are framed through the
lenses of privilege and power (Hankivsky, 2014). Watson, Sealy-Ruiz, and Jackson (2014)
would call this the need for culturally relevant care; and Roberts (2010) would identify this as the
need for a critical race theory approach to authentic care. Valenzuela (2010) notes that the gap in
cultural understandings between teachers and students at her study site created scenarios wherein
teachers purported to act from a stance of student care but were perceived by their students as
uncaring. For this reason, teachers must have conceptual knowledge of students’ selves through
the lens of privilege and power.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 55
The interconnectedness of the factual and conceptual knowledge of students’ lives is
exemplified in Brown’s (2004) study of effective classroom management, wherein students
reported that teachers’ gaps in understandings about their realities impeded relationships and
learning. Students specifically identified their level of responsibility and autonomy at home over
that which they were afforded in a school setting as a significant barrier to engagement with their
teachers. That is, students noted they felt infantilized by rules like asking permission to attend to
basic needs when they were given so much responsibility at home. For these students, teacher
interactions that did not consider the responsibilities and realities of students’ lives outside of
school impeded relationship formation and were perceived as indicators of mistrust and
misunderstanding (Brown, 2004). Similarly, the students Cushman (2005) surveyed described
teachers who did not know or understand their personal circumstances as less respectful and less
effective. Students noted that when teachers made decisions that conveyed a lack of
understanding of students as people, it created gaps in trust, engagement, and willingness to
comply (Cushman, 2005).
Likewise, other urban education researchers have noted that teacher misperceptions of
students’ cultural dynamics and the realities of their lives inside and outside of school often lead
students to mistrust them, thus resulting in poor relationships. Some models of education
examine gaps in performance for youths of color, which “…often drives adults to want to ‘fix
them,’ return to teaching the basics, and equip them with White middle class norms” (Watson,
Sealy-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014, p.981). Emdin (2016) calls this the “white hero complex,” (p. 27)
wherein well-meaning teachers from a myriad of backgrounds enter urban schools with the
intention of “fixing” youths of color by engaging with them through the lens of White, middle-
class norms as the goal. Operating outside the shared experiences and feelings of students may
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 56
impede empathy and facilitate a misguided perception of gaps rather than strengths. If teachers
are to form authentic caring relationships, they first need to build empathy for students
(Noddings, 2013), which requires factual and conceptual understanding of each student’s reality.
This is accomplished not through the perception of students through the teacher’s lens, which
may foster a misguided sympathy (Roberts, 2010), but by perspective taking through the
students’ lens to foster responsivity and understanding (Watson, Sealy-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014).
Procedural Knowledge. In addition to the conceptual knowledge required for authentic
care, teachers must have procedural knowledge of specific strategies that are perceived by
students as demonstrative of authentic care. More than 50% of new teachers leave the profession
within the first five years, and one of the most oft-cited reasons is classroom management
challenges (Chesley & Jordan, 2006; Freeman et al., 2014). Teacher and school leader training
programs primarily focus on pedagogical theory and instructional strategy, with little to no
connection made between climate factors like relationships and student achievement (Cohen et
al., 2009; Freeman et al., 2014). A survey of teacher preparation programs showed that teacher
education programs are most responsive to state accountability measures, availing little time to
provide new teachers with training around school climate, relationships, or other elements of
teaching that are not assessed in standardized tests (Cohen et al., 2009). With so much research
demonstrating the importance of teacher-student relationships to student achievement,
engagement, and long-term successful outcomes (Baker, 2006; Brand et al., 2003; Wentzel,
1997), the absence of relationship building in pre-service and ongoing teacher training
compromises new teacher new effectiveness (Chesley & Jordan, 2006; Cohen et al., 2011;
Freeman et al., 2014).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 57
Traditional wisdom formally and informally conveyed encourages new educators to “not
be too friendly” and “stand your ground” (Emdin, 2016, p. 19). Teachers are often encouraged
to distance themselves from students, highlighting their authority rather than any commonalities
that could build relationships (Emdin, 2016). Despite studies that show the positive impact of
informal check-ins and a willingness to engage in interpersonal support outside of academics
(Rutledge et al., 2015), teachers are not trained or evaluated in their capacity to engage in this
kind of interaction (Brown, 2004; Johnson et al., 2004b; Klem & Connell, 2004; Rivera
Maulucci, 2010; Roorda et al., 2011). Valenzuela’s (2010) research supports this gap between
practice and student needs: students at Seguin expected teachers to care about them personally
but found teachers more focused on norms or organizational expectations and less on students’
own experiences. This disconnect created a sense of alienation and disharmony for both
teachers, who perceived themselves as caring, and students, who perceived teachers as uncaring
(Valenzuela, 2010).
Amidst the books and studies that provide teachers with the tools to be more effective,
there are a number of common themes. Emdin’s (2016) work focuses on engagement strategies
that provides students access to decision-making and responsibility in the classroom. Brown’s
(2004) research echoes the importance of access to decision-making for students in the urban
classroom, as well as congruent communication styles that demonstrate respect and active
listening. Self-reported positive relationships with teachers among minority students were less
prevalent in schools where the majority of teachers are white (Crosnoe et al., 2004). This
emphasizes the need for training and prioritization of culturally responsive strategies in
relationships like that addressed in books like Emdin’s (2016) and Delpit’s (2006).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 58
Although there is not a definitive procedure for developing authentic care, analyses of
relationships that effect protective factors identify common characteristics: willingness to
provide help and encourage, an absence of negative interactions between teacher and student,
teacher-initiated praise for academic work or behavior (Baker, 1999), interpersonal interactions
that communicate to the student that the teacher cares for him/her (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan,
2007), engagement of students in personalized ways (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012), and a
recognition of the implications of the student’s identity (Watson, Sealey-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014).
Teachers who demonstrated warmth, patience, and encouraging behaviors increased student self-
efficacy and were perceived by teachers as caring (Roorda et al., 2011). Many reports of student
descriptions of caring teachers include fairness (Crosnoe et al., 2004), high expectations
(Watson et al., 2014), and emotional support that include interpersonal connections outside of
academics (Baker, 1999; Bridgeland, et al., 2006; Crosnoe, 2004). Despite the consistency in
findings across these studies, training on effective relationship-building with students is not a
part of teacher training programs and is largely absent in school improvement initiatives (Cohen
et al., 2009).
Furthermore, there is a body of research that shows training for teachers to build these
skills and strategies can positively influence teacher-student relationships. A recent study at five
California middle schools showed that a brief training for teachers to foster empathy for their
students yielded improved teacher-student relationships and reduced suspension rates by more
than half (Okonofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016). The implementation of empathy training
enabled middle school teachers to forge more positive relationships with their students than they
were previously able. Although some teachers instinctively know how to build positive
relationships because of personality traits like sensitivity (Pianta, Hamre & Allen, 2012),
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 59
fairness, and respectfulness (Stronge, Ward & Grant, 2001), the increase in positive relationships
effected as a result of training on a specific strategy or relationship-building approach (Murray &
Malmgren, 2005; Okonofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016) demonstrate the capacity for teachers to
gain procedural knowledge that will build caring relationships.
Metacognitive Knowledge. Another critical knowledge influence on teachers’ capacity
to form authentic care for urban adolescent students is metacognition. Schön (2008) says that
effective practitioners reflect in action to make real-time adjustments to practice in order to
navigate a task effectively. This reflection in action to make real time adjustment is the
foundation of the cultural intelligence model (Moon, 2010). This model suggests that leaders
effectively navigate interactions in an intracultural setting by processing social and emotional
cues in the moment and making real-time changes based on those cues (Moon, 2010). That
reflection-in-action and real-time adjustment that is evident in highly effective leaders of
intracultural organizations is applicable for teachers in urban settings who are leading students
from diverse cultures or any culture different from that of the teacher. Through ongoing
reflection in action, teachers evaluate the cues from their students and respond in relevant and
reflective ways that engender trust and rapport.
In the Stanford study on teacher empathy, those teachers who reflected on their
relationships as a tool to build student self-control built more positive relationships than those
teachers who believed punishment as critical to building student self-control (Okonofua,
Paunesku, & Walton, 2016). Because teachers were asked to reflect in action on their interaction
with students from the students’ perspectives, they applied metacognitive knowledge to build
empathy. Likewise, research by Pianta, Hamre & Allen (2012) concluded that teachers with
high levels of sensitivity, characterized by attunement and responsiveness to students’ needs in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 60
the moment, built positive relationships with students through their real-time reflection in action
to inform engagement. In short, reflection in action to respond to students’ feelings builds the
empathy necessary for authentic care.
If students must perceive the care of a teacher for it to be authentic (Noddings, 2013),
teachers must engage with students in ways that are individually interpreted as caring. Many
students do not perceive their teachers as caring even when teachers say they do care (Delpit,
2006; Rivera Maulucci, 2010), and this speaks to the need for teachers to reflect in action to
determine if the care they mean to convey is being interpreted as such by the individual student.
Although factual and conceptual knowledge about a student may provide the requisite factual
knowledge, it is the application of this knowledge in the interactions with students that makes it
actionable. To facilitate a personalized approach, teachers must be responsive during one-to-one
interactions by assessing how students may be perceiving the interaction and adjusting
accordingly. The key to student perception of authentic care is in the teacher’s metacognitive
practices during interaction and the adjustments made according to the student’s needs.
Overview of Knowledge Influences on Authentic Care
Each of the four knowledge types are necessary for teachers to form authentic care. Table
1 provides an overview of the knowledge types that influence teachers’ capacity to form
authentic care as outlined in greater detail in the sections above.
Table 1
Stakeholder Knowledge Influence and Type
Knowledge
Type
Knowledge Influence
Declarative/
Conceptual
Declarative/ Conceptual: Teachers need to know what authentic care is and
how it is manifest in their relationships with students.
Declarative/
Conceptual
Teachers need to know the cultures and personal realities of their students.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 61
Procedural Teachers need to know how to be culturally responsive in their interactions
with students.
Procedural Teachers need to know how to be empathetic in their interactions with
students.
Metacognitive Teachers need to know how to reflect in action to be individually responsive to
the needs of students in ways students perceive as caring.
Motivation
This section analyzes literature relevant to teachers’ motivation to facilitate authentically
caring teacher-student relationships. Motivation is the second of the three dimensions Clark and
Estes (2008) identify in the gap analysis framework. Motivation is required to make an active
choice to act, persist through an action, and exert the mental effort required to reach a goal
(Rueda, 2011). This section specifically focuses on two theories of motivation that were
observed to be most integral to authentic care in this study: the expectancy value theory (Eccles,
2009), which examines motivation through three different means of assessing an action’s value,
and attribution theory (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006), which examines motivation
through the lens of an agent’s perception of who has control over an outcome and if that control
can be adjusted.
Expectancy value theory. Within expectancy value theory, there are three types of
motivation that are thought to influence one’s motivation to act, persist, and/or apply mental
effort (Rueda, 2011). Utility value is determined by how the task is perceived to align to a goal
or need. This means an individual would be more motivated to pursue a task perceived to
advance a goal. Attainment value addresses the alignment to self-image accomplished in the
task. If completing the task advances something about the agent’s identity or beliefs, s/he is
more likely to be motivated to complete it. Finally, intrinsic value speaks to the personal
satisfaction derived from the task or how enjoyable or meaningful the task will be to complete.
An individual’s personal characteristics or preferences may inform the intrinsic value of a task.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 62
Across the three elements of the expectancy-value theory, the agent must perceive the value of
the action as higher than the cost to act on it (Eccles, 2009). This study specifically addresses
how utility and attainment values and the perceived cost of authentic care may influence its
formation.
The utility value of authentic care for teachers. One way utility value influences the
formation of authentic care is through the presence or absence of goals set for and by teachers.
The current accountability approach in public, K-12 education is based on the principal-agent
theory of economists, which communicates organizational performance to stakeholders to
motivate educators to improve student outcomes. It has been suggested that this model of
accountability motivates educators to deliver outcomes on those things communicated to
stakeholders, which are currently testable skills as demonstrated on standardized assessments
(Figlio & Loeb, 2011). In the absence of a stated organizational goal to drive the formation of
authentic care, teachers must either have their own goals for authentic care or perceive authentic
care as integral to goal attainment for the utility value to be compelling.
Teacher training programs prioritize pedagogical theory, instructional strategies, and
content-specific instruction for pre-service and in-service teachers at the expense of teacher
capacities that are not tested (Cohen et al., 2009; Freeman et al., 2014). The gap between
research on the role of classroom climate and student achievement is even more pronounced in
teacher education for secondary teachers, where one survey found less than 16% of pre-service
teacher programs addressed issues of classroom management or student engagement (Freeman et
al., 2014). If both the metrics to which teachers are accountable and the education programs
preparing new teachers are aligned to testable outcomes, these are likely to be the areas of focus
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 63
for teachers with the highest utility value. Without training or articulated goals for teachers that
address student relationships, they may not perceive a high utility value for authentic care.
Researchers like Valenzuela (2010) have pointed to the lack of affective elements in
teacher accountability as a cause for aesthetic care. In low-income schools where academic
goals usually require the greatest gains in the shortest periods of time, teachers may be
encouraged toward enacting aesthetic care through inflexibility in policies and curricula that
impede the formation of authentic care (Rivera Maulucci, 2010), facilitating low value for
teacher-student caring relationships. Because the current system of assessments and school
evaluation tools focuses on testable academic outputs, exclusive of organizational context
influences (Cohen et al., 2009; Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Oakes, 1989), there are few systematized
goals to which teachers are held accountable that would provide a high utility value on
relationship-building or value of authentic, over aesthetic, care (Noddings, 2013). Promotion of
utility value for relationship building would require clearly defined goals for organizational
context that include relationships with students.
Attainment value. The attainment value of a task is the importance an agent perceives of
the task in relation to how s/he sees him/herself or his/her ideal (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). For
the attainment value of authentic care formation to be high, teachers must believe authentic care
for students is integral to their perception of themselves or their values. Bartolomé’s (2008)
investigation of the perspectives of two teachers who demonstrate authentic care illustrated the
importance of a teacher’s identity in their formation of care. The two teachers explain that their
perception of good teaching and teaching that is effective comes from teachers who provide
“authentic cariño and respect” for their students (Bartolomé, 2008, p.2). Likewise, O’Connor’s
(2006) study of three secondary teachers in Australia explained their care for their students was
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 64
critical to their self-perception. “By making an active choice to care for their students, the
teachers in the study were able to construct and maintain a sense of professional identity which
cohered with their philosophical or humanistic beliefs about the teaching role” (O’Connor, 2006,
p. 117). In this way, a teacher’s motivation to authentically care for students is bolstered by an
identity that would prioritize authentic care for students.
The attainment value of not forming authentic care may be promoted by teacher identities
that consider authentic care indicative of a lack of professionalism. Emdin (2016) notes that
when he was encouraged to maintain personal distance from his students and minimize their
commonalities, he was compelled to reject authentic caring behaviors. The “no smiles before
Thanksgiving” adage he describes is prevalent across the teaching profession and would promote
the attainment value of not demonstrating authentic care. Morris (2016) also describes the
promotion of “tough love” for urban students as common in the girls she interviewed. Likewise,
Rolón-Dow (2005) found that teachers who saw their students and the school community in
deficit-based perspectives prioritized care as a sympathizer rather than an empathizer, thus
promoting the attainment value of aesthetic rather than authentic care. Delpit (2006) analyzes
this concept through the lens of the “White savior” complex in which many teachers in urban
schools participate. When teachers perceive students as needing to be fixed, there is attainment
value in a sympathetic, rather than empathetic approach to care. In both circumstances, which
are prevalent in urban schools, the attainment value of authentic care is low, thus reducing the
motivation to engage in care behaviors.
The role of perceived cost. The perceived cost of an action underpins expectancy-value:
for the value of an action to be motivating, it must exceed the perception of the action’s cost
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In order for the utility value of authentic care to be motivating, the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 65
cost to form the care must be lower than its value. Teachers must feel that authentically caring
for students has a value that does not threaten self-concept, self-worth, or social acceptance. In
the examples given by Emdin (2016), authentic care would have been contrary to the popular
advice in his and many other urban schools, wherein new teachers are advised to avoid
interpersonal connection and minimize relationships in service of elevated authority. In schools
where teachers who form caring relationships may be perceived by their peers as less
professional or competent, the cost of investing in caring relationships may be higher than the
value.
In many urban schools where a “no excuses” approach is prized, the cost of forming
authentic care may also be than higher than its perceived value. This paradigm for discipline and
culture stresses consistency and consequence for even the smallest infractions following the
broken windows theory of the business world (Golann, 2015). Given the research that shows
students who reported negative relationships with teachers received twice the redirection for
inappropriate behavior than that of their peers who report positive relationships (Baker, 1999),
“no excuses” discipline models for school improvement may counter positive teacher-student
relationships, yet be perceived by teachers in those schools as demonstrative of teacher
effectiveness (Golann, 2015). When teachers are rewarded for punitive discipline models, the
perceived cost of relationship building with students is higher. Teachers need both the alignment
to goals and self-perception, as well as a lower cost of relationship building, to be motivated to
form authentic care.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory is another consideration in teachers’ motivation to
develop authentic care for their students. According to this theory, motivation is influenced by
the perception of who is in control of the outcome and its capacity to be changed. The three
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 66
dimensions of the theory are stability of the locus, controllability, and where the locus of control
is. Attribution of causality can be stable or unstable, controllable or uncontrollable, and internally
or externally controlled (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Tasks that are perceived to
have an external, uncontrollable, stable locus of control would engender low motivation from the
teacher because she would perceive the task as immutable and outside of her influence. In
contrast, an internal locus of control or even an external locus that can be controlled would
encourage increased motivation because the teacher would perceive the situation to be something
she could affect (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). This section evaluates how teachers’
attributions of control in teacher-student relationship building affect their motivation to build
those relationships.
The role of attribution in forming authentic care. When teachers perceive the locus of
control in relationship formation as external, either in the power of students or external factors, it
may demotivate them from implementing relationship-building behaviors. In a study of the role
of teacher care in school performance at four schools in Florida, teachers at the lowest
performing schools felt relationships were the responsibility of students, whereas teachers in
higher performing schools felt responsible for initiating and maintaining relationships with
students. Low-performing schools’ staff noted that relationships varied by student and that they
were not always successful in building relationships because doing so was outside of their
control (Rutledge et al., 2015). Locus of control was also a factor in the establishment of
relationships at Seguin High School (Valenzuela, 2010). Many teachers reported that
engagement and care were the purview of the students and that as teachers they were powerless
to influence this. The teachers with this perception of attribution were perceived by students as
less caring, even though the teachers described themselves as caring (Valenzuela, 2010). In
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 67
these examples, an external locus of control prevented teachers from enacting behaviors students
perceived as caring.
Although not all teachers perceive themselves to have the locus of control in relationship
formation, some studies have shown this can be changed. In a study at a Chicago high school, a
group of teachers volunteered to engage in a relationship-building process with students
identified as being most high-risk. Despite limitations of the study, such as the small sample
size, self-selection of teachers, and short period over which the study was conducted, students
demonstrated improved academic and socio-emotional outcomes as a result of the intentionally
built teacher-student relationship. Researchers noted that a primary reason for the success of
these relationships was the teachers’ belief that they had control over building positive
relationships with students who were nominated for participation (Murray & Malmgren, 2005).
In the Okonofua, Paunesku & Walton study (2016), those teachers who were given a prompt that
established the locus of control with teachers rather than with students, were more likely to
formulate positive relationships thereby reducing student suspensions.
Studies of effective teachers demonstrate that an internal locus of control is common in
“good teachers” (Reyes et al., 2012; Stronge, Ward, & Grant, 2011). However, teachers who
have had little formal instruction or support on building relationships, managing classroom
behavior management, and performing other tasks related to classroom climate may not believe
they have control over relationship-building with students (Chesley & Jordan, 2006; Cohen et al.,
2009; Freeman et al., 2014). Given the research that shows teachers in high-stress situations or
with low self-efficacy have lowered capacity to foster positive relationships with their students
(Baker, 2006), stress and a lack of training may present barriers to relationship building and
externalize control over those relationships.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 68
The majority of accountability-based culture-building initiatives and measures evaluate
student outputs like attendance and discipline rates over teacher inputs like relationship-building
strategies (Tanenbaum et al., 2015). In addition, these cultural initiatives, like formal character
education programs, position students as the ones to be changed, rather than the teachers. If the
focus of school improvement is a banking method of depositing character into students to
improve a school’s culture, rather than positioning the teachers as cultural change agents through
relationship-building, teachers are groomed to believe students need to be changed to build
relationships. This moves the control for relationship-building out of the teachers’ locus.
Table 2 provides an overview of motivational influences on teachers’ formation of
authentic care, as explained in detail in the previous section.
Table 2

Motivational Influence and Assessment
Motivational Theory Motivation Influences
Expectancy-Value Theory:
Utility Value
Teachers must have goals (set for or by them) that they perceive
authentic care as critical to attaining.
Expectancy-Value Theory:
Attainment Value
Teachers must believe authentic care for students is critical to
their self-perception or values they have.
Attribution Theory Teachers must believe they have control over forming
relationships with students (internal locus), that relationships can
be formed (mutable), and that the locus is fixed within the
teacher in a way that can be sustained through forming the
relationship (fixed).

Organizational Influences
The third category of influence in the Clark and Estes (2008) model is the organizational
context. The organization as an influence on performance can be considered in terms of setting,
which includes the resources, systems, and structures; and culture, which is the beliefs, habits,
and practices that shape the way an organization feels. The KMO theory of closing performance
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 69
gaps considers how organizational setting and culture support or impede goal attainment, as well
as how strategies will address these organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). As such,
this study evaluates the role that organizational setting and culture may play in teachers’
formation of authentic care for students.
Organizational setting for care. The setting or climate of an organization refers to the
structures and systems, resources, relationships, and messaging of an organization. If the
systems, structures, and resources of an organization need to be aligned to the goal to achieve it
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010), the absence of goals, supports, and measures for teacher-
student relationships could detrimentally impact the capacity of teachers to form authentic caring
relationships with their students.
The impact of accountability-era priorities on setting. The affective elements of
teaching, like teacher care, are largely absent from today’s accountability structures (Figlio &
Loeb, 2011), policies and initiatives (Cohen et al., 2009), or teacher training and support
(Freeman et al., 2014). Across the past decade, the focus of state and district accountability
measures has been testable outcomes. As of 2011, only twelve of the fifty states supplement test-
based accountability measures, and only one of those states tied resources or sanctions to those
supplemental measures (Schwartz, Hamilton, Stecher, & Steele, 2011). Although a more current
survey of state and district policies to evaluate the presence of affective elements was not
available, there are a lack of scientifically based assessment tools in place for accountability, and
those that are do not measure the quality of relationships between teachers and students (Cohen
et al., 2009). This absence is exemplified at the study site: although relationships are described
as critical to the vision for CCHS, there are no formal goals or measures of relationships
established at the school. The national network that provides the annual school survey includes
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 70
only one question of 73 about students’ perceptions of relationships with teachers, and this
information is not formally evaluated or tracked beyond the school level (personal
communication with the principal, August 23, 2017).
Current approaches to school improvement and accountability do not just neglect teacher
care as a strategy for growth, they also rely on strategies that may impede the potential for
authentic care. A focus on high-stakes testable outcomes, for example, may cause teachers to
focus on measurable skills over interpersonal interaction and engagement (Stipek, 2006),
positioning that which is tested as more important than that which is not (Figlio & Loeb, 2011).
Studies of the new role of teachers in accountability-era schools have found that the job has
intensified around absolute metrics, which has stymied a school environment ripe for positive
relationship building and interpersonal engagement between students and teachers (Baker, 1997;
Noddings, 2005; Rivera Maulucci, 2010). In fact, teachers in one study noted that they were
better able to identify their students by assessment scores and data than by their faces (Valli &
Buese, 2007). This focus on testable performance data creates an organizational setting wherein
teachers may be demotivated to prioritize relationship formation with students.
In addition to the lack of accountability measures for relationships, there is a lack of
clarity in the modern public education field about how a positive teacher-student relationship
should look. A lack of clarity about one aspect of teaching (relationships) in contrast to the
distinct clarity of another (instructional strategies and curriculum) may communicate that the
most clearly defined component is most important (Figlio & Loeb, 2011). Under No Child Left
Behind and (now the Every Student Succeeds Act), public schools and systems are held
accountable to clearly defined standards for student knowledge and assessment-based outcomes
that demonstrate mastery of these standards (Figlio & Loeb, 2001). Although a number of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 71
frameworks and evaluation structures, like the KIPP charter school network’s Framework for
Excellent Teaching (TNTP, 2011) and the Danielson Framework (Danielson, 2017), include
descriptions of appropriate positive teacher-student interaction, there is no commonly-accepted
definition or assessment of positive school climate or teacher-student relationships to which
public, K-12 schools are held (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009). Popular teaching
guides like Doug Lemov’s Teach Like A Champion (2012) include instructional strategies that
consider relational impact; however, they fall short of clearly defining how a positive, productive
teacher-student relationship should look or can be assessed. The lack of clarity and agreement
on school contexts like teacher-student relationships positions them as subordinate to the high-
stakes, clearly defined measures of testable skills (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Figlio & Loeb,
2011). In an era of education when the mantra is what is measured is what matters, the absence
of clarity and measures around relationships communicate a value that may shape the
organizational setting of schools.
Current accountability measures are not only missing clearly defined goals or measures
for teacher-student relationships, they also omit descriptions of ideal schooling contexts, which
also could result in varying interpretations of what a positive teacher-student relationship entails.
For example, Baker (1999) found that higher achieving, compliant students generally receive
more positive feedback, higher expectations, and greater support from teachers. In a study of 11
high schools in a Northeastern city, where each school had a population of over 750 students and
an average low-income population of ≥79%, teachers described positive relationships with
students as those in which students were rule-abiding, cooperative, engaged/interested in school
work, and respectful (Collie et al., 2012). Without clarity about what positive relationships look
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 72
like, this could create a culture that prioritizes compliance over engagement (Emdin, 2016) and
reliance on practices that facilitate compliance at the expense of relationships (Golann, 2015).
The setting for teacher care in urban high schools. The realities of urban school
environments are another variable in the organizational setting and may influence the formation
of authentic care. It has been suggested that urban students have a greater need for attachment to
and care from teachers than their suburban peers (Brown, 2004). The challenges of poverty most
low-income students face, for example, may hamper their sense of safety and trust in the
classroom (Baker, 1999), and urban schools often have the most complex student support
demands without the resources to meet them (Crosby, 1999). Gaps in teacher education, high
rates of teacher turnover, and the prescriptive nature of many reform initiatives and school
improvement programs compromise the flexibility needed for teachers to form caring bonds with
their students (Baker, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Delpit, 2006; Tanenbaum et al., 2015).
The strains of school failure designations and pressures on teachers of low-performing students
to achieve ambitious growth metrics may shift teachers’ focus from the personal needs of
students (Valli & Beuse, 2007).
Many of the new teachers working in urban settings are not from the communities and
cultures in which they work, and their understanding of their students may be limited (Crosby,
1999; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Morris, 2016). This barrier to relationships is further
compounded by the classroom management strategies advocated for in some urban schools,
which promote teachers distancing themselves from their students (Emdin, 2016); prioritizing
students’ academic performance over their humanity (Watson, Sealy-Ruiz, & Jackson, 2016); or
employing inflexible, no excuses approaches to discipline (Golann, 2015). The high-stakes
environment for most teachers in accountability-era public schools has been linked to teacher
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 73
stress and burnout (Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Freeman et al., 2014; Pianta, Hamre & Allen, 2012). In
the schools where stress is likely to be highest for teachers, the need for time and resources to
build teachers-student relationships is often most lacking (Murray & Malmgren, 2005). In many
schools where the accountability measures are perceived as high-stakes, teachers under stress
respond to student behavior in ways that perpetuate negative relationships (Helker & Rey, 2009).
In these ways, urban schools offer an organizational setting that is infecund to the formation of
authentic care for students.
Feedback from students supports this premise. A 2002 study of 271 African American
students across seven urban high schools in Southern California found that as students advanced
from elementary to high school, the percentage of students who believed their teachers liked
them decreased sharply; most students did not believe their teachers cared about them as people,
even if they believed they were liked (Thompson, 2002). Similarly, Noguera’s (2004) research
on urban high schools found that 56% of students did not believe their teachers cared about
them. A recent survey of students who dropped out of high school showed that only forty-one
percent of those students felt they had a teacher they could talk to about their problems, and
sixty-two percent believed having an adult they could trust with their problems may have been
critical in their retention in school (Bridgeland et al., 2006). Studies like that of Antrop-
Gonzalez and DeJesus (2006); Tichnor-Wagner and Allen (2016); Valenzuela (2010); Valli and
Buese (2007); and Watson, Sealey-Ruiz, and Jackson (2016) all found that a disproportionate
number of urban students did not feel their teachers cared about them as people.
The most vulnerable students in the nation’s public K-12 classrooms are often those with
the least access to teacher care (Baker, 1999; Delpit, 2006; Valenzuela, 2010), and schools
labeled low-performing or failing are less likely to perceive their teachers as caring (Tichnor-
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 74
Wagner & Allen, 2016). This has significant implications for urban schools, which have the
highest enrollments of minoritized students, the lowest four-year graduation rates, and the
highest percentages of students performing below or at basic level on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress in reading and math (NCES, 2011). If schools are primarily held
accountable to student assessment performance at the expense of the conditions that effect
student trust, engagement, and learning (Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016), their potential to close
the equity gap is limited. This is confirmed by longitudinal data analysis by the Institute of
Education Sciences, which found that with a few exceptions, there has been little sustainable,
substantial improvement in the performance of low-performing urban schools in the last decade
(Tanenbaum et al., 2011).
Several studies have found that urban students report few to no nurturing relationships at
school (Baker, Terry, Bridger, & Winsor, 1997) and few teachers who they feel care about them
outside of academics (Bridgeland et al., 2006; Crosnoe et al., 2004; Valenzuela, 2010). The
relational trust that has been found necessary for authentic care may be least present in urban,
high-poverty schools because of high rates of turnover in staff and leadership and limited
resources to support the positive context in which that trust can be built (Kraft et al., 2015).
Organizational culture for care. The culture of an organization refers to how the decisions,
habits, practices, and beliefs of the people who work in an organization shape the way it feels.
The culture may be informally established through patterns in hiring, shared experiences, or
impact of initiatives over time (Schein, 2010). Where the organizational setting is the tangible
things that comprise an organizational context, the culture is the ethos that is manifested by the
people within the organization (Schein, 2010). In urban secondary schools, both the people in
the building and the attitudes they carry with them inform school culture. Assumptions about
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 75
working in those schools as advanced by the teaching profession and the policy makers that
oversee the schools also influence the organizational culture for care.
Culture for teacher care in accountability-era schooling. The banking method of
education considers students as empty vessels to be filled with the knowledge of the teacher
(Freire, 1996). In many schools with initiatives to address factors outside of testable outcomes,
the focus is on strategies to change student behavior: drop-out and bullying prevention, character
development, behavior modification, and truancy interventions (Cohen et al., 2009). This posits
affective measures as characters or values to be deposited in students, a false positioning Emdin
(2016) describes as the “White hero” narrative. This encourages disconnect between students
and their teachers who wrongly believe their students need to be saved, specifically by their
teachers (Emdin, 2016). The authentic care Noddings (2013) describes cannot be achieved in an
organizational culture wherein a teacher is positioned as the savior of her students.
Culture for care in urban secondary schools. A common belief about teaching in urban
secondary schools is that teachers must use a “tough love” approach to reach their students
(Emdin, 2016). From the common “no smiles until Thanksgiving” advice, wherein teachers are
guided to reserve their warmth until after strict order and authority has been established (Dobson,
1993; Emdin, 2016) to the “no excuses” approach that is being aggressively replicated in urban
schools (Golann, 2015), much of the current research equates high academic achievement for
low-income students of color with educational contexts that are highly structured and rooted in
authority rather than relationships (Delpit, 2006; Golann, 2015). “No excuses” schools often
prescribe expectations for students in specific and measurable directives that are rewarded and
penalized for compliance (Golann, 2015). School mandates as specific as how a student is
expected to look at the person speaking or move through the hallway prioritize compliance with
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 76
authority and reduce student opportunities for interaction with teachers and one another (Golann,
2015). This establishes a context that impedes the formation of authentic caring relationships
between teachers and students (Crosnoe et al., 2004; Noddings, 2013). Because the “no excuses”
approach has led to improved academic achievement and has even closed the academic
achievement goal in some schools, it has been dubbed a best practice that is rapidly being
replicated in urban settings (Golann, 2015). When schools can be successful in attaining
academic goals without cultures in which students are cared for, the equity gap is erased from
view. This approach to what Valenzuela (2010) calls subtractive schooling is reminiscent of the
American Indian Schools that sought to effect academic outcomes for students that stripped them
of their cultures (Emdin, 2016). In many schools, the value of academic outcomes over the
empowerment of students through care and culture detrimentally impacts the conditions
necessary for the formation of authentic care.
In many urban schools, the culture propagates beliefs and behaviors that detrimentally
impact teacher-student relationships. Emdin (2016) confirms the prevalence of the “tough love”
approach in urban schools as he describes the reports of many urban youth of color who describe
their schools as oppressive cultures wherein order and control are prioritized. He recounts the
advice he was given as a new teacher when told by more experienced teachers that “…You look
too much like them, and they won’t take you seriously. Hold your ground, and don’t smile till
November” (Emdin, 2016, p. 13). He goes on to describe admonitions from more senior
teachers not to be too friendly or familiar with his students (Emdin, 2016), advice that is echoed
in Valenzuela’s (2010) study of a Houston high school where teachers report the need to be
tough on their students. The approach for low-income, urban students is based on constraint and
authority directives, rather than that of middle-class schools, where students are taught they are
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 77
trusted and should self-advocate (Emdin, 2016; Golann, 2015). Affluent schools prioritize
teachers with strong content knowledge and a caring temperament, whereas high-poverty, urban
schools prioritize tough teachers with strong classroom management (Emdin, 2016). This
different set of expectations for urban schools sets a cultural norm that those teachers who are
toughest are most successful. Although hard care and high expectations are an important
element of authenticity in caring for students (Antrop-Gonzalez & DeJesus, 2006), the punitive
approach is in conflict with the practices necessary to build authentic caring (Baker et al., 1997;
Crosnoe et al., 2004; Golann, 2015; Noddings, 2013; Wentzel, 2002) and is not indicative of
high expectations. The concept that care for students facilitates lower expectations is contrary to
research on what makes schools effective, yet is prevalent in many urban schools.
Another influence on school culture that influences teachers’ capacity for authentic care
is the identities of the teachers and how they perceive the culture of their students. Some studies
of urban secondary schools have shown that a mismatch between the racial and cultural identities
of teachers and their students can complicate or impede relationship building (Crosnoe et al.,
2004; Valenzuela, 2010). Emdin (2016) maintains that any teacher in a school or system that
affirms the silence and oppression of students’ cultures is unable to form relationships rooted in
authentic care. Likewise, Valenzuela (2010) found that teachers’ perceptions of students’
cultures as deficient, or lacking, prevent them from developing authentic care for their students.
Because low-income, urban schools often attract teachers by highlighting student and community
deficits, rather than assets, the teachers are poorly positioned to develop relationships rooted in
empathy ( Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Golann, 2015). Without an organizational culture that
promotes the importance of cultural responsivity and true empathy, authentic care is stymied.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 78
Organizational setting and culture are critical to the achievement of organizational goals
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein, 2010), and schools are no exception. If authentic care is absent
from the accountability measures to which a school is held (Cohen et al., 2009; Figlio & Loeb,
2011) and the training and support provided to teachers (Freeman et al., 2014), the climate could
impede authentic care. Specifically, if the culture in urban, secondary schools prioritizes
attitudes that are counter to the formation of authentic caring relationships (Baker et al., 1997;
Emdin, 2016; Golann, 2015; Kraft, Marinell & Yee., 2015), then the context to develop those
relationships is deterred. Table 3 summarizes these contextual influences on teachers’ formation
of authentic care.
Table 3

Organizational Influences on the Formation of Authentic Care
Organizational Influences

Organizational Setting Influence 1: Gaps in clarity on authentic care expectations
Organizational Setting Influence 2: Gaps in support, resources to build capacity for authentic
care
Organizational Culture Influence 1: Disciplinary and engagement strategies in conflict with
authentic care norms
Organizational Culture Influence 2: Gaps in cultural responsiveness inherent in dominant
organizational beliefs and paradigms

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Context on Authentic Care for Students
A conceptual framework illustrates the concepts, theories, and assumptions that organize
a study and how those components interact with each other. It provides a visual representation
of the interplay of ideas to guide understanding of a theory (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, the
conceptual framework illustrates the relationship between the Clark and Estes (2008) gap
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 79
analysis model that is being used to organize categories of influence and the most pertinent
concepts of authentic care as outlined in the review of literature. The relationship amongst these
elements informs the evaluation of and recommendations to promote authentic care in urban
secondary schools. Each of the components identified in the conceptual framework was
developed through the review of literature and is explored by the research questions used to
guide the study. Figure 1 is the conceptual framework for this study.
Figure 1.
Conceptual Framework of Teacher Care

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 80
Relationship Between Framework Components
Teacher motivation (blue), teacher knowledge (red), and organizational context (black)
represent the Clark and Estes (2008) performance gap analysis framework. Rather than consider
these components as part of an organizational gap, they are being considered as the categories of
influence on a desired state: in this case, teachers’ authentic care for their students. The
motivation, knowledge, and organizational influences on teacher knowledge and motivation
come together to form the requisite conditions for teachers to develop authentic care for their
students (the purple heart). Because teacher knowledge and motivation work in concert to
inform care, the blue of motivation and red of knowledge/skills blends to form the purple
authentic care. Both knowledge and motivation are positioned as equally important to the
formation of authentic care.
The directional arrows in corresponding colors show how knowledge and motivation are
inputs to care, and organizational influence is an input for knowledge and motivation. Note there
is no directional arrow from organizational context into authentic care, because authentic care
cannot be formed as the result of an organizational context devoid of teacher knowledge and
motivation. However, the organizational context may bolster teachers’ knowledge through clear
expectations of care and motivation through resources and strategies to promote care, hence the
black arrows into each domain. As authentic care is formed, that care then builds the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational culture as illustrated by the purple directional arrows returning
into each influencer. The receipt of authentic care by the student gives teachers access to more
information about students and feedback on how teacher interactions are perceived by students:
this builds teacher knowledge. The student’s receipt of the care affirms the teacher’s locus of
control over the relationship and the utility value of implementing care behaviors: this continues
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 81
to drive the motivation to form care (as illustrated by the purple directional arrows into teacher
motivation). Authentic care between teachers and students can build student trust and buy-in
that strengthens the organizational context and culture; this is conveyed through the arrows that
direct student trust and buy-in into the organizational context.
The entire model is encompassed by empathy, illustrated by the brown oval. This
empathy includes the concepts of understanding intersectionality, cultural responsiveness, and
conscientization, as explained earlier in the chapter. The entire process is informed by empathy,
and each aspect, including students’ return of information and motivation, must all be rooted in
empathy. No element of the model exists without empathy.
Conclusion
There is a growing body of research that demonstrates the importance of secondary
teachers’ authentic care for their students in urban schools. To build these relationships, teachers
need to understand the realities of their students and learn about them personally. They need to
know how to build relationships characterized by empathy and to be motivated to do the work of
building those relationships. The organizational setting and culture can be deterrents or
encouragement for the knowledge and motivation teachers need. The Clark and Estes (2008)
model of performance gap analysis is superimposed on Noddings’ (2013) theory of care to create
the framework for this study.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 82
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it.
-Lord Kelvin, 1883
Not everything that counts can be counted.
-William Bruce Cameron, 1963
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences on CCHS teachers’ capacity to form authentic caring relationships with their students.
This study focuses on teachers to best understand the influences on their formation of authentic
caring relationships so they can be used to inform effective interventions that will promote
authentic care. The study also includes students’ perceptions of behaviors that indicate care
because as the cared-for, their recognition of care as authentic is necessitated by the Noddings
(2013) model. Care that students do not interpret as such would be deemed aesthetic, and
aesthetic care does not yield the same protective factors and benefits (Noddings, 2013).
Through the study of a sample of teachers and students at CCHS, the attitudes, behaviors,
beliefs, strategies, and contextual influences that impact the formation of care will be identified.
As such, the questions that guide this evaluative study are:
1. What actions, strategies, and habits of teachers do CCHS students perceive as
demonstrative of authentic care?
2. What are the knowledge and motivation influences on CCHS teachers’ formation of
authentic care for students?
3. How do the organizational context and culture promote or impede the formation of
authentic care for students at CCHS?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 83
Study Site and Samples
Study Site Overview and Rationale
This study was conducted at a large (~750 students, ~60 staff members) charter high
school located in an urban school district. The site meets the purposeful sampling criteria
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014) set forth by the researcher in that CCHS is a large, socio-
economically and racially isolated school in an urban center, which matches the characteristics of
the type of school that is the focus of this dissertation. The site is appropriate for the study for
several reasons. First, it is a racially- and socio-economically isolated school with an enrollment
typical of many urban schools in that 97% of students qualify for free- or reduced-price meals
and 98% identify as Black (primary documents, August 17, 2016). This is important because
many of the applicable studies in the review of literature and that address urban schools
primarily reference schools that are racially and socio-economically isolated.
As a charter school in the urban center in which it is authorized, CCHS has very high
levels of accountability to specific metrics, such as the percentage of students annually who pass
a standardized assessment (primary documents, August 17, 2016). This focus on testable
outcomes as the primary measure of school quality is encompassed in the epigraph from Lord
Kelvin and in the recommendations of modern business leaders like Peter Drucker (1953), who
said, “You can’t manage what you don’t measure.” This is relevant to the findings of many
researchers who maintain that the context for high accountability to standardized metrics in
urban schools may influence affective elements of schooling like teacher-student relationships
(Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009; Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012; Crosby, 1999;
Darling-Hammond, 2004; Golann, 2015; Johnson, et al., 2004).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 84
Although the school has not set formal goals around caring teacher-student relationships,
it has integrated a focus on and systems to support stronger relationships between students and
teachers through the implementation of strategies like advisory and restorative justice practices
(personal communication with school principal, August 15, 2016). The approach taken at CCHS
is embodied in the epigraph by William Bruce Cameron: although there are no formal measures
of relationships between teachers and students in place, the school leader maintains this is the
foundation of the school. Affective elements of schooling, like authentic care, demonstrate the
tension between the popular ideas captured in the epigraph: although school culture is valued, it
is seldom measured in the same codified ways as academics because clear definitions and
measures are scarce. At schools like CCHS, now transitioning from a “no excuses” approach to
a more restorative, relationship-based approach to discipline, the definitions and metrics of
relationships are unclear. The CCHS leadership has determined that restorative, relationship-
based approaches to culture will benefit students and teachers, and the study of this specific
school has enabled the researcher to investigate how that transition is becoming evident in
teacher skills and beliefs, as well as organizational culture.
As noted in a recent guide to implementing restorative justice practices in schools,
“Restorative practices are predicated on the positive relationships that teachers and students have
with one another…it’s harder for students to behave defiantly or disrespectfully to adults who
clearly care about them” (Smith, Fisher & Frey, 2012, p. 4). The CCHS leader has invested in
these initiatives through training, a new staffing model, systems and structures, and other
monetary investments. A site in its infancy of implementing a program reliant on caring teacher
relationships is likely to have some context for discussing and crafting teacher-student
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 85
relationships. This investment and context provide a means of reference for the study in the
absence of articulated organizational goals on care.
Stakeholder Groups of Focus
This study focused primarily on teachers to best understand what influences their
formation of authentic caring relationships with students. At CCHS, there are approximately 47
full-time teachers for the 2016-17 school year. Of the 47, 31 teach multiple grade levels within
their subject area and all lead a student advisory group, which is a separate class all students take
each year (primary document, August 17, 2016). Additional staff that provide services to
students, such as leadership team members, counselors, and club sponsors were not included in
this study, although their relationships with students are important to consider in the overall
school pursuit of restorative practices and improved staff-student relationships. The 47 core
content and electives teachers were the population from which a sample had been purposefully
selected to better understand the knowledge, beliefs, skills, and motivational and contextual
influences on the formation of authentic care at CCHS. The teacher sample focus groups and
observations specifically address the second and third research questions.
Noddings (2013) posits that care is considered authentic only when it is perceived by the
cared-for. Researchers of authentic care have found many examples of aesthetic or ineffective
care are rooted in the mismatched perceptions of teachers and students, wherein the authentic
care reported by teachers is not perceived by their students (Rivera Maulucci, 2010; Valenzuela,
2010). Therefore, a sample of students was selected from one class of each of the teachers in the
sample. The focus groups and observations of this sample of students specifically address the
first research question.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 86
Sampling Criterion and Strategies
The study used one teacher sample for focus groups and classroom observations and one
student sample for focus groups and classroom observations. The teacher and student sample
strategy is the maximum variation approach through stratified random sampling (Johnson &
Christensen, 2014), which is intended to provide representative diversity.
Teacher sample. The teacher sample was comprised of three randomly selected teachers
from each of two categories for a total of six teachers. Valenzuela (2010) suggests that there are
unique pressures inherent in different teaching roles that may influence relationship formation.
She also notes that relationships with students of different grade levels can be impacted by
grade-level trends in the organization, such as required benchmarks for promotion, which may
influence perceptions of specific grade levels (Valenzuela, 2010). Likewise, other researchers
have noted that the pressures of testable outcomes may cause a hyper-focus on testable content at
the expense of affective elements of schooling (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli & Pickeral, 2009;
Collie, Shapka & Perry, 2012; Crosby, 1999; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Golann, 2015; Johnson,
et al., 2004). For this reason, the teaching staff was organized into two categories based on the
level of accountability for testing outcomes inherent in their grade level and content area.
The two categories were devised through a review of teacher-level annual evaluation
measures, the school’s goals, and the principal’s feedback. Based on these three data points, the
two categories were as follows:
1) High-stakes content is a core academic subject required for graduation with a fixed
metric on a standardized assessment that is required for the school to meet its annual
goals. For teachers in this category, their annual evaluation goal is a set percentage of
students who test proficient or above on a standardized assessment, and this goal for
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 87
the teacher is also a goal for the school. An example of high-stakes content is
American Literature, for which the single teacher’s annual goal of percentage of
students proficient or above on the state assessment is the same as the school’s goal
for proficiency on the assessment.
2) Low-stakes content is non-academic enrichment and/or electives that do not have a
goal for the year based on a standardized assessment of student skill or content
acquisition. Examples of low-stakes content are Physical Education or an
academically-based (not tested) elective like Poetry.
The principal provided the researcher a staff roster that lists teacher names and courses
organized into these two categories. This approach to purposefully sampling teachers from
across the different content areas and grade levels meets three of the goals of purposeful
sampling outlined by Maxwell (2013): provides representation of the typical setting, captures the
diversity of the larger group, and provides insight into the differences between the participants.
Using the staff roster, each teacher in each category was assigned a random number. Each
number was printed on a slip of paper, and those numbers were placed into the corresponding
receptacle for each of two categories. Six numbers were then retrieved from each receptacle and
matched against the roster to determine the teacher sample, with the order selected noted. This
method of assigning numbers to select a random sample ensures no perception of bias could be
used to select the sample (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The first three selected in each
category were the first to be recruited, and if candidates chose not to participate, the next name
on the list was invited in the order drawn. Nine teachers refused to participate, citing challenges
with attending a focus group outside of the school day, so the final sample comes from the first
fifteen names drawn.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 88
Student sample. The student sample was comprised of two randomly selected students
from the roster of one period each sample teacher. Once each of the six teachers in the sample
was selected and confirmed, they were asked to provide their student roster for one class (the
class period was determined based on the times most convenient for observation for teachers and
the researcher). A number was randomly assigned to each of the students in that period. One
slip for each number was entered into a receptacle with each teacher’s name for six receptacles.
Five slips were randomly drawn from each of the six receptacles, and the order in which they
were drawn was noted on the roster. The first two students drawn from each receptacle were
first to be invited to participate in the focus group. If that student was unable or unwilling to
participate, the next name down on the list was contacted and so on, until two participants from
each sample teacher’s designated class period were confirmed. All twelve of the students drawn
first for the sample agreed to participate.
The stratified random sampling approach ensured that a different perspective, which may
be inherent in subgroups, is represented in the sample (Johnson & Christensen, 2014). The
teacher sample consisted of six teachers and the student sample had a total of twelve students
from six classes (two per class). This approach also adheres to Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016)
recommendations for an appropriate size focus group to ensure adequate time and space for full
participation of all members.
Data Collection
This study was designed to adhere to several of Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) strategies
for reliability, including multiple modalities of data collection for triangulation, several means of
data collection over a period of time to provide saturation, random sampling and whole school
participation in different aspects to provide maximum variation, and opportunities for member
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 89
validation of data as it is collected through follow-up interviews and the final focus group. The
span of one month to collect data aligns with the recommendations of researchers like Baker et
al. (1999), who found that single observation of a classroom or single interview in a school day
provided a limited view of teacher-student interaction that may threaten reliability of the data
collected. Because observations and focus groups were conducted over multiple days across a
four-week period, engagement between students and teachers was frequent and quickly became
comfortable.
Data collection took place at the start of a new school year, beginning with the first
observation in the second week of school. The timing provided insight into how relationships
are being initiated and ensured teachers would have recently completed the training to start the
year. This timing ensured that teachers could retrieve and apply the most recent recollections of
the guidance and instruction provided in pre-service training as well as insights into intentional
strategies and structures being implemented to start new relationships.
Focus Groups/Interviews
Focus groups and interviews with each sample were used in conjunction with
observations to provide different types of data for triangulation. The focus groups provided
member checks for interpretations of what was observed (Maxwell, 2013), and a means to obtain
the participants’ perspectives on specific questions aligned to the research questions. Checking
with the participants to confirm or test researcher perceptions is a means of both triangulation
and member checking (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), providing greater reliability to the findings
aggregated from the data.
The first student focus group and teacher focus group protocols were derived from the
research questions and were informed by trends from the review of literature. The first student
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 90
focus group protocol is included as Appendix C and the first teacher focus group protocol is
included as Appendix D. The second focus group/interview protocols were devised using the
notes from observations to explore perspectives on specific interactions observed. Because some
teachers had scheduling conflicts, the second teacher focus group met with only two teachers
from the sample, and each of the remaining six teachers participated in individual interviews to
answer the questions from the focus group protocol. Likewise, the second student focus group
was divided into two groups of six. The second student focus groups were organized by the
content area of the classroom in which they were observed: one focus group of six students came
from the three high-stakes content classrooms and one focus group of six students came from the
three low-stakes content classrooms. See Appendix F for the second teacher focus
group/interview protocol (which was administered to the entire teacher sample through a focus
group and individual interviews) and Appendix E for the second student focus group protocol
(which was administered to the entire student sample divided into two focus groups).
Teacher focus group method. The teacher focus groups met once the week observations
began and the final focus group/interviews with the teacher sample were held in the week of the
final observation (four weeks apart). The semi-structured interviews were framed around several
questions about teachers’ beliefs about care, their perceptions of expectations of the organization
and leadership around student care, and specific strategies they used to build relationships and
communicate care (see Appendices D and F for these protocols). The first focus group was held
after school in one teacher’s classroom, and the focus group was voice recorded and transcribed
after for coding. The first focus group was 50 minutes long, and teachers were provided snacks.
The second focus group was also semi-structured to allow flexibility to probe, and the
questions were organized around specific experiences the teachers had in forming relationships
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 91
with students and the support for relationship building provided by the school. The second focus
group meeting included only two teachers, and it was also held in a teacher’s classroom after
school and was audio recorded and transcribed. Each of the remaining four teachers in the
sample met individually for approximately 40 minutes in their classrooms during their planning
periods. All teachers were provided with a gift card for school supplies at the conclusion of the
study.
Each meeting began with a review of the purpose of the study, how the data would be
used, and a reminder that the meeting would be recorded and transcripts anonymized. Shorthand
notes were maintained to note themes, body language, and other non-verbal cues observed in the
focus group/interview. Immediately following the meeting, notes on perceptions and
observations not captured in the recording were taken and maintained in a reflection journal.
The use of recording in tandem with notes, as well as designated time to reflect on the data
immediately following, is a strategy advocated by Merriam and Tisdell (2016) to promote
reliability and thoroughness of focus group data.
Student focus group method. Each student focus group also met once during the first
week of observations and once in the final week of observations (four weeks apart). Focus
groups began with a review of the purpose of the group and how the data would be used. Focus
groups were audio recorded, and shorthand notes were maintained to note trends and non-verbal
cues. Immediately following the focus group, notes on perceptions and observations not
captured in the recording were recorded in the reflection journal. The student focus groups were
intended to gather data on how students perceive care and the behaviors, attitudes, and actions of
their teachers they believe demonstrative of authentic care, addressing the first research question.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 92
The first focus group included all twelve students in the sample and met for 40 minutes
during the students’ advisory period in the counseling office. It addressed general questions
about student-teacher relationships and students’ perceptions of how teachers show they care.
For the second focus group, the sample was divided into two groups of six by the stakes level
determined for their teacher. These larger group was divided to allow each participant more
opportunities to participate. The two groups were organized such that students from the same
classrooms would meet at the same time to provide their interpretations of specific interactions.
Each of the two final student focus groups were held during the students’ advisory periods for 50
minutes in the counseling office, and they were held during the same week. The protocol for the
second focus group was organized around questions specific to the sample teacher and the
classroom being observed. This provided insight into student perceptions of interactions
observed and member checking for inferences made during observations. Confirming a
researcher’s perceptions with study participants ensures interpretations are valid and promotes
trust with participants (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Observations
The researcher observed each of the sample teachers’ classes within which the sample
students are enrolled at least three times over the four-week period of data collection.
Researchers like Baker et al. (1997) advocate for more than one observation, noting that limiting
data collection to one classroom visit can be unreliable. Because the researcher is not a staff
member at CCHS and was known to the students and teachers as a researcher, the “observer as
participant” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p.144) role was maintained throughout. This means the
researcher sat in the classroom and moved to hear conversations, engaging one-on-one and in
small groups with students throughout the course of the lesson and may have needed to provide
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 93
clarification for instructions, guidance on the tasks being completed, and reinforcement for the
students as appropriate. However, the researcher’s primary role in the classroom was as an
observer collecting notes, and her presence there was explained to students and teachers as such.
Observations began five to ten minutes before the period started and finished after the last
student left the room. This enabled the researcher to collect data on interactions between the
teacher and students as they entered and left the room, especially because access to teachers
before and after class, as well as the behaviors and language teachers use to greet and dismiss
students, have been identified as influential to some students’ perceptions of relationships with
their students (Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Valenzuela, 2010). The researcher was positioned
in each classroom in an available seat, ideally located in a space in the room that enabled her to
observe the teacher and all students. Because technology is a common element in the school’s
culture, the researcher maintained notes using a laptop and entered them into the template
included as Appendix G. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) advocate for designated time immediately
after a data collection to capture any impressions, biases, or perceptions that the notes may not
have captured in real time; thus, immediately following each observation, the researcher captured
any impressions or notes she was unable to capture during the observation.
Alignment of Methods to Conceptual Framework
The data collection methods were designed to assess the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences as outlined in Chapter Two. As such, specific questions and
observations were aligned to the influences to determine how those influences were manifest in
the teachers’ formation and students’ perceptions of authentic care. Table 4 outlines the
knowledge influences and means of assessment, Table 5 outlines the motivation influences and
means of assessment, and Table 6 outlines the organizational influences and means of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 94
assessment. The protocols for focus groups that include these questions are included as
Appendices C-F.

Table 4
Knowledge Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Assessment
Declarative/ Conceptual: Teachers need to
know what authentic care is and how it is
manifest in their relationships with students.
Teachers were asked to describe the
characteristics of a positive relationship and the
role that relationship plays in their teaching.
Declarative/ Conceptual: Teachers need to
know the cultures and personal realities of
their students.
Teachers were asked to describe how they learn
about their students personally and the role
students’ cultures and identities play in their
formation of care.
Procedural: Teachers need to know how to
be culturally responsive in their interactions
with students.
Teachers were asked to describe how they
engage with students and the strategies they use
to build relationships.

Teachers were observed interacting with
students, followed by a focus group with
students to understand how those interactions
were perceived.
Procedural: Teachers need to know how to
be empathetic in their interactions with
students.
Teachers were asked to describe how they
engage with students and the strategies they use
to build relationships.

Teachers were observed interacting with
students, followed by a focus group with
students to understand how those interactions
were perceived.
Metacognitive: Teachers need to know how
to reflect in action in ways to be responsive
to the needs of students in the moment.
Teachers were asked how they respond and
reflect in action with students.

Teachers were observed interacting with
students, followed by a focus group with
students to understand how those interactions
were perceived.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 95
Table 5
Motivation Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments
Motivation Influences

Motivational Influence Assessment

Expectancy-Value Theory: Utility Value.
Teachers must have goals (set for or by
them) that they perceive authentic care as
critical to attaining.
Teachers were asked what goals they had for
themselves as teachers, as well as what goals the
school had set for them.

Teachers were asked to describe how caring
relationships do or do not advance their goals.

Teachers were asked to describe the costs of
forming authentic care for students.
Expectancy-Value Theory: Attainment
Value. Teachers must believe authentic care
for students is critical to their self-perception
or values they have
Teachers were asked to describe the
characteristics of an excellent teacher to which
they aspired.

Teachers were asked to describe the values or
identities they maintain that influence their
interactions with students.
Attribution Theory. Teachers must believe
they have control over forming relationships
with students (internal locus) and that
relationships can be formed (mutable), and
that the locus is fixed within the teacher in a
way that can be sustained through forming
the relationship (fixed).
Teachers were asked to describe specific
scenarios with students that typified “good” or
“bad” relationships and determine the locus of
control in those scenarios.

Teachers were asked to explain barriers and
assets to relationships with students.

Table 6
Organizational Influences on Authentic Care and Associated Assessments
Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Organizational Setting Influence 1: Teachers
must have clarity on expectations of
relationships with students.
Teachers were asked what the expectations for
teacher-student relationships are at the school.

Teachers were asked how they are evaluated
on relationships with students.

Teachers were asked to reflect on their
relationships with students, and students were
asked to reflect on those same relationships
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 96
with their teachers.
Organizational Setting Influence 2: Teachers
must have support, resources to build capacity
for authentic care.
Teachers were asked what resources,
feedback, and training they have received on
forming authentic care (and student
relationships).
Organizational Culture Influence 1:
Disciplinary and engagement strategies must
not interfere with authentic care norms.
Teachers were asked about discipline policies
and common practices.

Teachers were asked about organizational
attitudes about relationships with students.

Students were asked about organizational
attitudes about relationships with teachers.

Teachers were observed interacting with
students (with clarification of impact by
students).
Organizational Culture Influence 2: Cultural
responsiveness must be inherent in dominant
organizational beliefs and paradigms.
Teachers were asked to describe the
organizational beliefs around cultural
responsiveness and students’ cultures.

Students were asked to describe common
attitudes teachers at the school have about
their cultures.

Data and Analysis
Once data collection was complete, the researcher had transcripts from five focus groups
(three student and two teacher) and four individual teacher interviews, as well as notes from each
of the nine meetings and 18 observations (three per teacher in the sample), along with additional
notes captured in the reflection journal immediately after each instance of data collection.
Because the focus groups and interviews were audio recorded, they were transcribed
immediately after each focus group so the researcher could review the transcripts and merge
them with notes she took in the focus groups. This allowed the researcher to capture perceptions,
body language, and specify in the transcripts important notes she took that the recording may not
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 97
have captured (Maxwell, 2013). Obtaining transcripts of the first teacher and student focus
groups in advance of the observations enabled the researcher to use those transcripts to guide her
observations and align data collection to the participants (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Observation
notes were used to create the protocols for the second focus groups/interviews.
All transcriptions and observation notes were coded for both a priori and emergent
themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher maintained one codebook for all data
collection. She coded each transcript and page of notes on the actual documents and transferred
the codes into the master codebook, noting in which classrooms or participants the theme was
observed. A priori codes were set in alignment with the research questions to frame the data
analysis and ensure complete data was collected for each question (Maxwell, 2013). A priori
codes included:
• Conceptual/declarative knowledge teachers have about their students
• Conceptual/declarative knowledge about what authentic caring behaviors look like
• Procedural knowledge teachers have about strategies to promote student care
• Metacognitive knowledge teachers have to reflect in action/be responsive to student
needs
• Goals teachers have set for themselves and their students (utility value)
• Beliefs about how relationships affect student progress toward school goals (utility value)
• Teacher beliefs about who has the power to establish and maintain relationships (locus of
control)
• Teacher beliefs about what good teachers do (attainment value)
• Teacher behaviors students perceive as caring
• Student beliefs about teacher care
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 98
All data analysis took place as data was collected rather than after the conclusion of data
collection. This approach ensured that the observations and second focus group were developed
in response to the data and aligned with Merriam & Tisdell’s (2016) and Maxwell’s (2013)
recommendations to analyze qualitative data as it is collected to fully leverage the data collection
methods. The researcher maintained analytic memos throughout the analysis process to record
perceptions and biases as well as notes to inform the next data collections. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) advocate for this strategy to promote reliability in analysis as well as a means of fully
capturing inferences and perceptions that may be coded for additional data.
As the researcher noted a priori and emergent codes in the codebook, she also noted
typicality of responses to determine how often specific data trends were observed. Analyzing
typicality in qualitative research helps to identify how prevalent a trend is and may highlight key
ideas by showing where and by whom they were communicated (Maxwell, 2013).
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Careful attention to methods is one way to create a foundation for credibility in a study
(Maxwell, 2013); however, the methods are not the only source of this study’s credibility and
trustworthiness. The stratified random sample of teachers and students served by those teachers
recognizes the work of other researchers on similar topics like Valenzuela (2010), who found
that the inherent stresses of different types of teaching responsibilities might impact the
environment for relationships with students. The use of more than one observation and focus
groups across two months also reflects the work of researchers who have found limitations to
credibility of findings made as a result of a single observation of a classroom (Baker, 1999).
This aligns with the saturation strategy outlined by both Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 99
Tisdell (2016), wherein consideration of reliability includes saturation, or the amount of
engagement and time spent in data collection.
The development of methods for this study also reflects the necessity of multiple means
of data collection to provide triangulation around the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Triangulation is the rationale for focus groups before and after observations with the
teacher sample and follow-up interviews with students after observations of their classrooms. To
reduce reactivity bias (Maxwell, 2013), the researcher began volunteering in the school so her
presence in classrooms would not distract the sample teachers or their students from typical
interactions. Likewise, her information sessions and printed materials about the study
communicated the intention to better understand how care is formed, rather than assess the
quality or prevalence of care in a classroom. Clarity about the research questions and how the
data would be used increased trustworthiness of the researcher and reduced the likelihood of
reactivity in participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The researcher also used data analysis strategies to ensure the credibility and
trustworthiness of the study. She audio recorded focus groups to ensure detailed descriptions of
the context and data collected. She also maintained a detailed description of the methods and
strategies (outlined herein) and enlisted the support of a colleague in the research field to review
her analysis once data had been anonymized. These strategies align with the recommendations
for validity and reliability from both Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Ethics
Careful consideration of the ethics at play in a qualitative study is critical to its reliability
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the study at CCHS, this is true not only because the study is
qualitative, but because of the researcher’s experience with the school. The CCHS principal is a
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 100
friend, and the school is one with which she has worked as a consultant; therefore, the
researcher’s attention to ethics is critical to both her integrity as a researcher and her ongoing
relationship with the school. Furthermore, the researcher asked participants to share their
perceptions of relationships with one another. This is a very sensitive subject, and to get the
reliable data she needed, the researcher communicated honestly and authentically. She verbally
communicated gratitude to the participants for their participation in a study that is professionally
and personally important, and she provided students and teachers with gift cards for their
participation.
As a study that uses human subjects, the researcher followed the guidance of the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and applicable protocols for
conducting research on human subjects. This included clear verbal and printed information
about the study and participants’ roles, the use of recording devices and anonymization of data,
and the option not to participate. The researcher provided printed information sheets for all
students and staff at the start of the study and met with students and staff in advance of the first
meetings to address any questions. She anonymized all responses and took great care to organize
findings in such a way that protects the identities of participants. The researcher also has chosen
not to share any particularly sensitive information obtained in the interviews that may
compromise the participants’ safety or anonymity.
Printed information sheets were read aloud at the start of the study in each advisory
meeting to ensure any questions were addressed in advance of the actual data collection.
Presenting information about the research and participants’ role in advance of the focus group
provided space for participants to ask questions and get clarity on the process without
interrupting the data collection (Krueger & Casey, 2009). These information sheets were shared
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 101
with the entire sample at the start of any data collection, including focus groups and classroom
observations.
The researcher also used these advance information sessions to explain how the recording
worked and told participants she would assign aliases and/or remove identifying information.
During focus groups, she reminded participants that the session was being recorded and that any
identifying information would be removed from the data. Reminders about recording and how
data will be communicated are important to ensure participants do not share something they
don’t feel comfortable having recorded, which further builds trust between the participants and
the researcher (Krueger & Casey, 2009).
Biases
Although the researcher is not a member of the organization she studied and does not
know most of the staff and students, she does have a professional relationship with the
organization and principal. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe the importance of identifying
ethical issues unique to each study that would not be addressed by protocols or IRB, and as such,
the researcher disclosed the relationship with the organization when she introduced herself to the
selected sample. The school leader has expressed interest in reviewing the results of the
research, and as such, the researcher is biased in how she presents the information knowing the
principal will read it. Because the school leader may use the data to adjust protocols, training,
and structures, the researcher also shared this potential for use with the sample at the start of the
study. However, she intends not to share any information with the leader in advance of the
study’s publication, nor will she provide any data that has not been anonymized. The researcher
re-iterated, in both the printed information sheets and verbal reminders, that participation in the
study and the data provided would not in any way influence student or teaching evaluations or
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 102
their standing within the organization and that all identifying information of participants would
be removed.
Identifying biases in advance of and during data collection and checking them throughout
the process are critical to mitigate the impact of that bias on data interpretation and facilitate trust
with participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). One major bias that must be addressed in this study
is that the researcher feels strongly that authentic care is not only important to student outcomes,
but also an ethical means of engagement with students. This belief is shaped by her experience
in urban secondary schools, but she recognizes that it is an opinion nonetheless. The researcher
also experienced a strong bias about the urgency and accountability of the teachers during their
class time. She noted her biases about use of class time in the notes she took during observations
and also reflected on that in the reflection journal. She omitted any questions about use of class
time from the focus group questions to ensure she did not put undue focus on an area of teaching
that did not directly relate to communicating care.
Finally, a significant bias the researcher had to consider in this study is her identity. She
is a White, female educator investigating the experiences of students and staff with different
racial identities and experiences. She has had to evaluate her own privilege and biases in all
aspects of this study, from the literature review to the analysis of collected data. Race and
cultural relevance were included in the questions and responses from focus groups, and the
researcher’s participation in those groups as a White woman may have influenced how
participants responded or engaged, as well as how she has interpreted the data.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of a study are those elements of the study design that may compromise
replicability of a study, and the delimitations are those boundaries or parameters that a researcher
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 103
notes to narrow the scope (Creswell, 2014). These are noted here to provide transparency and
clarity to advance the reliability of the findings presented herein, as well as fully communicate
the scope of the study (Maxwell, 2013). This study was designed to provide insight into the
experiences of a sample of teachers and sample of those teachers’ students to determine some
common experiences and perceptions in the formation of authentic care for students in urban
secondary schools. There were a number of limitations to the study that must be considered.
One limitation is the breadth and time dedicated to data collection. Although multiple
visits over a four-week span for data collection adhere to the guidance of researchers like Baker
(1999), who note the importance of multiple data collections in a classroom, the amount of time
and number of visits is not sufficient to fully ascertain the ongoing relationship development
between teachers and students throughout the year. Likewise, because the study is implemented
at the start of the school year, relationships between teachers and students are unlikely to be fully
formed, and the teacher’s locus of control may shift throughout the year. Valenzuela (2010)
notes in her research that the quality and character of relationships between teachers and students
varies throughout the year.
Another limitation is the transparency teachers and students may or may not have in the
focus groups and in observations where an external participant is present. Although all
participants were informed of the anonymity of their participation, their transparency was
informed, in part, by their trust for the researcher. As a person external to the organization and
without a relationship with students or teachers conducting a study over a brief period of time,
teacher and student trust in me may be limited. The participant as observer role (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016) enabled the research to be an observer first, but this may come at the expense of
the authenticity in interaction that the data collection requires. Furthermore, as a White woman,
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 104
the researcher’s biases and the role race may play in participants’ comfort discussing issues of
race and identity could influence the study’s results.
The sample size provided depth in experience for those participants but is not
representative of the whole staff. Indeed, there are many identities, experiences, and
perspectives of CCHS students and teachers that were not included in this study. Finally, the
ethics that compelled the researcher to omit some sensitive information shared in teacher and
student interviews could provide greater depth to some of the barriers to authentic care explored
herein. A study with a larger sample size would provide greater anonymity to participants and a
potentially larger sample that shares those perceptions in ways that can be helpful for schools
seeking to build support for authentic care formation.
Delimitations of the study are its size and scope. By choosing a smaller sample of each
stakeholder group, the researcher is able to collect richer data than with the entire population
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However, the small sample size and brief data collection period
limits generalizability. The study site is a high-performing charter school that leverages its brand
to recruit students and staff. Therefore, the perspectives of students and staff at CCHS may be
different from those at traditional urban secondary schools with different recruitment and
selection criteria. CCHS is a school whose vision is rooted in the concept of “leading with a love
for kids” (personal communication with principal, August 3, 2017). This could create a very
different reality for students and staff than a school that has a vision with different focus. Finally,
this study utilized purely qualitative methods to better understand the experience for the teachers
and students selected, rather than a more quantitative approach that focuses more on typicality of
themes. The qualitative approach allowed for a more nuanced perspective of relationships
because interpersonal relationship formation is complex (Noddings, 2013). However, this
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 105
approach comes at the expense of the generalizability of findings to the entire school or other
urban, secondary schools.
Conclusion
The design of a study is nearly as important to its validity as the interpretation of data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As such, this study was designed using the guidance of researchers
and proven practices, specifically those that ensure the rigor and reliability of qualitative
methods. The surveys, focus groups, and observations over two months at the study site
provided the breadth and depth of data necessary to better understand the perceptions of students
and teachers at CCHS. Through transparency and ethical interactions with study participants, the
reliability and integrity of the study were prioritized. As the result of the methods and data
analysis descriptions describe herein, this study intended to provide insight into the influences on
the formation of authentic care for students in urban high schools. It was the intention of this
study to provide this information with reliability so that it may be used in similar schools to
ensure teachers are supported in developing authentic care for their students.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 106
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by
reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and
students.
Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1996
This section provides a summary of the sample participants and study site, major themes
of the study and their relationship to the related literature, and organizes the results of the study
into each of the major themes across the study, grouped into three sub-sections. Each sub-
section is aligned to one of the three research questions. The research questions are:
1. What actions, strategies, and habits of teachers do CCHS students perceive as
demonstrative of authentic care?
2. What are the knowledge and motivation influences on CCHS teachers’ formation of
authentic care for students?
3. How do the organizational context and culture promote or impede the formation of
authentic care for students at CCHS?
Sample Participants and Study Site
The sample and site chosen for the study were aligned to the purpose of the project,
which is to determine the influences on teachers’ formation of authentic care so that urban
schools may be able to intentionally build systems and supports that facilitate, and dismantle
those that impede, authentic care. Noddings’ (2013) model of authentic care stipulates the cared-
for must perceive and receive the caring of the one-caring. Therefore, this study gathered
information from urban secondary teachers and their students on their perceptions of authentic
care. The study site, which is an urban, charter high school, has a racially and socio-
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 107
economically homogenous population that is consistent with that of many urban schools (Orfield
& Lee, 2005). The school’s vision and current initiatives to promote relationships made it
especially applicable to this study, because communication and goals around those initiatives
have been formed.
Site Selection
CCHS was chosen for the case study because of the typicality of its student enrollment
demographics, overall size (750+ students), and locale within a large urban school district. The
school is a charter school, which affords some variations in hiring, teacher training, and
scheduling from traditional school models. For example, the principal has allocated designated
time for a daily advisory, as well as office hours for each teacher with the intention of providing
time for relationship-formation (interview with school principal, August 23, 2017). Likewise,
although the school is ultimately accountable to the testable outcomes described by Figlio and
Loeb (2011) and others, it is very different from the school Valenzuela (2010) researched and
described by researchers like Delpit (2006). As a charter school, CCHS has a very clear brand,
mission, and model that articulates a focus on relationships with students and their community
(interview with school principal, August 23, 2017). The school’s articulated focus on
relationships enabled the researcher to delve into how such a focus influences the formation of
authentic care. Rather than an absence of focus on relationships and care, the study at CCHS
enabled the researcher to examine the specifics of how that focus is implemented and the
impediments and supports inherent within the CCHS approach.
Teacher Sample
Teachers were selected from a stratified random sampling that was organized into two
categories by content taught: high-stakes, which is aligned to a testable measure for which the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 108
teacher is accountable, and low-stakes, which is content without a testable measure. This
stratified approach was intended to determine how a teacher’s role may influence the formation
of authentic care, and the consideration of the stakes of content is informed by Valenzuela’s
(2010) findings that some teachers’ approaches to interactions with students were influenced by
the demands of the grade level or content taught. Selection in these categories was conducted
using a stratified random sampling approach to provide diversity of perspective in the sample
(Johnson & Christensen, 2014) as described in detail in Chapter Three. It should be noted that
seven of the teachers selected declined to participate, so the six in the sample are from the first
13 teachers selected.
The teacher sample is diverse in its teaching experience and cultural identities. It should
be noted that because the sample is small, identifying information about the teachers in the
sample has been parsed out to provide anonymity. One teacher is new to teaching this year, two
teachers are new to the school but have five or more years of prior teaching experience, and three
of the teachers have been at CCHS for five or more years. One of the teachers has more than
fifteen years of teaching experience. Four of the teachers are female and two are male. Five of
the teachers identify as African American and one identifies as White. Five of the teachers
identify as American, and one identifies as American with significant cultural influence from
outside of America. All six teachers lead an advisory, and four of the six teachers sponsor a club
or activity for students outside of the regular school day.
Of the sample, one teacher is vocal about struggling with classroom management and the
demands of the role. This teacher was visibly frustrated in observations and consistently
described frustration in delivering instruction effectively. This teacher was more comfortable
sharing personal impressions and experience in one-on-one interviews. Conversely, three of the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 109
teachers described themselves as having exceptional classroom management and expertise in
teaching. These teachers attributed their self-described success to different influences (a previous
mentor, amount of experience, common perspectives as the students), but all described their
formation of relationships with students as a strength. These teachers did not have data to
support their success and had mixed feedback from their students. One teacher in the sample
who was most consistently described by students as demonstrating authentic care described her
expertise in teaching and classroom management as areas of ongoing growth and not as a gap or
strength.
Student Sample
The student sample was comprised of two students randomly selected from each of the
six periods being observed. All students identify as African American, and there are six males
and six females. Because one selected student left the school since the researcher received the
roster, the twelve students are from the first thirteen names picked. Five of the students are
freshmen, three of the students are sophomores, one student is a junior, and three are seniors.
Two of the seven upper-level students attended other schools during their high school careers,
and four of the five first-year students came from the regional charter middle schools. Three of
the students were coincidentally enrolled in two of the sample teachers’ classes, providing a third
student perspective for three of the teachers in the sample.
Of the twelve students, ten answered most of the questions and provided examples or
different opinions when another student spoke in the group. The two students who were less
vocal in focus groups provided additional feedback outside of the focus group sessions in
informal interviews. Overall, students were reluctant to provide critical perspectives of their
CCHS teachers. All students acknowledged that “good” teachers care about their students and
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 110
expressed hesitation in describing a current teacher as uncaring. Most students readily provided
names and examples of teachers who were caring, as well as examples of ways teachers
demonstrate care. Despite the size of the school, most students validated the perceptions of other
students in their characterization of a teacher. This could speak to a limitation of the method,
which is the inclination to agree or disagree with a peer in a focus group at the expense of the
reliability of the feedback (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Although the students described scenarios that were indicative of a lack of care in similar
ways and most verbally agreed with the examples provided by their classmates, the students did
not offer names of teachers who did not demonstrate care. When questions about specific
teachers were asked, students framed critical feedback about those teachers in ways that
highlighted the teachers’ perceived effort. The only specific names of teachers offered as
examples of non-care were from other schools, and students noted they were reluctant to “call
anyone out” even if the transcripts were anonymized.
Students were excited to provide feedback about their perceptions of teacher care. Most
noted that they had never been asked questions about their perceptions of their teachers’ care
ethic, and most did not recall ever completing a survey. It should be noted that the annual student
survey, which was completed in the 2016-17 school year with 100% participation (primary
document, August 23, 2017), would have been completed by six of the students in the sample.
The survey’s data is not formally used and of the 73 questions on the survey, only one asks about
students’ perception of teacher care (primary document, August 17, 2017). Students discussed
the importance of teachers knowing how students felt, and some asked the researcher to make the
transcripts available to their teachers. One student said making the information from the focus
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 111
group available to teachers would, “…make it so we don’t have to work so hard to make them
feel liked.”
Results
Major Themes and Related Literature
Through the analysis and coding of transcripts from the teacher and student focus groups
and interviews and notes from classroom observations, themes in the influences of CCHS
teachers’ formation of authentic care and students’ perception of teacher care emerged. Many of
these themes align with the research outlined in Chapter Two. Teachers and students confirmed
the importance of empathy in communicating care for students, which underpins the authentic
care model advanced by Noddings (2013). In each of the behaviors students identified as
indicative of authentic care, as well as the responses from teachers about how they effectively
form care, real empathy was the foundation. Many students perceived the same teacher
behaviors as indicative of authentic care as were outlined in the literature reviewed in Chapter
Two, such as making time for personal interaction outside of class (Cushman, 2005),
acknowledgement of students’ individual realities (Watson, Sealey-Ruiz, & Jackson, 2014),
making decisions students perceive as fair (Crosnoe et al., 2004), and providing a higher ratio of
positive feedback to negative feedback (Baker, 1999). Likewise, students noted many of the
same teacher behaviors as indicative of an absence of authentic care as those outlined by
researchers, such as implementing rules and consequences with rigidity and inflexibility (Morris,
2015), maintaining emotional distance that minimizes commonalities between teacher and
student (Emdin, 2016), and prioritizing academic tasks over interpersonal needs (Delpit, 2006).
Cultural relevance was a primary focus of the review of literature that was articulated
differently by most students in the sample. Two students described White teachers as having less
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 112
capacity to care for Black students, and these students provided specific examples of interactions
with White teachers that support this perspective. These two students described White teachers’
inherent racism as an impediment to authentic care for Black students. However, the majority of
the student sample described the cultural relevance critical to authentic care as informed by
cultural influences other than race. Ten of the twelve students in the sample described the role of
cultural relevance in care in terms of their age group or subgroup identities, citing a need for
teachers to “remember what it’s like to be a teenager” or demonstrate care appropriate to
students’ membership on athletic teams or subcultures. For the majority of the student sample,
cultural relevance needed to include their age, communication style, cultural identity, and other
elements of identity like participation in sports or band or perception as a “good” or “bad”
student. Students emphasized the importance of teacher authenticity and vulnerability, citing
examples of teachers of a different race who demonstrated authentic care by “being themselves”
and engaging with each student on an individual basis. This was an indicator of care that was
not identified in the related literature.
Teachers’ perspectives on the formation of authentic care differed from that of the
literature in that all teachers in the sample agreed authentic care is important and something to
strive for. Valenzuela’s (2010) finding that the content area or grade level of a teacher
influenced their perception of the importance of care was not confirmed by this study. In fact,
the teacher with the most consistent appraisal by students as a model of authentic care is a
teacher of high-stakes content who is new to the school and has a high-stakes role. There were
no trends in content area taught, grade level taught, or years of experience of teachers in
students’ perception of who authentically cared and who did not. The majority of the teacher
sample did not feel time or assessment-based goals were impediments to their formation of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 113
relationship with students, and the teachers with high-stakes content did not demonstrate fewer
strategies perceived as caring by students. Students consistently rated the teachers of high-stakes
content as more likely to demonstrate behaviors that communicated authentic care, and students
cited more examples of care behaviors from high-stakes content classrooms. Given the literature
that suggests the current focus on accountability impedes relationships, it was anticipated that the
low-stakes teachers would have better relationships. However, the site’s structures to support
relationships, such as designated time for relationship-building, are not typical aspects of school
schedules in accountability-era schools. Moreover, the most significant barrier to authentic care
at CCHS, which is a lack of clarity in how it should look or be assessed, could be complicated by
the current approach to school in that it deprioritizes relationships because they are not clearly
defined or assessed. This aligns with the literature that suggests that aspects of schooling that are
not clearly defined or assessed are less likely to be implemented as priorities or with success
(Bryk et al., 2015; Cohen et al., 2009; Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Rueda, 2011).
Across the sample, teachers articulated a belief that positive teacher-student relationships
are important to student success and teacher effectiveness. Because teachers disagreed as to how
care looks or is communicated, and because teachers do not receive feedback on how students
perceive their relationship, this common belief that care matters was not fully leveraged. In the
absence of goals or metrics from the organization, teachers formulated visions for care based on
their own identities and perceptions. Teachers cited their identities as the most critical influence
on how they enacted care behaviors and what care behaviors were. As a result, the manifestation
of care was inconsistent and not received by students in ways that consistently matched that of
teachers. This matches the literature that shows that an absence of clearly defined goals and
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 114
definitions of practice yield inconsistent results on school initiatives (Bryk, et al., 2015; Clark &
Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
Actions, Strategies, and Habits CCHS Students Perceive as Demonstrative of Authentic
Teacher Care
Student perceptions of authentic care are critical to Noddings’ (2013) model; she posits
that when the cared-for does not interpret the one-caring as providing real care, it cannot be
deemed authentic. Likewise, researchers have found that when students do not perceive their
teachers as caring, the care the teacher may feel does not yield the same positive impact for
students (McCrosey & Tevin, 1997; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007). Beaubouef-Lafontant
(2002), Delpit (2006), Roberts (2010), Valenzuela (2010), and others echo the significance of
student perception in teacher care: educational experts have found that even when teachers
purport to care for their students, cultural mismatches render that care impotent and even
damaging for students. For this reason, the first question to guide this study examined what
CCHS students perceive as indicative of a teacher’s authentic care. Through two focus group
meetings and several one-on-one interviews, the student samples were asked to describe the
behaviors and habits of teachers that made them feel authentically cared for and those behaviors
and habits that made them feel as if their teacher didn’t care for them.
Fairness in assignments and grading. The most common response to the question of
how care is communicated by teachers, across all twelve students in each meeting, was fairness
in grading. This aligns with findings from studies like those by Crosnoe et al., (2004) and
Stronge, Ward, and Grant (2001), wherein students noted fairness as a primary indicator of
teacher care. Although these studies focused on fairness in discipline, CCHS students provided
examples of ways teachers demonstrated empathy and fairness in assigning grades and work.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 115
Examples included allowing students to improve an assignment grade, providing advanced
notice and practice for assignments that are significant to grades, and adjusting the amount or
timing of assignments to address individual and groups of students’ needs. Three students
involved in athletics noted that they felt teachers cared about them when their assignments were
responsive to the students’ athletics practice and games schedules. For example, one student
stated, “When a teacher gives you more time because you had a game, you know they are
remembering what it’s like to be a kid. They want you to get a good grade.” All twelve students
could describe a time a teacher allowed them or a group of students to turn in an assignment late
or modify an assignment to address a personal circumstance.
Likewise, all twelve students could provide examples of times teachers were inflexible
with assignments or assigned grades in ways that were unfair. All students felt a teacher who
would grade homework without notice or require an assignment be turned in after a student had
been absent did not care about them. One student said, “…they just care about them grades.
Don’t matter what you have going on. They do too much and don’t think about you. You know
when they don’t give you a chance.” Another student gave the example of having missed school
and then being required by the teacher to take a test upon the day of return. “I didn’t know the
material. I hadn’t seen it before. He just said take your 0. I think it made him happy I failed. He
don’t like me.” Twelve of the twelve students agreed that assigning low or no grades for
assignments after absences or extenuating personal circumstances was something only a teacher
who didn’t care would do.
The perception that excessive work and unfair grading is consistent with a lack of
authentic care was confirmed through classroom observations. One of the six teachers in the
sample administered workloads the students described as excessive, and students in the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 116
classroom described this as evidence of the teacher’s lack of care for them. One of the six
teachers administered an ungraded pop quiz to prepare students for an upcoming test. Students
explained that the quiz would should them what they needed to study, but because it was
ungraded, it showed that the teacher wanted them to be successful. These examples of work load
and grades as indicative of care for students (or lack thereof) were the most commonly described
means of communicating care provided by the student sample.
Informal/interpersonal interaction. The next most commonly described example of
teacher care cited by students was availability for informal interaction during and outside of
class. Cushman’s (2005) interviews with students confirm this perception: students in her study
most often described informal interaction with teachers wherein they could share personal
information as most important to their relationships with teachers. Likewise, Cothran et al.
(2003) found that students who had made interpersonal connections with teachers were more
likely to engage positively in class. Students in focus groups noted that the best way to
determine which teachers at the school cared most about their students was to walk the hallways
in the morning. “If they have a classroom full of kids in the morning, you know that’s a good
teacher. Likes their kids and the kids like them. If they door be shut or they just in there
working. Stay away!” Students in the sample noted that teachers and students have multiple
opportunities throughout the school day to connect and form relationships. If teachers expect
these interactions to be scheduled or are not flexible in providing access, the students in the
sample perceive this as a teacher who “is just there for the money” and not engaged in authentic
care for the students.
Most of the students (ten out of twelve) across the sample noted they are unwilling to
share personal information with their teachers out of fear teachers will “tell their business.”
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 117
Every student could recount an example of a teacher “putting a classmate on blast” by telling a
class or other adults about the students’ personal lives. Although none of the students were
willing to name teachers at CCHS who had shared personal information about a student, all
students maintained they had teachers who were not trustworthy and that informed their decision
not to share personal information. Students added that spending time with teachers outside of
class provided an opportunity to build trust, learn more about the teacher, and test their capacity
and willingness to maintain confidentiality. One student noted she tested her teachers by telling
them something shocking to see who would tell other teachers. She felt the true indicator of a
teacher who cared about her would be the teacher who did not share the made-up secret with
anyone else. For this student sample, a teacher’s willingness and availability to engage outside
of class and demonstrate trustworthiness was an indicator of the teacher’s authentic care for their
students.
Authenticity. One of the most prevalent themes in responses from the CCHS student
sample was the importance of a teacher’s authenticity as an indicator of care for them. Students
noted that they would be more likely to connect with a teacher that was authentic about interests
that didn’t match theirs than a teacher who tried to match their interests inauthentically. This
sentiment is confirmed by Emdin’s (2016) experience, wherein he was able to make more
effective connections with students by being his authentic self. However, none of the research
for this study addresses what the CCHS students described as “being real.” One student said, “I
don’t care if we have nothing in common as long as you are being real about what you are into.
Play your music, get excited about what you like.” Students gave multiple examples of ways
teachers they perceived themselves as having very little in common with could share their
experiences and perspectives to form connections with their students.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 118
Students noted that teachers who are authentic about their interests, especially when they
differ from those of their students, show they are invested in their students and the work. One
student gave the example of a White, male teacher with whom he has very little in common. He
felt that the teacher’s genuine excitement about music, math, and other interests his students
don’t share communicates his authenticity and care for his students. Specific examples of ways
teachers communicate their authentic selves included playing music in their classrooms, telling
stories about their personal lives to illustrate a concept, and willingness to share when the teacher
was having a bad day. Conversely, students felt that teachers who were inauthentic, or “fake,”
are communicating that they do not care for their students. One student said teachers who are
not genuine in sharing of themselves with students are “like actors” and “can’t be trusted.”
Students felt the vulnerability demonstrated by teachers who were authentic, especially if the
culture was dissimilar from that of their students, provided a foundation for mutual trust upon
which to form care.
Positive demeanor/joy. Another common theme in student perceptions of teacher
authentic care was positive demeanor, which students named “acting like you want to be here.”
Although some of the research in this study described warmth as an indicator of teacher care
(Roorda et al., 2011), most of the literature about teacher joy comes from guidance for teachers
in effective classroom instruction. Doug Lemov’s widely implemented guide, Teach Like A
Champion (2012) includes the importance of demonstrating joy for content to facilitate student
engagement. Likewise, the KIPP Foundation, the national arm of the nationwide network of
KIPP charter schools, identifies joy as one of the five components of an effective classroom
culture (The New Teacher Project, 2017). There is limited literature that draws an explicit
connection between student perceptions of teacher care and teacher mood, however.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 119
Hargreaves’ (1998) seminal work investigates the emotional labor of teaching and explores the
emotional implications of teaching in the reform era of education. Although this research
highlights the challenges and influences on teachers’ emotional states, it does not address how
student perceptions of a teacher’s emotional state impact the capacity for teacher-student
relationships. Despite the limited literature connecting teachers’ emotional states to students’
perceptions of teacher care, it was in the five most common themes of CCHS student responses
about how their teachers communicate care.
Students specifically described teachers’ facial expressions, body language, tone of voice,
and volume of voice as indicators of teacher care. Twelve out of twelve CCHS students said it
was important for teachers to show they wanted to be at the school and enjoyed their job to
believe the teachers cared about them. One student clarified that teachers “don’t have to be
happy all the time. They can have bad days.” In fact, communication with students about a bad
day was one of the examples students gave of teachers’ demonstration of authenticity. However,
students consistently noted that demonstration of enthusiasm about interaction with the students
showed them teachers genuinely cared about them in ways that promoted trust and relationship
building. Students noted teachers who frequently seemed grumpy, sad, angry, or “like they
wished they were somewhere else” were less likely to care about them as individuals, whereas
positive demeanor was often used interchangeably by students with authenticity. CCHS students
described teachers who “are always working,” work too much, did not share examples of their
lives outside of work with students, or who talked about their personal lives in terms of work
completed for school as being too unhappy with their job to be able to form authentic care for
their students. One student noted that, “if a teacher can’t take care of herself, she sure can’t care
about me.”
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 120
Such a perception about teachers’ abilities to care was reinforced through classroom
observations. Two of the six teachers in the sample who were identified by students as having
the highest levels of care for and engagement with students were visibly happy throughout each
observation. Teachers demonstrated this joy by laughing at funny comments and actions of
students, openly smiling as they started and ended class, and laughing in informal interactions
with individual students during class. Although four of the six teachers were observed to be
enthusiastic about their content area, it appeared that students were more likely to engage
positively and cooperatively with teachers who communicated joy through smiling and laughing
than those teachers who did not project a more happy demeanor. It is worth noting that one
teacher who smiled and laughed in ways that did not match speech and body language (for
example, tensely smiling while redirecting a student’s inappropriate behavior) was not described
by students as happy. Students clarified the importance of authenticity in joy to this element of
caring behaviors.
Cultural responsivity. Although cultural responsivity was not a theme across focus
groups or observations, it was the subject of one set of particularly emotional responses from
students in the final focus group. The cultural responsivity inherent in the research of studies
like that by Bartolomé (2008); Beauboeuf-Lafontant (2002); Roberts (2010); and Watson, Sealy-
Ruiz, and Jackson (2014) may be encompassed in the fairness in work and grading, informal
interactions, authenticity, and positive demeanor most discussed by CCHS students. When
students were asked if teachers with the same racial background were more likely to be caring or
easier to form positive relationships with, the focus group was divided. Three students noted that
teachers with whom they felt personally closest were from different racial groups than them, and
that it was those teachers’ authenticity and investment that mattered more than their race.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 121
However, one student noted that he did not feel he could trust teachers from a different racial
background, and the student specifically noted that White teachers “are just racist. They don’t
mean to be, but they eventually show they are.” A second student disagreed with this statement
but recalled that White teachers in middle school were eager to focus on content during the
Trayvon Martin case. This student noted that because the teachers were White, they could not
understand how hard it was for Black students to focus during that time. Another student
recalled teaching White teachers, at a previous school, songs and dances popular with students.
That student felt that the teachers’ authenticity in not knowing the dances and songs and
vulnerability in willingness to learn them was demonstrative of care for their students. Two
students noted that the teachers they currently have at CCHS that they feel care least for them are
Black; when they gave those teachers’ names, other students pointed out that those teachers
don’t identify as Black.
During this conversation about the role of race in forming care, nine of twelve students
noted that the racial homogeneity of the student body (which is 98% Black) was important to
them and made them feel more comfortable forming relationships at school and investing in the
school’s activities. Three students described other schools they attended with greater diversity
and described those experiences as positive. One student specifically noted that having White
classmates and teachers was important for her because she felt she would need experience
interacting with White people to be successful on her career path. Because this study’s
researcher is White, it is unclear if students may have had opinions about the role of race in
forming authentic care that they were not comfortable sharing in focus groups. Further research
with larger samples would be required to evaluate how racial identity influences the formation of
care. Specific feedback from the students on the teacher sample and how their racial identities
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 122
influence students’ perception of their care could not be included in this study to preserve the
anonymity of the participants.
Knowledge and Motivation Influences on Authentic Care
The second research question that guided this study is the knowledge and motivation
influences on CCHS teachers’ formation of authentic care. The evaluation of knowledge and
motivation influences is informed by the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis model. Through
the identification of these influences, schools can develop interventions that promote the
knowledge and motivation necessary to form authentic care. The primary data used to determine
these influences was feedback from teachers in the sample during focus groups and interviews
and observations of teachers from the sample in the classrooms.
Knowledge results. The four knowledge types are declarative/factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). As described in greater detail in Chapter
Two, teachers would need knowledge of all four types to form authentic care, and the study
sought to determine what knowledge teachers who demonstrated authentic care demonstrated.
Declarative knowledge. The most basic declarative or factual knowledge needed to form
authentic care is of authentic care itself. Although teachers don’t need to know or understand
Noddings’ (2013) model of authentic care, teachers need to know what it means to care for a
student in authentic ways and be able to define what care for students should look like. Of all the
knowledge types for this study, a clear definition of what care for students is was the most
disparate across the sample. Each of the six teachers reported that care for students is critical to
their success as teachers, and each individually defined care in very different, and often
contradictory, ways. One teacher from the sample consistently defined care in terms of
classroom management and discipline, using scenarios of enforcing discipline as examples of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 123
care. Another teacher from the sample defined care in terms of the respect students provided the
teacher rather than any action taken by the teacher in service of the students. This teacher
maintained that when students are respectful, on-task, and engaged in the content, care for the
student is formed and demonstrated. Across the sample, each teacher defined authentic care in
ways that suggested the model to which they aspired was not consistent with that of their
colleagues, and three out of six did not describe care that would be consistent with Noddings’
(2013) model.
The discrepancies in perception of what authentic care is speak to the need for clarity
about the care models that are prized at CCHS. Clark and Estes (2008) note that without clarity
about a goal, an organization is not well positioned to attain it. The lack of clarity around care at
CCHS is influenced by the organizational setting, as there are no articulated goals around
relationships and care and no measures of relationships or care. This is significant given the
school leader describes relationships with students as foundational to the school vision, and all
teachers in the sample described teacher care as a critical element of their role at CCHS. The
measures of relationships defined for the school (improved student discipline, teacher
satisfaction) are externalities of positive teacher-student relationships, but specific measures of
student perception of relationships and care are not consistently solicited or utilized. Rueda
(2011) notes that without clear, reliable measures of a priority, a school may not be able to effect
change. Bryk et al. (2015) note that schools seeking to improve without reliable data on
priorities often fall victim to confirmation bias, wherein they assume or misinterpret data to
confirm progress. This is a significant, prevalent barrier to school improvement because it leaves
schools committed to actions that are not driving improvement, thus compelling frequent
changes in priorities and initiatives (Bryk, et al., 2015).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 124
A second critical declarative knowledge needed for teachers to form authentic care is
factual, personal information about students. Teacher interest in students’ lives outside of the
classroom is a prominent theme in the feedback from students in Cushman’s (2005) research on
what students value at school. Similarly, twelve out of twelve students said all of their teachers
conducted some sort of activity to collect personal information about their students. These
strategies ranged from printed surveys students were asked to complete standing up and telling
the class some personal information. Likewise, five out of six teachers in the sample noted that
they started the year with some sort of activity or template to collect information about their
students. Some teachers used templates provided by coaches or the school, and some used
activities or templates they had used preciously.
The greatest variation in this attempt to gain factual, personal knowledge came from what
to do with it. Some of the students in the sample said they had teachers who never referenced the
information shared, and one student suggested that a teacher perceived as uncaring would have
thrown the completed surveys away. The teacher sample’s feedback on how this information is
used confirmed the inconsistency described by students. Two teachers said they referenced
recorded notes they kept on students’ interests and backgrounds to make intentional attempts to
check in with students individually. One teacher said, “… If I can give a student a compliment
or ask about something [they] shared with me, it shows them I care about them, that I’m paying
attention.” The three teachers new to the school this year all described specific strategies for
collecting and organizing information about their students at the start of the year. Two returning
teachers had a less formal approach, which included asking questions of students as a class or
pairing students up to share information. One returning teacher indicated that s/he does not
solicit information from students about their lives outside of school and does not perceive it as
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 125
necessary information for teaching. Although the expectation of gathering personal information
about students to build relationships is consistent, the gap in how to use it rendered it ineffective
for some of the teachers in the sample.
Conceptual knowledge. Conceptual knowledge is the understanding of interrelationships
and interaction amongst and between concepts (Krathwohl, 2002). In this study, the conceptual
knowledge that emerged most prevalently as an influence on the formation of authentic care is
empathy for students. The capacity to truly understand students’ perceptions and feelings and
use that understanding to drive interaction is integral to Noddings’ (2013) model of authentic
care. However, Noddings’ model does not explicate the role of race, class, gender, and
intersectionality in a way that responds to the realities of forming authentic care in urban,
secondary school settings (Halvinsky, 2014). Real empathy to drive authentic care, rather than
the sympathy or care rooted in fundamental misunderstandings of students’ lives that would
foster aesthetic care, requires cultural relevance. For the minoritized students who comprise the
majority of urban schools, true empathy must be rooted in cultural understanding and a critical
analysis of the power dynamics that affect students (Bartolomé, 2008; Delpit, 2006; Roberts,
2010; Valenzuela, 2010; Watson, Sealy-Ruiz, & Jackson, 2014). Conceptually, teachers need to
be able to position themselves and their students in practices of engagement that recognize the
racism and realities in minoritized students’ lives (Roberts, 2010), as well as the power dynamic
at play between teachers and students (Freire, 1996). Teachers who form authentic care for
minoritized students cannot “just love them” absent an understanding of the structures in which
the students exist. “Teachers often ‘lovingly’ coddle their students…. This is a prime example
of how, despite teachers’ good intentions, love and caring can be racist, limiting, and
oppressive” (Bartolomé, 2008, p.3).
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 126
One teacher in the sample demonstrated and articulated this conceptual knowledge
consistently. Students described the teacher as “…understanding. [The teacher] is just
always cool—she just gets what it’s like for us.” This teacher consistently framed her
responsibility as a teacher in terms of empathy for students, and she made pedagogical and
interpersonal decisions based on how her students might feel. This teacher explained a
decision to use a game to practice standards as indicative of this empathy—the teacher
expected students would be more engaged in a game due to the time of day and content being
covered. This teacher did not specifically describe the students in terms of their race or socio-
economic status, but consistently identified experiences and perceptions of students that
matched descriptions by the students themselves.
Four of the teachers in the sample described the need for empathy in their relationships
with students but felt some level of disconnect with some students based on students’ racial
identity, socio-economic status and/or the teachers’ perceptions of some students’ values and
upbringing. Some teachers noted the permissiveness of parents, “lack of home training,” and
absence of values as reasons students’ behaviors or engagement levels did not meet their
standards. Four of the six teachers noted they were raised in situations very different from that
of many of their students, and cited this difference as a barrier to relationships with some
students. Although these teachers insisted they could care for students from different
backgrounds equally to those with similar backgrounds, three also insisted students from
different backgrounds would need to “get with the program” and make changes to align to the
cultural practices of the teacher. Bartolomé (2008) identifies this phenomena in her study when
she notes, “many teachers of liberal persuasion claim to love and care for minority students;
however, their love is often condescending and very much informed by unacknowledged deficit
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 127
views of their students” (p. 2-3). Because teachers do not receive feedback from students or
leadership against an agreed upon standard for relationships, there is no message to counter this
deficit-based view.
One teacher in the sample noted a lack of exposure to Black culture and the
communities from which the majority of CCHS students hail as a barrier to forming
relationships. A recent Washington Post article would suggest this teacher is not unusual.
According to the Public Religion Research Institute, the average White person in America
has only nine friends out of 100 that are not White, and only one of them is Black. Evaluated
another way, the study suggests that as much as 75% of White people in American have no
White friends (Ingraham, 2014). This lack of exposure, especially for White teachers
working in racially isolated schools like CCHS, can influence the conceptual knowledge
necessary to form authentic care for students.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is that knowledge necessary to perform a
task (Krathwohl, 2002). For teachers who are forming authentic care for their students, the
procedural knowledge necessary is in utilizing the information they have about students to form
a bond and implementing the strategies outlined by students as indicative of authentic care. The
recognition and receipt of care by the cared-for is an indicator of authentic care (Nodding, 2013).
As such, the most critical procedural knowledge for teachers is communicating their care for
students in ways students perceive as caring.
Although five of the six teachers indicated they had collected some information about
students at the start of the year in service of establishing relationships, use of this information
was mixed. One teacher noted she hadn’t had time to use the information, and the student
surveys were in a file for later use. Another teacher noted she read the surveys carefully to mark
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 128
specific things about which she could check in on students and had been using the information
with intentionality to initiate individual connections between her and each of her students. This
disparity in use of the same tool to collect factual knowledge highlights the necessity for the
procedural knowledge to effectively utilize that information. Because the school has provided
recommended resources to collect information, it has effectively communicated to teachers that
having this information is important to the formation of relationships and that it is a best practice
to learn more about students personally. Without guidance on how to use that information, the
factual knowledge is, for three of the teachers in the sample, not being fully leveraged.
Another critical area of procedural knowledge for the teachers in the CCHS study was
implementation of strategies students perceive as caring. In observations of four of the six
classrooms, the researcher observed teachers making requests or implementing strategies the
student sample explicitly described as indicative of a lack of care. Given the importance the
student sample placed on fairness in grading and work load, the regular execution of practices
students perceived as unfair in four of the six classrooms suggests that greater understanding of
the impact of such practices could improve the capacity for authentic care. In one classroom, the
teacher assigned a hefty workload for homework, citing the students’ off-task behavior during
class time as the rationale. Students grumbled, yelled, and all but two students remained
completely off-task for the remainder of class. One student observed that the workload could not
be completed when students had not been able to complete the lesson and that he felt as if the
zero he would receive was punishment. Students in the focus group validated this perception.
One student explained, “They aren’t allowed to just give you an F if they don’t like you, so they
give you Fs every chance they can so it looks real. It’s still just a grade on how they feel about
you.” If teachers have the procedural knowledge to understand how actions commonly
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 129
perceived as unfair by students impact their relationships, they might opt to adjust those actions
or how they communicate about those actions.
Authenticity was another prevalent theme in student focus group responses that speaks to
procedural knowledge. A common example of inauthentic behavior cited by students in the
focus group was ignoring inappropriate student behavior. One teacher who was observed
ignoring distracting, off-task student behavior explained that it is an intentional strategy upon
which the teacher was being coached: by ignoring inappropriate behavior and providing positive
feedback on appropriate behavior, the teacher would incentivize and encourage the behavior
needed. Students, however, identified this as an example of inauthenticity. Students in the focus
group noted that teachers who ignored blatant and distracting off-task behavior were “being
fake,” and such a choice by the teacher communicated to them a lack of respect. Students said
that teachers who cared would hold students to a higher standard and not let them “get away”
with inappropriate behavior. This mismatch between a strategy for classroom management that a
teacher was being coached to perform and the students’ perception of such a strategy illustrates
the importance of procedural knowledge on how to execute strategies in ways students perceive
as indicative of care.
Metacognitive knowledge. Metacognitive knowledge is that knowledge which informs
how one reflects in action and adjusts accordingly (Schön, 2008). The cultural intelligence
model is one that considers metacognitive practice as a means of receiving and interpreting cues
and making culturally responsive responses in the moment (Moon, 2010). This model is
applicable to the CCHS sample groups because the reflection in action dictated in this model was
observed in the classrooms of teachers described as demonstrating behaviors that communicated
authentic care.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 130
One example of the metacognitive knowledge required of teachers to formulate authentic
care took place in an observation. Teachers throughout CCHS are expected to stand in doorways
and welcome students into their classrooms and supervise students in the hallways during
transitions. The intention of this responsibility is to make teachers visible to students outside of
class and foster opportunities for relationship building (personal communication with the school
principal, August 3, 2017). Four of the six teachers were observed greeting students at the start
of the period, and one of those teachers stopped each student to check-in personally. The teacher
explained this practice as an opportunity to assess how students are feeling in order to adjust, as
well as a means to connect with each student individually. The teacher was observed
complimenting students on hairstyles, asking about sports practices and weekend plans, and
following up about questions. Each student was asked a different question or given a different
comment, and the teacher’s interaction with each student was immediately responsive to the tone
of each student. Nine of twelve students identified this practice as an example of caring
behavior. One student specifically mentioned the teacher observed as a model of an
authentically caring practice: “…[The teacher] knows when I got a haircut. [The teacher] knows
when I’ve had a bad day sometimes before I even do. [That teacher] is taking time to notice and
care.” Leveraging these opportunities (and the factual knowledge teachers have collected about
individual students) to provide individualized attention and respond accordingly was an indicator
of authentic care for students.
Motivation results. The motivational theories though which authentic care were
evaluated for this study are expectancy-value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) and attribution
theory (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Each of these theories posits how people are
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 131
motivated to act, persist, and exert mental effort into a task, which could provide guidance for
schools seeking to facilitate the formation of authentic care.
Expectancy-value theory: Utility value. The utility value of an action is dependent upon
the actor’s perception of its value in relation to a goal (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Although all
teachers in the sample described forming relationships as important, there is no formal goal or
means of data collection to inform their strengths and areas of growth. Without a clearly
articulated goal and metrics to measure attainment, organizations are not positioned to improve
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). At CCHS, the goals for teacher-student relationships are
informal. The principal described the school’s vision as “anchored in a love for all kids”
(personal communication with school principal, August 15, 2016), and he described a
willingness and capacity to form positive relationships with students as the most critical capacity
for which new teacher candidates are vetted. This sentiment was confirmed by the teacher
sample, 100% of whom agreed that positive relationships were critical to success at CCHS and in
teaching.
This priority has not been operationalized through an articulated goal or metrics.
Teachers in the sample disagree as to what care looks like or what strategies promote the
formation of care. Student survey data on teacher relationships is not utilized or consistently
shared, and teachers’ self-perception of their relationships with students did not consistently
match that of their students. Because a clear model for relationships has not been identified,
teachers self-assess using their own criteria. For four of the teachers, the primary metric of
relationships was student compliance in the classroom. In four of the four observations of one
classroom, 100% of students were on-task for the duration of the period; however, the students
did not consistently perceive the teacher as caring and felt the strict nature of the classroom was
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 132
indicative of a lack of care. In this way, the utility value for the teacher promotes student
obedience over teacher-student engagement. Likewise, another teacher from the sample was
focused on classroom management and used the term interchangeably with relationships. For this
teacher, strict adherence to the lesson plan and pacing of the lesson is most critical to classroom
management. Conversely, students unanimously reported that when the teacher is unwilling to
deviate from the plan to respond to student needs, it demonstrates a lack of care. The absence of
a clear goal and metrics deprioritize authentic care.
Another critical component of utility value is feedback on progress toward the goal. One
students in the focus group noted he felt responsible for making teachers feel liked so the
teachers would be fair: all twelve participants agreed with this opinion. Students in the sample
said they do not feel comfortable providing feedback to teachers on their relationships, and the
majority of students noted that they had teachers who thought they were liked even though
students perceived them as uncaring. Without measures of the quality of relationships and
feedback from students, none of the teachers in the sample felt that relationship building was an
area of growth for them. Teachers named specific, measurable goals like improved classroom
management (as measured by number of students on task) and increased rate of growth on an
assessment in quantitative, clearly measured terms. Five of the six teachers believed they could
improve in their craft and be taught to be more effective teachers. However, only two of the
teachers in the sample described relationship-building as an element of their teaching they could
be taught to improve. The only formal measure of relationships described in the teacher sample
was an annual student survey. One teacher specifically identified positive outcomes from this
survey as an indicator of personal success with student relationships, whereas another teacher
from the sample cited school-wide trends in the same student survey as an indicator of the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 133
school’s need for improvement in forming student relationships. The school principal noted that
the survey is not in use and has not been shared at the teacher level for at least two years, which
means teachers currently have no formal means of collecting data on student perceptions
(personal communication with school principal, August 23, 2017).
Expectancy-value theory: Attainment value. Attainment value is the perceived value of
an action in relation to the actor’s values or self-perception (Eccles, 2009). Researchers like
Emdin (2016) describe a common perception in teaching, which is tough teachers who form
distance between them and their students and minimize commonalities are better and more
effective teachers. For teachers who perceive the best teachers to be those that are most distant,
the attainment value of authentic care is low. For at least one teacher in the sample, this was a
perception formerly held that was revised through the implementation of the restorative practices
initiative at CCHS. This teacher stated, “I used to be tough—I thought the best teachers were the
ones that didn’t smile, that were gruff.” The teacher noted that the improvement in classroom
management and personal satisfaction derived from more positive interpersonal connection with
students was transformative in the value placed on forming those relationships. The teacher said
that the perception of what makes a good teacher has shifted, which makes the work to form
relationships with students worth it. For teachers at CCHS who believe “good teachers” are
those who form authentic care, the value of working toward that care is high and motivates
action.
Six of the six teachers in the sample agreed that “good” teachers form positive
relationships with their students, but disagreed on how these relationships should look or would
be measured. In this way, CCHS is not leveraging the attainment value that could be driven by a
common perception of what “good” teachers do. In fact, all six teachers named a different
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 134
teacher as their role model for relationships, and one of the teachers noted that s/he “is the role
model for relationships here.”
The attainment value that was most influential for five of the teachers was connected to
an identity for themselves outside of teaching. Two of the teachers in the sample described their
Christian faith as a critical motivator to form authentic care for students. Both said they were
inspired to use patience and empathy to form relationships with their students because it was in
alignment with their Christian values. One teacher in the sample described her identity as a good
mother as a critical motivator. Her empathy for the parents of students motivated her to “treat
every student like he is my son. I know what I would want for him, and I want to be a teacher
parents can trust to do the same for them.” For this teacher, the role of mother motivates her to
care for students and form relationships that are maternal in nature. This maternal approach to
authentic care is explored by Beaubouef-Lafontant (2002), who describes the womanist approach
to authentic care as one that is culturally responsive and most common amongst Black, female
teachers working in schools with Black students. For both the teachers who identified as
Christian and the teacher who identified as a mother, characteristics of authentic care like
empathy, patience, trust, and interpersonal connection, were highly valued because they align to
the identity to which they aspire.
Another key identity group that provided high attainment value for teacher participants
was participation in the “out-group” of teachers. The in-group/out-group theory was proposed
by Tajfel as an aspect of social identity theory. According to Tajfel (2010), the in-group of a
culture is that to which people in an organization identify, whereas an out-group is that culture
that functions outside of the organization’s dominant paradigm. Ironically, three of the six
teachers consistently described themselves as being different from other teachers at the school
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 135
and across the profession. Each of these teachers framed their perspective on forming
relationships with students as a member of the teaching out-group. For these teachers, there was
high attainment value in doing things differently from the way they perceived the majority of
teachers would do them. This identity is of critical consideration for school leaders who seek to
promote the motivational value of authentic care. Although these teachers’ perspectives on care
were largely similar to those who identified as the in-group, identification as an out-group
member was described as more motivating than other identity groups or values described.
Expectancy-value theory: Cost. Although much of the research about accountability era
schools would suggest that the utility value for teacher-student relationships is diminished by a
focus on testable outcomes (Figlio & Loeb, 2011; Valli & Buese, 2007), the low-stakes content
teachers in this sample neither demonstrated nor communicated more motivation to form
authentic care than their high-stakes content colleagues. All six teachers in the sample identified
positive, trusting relationships with students as critical to their success as teachers and students’
attainment of goals. All six teachers said they felt there was significant value in making time to
form interpersonal bonds with their students and that these bonds were critical to the school’s
attainment of goals. None of the teachers expressed a belief that there was any cost in forming
relationships with their students.
The perceived cost of forming relationships for teachers was more dependent upon their
varied perceptions of what authentic care looked like. For example, one teacher in the sample
who felt a teacher-student relationship should be authoritarian and like “a strict parent” saw no
value in collecting personal information about students at the start of the year. This teacher also
self-reported as a teacher with very strong, positive personal relationships with students. This
teacher was not observed interacting interpersonally with students, and students in the sample
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 136
reported that they did not have a connection with the teacher. For this teacher, the primary
means of establishing relationships is through content and within the instructional period, and the
cost of anything outside of that outweighs the perceived value.
Another teacher in the sample used an appointment schedule to make time for students
outside of class. This teacher was observed encouraging students to “make an appointment,” and
the teacher noted that the classroom is door is not left open before or after school to encourage
appointments. Although students did not speak specifically to this teacher’s policy, they did
describe a teacher’s flexibility and “open door” before and after school as critical to
demonstrating care. The teacher perceives the cost of a more flexible availability policy as
higher than the value attained; however, feedback from students may drive up the utility value of
such an action and compel a change that could benefit the teacher’s relationships with students.
Other teachers in the sample built intentional time into their lesson plans or days to be
informally available to students. In another sample classroom, a teacher integrated personal
check-ins with each student as a part of the daily lesson structure. When asked about the cost of
making such time, the teacher responded, “I can get more done when I know how my students
feel.” The teacher believed the cost of making time for the check-ins was balanced by the
benefit of what s/he would learn from students. Another teacher noted that s/he has availability
to students before and after school, without appointment, and during times that are not mandated
by the school. This teacher noted that the availability facilitates opportunities to build
relationships with students who may feel less confident about coming forward during class. For
this teacher, the cost of the additional time is lower than the potential benefit of forming
relationships with students that may not otherwise be formed.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 137
Across the teacher sample, perceptions of cost of authentic care were mixed. Although
no one in the sample said the cost of forming a relationship was higher than the value, two of the
teachers adopted policies that students described as indicative of a lack of care. The teacher who
was most focused on classroom management and implementation of the lesson plan did not
express a belief that the cost of forming relationships was higher, but did not have clarity on
what relationship-building would look like. In this way, the inconsistent perspectives of what
authentic care is and how to build it exacerbate the perception of the cost of strategies that may
facilitate it.
Attribution theory. Attribution theory is the final theory of motivation that was most
prevalent in influences on CCHS’ teachers’ formation of authentic care. Attribution theory
posits that an actor’s motivation is influenced by her perception of the locus of control over a
situation, as well as its capacity for change. External locus is the belief that an action is outside
of the actor’s control, whereas internal locus is the belief that an action is inside of the actor’s
control (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). When an external locus of control is perceived,
one is more likely to be demotivated, and an internal locus of control is more motivating. In this
study, an internal locus of control for teachers would encourage motivation because teachers
would believe they have control over the formation of relationships. Conversely, an external
locus of control would demotivate teachers to act in ways that would form authentic care because
it would lead the teachers to believe their actions could not influence the relationships. In
Valenzuela’s (2010) study, many of the teachers she observed who had the poorest teacher-
student relationships expressed a belief that the impetus to form relationships was on students
and that teachers were unable to influence this. As a result, those teachers did not actively pursue
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 138
the formation of positive relationships through learning about their students in ways that would
promote culture responsivity (Valenzuela, 2010).
In this study, teachers’ perceptions of the locus of control for teacher-student
relationships was consistently positively correlated to students’ perceptions of the teachers’ care.
The three teachers in the sample who communicated a belief that they could control the
formation of relationships with students demonstrated common strategies in their classrooms,
including more time for student voice, more interpersonal interaction with students during class,
more positive demeanor during class time, and more positive reinforcement. These strategies
match that of researchers like Baker (1999) and Cushman (2005) who found that students were
more likely to feel positively about teachers that provided more positive affirmations than
negative and who provided time for interpersonal interaction.
Three teachers communicated an external locus of control and described the formation of
relationships with students as the purview of students. One noted in the interview that
adolescents were “unpredictable” and “you can’t make someone like you.” Although two of the
three said they believed they had positive relationships with the majority of their students, they
described situations with individual students they perceived as immutable. It should be noted
that all of the teachers in the sample believed they had positive relationships with the majority of
their students, and the observations and interviews could not affirm or contradict these
perceptions. Both of these teachers provided examples of ways they sought to build
relationships, and both situations were described as culminating in parent conferences for
students’ inappropriate behavior. Both teachers described the situations as unable to be resolved
because of the students’ demeanor or attitude. This may show that for teachers in the CCHS
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 139
sample, the perception of an external locus over relationship formation may deprioritize
implementation of behaviors students perceive as caring.
Although five of the teachers described growth mindset as a critical capacity for teaching
and the school’s culture, none of them were receiving feedback, training, or support on building
relationships. Two of the teachers had received coaching in classroom management and culture
in prior years, and both described the coaching as influential and positively affecting way they
engage with students. Neither of these teachers were receiving feedback or coaching on
relationships this year, and neither had a formal measure or metric of their effectiveness in
relationship-building. Two of the teachers noted they could not ask their coach for help building
relationships with students, but they could ask their coach for help with instruction or
curriculum. Only one of the six teachers agreed they would ask their coach for help with
building relationships. Although every teacher in the sample has a dedicated coach and receives
regular feedback, the coaching is not perceived as a viable tool to increase care building skills.
Four of the teachers expressed some reluctance to frame relationship-building as a skill to
be grown. Although the teachers reflected positively on the impact of restorative justice strategy
implementation, one teacher noted, “we’ve been doing this [in my culture] for centuries. I don’t
need someone to teach me how to run a circle.” This teacher reflected positively on the impact
of the training, but persisted in maintaining that most capacity for relationship-building was
innate. This sentiment is matched by the principal, who noted that coaching at the school is
intended to build instructional capacity and classroom management skills, but that the capacity to
build relationships is not something on which teachers can be coached (personal communication
with the principal, August 23, 2017). This sentiment speaks to a belief in the organizational
culture that growing in instructional capacity is the mark of a good teacher, whereas needing
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 140
growth in relationship-building is not. This is a critical way the organizational culture is
influencing teachers’ locus of control over the formation of authentic care.
Organizational Influences on Teachers’ Formation of Authentic Care
Clark and Estes (2008) identify organizational context as the third category of influence
on the capacity to attain an organizational goal. The organizational context is comprised of the
setting, which includes resources, systems, and structures, and the culture, which is comprised of
organizational beliefs, habits, and traditions (Clark & Estes, 2008). As illustrated in the
conceptual framework in Chapter Two, the organizational context impacts teachers’ formation of
authentic care through influence on teacher knowledge and motivation. The structures of
support, resources, and feedback provided to teachers may bolster or hinder teachers’ knowledge
by providing new information or improving skills. The predominant beliefs and attitudes of the
members of the organization may influence teachers’ motivation. In this study, teacher and
student feedback in focus groups and interviews and observations of classrooms were used to
identify organizational setting and culture influences at CCHS.
Organizational setting. The organizational setting is described by Clark and Estes
(2008) as the resources, protocols, systems, and structures of an organization. The setting
influences the actions of members of an organization by promoting or impeding the target
behaviors through actual impact on capacity to act and/or communication of organizational
priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Figlio and Loeb (2011) describe the current accountability focus of public schools as a
means of prioritizing testable outcomes at the expense of the affective elements of schooling.
They maintain that in a system that prioritizes those skills that are assessed in a standardized
measure, all other elements of education that are not assessed become deprioritized (Figlio &
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 141
Loeb, 2011). Valli and Beuse (2007) also describe the currently test-focused setting of many
public schools as an impediment to student and teacher relationships because of the pressures
and stresses associated with test-based school cultures. However, the accountability system did
not appear to be a significant influencer for the sample. In fact, the teachers with low-stakes
content were not perceived by students as more caring than those of high-stakes content, and the
teachers ten out of twelve students named as demonstrating exemplary care behaviors were
teachers of high-stakes content. Only one teacher named the urgency of student outcomes as a
barrier to forming care for students, and this teacher is new to teaching. One teacher of high-
stakes content in the sample named the accountability structures as an asset to relationships: “It
makes what we need to get done, how I grade, and how students need to perform objective. Since
it is clear and the same for everyone, they know it isn’t coming from me.” Based on this
feedback and the observations across classrooms that showed overall higher frequency of care
behaviors in high-stakes content classrooms, the level of accountability around content did not
appear to be a significant influence on the sample for this study.
At CCHS, the elements of the setting that emerged as most influential to the promotion of
authentic care were allocated time for informal interaction between teachers and students and the
designation of advisory as a relationship-building tool. Dedicated time for informal interaction
included availability of mandatory office hours for each teacher after school to provide support
and availability to students, and teacher arrival in classrooms before the start of the instructional
day. The advisory period, in which teachers and students check in on grades, review character
development and college planning curriculum, and have flexible time to engage, was most often
cited by teachers and students as critical to developing the relationship that would be
characterized by authentic care. The setting elements that were detrimental to the formation of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 142
authentic care were a lack of structures for feedback and training on authentic care and the
training focus on repairing relationships in the absence of training on forming relationships.
One structure that is described as promoting authentic care is access to flexible time and
the permission to go “off-script” in lessons. Eleven out of twelve students agreed that one
indicator of a caring teacher is availability outside of class time and assigned times (like advisory
and office hours) to informally interact with students. One student said, “You can tell how good
a teacher is by how many kids are hanging out in their room in the morning.” Because flexible
time is built into every teacher’s day, this affords the option to be available to students outside of
class. Four out of six teachers confirmed they make themselves available to students during non-
instructional time and felt that this time was critical to building strong interpersonal relationships
with students. For the two teachers who said they were not available outside of class without
appointments, they communicated a belief that this approach to making time was an integral
aspect of a respectful relationship. Without access to feedback from students that this approach
to teacher access could be viewed as an indicator of a lack of care, the teachers persisted in a
strategy that is counter to their goals. Every teacher in the sample identified ways they were
available outside of class for informal interaction, such as sponsorship of an extracurricular
activity, provision of teachers’ cell phone number to students, attendance at sports events, and
presence in the classroom before school. Although each teacher demonstrated that having a way
to engage informally is important to them and CCHS, the lack of access to feedback on how they
engage informally prevented some teachers from recognizing how their approach might be an
impediment.
Another element of the organizational setting that the majority of teachers and students
described as important to the formation of authentic care is the advisory period. Ten out of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 143
twelve students described their advisory teacher as caring and felt their bond with their advisory
teacher was distinctive from relationships with other teachers because of its depth of feeling.
Three of the twelve students noted they had requested to be placed in an advisory with a teacher
with whom they had a pre-existing bond because “…advisory teachers are there for you. They
help you with your personal problems and get you through.” Students describe advisory as a
time wherein they share personal information with their peers and their teacher shares personal
information with them. Likewise, three of the six teachers described advisory as a means to form
authentic care for and with their students by learning about them personally. The establishment
of advisory sessions as a tool to build relationships among students and a teacher throughout
students’ high school careers provides both the necessary time for the development of personal,
trusting relationships and the message that such relationships are important to the vision and
mission of the school.
Conversely, teachers describe the gaps in formal support or feedback on relationship
building as indicative of the prioritization of other teaching responsibilities over relationships.
Six of six teachers reported they receive no formal feedback or coaching on building
relationships with students. Five of six teachers said they were more likely to get feedback or
training on classroom management or content strategies than strategies to build relationships.
Five of six reported no access to feedback on student perceptions of care. The only teacher who
reported access to feedback on student relationships described that feedback as delivered through
student survey results; however, the principal said these surveys have not been utilized or shared
with teachers for at least two years (and data for last year isn’t available). Two of the three
teachers new to CCHS this year said they were not given specific guidance on what relationships
should look like, but they have received training and feedback on restoring relationships with
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 144
students that are damaged. Because teachers perceive the majority of feedback, training, and
support as focused on classroom management, classroom procedures, and content strategies,
teachers perceive relationships with students as less important to the school’s leadership than
those areas upon which they receive direct supports. In this way, the organizational setting has
communicated a hierarchy of priorities that positions teacher care below other responsibilities of
the role.
Likewise, the implementation of RJ has communicated a focus on repairing broken
relationships rather that forming positive relationships. The lack of clarity or guidance to form
authentic care exacerbates challenges for teachers. Five of the six teachers noted they had
greater support and clarity of expectations on using restorative practices to address problems
with a student than they had to establish positive relationships. Two of the six teachers
consistently responded to questions about student relationships with answers about classroom
management. For example, when asked about a strategy that might communicate care, one
teacher said, “I try to make sure I give every student the same consequence for disrespectful
behavior.” Another teacher gave the example of taking a student into the hall to issue a detention
as a strategy to build teacher-student care. Students affirmed this when the nine of twelve
students agreed, “…getting into trouble is the best way to build a positive relationship with a
teacher.” Students noted that the one-on-one access and extra time afforded students who are not
following the rules results in a strong, caring bond between teacher and student. Data indicates
that the lack of clarity and support on how to form authentic care has resulted in confusion for
teachers and students about effective strategies.
Organizational culture. The organizational culture is the predominant beliefs, attitudes,
and habits of an organization (Clark and Estes, 2008). At CCHS, this culture was communicated
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 145
both through observations of classrooms and teacher-student interactions and the responses of
students and teachers in focus groups and interviews. Unlike organizational setting, which was
assessed solely through teacher responses to questions and observation, organizational culture
was evaluated through student responses in addition to teacher responses and observation. For
most of the organizational culture influences on authentic care, students’ responses supported the
perceptions of teachers. Organizational cultural influences on the formation of authentic care
included an expectation that all teachers demonstrate care for students, a perception that
flexibility in discipline policies promotes authentic care, and a belief that the capacity to form
teacher-student relationships is fixed.
Teachers described care for students as a norm of the organizational culture and
communicated this belief through their unwillingness to be critical of care behaviors when
meeting in the larger group. Teachers were more forthcoming with critical feedback and
questions about the value of care in small groups than full group meetings, and three of the six
teachers provided a different, more critical perspective on teacher care in individual or small
group meetings than the large focus group. In the first teacher focus group, six of six teachers
described care for students as an important part of teaching and necessary for student success.
Five of the six teachers provided examples of how they demonstrate care for their students and
actively work to build strong teacher-student relationships. However, in small group meetings,
three of six teachers suggested that care for students may vary depending on the student, be
outside of their control, and/or not be critical to student outcomes. The reluctance to be critical
of care in the company of a larger group of colleagues communicates their perception that the
dominant paradigm at the school values teacher care.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 146
Another indicator of the perception of the role teacher care plays at CCHS comes from a
similar trend in student focus group feedback. Students were reluctant to call CCHS teachers
uncaring in the large group, although they were willing to identify uncaring teachers from other
schools. Two out of twelve students noted they had teachers at CCHS that “…care but don’t
know how to show it.” Twelve out of twelve students agreed that teachers at CCHS were
expected to care about their students and engage in ways that demonstrate care; however, ten out
of twelve noted that they had at least one teacher who they felt did not care about them or their
classmates. Twelve out of twelve students agreed that teachers who do not appear to care about
students are likely unhappy at their job and “not going to last at CCHS.” This feedback from
students supports the idea that the organizational culture values teacher care for students.
Teachers also noted that the organizational culture has shifted to promote less rigidity in
discipline and that this shift has been an asset to the formation of authentic care. All three of the
teachers who have been at CCHS for two or more years described a positive, palpable change in
the feel of the school as a result of the disbandment of the demerit system. One teacher said,
“…When you have to issue a demerit for every little thing, it is impossible to make students feel
like you see them as an individual…. We can work with students now to do what works for
them.” Another teacher, new to CCHS this year, noted that the “no excuses” approach to
discipline in place at a previous school impeded the formation of relationships with students who
committed infractions. That teacher noted that the restorative practices approach and flexibility
to assign consequences on a student-by-student basis were integral to the decision to teach at
CCHS. A returning teacher said that although the shift from demerits was personally
challenging, it has enabled that teacher to form more authentic, individualized relationships with
students, and classroom behavior has been better as a result. Because all of the teachers in the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 147
sample provided some example of how the demerit system impeded relationships with students,
it is clear that the more flexible approach to discipline at CCHS has promoted the formation of
authentic care.
Despite communicating that teacher care for students is valued at CCHS, participants also
communicated an organizational belief that the capacity to care for students is innate. Although
five of six noted that growth mindset is a critical competency for CCHS staff and that strong
positive teacher-student relationships are important to the school’s vision, four out of six
described the formation of relationships with students as an area in which they did not need
training. Of the two who acknowledged an interest in training, one conflated teacher-student
relationships with classroom management and sought additional support to address unruly
behavior rather than the formation of relationships. If the perspective of teachers is that
relationship-building is not something they can be coached to improve, it could communicate an
organizational belief that teachers cannot be taught to get better at forming authentic care for
students. This organizational belief would impede motivation and the formal sharing of
knowledge that might lead to increased care behaviors and improved care for students.
Conclusion
The data collection at CCHS provided insight into the perspectives of twelve students and
six teachers in an urban secondary school. The scope of the study limits its capacity to be
generalized, and some of the trends that may be influential could not be explored to protect the
anonymity of the sample. The implications of racial and cultural identity on forming authentic
care, and the challenges to forming care that may be unique to new teachers are just two of the
issues that a larger study in the future could explore.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 148
Many of the trends identified in this study are reinforced by current research and
literature. An emphatic focus on relationships and the provision of time and resources to
promote relationships produces a culture in which students and staff agree that authentic care is
important to their success. Access to time to informally engage and the removal of structures
that prevent individualized responsivity are critical to forging an environment that prioritizes
care. However, even when teachers believe relationships are important, a lack of clarity, models,
and feedback to support a consistent view of relationships may ultimately impede authentic care.
The consistency in students’ responses and alignment with the review of literature
suggests that there are strategies to communicate care that could be applicable across schools if
they collect students’ perceptions and share them with teachers. Fairness in policies and
assignments, access to informal interaction, authenticity in engagement, joy/positive demeanor,
and cultural responsivity were the most prevalent themes in student feedback. Each of these
themes was underpinned by a need for empathy from teachers expressed through an
understanding of what students’ realities are. Students consistently and clearly articulated the
difference between empathy-based care and aesthetic care and used different words to describe
empathy as integral to every indicator of a teacher’s authentic care for them.
Across the sample, classrooms in which students reported they felt their teachers cared for
them authentically showed more on-task behavior, engagement, and cooperation. Likewise,
teachers in the sample who believed it was important for students to know they care about them
and believed they had the locus of control in relationship formation were observed to have more
flexibility in instruction, less teacher talk time, more student participation, and more on-task
behavior. When teachers’ perspectives are not influenced by a clear vision for care in the
classroom, they use their own frames of reference to form relationships that may not
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 149
communicate care to their students. Without student feedback, teachers may implement
strategies in their classroom that students perceive as lacking in care, and this impedes
relationship formation. Students readily provided examples of teacher behaviors that were not
empathetic and explained how these examples communicated a lack of care. Most of the
teachers in the sample were observed enacting behaviors students described as indicative of a
lack of empathy without knowing these strategies could be a barrier to their relationships.
Without the implementation of regular feedback from students to inform strategies in place at the
school, teachers may adopt and even pursue behaviors that ultimately erode their relationships
with their students.
Through focus groups, interviews, and classroom observations, the teacher sample
communicated the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on their formation of
authentic care for their students. As a group, the procedural and metacognitive knowledge
necessary to communicate care to students was impeded by disparate perceptions of what care
looked like. All teachers articulated a belief and demonstrated effort toward building
relationships, which could be leveraged with clarity on the goal and feedback to inform strategy.
Their feedback supported the premise that new initiatives at the school that were implemented
through regular feedback and coaching, like the revision of the discipline system and integration
of restorative justice practices, could improve their capacity to form relationships. Likewise,
some of the teachers described learning from colleagues with strong models of practice as a
valuable means of developing new skills. Because the teachers perceived by students as most
caring were not readily identifiable by the group, the absence of a clear definition for
relationships has prevented accurate assessment of model practice. When teachers had the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 150
knowledge and motivation to enact these behaviors, their students were more engaged, classroom
management challenges were eliminated, and students more often on-task.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 151
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign. But
stories can also be used to empower, and to humanize. Stories can break the
dignity of a people. But stories can also repair that broken dignity.
-Chimamanda Adichie, 2009

The ongoing equity gap and consistent pursuit, nationally, of improvement of urban
schools has largely been focused on strategies that build students’ testable skills (Cohen, et al.,
2009; Darling-Hammond, 2004). Even as considerations of classroom context are integrated into
school improvement initiatives, the most significant foci of accountability are testable outcomes
(Figlio & Loeb, 2011). The review of literature in Chapter Two provides the perspectives of
researchers who find that the exclusion of affective elements of schooling have further
entrenched the equity gap and positioned minoritized students to be educated in systems that are
subtractive and disempowering (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Valenzuela, 2010; Valli & Buese,
2007). Given the broad body of research that shows the importance of teacher care to short- and
long-term student outcomes, this study has sought to identify the conditions and influences to
promote that care. Equally important, this study has illustrated the nuances in different types of
care to advance the facilitation of authentic care, which is most likely to positively impact
minoritized students in urban secondary schools. The use of a defined approach to positive
teacher-student relationships, which includes a requisite metric (student perception of care),
provides practitioners with the clarity necessary to reliably drive improvement in this aspect of
schooling.
For schools in the process of formal or informal improvement, the role of authentic care
is critical to long-term sustainability of results. Although a significant body of research-based
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 152
practices have been introduced into school improvement approaches across the country, the
impact of these practices is usually not sustained (Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010; Bryk et
al., 2015). Although current wisdom around school improvement requires the use of formal
goal-setting and formative data analysis to make significant change (Bryk et al., 2015; Rueda,
2011), student-teacher relationships are largely absent from these metrics and evaluations, and
student feedback is wholly absent as a data point around which strategy is developed. This is
problematic given the clear correlation between students’ perception of relationships and school
performance.
School improvement and teacher education initiatives are wholly rooted in curricular
practice at the expense of affective elements (Cohen et al., 2009; Freeman et al., 2014), despite
the fact that affective elements of schooling, like classroom management and teacher-student
relationships are the most common barriers to teacher retention, satisfaction, and success
(Brown, 2004; Chesley & Jordan, 2012; Collie, Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Collier, 2005).
Although school improvement or teacher success can be manifest without instructional
development, it also cannot be fully realized without intentional development to facilitate
authentic care between teachers and students. The intention of this study is to use the data
collected from CCHS teachers and students to identify the most common indicators of authentic
care as perceived by students, as well as the significant influences in knowledge, motivation, and
organizational context on teachers’ formation of authentic care for their students. This data can
then be used to inform the appropriate interventions for each school community in a way that is
systematic and clearly organizes the right solutions to the challenges. The Clark and Estes
(2008) gap analysis approach was used to clearly categorize the types of influence on care in
urban, secondary schools in a way that lends itself to implementation by practitioners.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 153
As such, this chapter is comprised of recommendations both for CCHS and urban,
secondary schools throughout the nation who seek to improve their school’s performance. The
chapter is organized by the research questions that shaped the study, which are aligned to
Noddings’ (2013) definition of authentic care and the Clark and Estes (2008) approach to
implementing interventions that are effective. In this way, schools may utilize this study as one
data point to consider in the formulation of school improvement plans and how such plans
promote or mitigate the impediments to the formation of authentic care.
Recommendations for Practice to Promote Authentic Care
Based on the impact authentic care has been found to have for students, teachers, and
schools, the prevalence of authentic care is a critical consideration in a school’s capacity to
achieve, grow, and sustain results. Schools and systems seeking improvement must identify
teacher-student relationships and care rooted in empathy as the underlying foundation for every
adult-student interaction. Structures and systems that may communicate a lack of care to
students must be considered through the lens of authentic care as a priority, which may compel
some schools to revise strategies whose cost is largely translated to compromised relationships.
The principal recommendation of this study is that urban secondary schools should
establish a codified, structured priority around the formation of authentic care as one domain of
any school improvement plan or vision for effective operation. Although some influences for
urban secondary students may be applicable to students in other settings and at other
developmental stages, this research and study has focused wholly on urban secondary students
because of the prevalence of the absence of authentic care in these settings. By establishing
authentic care as a priority and naming associated resources to promote growth for each staff
member in their capacity to form empathy-based teacher-student relationships, schools can build
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 154
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational context necessary to facilitate authentic care, thus
better positioning other strategies and initiatives to be fully leveraged. For CCHS and urban,
secondary schools throughout the nation, the recommendations based on this study are:
1. Clearly define authentic care as a foundation to the school’s approach and
establish models, metrics, and practices to promote care as annual priorities.
2. Regularly collect student feedback on perceptions of care to inform models,
strategies, and coaching.
3. Provide and label the resources (coaching, time, structures) to build teacher-
student relationships, naming them as critical elements to the school’s plan for
authentic care.
Clearly Define Authentic Care As A Priority
Clearly defining authentic care as a priority requires both formal articulation and he
development of the definition, model, methods of support, and metrics of assessment that
operationalize the priority. In order for teachers to effectively form authentic care, they need the
declarative and conceptual knowledge of what it is and how it is established. Although they
don’t need the name or knowledge of Noddings’ (2013) model, they must have a clear definition
for care that is rooted in empathy and recognize the hallmarks of what makes their care for
students translate into beneficial outcomes. The formulation of models and metrics of authentic
care not only build this requisite knowledge, but increase the motivation and organizational
influencers.
Impact on knowledge. Factual knowledge is the basic elements of a topic one must
know to understand it (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Clark and Estes (2008) recognize that an
absence of factual knowledge prevents one from the capacity to attain a set goal. At CCHS, the
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 155
consistent language of the leadership facilitated a school-wide understanding that positive
teacher-student relationships are important and a requisite for success. However, the most
common knowledge gap across the teacher sample was a working definition of authentic care or
a common understanding of what a positive teacher-student relationship should look like.
Although all teachers interviewed recognized that relationships are a priority at the school, the
disparity in perception of what those relationships should look like impeded the success of this
priority. This is because the school has not established a clear expectation for what care for
students should look like, allowing for disparate perceptions from each teacher, which included
practices and perceptions that were not authentically caring. The school has not identified strong
models of authentic care or measures to assess care; as such, teachers’ perceptions of who had
strong relationships and why varied wildly and included non-examples. This underpins the need
for school leadership to clearly define how authentic care looks, provide models of the
relationships to which each teacher would aspire, and develop metrics that provide feedback on
the quality of relationships to drive growth.
Because there are no articulated goals or metrics of authentic care in relationships,
teachers believed they were effective in forming caring relationships the students did not
perceive. Although students’ perception of what authentic care should look like was consistent
across the sample, there is no mechanism in place currently by which students share that
information with staff. This gap in clarity of what authentic care should look like and how it
would be measured prevents teachers from definitively developing the procedural knowledge
necessary to form authentic care and grow their practice. Through the development of a goals
and metrics around this priority, the school is positioned to effectively collect and use data in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 156
service of the goal, a practice necessary for reliable school improvement (Bryk et al., 2015; Clark
& Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011).
To bridge a factual and/or conceptual gap, Clark and Estes (2008) recommend job aids,
or tools and structures that facilitate a means by which one can obtain the factual knowledge
necessary. At CCHS, a job aid to provide a clear definition of authentic care could be manifest
as a model teacher, widely communicated definition, and metrics to assess formation of authentic
care for every teacher. By defining the elements of authentic care, every teacher then would have
clarity on authentic care in ways that build the knowledge necessary to form it. Beyond CCHS,
it is recommended that schools define authentic care between teachers and students as a priority
that is equally important as those metrics that may be assessed using standardized measures.
Through the naming of authentic care as a priority and the codification of the priority through
clear definitions of authentic care with models to demonstrate, schools can build the declarative
and conceptual knowledge necessary to build capacity for authentic care. The naming of metrics
and means of assessment (student feedback) both supports the requisite metacognition required
for the formation of care with individual students and positively influences motivation.
Impact on motivation. Some researchers have noted that when teachers’ expertise and
performance is assessed primarily by students’ results on standardized assessments, it positions
those assessments as the most critical aspect of teaching, thus diminishing the utility value of any
aspect of teaching that is not clearly aligned with testing outcomes (Cohen et al., 2009; Figlio &
Loeb, 2011). Although the majority of teachers in the CCHS sample did not specifically name
testable outcomes as a priority that diminished the importance they placed on relationships with
students, one teacher who was new to teaching did cite the importance of testable outcomes as
the primary measure of her effectiveness. This speaks to the motivational influences for new
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 157
teachers, whose training is likely to have been focused solely on curriculum and instruction
(Freeman et al., 2014). In urban schools, where a disproportionately large percentage of teachers
are new to teaching (Darling-Hammond, 2004; Goldenberg, 2014; Johnson et al., 2004), this
motivational influence is especially critical. Without a clear priority, supports, and measures
around relationships, the very thing that is most often cited as a barrier to new teacher retention
and satisfaction (Collier, 2005; Ingersoll, 2001), may be deprioritized in new teacher messaging.
In order to build utility value and motivate teachers to actively choose, persist, and exert
mental effort into forming authentic care for their students, schools must relate the formation of
authentic care to teachers’ current goals. For CCHS and other urban secondary schools, this
could be specific goals for each teacher around feedback from their students on annual surveys.
Another strategy to build the utility value of forming authentically caring relationships with
students would be to demonstrate alignment between the perception of care as reported by
students and their academic performance. Creating goals around a task makes the work more
concrete and drives motivation (Rueda, 2011), which is something often missing in schools
where the affective elements of school have not been codified by outcomes like metrics of
teacher-student relationships. When the metrics for culture rely on secondary indicators like
discipline and attendance rates or inputs like the implementation of a character curriculum, the
utility value of actively engaging in care behaviors may be impeded.
Emdin (2016) and Valenzuela (2010) both challenge the popular view that the best
teachers are those who are most distant from their students, which would address the attainment
value of relationship building. Although the CCHS principal has articulated a belief that close
relationships are critical to success, the lack of models or metrics has allowed teachers to rely on
their own perceptions of care behaviors as the goal. If the teachers who are most strict and
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 158
distant from their students are perceived as the most effective, then the cost of close personal
care for students has low attainment value. In schools where relationships have not been named
as a goal, or in those schools Emdin (2015) and Delpit (2006) describe where emphasizing
personal distance is considered a best practice, authentic care would have even lower attainment
value. Naming models of care and specific strategies to codify the care priority, such as peer
observation or videotaping of models, provides teachers with credible and relatable ideals to
foster positive values (Pajares, 2003). If the teachers who are most esteemed by their colleagues
(especially those with whom the self-identified out-group identify) are featured for having high
rates of authentic care, other teachers may begin to place attainment value on their formation of
authentic care, thus positively impacting their motivation. The use of models who are credible to
the teachers, and who demonstrate enthusiasm and interest in growing their care capacity may
positively influence motivation for all teachers to implement the strategies to which they are
coached (Eccles, 2006). School leaders must name authentic care as a priority, clearly define it
and provide models, and establish metrics of success in order to promote the attainment value of
growing authentic care.
Influences on the organizational context. The organizational aspect of Clark and Estes’
(2008) model considers two facets of organizational influence. These are informed by the
research of Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001), who describe organizational influences as setting,
which are the rules or structures of an organization, and culture, which are the beliefs and habits
of an organization. These two facets of an organization’s influence are dynamic and often
intertwined with the behaviors and beliefs of the people in the organization (Rueda, 2011). In
the conceptual framework for this study, the organizational context is positively impacted
authentic care between teachers and students, as care is formed, students are willing to share
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 159
more of themselves and invest in the culture of the school. This facilitates more care-building.
As more models of authentic care are developed and more strategies are effectively used,
teachers’ knowledge and motivation is positively influenced. In this way, the organizational
context is continually strengthened by the formation and recognition of authentic care.
At CCHS, the informal identification of positive teacher-student relationships resulted in
an organizational culture that values care, but without a clear cultural understanding of what that
care looks like. The identities and values to which each teacher subscribes provided different
perceptions of how to engage with students, with the most powerful identity described by sample
members as those wholly unrelated to teaching. All teachers and students in the sample
described positive teacher-student relationships as critical to their success and said they believed
positive relationships were an expectation of the leadership. The recommendation to clearly
define authentic care with models and metrics could promote a more consistent culture of care
with common understandings of how to establish it and how to measure it.
At CCHS, the resources availed to relationships also drive a sense of the importance.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that when an organization allocates the resources necessary to
achieve a goal, it send a message that the goal is important and attainable. Because time is
designated for informal teacher-student interaction before and after school and in advisory, it is
clear to teachers this is valued and important at the school. Teachers and students in the samples
both reported that advisory was a critical time to build relationships, and with the exception of
one teacher in the sample, all felt this time afforded means to strengthen bonds and care.
Although the lack of clarity on how this is manifest impeded the capacity of teachers to deliver,
the organizational setting at CCHS does support this goal’s attainment. This is a lesson that can
be learned from CCHS: when schools intentionally name relationships as critical to their model
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 160
and vision, the staff who are recruited and retained will feel accountable to this vision. If the
vision is operationalized through dedicated resources to attain that goal, its importance will be
promoted for all stakeholders.
The recommendation to clearly define and measure authentic care would further
strengthen the organizational setting for CCHS by providing the data needed to inform individual
teacher development of care behaviors. Although the time has been explicitly designated for
relationship building, the absence of data to drive teacher decision-making is a gap in the
necessary resources. Figlio and Loeb’s (2011) explanation of accountability supports this
recommendation: they note that those things that are not framed in formal goals to which staff
are accountable become less important than those things that are. Following this logic, goals set
around student feedback on perceptions of teacher care would prioritize the formation of
authentic care. Furthermore, adults are more motivated to participate (and learn) when they see
the relevance of information, a request, or task (the “why”) to their own circumstances
(Knowles, 1980). In fact Waters, Marzano, and McNulty (2003) found that focusing work on the
school’s vision correlated with improvements in student learning outcomes. For all schools, a
clearly defined authentic care priority would rely on the regular collection of data to inform work
toward the priority. Based on Noddings’ (2013) definition of authentic care, the most critical
data to be used in service of this priority is student feedback on perceptions of teacher care.
Regularly Collect Student Feedback on Perceptions of Care
The second recommendation for CCHS and any urban secondary school seeking to
improve performance is to regularly collect student feedback on perceptions of care to inform
models, strategies, and coaching. Because student perception is integral to authentic care
(Noddings, 2013), student feedback goals could be used both to inform individual teacher
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 161
supports and be used for school-wide training that is anchored in why relationships are important
to the mission and vision of the school. Although many schools, like CCHS, collect student
feedback, data does not specifically address teacher-student relationships and/or is not used to
drive teacher supports.
Influences on knowledge. Once teachers recognize authentic care as a priority they need
feedback from students to build their procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge is knowing
how do a task (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). According to Noddings (2013), care is only
authentic when the cared-for perceives the care as real. In order for care to be perceived by
students as authentic, teachers need to know what students see as indicative of real care. The
four most prevalent qualities of a caring teacher reported by CCHS students were fairness,
informal relationship building, authenticity, and positive demeanor. These data are confirmed by
researchers who also report students as recognizing teachers as caring when they are fair,
(Crosnoe et al., 2004) and provide access to interpersonal, informal interaction (Baker, 1999;
Bridgeland, et al., 2006; Crosnoe, 2004). However, five of the six teachers in the sample at
CCHS were observed engaging in practices students described as indicating a lack of care.
More, a number of strategies used in urban school turnaround and improvement initiatives are
widely reported by students as damaging to relationships (Baker, 1999; Cothran, Culinna, &
Garrahy, 2003; Delpit, 2006; Golann, 2015; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). Without the collection
and analysis of formal feedback from students, schools are not positioned to grow their teachers’
procedural knowledge of authentic care, nor are the able to evaluate the cost of strategies that
may be impeding care capacity.
Authentic care is an individualized approach (Noddings, 2013), rather than a universal
strategy that is applied uniformly to all students. The explication of authenticity as a requisite of
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 162
authentic care by CCHS students underpins the importance of individualized feedback. Such a
distinction negates the value of an intervention like a job aid, which is best applied to a static
situation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The procedures teachers must apply to be perceived as fair,
authentic, positive, and interpersonally connected will vary by teacher and student; however,
feedback from students is necessary to inform the procedural knowledge to be utilized.
Engagement between a teacher and students must be responsive to the individual student (Delpit,
2006; Roberts, 2010; Watson, Sealy-Ruiz & Jackson, 2014), requiring a consistently changing
approach that varies student by student. Therefore, feedback from individual students on their
perception of relationships with individual teachers best positions those teachers to develop the
procedural knowledge they need to form authentic care.
Influences on motivation. In order for teachers to perceive themselves as having locus
of control over relationship formation and see the utility value in growing their care capacity,
student feedback is necessary. At CCHS, most of the teachers in the sample felt their care
capacity was either uniformly strong, outside of their locus, or both. Three of the teachers
described students with whom they did not have positive relationships as having the locus of
control and described that locus as fixed. Through collection of individual student feedback,
teachers could be made aware of behaviors or practices in which they engage that students see as
indicative of a lack of care. This targeted feedback could increase the utility value of different
strategies and affirm the benefits of tailoring strategies to individual students. This is especially
critical for those teachers who described themselves as having positive relationships with
students but engaged in behaviors students described as lacking care.
By tracking student feedback in service of teacher growth, teachers could see both that
their capacity for care can be grown and that their intentional work toward building positive
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 163
relationships places the locus within their control. For at least one of the teachers in the sample,
access to student feedback from prior years affirmed a self-perception that relationships were a
strength. However, without access to more recent data and the guidance to use it to inform
growth goals, this teacher was not perceived by students as demonstrating care behaviors.
Likewise, a new teacher without access to feedback from students did not have the information
necessary to build strong relationships that would promote classroom management. Strategies
used by one teacher to “control the class,” were perceived by students as detrimental to their
relationships; however, the teacher has no access to this information. A regular collection of
feedback from students on their relationships with individual teachers provides teachers with the
information needed to reinforce the locus of control and drive motivation. This recommendation
is applicable for CCHS and all schools, because students’ perception of relationships cannot be
assessed through any means other than the students’ feedback.
Influences on the organizational context. Access to feedback from students provides
more information on strategies for teachers, thus building their knowledge. As this knowledge is
built, the organizational context to develop teacher care capacity is grown. This cycle is
illustrated in the conceptual framework: the organization uses feedback from students to
determine how best to serve those students and the community, and that information builds
teacher capacity. The regular collection of student feedback on relationships and use of this
information to drive decision-making and teacher support positively influences the
organizational setting for authentic care by building resources for teacher implementation.
Perhaps the most significant influence regular collection and use of student feedback on
relationships would have on the organizational culture is promotion of the belief that students’
voice is critical to formulating school-wide initiatives. Although CCHS administers a student
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 164
survey annually, no student in the sample could recall having ever participated, and some
students in the sample noted the study was the first time they had been asked their opinion of
their teachers. Teachers’ understanding of the student survey was mixed, but it was referenced
by at least one teacher as evidence of strong relationships even though there had not been data
shared in at least two years. The school’s relationship priority is measured through disciplinary
referrals and teacher survey feedback, despite the fact that a student survey is administered
annually. The school leader noted that inconsistency in the survey made it something they had to
administer but did not use, and no other formal measure of student feedback is used in evaluating
the school’s progress toward any initiative, including relationships. This lack of voice for
students in their own experience is wide-spread, and student feedback is not regularly included
as a significant indicator or driver for school improvement initiatives.
Researchers have noted how students’ absence in decision-making compromises their
investment and engagement (Emdin, 2016), and it is a frankly startling disconnect to see schools
evaluated in so many ways that never consider the perspectives of the students who attend them.
Through the use of student feedback to inform authentic care strategies, teacher supports, and
overall school priority action planning, the organizational culture could position students as
active participants in the culture. This harkens back to Freire’s (1996) allegory of ineffective
teaching as a banking method in which students are perceived as vessels to be filled. Likewise,
when organizational culture relies only on inputs for students like character education, without
giving voice to their experience, they are rendered passive in their schooling and their
perspective is deprioritized for adults. Research into the greatest challenges for urban students
has shown that minoritized students feel especially demoralized and disempowered by the gap
between the adult expectations for them at home and the infantilization they experience at school
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 165
(Cushman, 2005; Delpit, 2006; Emdin, 2016; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Morris, 2016).
Therefore, the use of formal student feedback on care to drive action could better position the
organizational culture to include students.
Provide and Label the Resources to Facilitate Authentic Care
The third recommendation for CCHS and urban secondary schools is to determine the
resources necessary to build teacher care capacity, make them available, and clearly label them
as resources to promote authentic care. Clark and Estes (2008) note that when priorities are
named without the associated resources to facilitate those priorities, organizational members are
unable to attain priority goals. Furthermore, if resources are allocated but not clearly
communicated how they are intended to advance a goal, they may not be appropriately
leveraged. The availability of resources to advance a goal communicate the importance of that
goal to organizational stakeholders (Rueda, 2011).
Clear articulation of authentic care as an organizational priority and the models and
metrics to codify it as such build the knowledge and motivation necessary to facilitate it. The
collection and implementation of student feedback informs the supports and goals by providing
the most valid and reliable data on care. Neither of these steps is independently sufficient to
build and sustain care capacity without the necessary resources. Some of the resources that may
need to be availed are informed by relevant literature and this study, such as dedicated time for
informal interaction and individualized teacher goals and coaching on the formation of authentic
care. However, the specific resources necessary to facilitate authentic care in a school must be
informed by feedback from stakeholders and respond to the unique setting of the school.
Influences on knowledge. The knowledge necessary to facilitate authentic care may
require resources from the school. Because care capacity-building for teachers requires a
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 166
differentiated approach that addresses the unique needs of teachers and the students they serve,
ongoing education and support through a coaching model is recommended. Although larger
trainings to share out the vision and models for authentic care can facilitate a more consistent
understanding of what is expected, relationships between two individuals are inherently personal.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that more complex tasks that leverage related expertise require
ongoing training that reflects the learners’ schema and ongoing needs. Rueda (2011) clarifies
that for a more nuanced task with individualized applications such as that described here,
training from a mentor that includes regular observation and feedback would be most
appropriate. Therefore, the most significant resource schools will need to align to the authentic
care priority is an ongoing coaching approach that specifically addresses the formation of
authentic care and leverages student feedback. This resource will build the conceptual and
procedural knowledge required.
For schools like CCHS that already implement an individualized coaching model, the
recommendation is to integrate care behavior training and review of student feedback to inform
teacher supports. None of the teachers in the CCHS sample receive any feedback or formal
coaching on their relationships with students, although two noted they have specifically sought
or been assigned coaches with strong relationships to build their practice. Because these coaches
were assigned without any use of student feedback or formal goal-setting around the
participating teachers’ care capacity, it is unclear how effectively such a model was leveraged.
Clear articulation of the goal and data collected in service of growth toward the goal is a
fundamental need for any effective development initiative (Bryk et al., 2015). Given that the
vast array of coaching rubrics from state-mandated teacher assessment tools to those like the
KIPP Framework for Excellent Teaching (TNTP, 2011) and Danielson Rubric (Danielson, 2017)
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 167
all include some elements of teacher-student relationships, the need is for an articulated focus
and measure of those relationships to fully leverage such a tool.
The other four teachers in the sample at CCHS reported they do not receive any coaching
or feedback on student relationships or they interchangeably described classroom management
training as relationship-building support. In fact, three of the four teachers described the support
a coach would provide on building relationships as punitive, citing examples of how a manager
may assign a disciplinary referral or call the student’s parent if the teacher sought help. The
perception that relationship support provided by managers is largely discipline for students,
illustrates the gap in understanding of authentic care and the teacher’s locus of control in
formulating it. This underpins the need for a clearly defined priority and model of authentic care
to fully leverage rubrics or coaching models that may include relationships. The
recommendation for CCHS and all urban secondary schools is to align a domain of coaching
support to the formation of authentic care for students using student feedback to inform
individual teacher coaching. This resource is the most critical for building requisite conceptual
and procedural knowledge.
Influences on motivation. Motivation is also positively influenced by the intentional
allocation of resources to an authentic care priority. When resources like training and time are
specifically labeled as promoting authentic care, the utility value of implementing them in
service of care is increased. A clearly defined goal with metrics better positions organization
members to effectively leverage aligned resources by promoting the value of their appropriate
use (Clark & Estes, 2008). Likewise, if resources like allocated time and coaching are labeled as
means to achieve a specific school priority, they are more likely to be utilized in service of that
goal (Rueda, 2011). For CCHS and other urban secondary schools throughout the country,
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 168
naming specific resources in service of authentic care eliminates some of the more common
barriers to relationship formation and promotes the teachers’ motivation to build care behaviors.
One strength of the CCHS approach, which was confirmed by students and teachers, is
the designated time for informal relationship building through advisory and before/after school.
Students consistently noted that the best measure of a teacher’s care is the number of students
“hanging out” in the classroom before and after school. However, some teachers in the sample
noted restrictions to how they availed this time. Likewise, most of the teachers and all students
described the advisory period as a critical resource for forming authentic care. Yet, the school
leader notes that advisory is implemented with mixed success (personal communication with
school principal, August 15, 2016), and one teacher in the sample specifically noted that
advisory is problematic because the goal and structure for that time is unclear. When such time
is designated in service of a clear, measurable priority, teachers are more motivated to use the
time in service of relationship building. For CCHS, clear metrics of success for this time that
utilize student feedback would build the utility value of leveraging that time in service of
relationships. For schools throughout the nation where informal access to teachers is limited,
designation of time that is specifically used to advance relationships would build teachers’ utility
value to effectively use the time as a resource for the formulation of authentic care. In the
absence of goals around care, such informal or flexible time is more likely to be used in service
of other articulated goals, which could lead to the use of that time as a relationship breaker,
rather than builder. For at least two teachers in the sample who put restrictions on the informal
time or used it in ways students perceived as indicative of a lack of care, the absence of clear
goals for that time prevented its appropriate use.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 169
Given the significant body of research that suggests that teacher care is impeded by a
number of structures common to accountability-era urban schools, resources beyond time and
coaching that are necessary to promote this priority are best informed by feedback from the
students and staff. Because high-stakes content was not a barrier to motivation for those teachers
interviewed in the CCHS sample, resources aligned by the risk of content taught are not
necessary. At schools like that studied by Valenzuela (2010), motivation was impeded by the
grade level taught and the prevalence of attrition within that grade level. For Emdin (2016), the
cost of building relationships was higher than its value because of the organization’s cultural
beliefs. In each of these schools, it is feedback from students that enabled the researchers to
assess the barriers to authentic care and recommend appropriate interventions. In order for an
organization to foster the motivation to build authentic care and perceive care behaviors as a
growth goal, the resources must be aligned to the unique circumstances of the school and the
students and staff within it. This underpins the need for regular student feedback on
relationships, as well as the integration of questions for staff on the barriers they perceive to
relationship formation.
Influences on organizational context. One of the most critical strengths of CCHS’
approach to the relationship priority was the consideration of systems and structures in the
context of relationships. Restorative Justice approaches, which were hailed by teachers in the
sample as critical to some improvement in their relationships with students, were adopted
because of the toll no-excuses policies were perceived as having on teacher-student relationships.
Because this decision was clearly articulated as a resource to advance relationships, all
stakeholders interviewed cited it as an example of how relationships are prioritized at CCHS.
Likewise, leadership chose to preserve an advisory structure because of its importance to
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 170
students, despite critical feedback against it from teachers and some charter network personnel
(personal communication with school principal, August 15, 2016). The preservation of this
structure symbolically demonstrated the importance of relationships through alignment of
resources. Although the resources necessary may vary by school and should be informed by
student and staff feedback, clearly naming resources as a support for a defined priority
establishes an organizational setting that is conducive to pursuing the priority (Rueda, 2011), as
well as a cultural understanding that the priority is important (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Conclusion
The three recommendations for CCHS and any urban secondary school that seeks to
promote authentic care in service of increased success for students and staff leverage the relevant
research and the study conducted at CCHS. The first recommendation requires schools to
formally define authentic care as a priority and codify the priority through clear definitions of
care using models and metrics of success. The second recommendation is for schools to regularly
collect student feedback on relationships as a primary data point to inform supports, resources,
and assessment of teacher-student relationships. The final recommendation is for schools to not
only allocate resources in service of the authentic care priority, but to do so in a way that clearly
names how those resources advance the priority. This recommendation will be implemented
differently between schools and should be informed by the feedback from students and staff.
What is needed to grow care capacity in teachers may vary from teacher to teacher and school to
school, so this recommendation must be differentiated by teacher and informed by the school
community’s unique needs. Because the Clark and Estes (2008) model establishes three
categories of need in an organization’s goal attainment capacity, this study has been organized in
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 171
alignment to that framework. Table 7 is an overview of the recommendations and the impact
they are projected to have in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organizational context.
Table 7
Recommendations, Strategies, and Projected Impact to Promote Authentic Care in Urban
Secondary Schools
Recommendation Strategies Projected Impact on KMO
1. Clearly define
authentic care as a
foundation to the
school’s approach and
establish models,
metrics, and practices to
promote care as annual
priorities.

• Formally name authentic care
as a school priority that is
equally weighted with other
measures of school
performance
• Identify models and behaviors
that typify authentic care so it
is clearly defined
• Develop metrics of evaluation
and success that codify the
priority into measurable
outcomes
• Declarative and conceptual
knowledge development
• Increased utility and
attainment value, internalized
locus of control
• Organizational culture that
values authentic care
2. Regularly collect
student feedback on
perceptions of care to
inform models,
strategies, and coaching.

• Implement formal student
feedback assessments that
provide data on students’
perception of relationships
• Disaggregate the data by
student and teacher so it can
be used to inform individual
actions
• Organize teacher and student
supports around student
feedback
• Procedural and
metacognitive knowledge
development
• Increased utility value,
perception of locus of control
as controllable
• Integration of student voice
into organizational culture
3. Provide and label the
resources (coaching,
time, structures) to build
teacher-student
relationships, naming
them as critical elements
to the school’s plan for
excellence.

• Use student and staff
feedback to determine the
appropriate resources
necessary
• Revisit data regularly to
determine how resources
needs have changed and may
need to be revised
• Clearly name resources as
means of attaining authentic
care goals
• Procedural and
metacognitive knowledge
development
• Increased utility and
attainment value, internalized
locus of control
• Provision of resources
necessary to attain goal,
cultural expectation that care
will be formed and can be
developed

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 172
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The implementation of an authentic care priority positions schools to better leverage their
strategies to close the equity gap. Perhaps more importantly, increased access to authentic care
in urban secondary schools addresses the gap in access that currently exists for minoritized
students. The intervention plan for CCHS and all urban secondary school seeking to provide
authentic care for students must be constructed around the specifics of the school and the
students served. Because authentic care is rooted in empathy (Noddings, 2013), there is no one-
size-fits-all solution for schools to build care capacity in teachers, nor is there a prescribed set of
resources that may be appropriate every year. The first two recommendations-- articulate a
clearly defined authentic care model and metrics and use student feedback to drive supports—are
universal and critical for increased care capacity. However, the third recommendation—align
and clearly label resources to the priority—will vary by school. For this reason, the
implementation and evaluation of an ongoing priority to grow authentic care is critical to its
ultimate success.
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, which has been used throughout the
study, organizes relevant influences into categories to align appropriate interventions to causes.
Use of an organizing framework to consider the needs of an organization and align appropriate
interventions, such as that outlined by Clark and Estes, is an important aspect of the
recommendation. By evaluating the need for resources through the lens of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational context, school leaders are better positioned to choose
interventions that address causes of gaps. The training and information necessary to address
gaps in knowledge do not necessarily address gaps in motivation. The recommendations herein
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 173
are aligned to all three facets of the Clark and Estes (2008) model; however, ongoing evaluation
of the impact of initiatives is critical to ensure the success of the interventions.
Therefore, the researcher also recommends the use of the New World Kirkpatrick Model
as a guide for ongoing evaluation of the authentic care initiative (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). This updated revision of the original Kirkpatrick Model is advocated to embed
appropriate evaluative steps in the plan. The New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) establishes the target outcomes (goals set around authentic care in recommendation
number one) as the fourth level of impact and then prescribes a backward-mapping approach
from these target outcomes to determine appropriate leading indicators, critical behaviors (Level
3), new knowledge and skills (Level 2), and engagement and response to intervention (Level 1).
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) recommends identification of leading indicators, or
checkpoints that indicate appropriate progress toward the goal to facilitate ongoing evaluation of
implementation. Researchers of school improvement have noted that an absence of progress
monitoring data and plan to use that data to inform implementation results in schools that rapidly
adopt and abandon new strategies, engendering an environment of instability and
unpredictability (Bryk et al., 2015). Through the identification of leading indicators, school
leaders can assess the implementation of the authentic care initiative throughout the year and use
the data collected to inform necessary revisions (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Because this chapter is intended to provide recommendations for practitioners who seek
to foster an environment that supports authentic care or mitigates impediments to authentic care,
the recommendation for implementing and evaluating an authentic care initiative includes
implementation of a complete implementation plan that identifies target behaviors, leading
indicators, and the progress monitoring checkpoints that would inform implementation.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 174
Results and Leading Indicators
There is a significant body of research to support the correlation between teacher care and
student outcomes (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray & Malmgren, 2005; Ramsden, 1987),
student engagement and school connectedness (Pianta, Hamre, & Allen, 2012; Patrick, Ryan, &
Kaplan, 2007; Roorda, Koomen, Split & Oort, 2011), and student behavior (Baker, Grant &
Morlock, 2008; Okunofua, Paunesku, & Walton, 2016; Rutledge, Cohen-Vogel, & Roberts,
2015). For CCHS and most urban secondary schools, this research suggests that the inclusion of
authentic care as a domain for performance and improvement could provide short- and long-term
benefits for students, teachers, and the school. The determination that authentic care is critical to
performance and subsequent definition of authentic care using models and metrics establishes the
results a school seeks. The Kirkpatrick Model (2016) names this as Level 4 change—the ultimate
intended outcome. However, effective implementation of an initiative requires a more thorough
examination of the behaviors that must be engendered and the leading indicators that show the
initiative is on a predictable path to achieve the target outcomes.
CCHS has articulated goals around reduced student infractions and increased staff
satisfaction with student behavior, but has not outlined authentic care or student/teacher
relationship metrics as specific goals, nor has the school included feedback from students on
relationships as a measure. The school has implemented a number of initiatives in service of
caring behaviors, such as a shift to restorative justice and dedicated advisory time with an
articulated rationale of promoting student/teacher bonding. An initiative to successfully promote
authentic care would need to be initiated by clearly articulating a definition for authentic care
and the goals that would be associated with its permeation in the school culture. Ultimate goals
for an authentic care initiative are ideally access for every student to a teacher s/he perceives as
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 175
authentically caring. Given the highly personally nature of relationships, it is unrealistic to
expect every student perceive every teacher as demonstrating authentic care; however, access to
a majority of teachers throughout the day who demonstrate authentic care and a staff that is
wholly perceived by some majority of the students as demonstrating authentic care is a
reasonable expectation for a high-performing school.
The development of quantifiable measures of progress toward this goal, or leading
indicators, can effectively direct implementation and necessary revisions (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Rueda, 2011). These metrics are especially critical for a school such as CCHS, which uses
quantifiable metrics and benchmarks to measure progress toward academic goals. Naming
measurable goals in service of the authentic care priority codifies and legitimizes it, building the
utility value necessary for teachers to actively engage in building their care capacity. The same
approach to data collection and analysis to promote authentic care would enable leadership to
determine the impact of their interventions and appropriately inform teacher supports and
revisions to implementation plans. Because the school has not identified clear goals around
relationships with associated metrics of attainment, Table 8 outlines possible leading indicators,
metrics, and methods of evaluation that may be implemented at CCHS or a similar school.
Table 8

Possible Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for Authentic Care Recommendations
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
All students at CCHS
will have access to a
teacher that they
perceive as
authentically caring.
100% of students will report
that they have at least one
teacher or staff member they
feel authentically cares for
them.
Anonymous student survey
administered at end of year

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 176
All CCHS teachers will
prioritize authentic
care.
100% of teachers will report
that the formation of authentic
care for their students is critical
to attaining student-based and
school-wide goals.
Anonymous staff survey
administered at end of year
All CCHS teachers will
feel they have the
support they need to
facilitate authentic care.
100% of teachers will report the
school values teacher-student
relationships and provides
support to teachers to build
authentic care for their students.
Anonymous staff survey
administered at end of year
Students who do not
experience authentic
care for most of the day
will perceive an
increase in access to
authentic care.
For those students who perceive
fewer than half of their teachers
as caring about them, the
number of teachers will increase
by the end of the first year of
the relationship interventions.
Anonymous student survey
administered at end of first
quarter and end of year

Identification and Development of Critical Behaviors
In order to achieve the goals outlined in the previous section, teacher behaviors will need
to change in ways that increase access to authentic care. The Kirkpatrick New World Model
(2016) advocates for naming these critical behaviors as a means of assessing reliable progress
toward the ultimate goals of an intervention. Critical behaviors should be informed by existing
literature and be responsive to the data collected as recommended in Table 8. At CCHS and
similar schools seeking to promote authentic care, the behaviors promoted should align to
feedback from students and could be monitored through coach or peer observations, as well as
through check-ins with students. At CCHS, the behaviors that students most often identified as
indicative of authentic care were:
• Fairness in assignments and grading
• Informal/interpersonal interaction
• Authenticity
• Positive demeanor/joy
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 177
• Cultural responsivity
Most of these trends are reinforced by relevant literature, suggesting there are some
common themes across urban secondary schools in how student perceive care. However, the
nuances of how students in a given school perceive teachers are critical to identifying the right
critical behaviors for the specific community. Because these behaviors may vary by student, it is
feedback from the students that is most integral to accurately identifying critical behaviors for an
authentic care priority.
Determining the required drivers. The next step of implementation planning is the
identification of required drivers to accomplish the critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) determined through student feedback, and this is the third recommendation of the study.
Required drivers are the systems and processes that support provide support (knowledge) and
accountability (motivation) for development of critical behaviors (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016), and these will vary depending on the needs of the students and staff.
The alignment of frequent coaching to individual teacher needs and in response to
observations provides the support necessary to build critical behaviors. School-wide trainings on
engagement strategies perceived by students as indicative of care and on building relationships
with students through the lens of critical race theory address the staff-wide requisite knowledge
base for authentic care. Individualized guidance and feedback, through the assignment of
models and in one-on-once coaching, also provides teachers with the support they need to build
critical behaviors over time. The collection of student feedback through formal semesterly
surveys and in interviews and observations provides the accountability for growth required to
build critical behaviors. Strategies like peer observations, checklists for implementation of care
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 178
strategies, videotaping lessons for self-analysis, and professional study groups may all be used to
drive the ongoing development of knowledge for authentic care.
Time for informal interaction is another critical resource that may need to be designated
in service of authentic care development. This is a driver in facilitating a culture at CCHS that
values positive teacher-student relationships. The designation of time and explicit alignment of
that time communicates to stakeholders that relationships are important to the success of the
school. Determining the appropriate drivers for the critical behaviors requires the analysis of
student and staff feedback, as well as explicit articulation of the drivers as a means of developing
the critical behaviors.
Teacher Learning
Interventions that facilitate an organization’s target outcomes and manifest the critical
behaviors necessary for those outcomes must provide new information that will engender the
critical behaviors. In order for teachers to build their capacity for authentic care and increase the
demonstration of care behaviors, interventions must facilitate the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational context necessary to build those behaviors. In order to attain the learning goals
previously described, the program for learning authentic care could include a mix of full staff,
individualized, and cohort-based development. CCHS’ individualized teacher-coaching model,
which provides robust, frequent, one-on-one support for each teacher is an ideal format for
building capacity in authentic care. The privacy and trust that can be built through a one-on-one
coaching model over the course of each school year could provide the space for teachers to be
vulnerable about sensitive issues like cultural competencies and navigating difficult
relationships. Full staff trainings to establish common expectations and definitions for cultural
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 179
competency and authentic care would avail the full staff of the clarity and consistency around
teacher-student relationships that is currently missing at CCHS.
A means of ongoing evaluation within the implementation plan would include collection
of feedback from staff and assessment on how their practice is changing as a result of the
resource availability. Kirkpatrick’s New World Model (2016) articulates the importance of
Level 1 reactions in the effective implementation of an initiative. Participant reaction to training,
which is comprised of three elements: engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction, does
not guarantee intended outcomes, but it is an important first step in the organization’s return on
expectations (ROE). Integrating means of assessing participants’ engagement, perception of
relevance of the content, and satisfaction with the intervention is critical to ensure support to is
implemented effectively and can be revised in real time. The use of exit tickets after trainings,
periodic surveys and focus groups, and data collection from coaches could drive revisions to
trainings and support models in ways that respond to the needs of the teachers to make an
initiative to promote authentic care effective and sustainable.
Summary of Recommendations for Implementation and Evaluation
Bryk et al. (2015) note that the most common gap in school improvement
implementation is the collection of progress monitoring data to inform implementation. The use
of the Kirkpatrick New World Model (2016) and four levels of effect could be used as a road
map for implementation, evaluation, and communication of progress to ensure that schools that
seek to improve authentic care are utilizing methods that predictably build critical behaviors.
Clark and Estes’ gap analysis approach (2008) and the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) work synergistically with this study’s conceptual framework
to inform a more reliable approach to the implementation of recommended interventions.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 180
Future Research
Based on the findings of this study and the literature that guided its development and
analysis, there are several recommendations for future research that could more fully explore the
topic of authentic care in urban secondary schools. First, an examination of a larger sample of
teachers and students over a longer period of time would provide greater clarity into how barriers
to authentic care can be mitigated. A larger sample of teachers could yield trends in data
according to different characteristics of teacher that would inform interventions. The larger
sample could also provide comparative statistics between different teacher groups to identify
how cultures within the school promoted or impeded care behaviors. A larger sample of students
could yield similar comparative statistics, providing a more thorough examination of what trends
in teacher characteristics are likely to influence authentic care.
A second recommendation for further research is to enlist researchers whose racial and
cultural identities match that of students and staff. It cannot be determined what role my
Whiteness played in my collection and analysis of data at a racially isolated school, and access to
researchers of the same racial identity may yield access to different information, especially about
the role race plays in the formation of authentic care. Similarly, more time for a future study
could facilitate greater trust between the researcher and participants, which might yield more
information about elements of forming authentic care that participants may not have felt
comfortable sharing over a four-week period.
Finally, because the characteristics of the study site featured so prominently in these
results, a comparative analysis between study sites may yield another level of information.
Through a comparison of perceptions of staff and students across multiple sites, trends that
transcend location may allow for more generalizable findings.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 181
Conclusion
The equity gap for minoritized students in this country has persisted, and in some places
deepened, over decades of rigorous public education reform (Orfield & Lee, 2005). In an era
where testable outcomes are the ultimate measure of a school’s success, improvement measures,
teacher training, and policy have focused on testable skills and neglected affective elements of
schooling (Cohen et al., 2009; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Freeman et al., 2014; Simon &
Johnson, 2013; Valli & Buese, 2007). This highlights an even deeper gap in equity wherein the
schooling experience of minoritized students is underpinned by disempowerment and a
systematic subtraction of their culture (Delpit, 2006; Roberts, 2010; Valenzuela 2010).
Although relational education is not the panacea to gaps in educational equity, students’
perception of teacher care has been demonstrated to positively impact students’ short- and long-
term outcomes (Rutledge et al., 2015; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016; Watson et al., 2014;
Waxman & Huang, 1998), as well as the satisfaction and performance of teachers (Collie,
Shapka, & Perry, 2012; Kraft et al., 2015; Simon & Johnson, 2013; Stronge et al., 2011). As a
nation, we have perpetuated a different standard of schooling wherein access to care from adults
is consistently, and sometimes intentionally, unavailable to minoritized students. Emdin (2016)
calls minoritized students “neoindigenous,” likening the disempowerment and disculturation of
minoritized students to the systematic obliteration of native students’ cultures in early American
Indian Schools. The care provided in our public schools for minoritized students is most often
rooted in a deficit view of students and their communities and excused when students circumvent
these barriers to score well on standardized tests. This does not happen to White, affluent
students in our country. There is no comparable subtractive system for students of wealth.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 182
Access to authentic care is not a privilege afforded to White, affluent students; it is a denial of
rights for those minoritized students who do not have the same access.
A growing body of work is suggesting that relationships with students and the empathy in
which authentic care is grounded can be facilitated in teachers (Helker & Ray, 2009; Okonofua
et al., 2016). If the reform movement is predicated on the Dweckian premise that students can
get smarter (Dweck, 2006), this same approach cannot be applied to teachers. If teachers can be
taught to break complicated math concepts down into manageable steps, then it is possible to
teach them to empathize with their students and formulate authentic care. Until affective
elements of schooling are codified, prioritized, and operationalized in the same way academic
content is, they will continue to be subordinate priorities. Without accountability to the
expectation that every student deserves a teacher who cares about them with empathy, entire zip
codes of students go with less access or no access at all to a tool that has been demonstrated to
foster improved short-term academic performance and long-term protective factors.
If the research demonstrates that authentic care matters and is less available to
minoritized students, how can continuing to systematically deprioritize it be any different from
the theft of the culture of our first peoples through American Indian Schools? Through
interventions to teach empathy, data collection and accountability on student perceptions of care,
and school-wide commitments to cultural responsivity that deconstruct racist and classist power
structures, the system of subtractive schooling (Valenzuela, 2010) that is deepening the equity
gap in this nation can be undone.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 183
References
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., &
Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of
Bloom’s taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing.
Antrop-González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small
school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community-
based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409-433.
Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential
behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School
Journal, 57-70.
Baker, J. A., Terry, T., Bridger, R., & Winsor, A. (1997). Schools as caring communities: A
relational approach to school reform. School Psychology Review.
Baker, J. A., Grant, S., & Morlock, L. (2008). The teacher-student relationship as a
developmental context for children with internalizing or externalizing behavior problems.
School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 3-15. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.3.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Authentic cariño and respect in minority education: The political and

ideological dimensions of love. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 1(1).

Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1994). Students and teachers in caring
classroom and school communities. Schools as Communities: Recent Investigations.
Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
New Orleans.
Beauboeuf-Lafontant, T. (2002). A womanist experience of caring: Understanding the pedagogy

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 184
of exemplary Black women teachers. The Urban Review, 34(1), 71-86.

Benitez Jr., M. (2010). Resituating culture centers within a social justice framework. Culture
Centers in Higher Education: Perspectives on Identity, Theory, and Practice, 119-134.
Bishop, A. R., Berryman, M. A., Wearmouth, J. B., & Peter, M. (2012). Developing an effective
education reform model for indigenous and other minoritized students. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, 23(1), 49-70.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bridgeland, D., Morison, J. (2006) The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school drop outs.

Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC.

Brown, D. F. (2004). Urban teachers’ professed classroom management strategies reflections of
culturally responsive teaching. Urban Education, 39(3), 266-289.
Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How
America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education
Press.
Chesley, G. M., & Jordan, J. (2012). What's missing from teacher prep. Educational Leadership,
69(8), 41-45.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Pusblishing.
Cohen, J., McCabe, L., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
practice, and teacher education. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180-213.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 185
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 104(4), 1189.
Collier, M. D. (2005). An ethic of caring: The fuel for high teacher efficacy. The Urban Review,
37(4), 351-359.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., & Garrahy, D. A. (2003). “This is kind of giving a secret away...”:
Students’ perspectives on effective class management. Teaching and Teacher Education,
19(4), 435-444.
Crosby, E. A. (1999). Urban schools: Forced to fail. The Phi Delta Kappan, 81(4), 298-303.
Crosnoe, R., Kirkpatrick-Johnson, M., & Elder, G. H.,Jr. (2004). Intergenerational bonding in
school: The behavioral and contextual correlates of student-teacher relationships. Sociology
of Education, 77(1), 60-81.
Cushman, K. (2005). Fires in the bathroom: Advice for teachers from high school students. The
New Press.
Danielson, C. (2011). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College
Record, 106(6), 1047-1085.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory.
Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation.
Dobson, J. (1993). Teachers shouldn't smile before thanksgiving. The Item, (November 20), 4.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Incorporated.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 186
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53(1), 109-132.
Emdin, C. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood ... and the rest of y'all too: Reality
pedagogy and urban education. Boston: Beacon Press.
Ferreira, M. M., & Bosworth, K. (2001). Defining caring teachers: Adolescents' perspectives.
The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 24-30.
Figlio, D., & Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. Handbook of the Economics of Education,
3(8), 383-417.
Fink, A. (2013). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper. Sage
Publications.
Freeman, J., Simonsen, B., Briere, D. E., & MacSuga-Gage, A. S. (2014). Pre-service teacher
training in classroom management A review of state accreditation policy and teacher
preparation programs. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the
Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 37(2), 106-120.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum.
Gallimore, R. and Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Golann, J. W. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education,
0038040714567866.
Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students’
cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111-144.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 187
Government Accountability Office. (2016). Better use of information could help agencies
identify disparities and address racial discrimination. Retrieved from:
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-345.
Gregory, A., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or
cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455-475.
Hankivsky, O. (2014). Rethinking care ethics: On the promise and potential of an intersectional
analysis. American Political Science Review, 108(02), 252-264.
Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: With

implications for educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 1(4), 315-336.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. New York:
Broadway Books.
Helker, W. P., & Ray, D. C. (2009). Impact of child teacher relationship training on teachers’
and aides’ use of relationship-building skills and the effects on student classroom behavior.
International Journal of Play Therapy, 18(2), 70.
Immordino-Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of
affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3-10.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingraham, C. (August 25, 2014). Three quarters of whites don’t have any non-white friends. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/25/three-quarters-of-whites-dont-
have-any-non-white-friends/?utm_term=.626f6a475dd8.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 188
Jia, Y., Konold, T. R., & Cornell, D. (2016). Authoritative school climate and high school
dropout rates. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(2), 289.
Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson, M. L. (2004). The support
gap: New teachers' early experiences in high-income and low-income schools. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 12(61), n61.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei Yee, D. (2016). School organizational contexts,

teacher turnover, and student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American

Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Sage Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, J., & Orfield, G. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on
the gaps. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful
leaders transform low-performing schools. John Wiley & Sons.
Lemov, D. (2012). Teach like a champion field guide: A practical resource to make the 49

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 189
techniques your own. John Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, C. C. (1995). Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and
elementary education. Cambridge University Press.
Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding,
connectedness, and engagement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 274-283.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher
turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44-70.
MacNeil, A. J., Prater, D. L., & Busch, S. (2009). The effects of school culture and climate on
student achievement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 12(1), 73-84.
Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 327-365.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage Publications.
McCrudden, M., Schraw, G., & Hartley, K. (2006). The effect of general relevance

instructions on shallow and deeper learning and reading time. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 74(4), 291-310.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student

motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Reviews Psychology, 57, 487-503.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 190
Moon, T. (2010). Organizational cultural intelligence: Dynamic capability perspective. Group &
Organization Management, 35(4), 456-493.
Morris, M. W. (2016). Pushout: The criminalization of black girls in schools. The New Press.
Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher-student relationship for at-risk students.
Sociological Inquiry, 71(2), 241-255.
Murithi, T. (2009). An African perspective on peace education: Ubuntu lessons in reconciliation.

International Review of Education, 55(2-3), 221-233.

Murphy, J. (2016). Teacher as unit leader: Defining and examining the effects of care and
support on children: A review of the research. Journal of Human Resource and
Sustainability Studies, 4(03), 243.
Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher–student relationship program in a
high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and
lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 137-152.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2016). Retrieved from:
http://www.publiccharters.org/get-the-facts.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_clb.asp.
Noddings, N. (1992) The challenge to care in schools: an alternative approach to education.
New York, Teachers College Press.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. University
of California Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2004). Transforming high schools. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 26-32.

O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117-126.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 191

Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage
empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(19), 5221-5226.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1523698113.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the
literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139-158.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Kaplan, A. (2007). Early adolescents' perceptions of the classroom
social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 99(1), 83.
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012). Teacher-student relationships and
engagement: Conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of classroom
interactions. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. (pp. 365-386). Springer.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Poplin, M., & Weeres, J. (1993). Listening at the learner's level: Voices from inside the
schoolhouse. Education Digest, 59(1), 9.
Quaglia, R. (2016). School voice report. Retrieved from:
http://quagliainstitute.org/dmsView/School_Voice_Report_2016.
Ramsden, P. (1987). Improving teaching and learning in higher education: The case for a
relational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 12(3), 275-286.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 192
Reardon, S. F., Shores, K. A., Kalogrides, D., & Weathers, E. S. (2014). Patterns of achievement
gaps among school districts: New data, new measures, new insights. Society for Research on
Educational Effectiveness.
Rivera Maulucci, M., (2010). Navigating role forces and the aesthetic| authentic caring dialectic:
A novice urban science teacher's developmental trajectory. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 5(3), 625-647. doi: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s11422-009-
9221-6
Roberts, M. A. (2010). Toward a theory of culturally relevant critical teacher care: African
American teachers’ definitions and perceptions of care for African American students.
Journal of Moral Education, 39(4), 449-467.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective
teacher–student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement a meta-
analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. Teachers College Press.
Rutledge, S. A., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Roberts, R. L. (2015). Understanding effective high
schools: Evidence for personalization for academic and social emotional learning. American
Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1060-1092.
Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in
adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(2), 437-460.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 193
Schon, D. A. (2008). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Hachette,
UK.
Schwartz, H. L., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Steele, J. L. (2011). Expanded measures of
school performance technical report. RAND Corporation.
Shim, S. H. (2008). A philosophical investigation of the role of teachers: A synthesis of Plato,
Confucius, Buber, and Freire. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(3), 515-535.
Stipek, D. (2006). Relationships matter. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 46-49.
Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., & Grant, L. W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-
case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement.
Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 339-355.
Summers, J. J., Davis, H. A., & Hoy, A. W. (2017). The effects of teachers' efficacy beliefs on
students' perceptions of teacher relationship quality. Learning and Individual Differences,
53, 17-25.
Tanenbaum, C., Boyle, A., Graczewski, C., James-Burdumy, S., Dragoset, L., & Hallgren, K.
(2015). State capacity to support school turnaround. NCEE evaluation brief. NCEE 2015-
4012. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with
student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46(1), 1-9.
The New Teacher Project. (2017). KIPP Framework for Excellent Teaching. Retrieved from:
https://tntp.org/assets/tools/KIPP_Framework_for_Excellent_Teaching_TSLT_1.12.pdf.
August 3, 2017.
Thompson, G. L. (2002). African-American teens discuss their schooling experiences.
Greenwood Publishing Group.
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 194
Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practice in schools: A practical
guide to transforming school communities Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Allen, D. (2016). Accountable for care: Cultivating caring school
communities in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-42.
Ullucci, K., & Howard, T. (2015). Pathologizing the poor: Implications for preparing teachers to
work in high-poverty schools. Urban Education, 50(2), 170-193.
United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. (2014). Program fact sheet.
Retrieved from: https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2016). K-12 education: Better use of
information could help agencies identify disparities and address racial discrimination.
Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/676745.pdf.
Valenzuela, A. (2010). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
SUNY Press.
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519-558.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
Harvard University Press.
Watson, W., Sealey-Ruiz, Y., & Jackson, I. (2014). Daring to care: The role of culturally
relevant care in mentoring Black and Latino male high school students. Race Ethnicity and
Education, 1-23.
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1998). Classroom learning environments in urban elementary,
middle, and high schools. Learning Environments Research, 1(1), 95-113.
Webster, M. (2016). Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 195
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical
caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411.
Wentzel, K. R. (2002). Are effective teachers like good parents? teaching styles and student
adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 73(1), 287-301. doi:10.1111/1467-
8624.00406
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wubbels, T., & Brekelmans, M. (2005). Two decades of research on teacher–student
relationships in class. International Journal of Educational Research, 43(1), 6-24.
Yoon, J. S. (2002). Teacher characteristics as predictors of teacher-student relationships: Stress,
negative affect, and self-efficacy. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(5), 485.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 196
APPENDIX A: STUDENT/PARENT NOTIFICATION INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089)

YOUTH ASSENT-PARENTAL NOTIFICATION FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
This form will also serve as the “Youth Assent” and “Consent/Permission form for the
Youth to Participate in Research.” In this case, “You” refers to “your child.”

INFLUENCES ON SECONDARY TEACHERS’ FORMATION OF AUTHENTIC CARE
FOR STUDENTS

Your child has been randomly selected to participate in an interview conducted by Kristin
Moody, a doctoral candidate at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern
California. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you.

Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. Your child will be asked his/her
permission to participate.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to understand what teachers do that makes students feel cared about.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If your child agrees to participate, your child will be asked to participate in two focus groups
during lunch or after school. These focus groups will be scheduled at a time that is convenient
for your child, and your child will not miss class or any extracurricular activities to participate.
The focus groups will each be approximately one hour long.

The questions in the focus group will be about how students know their teachers care about
them. The focus groups will include 6-12 students from different classes, and the teachers will
not participate. The focus groups will be audio recorded, and student names and identifying
information will be removed from the record.

Another element of this study is classroom observations. The researcher will take notes in
classroom observations, and these observations will not use your child’s name or any other
identifying information.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no potential risks for your child’s participation, and s/he does not have to answer any
question s/he doesn’t want to.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 197
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This information may be used to help teachers build stronger relationships with their students.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Your student will be provided a snack if the focus group is held after school, and each student
who participates in both focus groups will receive a $10 gift card from Target at the conclusion
of the study. S/he does not have to answer all of the questions in order to receive the card, but
s/he will have to participate in both focus groups.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep all records for this study anonymized. The members of the research team and the
University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the
data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.

As a USC student, the researcher is required to report any known or suspected abuse or neglect
relating to children to USC’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS).

The data will be stored in a password-protected file for up to five years. All participants will be
assigned a fake name and identifying information will be removed from the description. Audio
recordings will be destroyed after they have been transcribed. When the results of the research
are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your child’s participation is voluntary. Refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your child’s alternative is to not participate.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
The principal investigator for this study is Kristin Moody. You can reach me by phone at 404-
308-8025 or by email at kmoody@usc.edu. You can also contact the Faculty Advisor, who is
Jennifer Crawford, at 530-519-4085 or at Jennifer.Crawford@usc.edu.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 198
APPENDIX B: TEACHER INFORMED CONSENT/INFORMATION SHEET

University of Southern California
(Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089)

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

INFLUENCES ON SECONDARY TEACHERS’ FORMATION OF AUTHENTIC CARE
FOR STUDENTS

You have been randomly selected to participate in a research study conducted by Kristin Moody,
a doctoral candidate at the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California.
Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to investigate the skills, beliefs, motivational influences, and
organizational factors that may influence teachers’ formation of care for their students.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in the study, you will be asked to participate in two focus groups with
5 of your peers. The two focus groups will be held before or after school for no longer than 90
minutes each. Focus groups will not be held during the regular school day.

You will not have to answer all of the questions posed in the focus group, and you may choose
which questions to answer. Your responses to the questions will be anonymized; that is, any
names or identifying information will be removed from the written record of the focus group.
The focus group conversations will be audio recorded. If you do not want to be recorded, you
will not be able to participate in the study.

Another element of this study is classroom observations. The researcher will take notes in
classroom observations that will be anonymized. If you choose not to participate in either of the
elements of the study (focus groups or observations), you will not be able to participate in the
study and another teacher will be randomly selected.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
There will be no compensation for participation in the survey and/or focus group; however, I will
provide each participating teacher with a $20 gift card for school supplies as a token of
appreciation for participation.

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 199
CONFIDENTIALITY
You will not be asked to give your name or any other identifiable information as part of this
study. If a colleague uses your name in the recording or classroom observed, that information
will be stricken from the transcription or you will be assigned a pseudonym (false name).
Students, parents, nor leadership team members will not be present in these groups, nor will they
hear the recordings, see individual surveys, or see the notes taken during classroom observations.

Data collected in the focus groups and observations will be stored in a password-protected file
and will be access only by the researcher. This data will be maintained in those files until
December 31, 2020.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

Due to the nature of focus groups, your confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. However, in
order to maintain the confidentiality of the group, you are asked not to discuss the content
of the group with anyone not in the group, or to discuss who participated in the focus
group.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
The principal investigator for this study is Kristin Moody. You can reach me by phone at 404-
308-8025 or by email at kmoody@usc.edu. You can also contact the Faculty Advisor, who is
Jennifer Crawford, at 530-519-4085 or at Jennifer.Crawford@usc.edu.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 200

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 201
APPENDIX C: STUDENT FOCUS GROUP #1 PROTOCOL

I may have met some of you before—I visited last year. I have helped at your school a few
times—you may have seen me in your classrooms when I was helping the new teachers? I am a
student in college studying for my doctorate. One thing you do as a doctoral student is a big
research project, and my research project is about how and why teachers care about their
students. So I am going to ask you some questions about your teachers and specifically about
how they show you they care. This information is for my project, so that is where it will be. I do
not take these notes back to your teachers or principal, but some of what you say will end up in
my research paper.

I am going to be recording this so I can take accurate notes. I will assign you guys
pseudonyms—fake names—and I will also pull out any information in the notes that might tell
someone who you are. This way, if something you say ends up in my research paper (called a
dissertation), it won’t have your name or any information with it that would show people you
said it. If at any time this morning you decide you don’t want to participate, just let me know. We
will stop the recording and you can leave. It is your choice to be here—I only want you to
participate if you want to.

When I ask the questions, you will answer one at a time. You won’t need to raise your hands, and
it is okay if you use someone else’s name because I will take all the names out. You can disagree
with your peers or add something if you agree. We have to talk one at a time so I don’t miss
anything anyone says. Does that make sense? And if you don’t feel like you don’t have anything
to add to a question, you don’t have to say anything. Everyone doesn’t have to answer every
question—you just answer when you feel you have something to say. Okay?

I want to start by being clear about what I mean when I say “care.” I am going to ask you
questions about teachers you feel care about you and teachers you feel do not care about you.
When I say “teachers who care about you,” I mean teachers who care you, specifically, as an
individual. Not your whole class, and not just your grades. A teacher who cares about you
personally. When I say a “teacher who does not care about you,” I don’t mean they dislike you
or don’t want you to be successful. I just mean any teacher who you do not believe cares about
you as a person, as an individual. This would mean any of the teachers you have who you did not
describe as caring about you personally. Does anyone have any questions?

1. Let’s start by talking a little about your teachers here at CCHS. What have you heard
about the teachers that you are excited to have? What do other students say about
teachers that make you excited to have them?

2. You have anyone this year you are nervous about? Or are there teachers you wouldn’t
want to have? Why? What have you heard?

3. Can you give me some examples of times a teacher did something that made you feel like
s/he didn’t care about you? What’s a specific way a teacher has made you feel s/he
doesn’t care?
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 202

4. Have you ever had a teacher who said s/he cared about you, but his/her actions made you
think it wasn’t true. Tell me about this experience—how the actions for that teacher
didn’t match his/her words.

5. Do you have (or have you had) a teacher or teachers you feel care about you, as an
individual? What do they do or say that tells you they care about you as a person?

6. What do teachers do or say that tells you they care about you as a person? Can you give
me specific examples—how did they make you feel?

7. Do you share personal information with your teachers? Why or why not? How do you
choose who you can share personal information with?

8. Do your teachers share personal information with you? How does this make you feel?

9. Tell me about your advisory teachers. How is the relationship with them different from
other teachers? Why is this relationship different?

10. Tell me about your teachers’ moods—does the mood your teacher is in affect how you
feel about them or tell you how they feel about you?

11. Anything else we didn’t talk about that you think makes a teacher someone you want to
build a relationship with? Or tells you that a teacher cares about you?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 203
APPENDIX D: TEACHER FOCUS GROUP #1 PROTOCOL

I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, but I live here in Atlanta. You
have probably seen me in your classrooms before—I used to coach the teaching fellows, and I
have written your charters. My work on the dissertation is separate from any work I have done
for the school. I picked this school because I know about it based on the work I have done, but
the information I am collection for my dissertation is for my project. My research project is
about how and why teachers care about their students. So I am going to ask you some questions
about your students and how your build relationships. [Name of principal] is interested in my
findings and will read the dissertation, but I will not be sharing transcripts from these meetings
with him.

I am going to be recording this so I can take accurate notes. I will assign you guys
pseudonyms—fake names—and I will also pull out any information in the notes that might tell
someone who you are. This way, if something you say ends up in my dissertation, it won’t have
your name or any information with it that would show people you said it. If at any time this
morning you decide you don’t want to participate, just let me know. We will stop the recording
and you can leave. It is your choice to be here—I only want you to participate if you want to.

When I ask the questions, you will answer one at a time. You won’t need to raise your hands, and
it is okay if you use someone else’s name because I will take all the names out. You can disagree
with your colleagues or add something if you agree. We have to talk one at a time so I don’t miss
anything anyone says. Does that make sense? And if you don’t feel like you don’t have anything
to add to a question, you don’t have to say anything. Everyone doesn’t have to answer every
question—you just answer when you feel you have something to say. Okay?

Does anyone have any questions?

1. Since the school year has just started, tell me about some of the ways you will get to
know your students (and they will get to know you).
• Do you have specific strategies planned? Or time designated? Or is it more
informal?
• Are there things you are required to do? Or encouraged to do? Things you will do
as a grade level team or department?

2. Did any of the professional development or training at the start of the year look at
relationships with students? If so, what did you discuss?

3. What do you think the expectations are for you, as a teacher at CCHS, in terms of the
relationships you build with your students? How were or are those expectations
communicated?

4. Some of you have advisories. What is the goal of advisory? How is this time different
from class time, in terms of relationships with students?
AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 204

5. What is the role of student relationships in your evaluation? Do they have any impact on
your annual goals?

6. Do you get feedback from coaches, managers on your relationships with your students?
Tell me what this might look like.

7. Are the structures in place to support relationship-building with students? Does this
work? Why or why not?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 205
APPENDIX E: STUDENT FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL #2

1. What kinds of things have your teachers done at the start of the year to get to know you
or help you get to know them?
• Do you think these kinds of activities are important or fun? Why?

2. Have you ever had a teacher you felt cared about you, but didn’t care about another
student in your class? If so:
• How were your interactions with that teacher different from your friends’
interactions with that teacher?
• What made you think s/he felt differently about you?
• Did seeing a difference in how your teacher interacted with other students impact
the way you felt about the teacher?

3. When do you get to spend time or talk with the teachers you feel care about you? Is your
time with those teachers limited to class, or are there other times that you connect with
them?

4. Thinking about the teacher whose class you have seen me observe in, what are some
things this teacher has done this year to help you get to know him/her? What are some
things this teacher has done to get to know you?

5. What are some things this teacher does that shows you s/he cares about you?

6. What is something you wish this teacher would do differently?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 206
APPENDIX F: TEACHER FOCUS GROUP PROTOCOL #2

1. Tell me about a student with whom you have immediately established a good
relationship. What does this look like? How do you know the relationship is good?

2. Tell me about a student with whom your relationship is not off to a good start. Why do
you think this is? How do you know the relationship isn’t as good?

3. Are there barriers to building relationships with your students? Tell me about them. Is
there a way to work around these barriers?

4. In some of the research I have read, students say teachers don’t care about them, but the
teachers say they do. Have you ever had this kind of mismatch with a student? When s/he
felt like you didn’t are but you did? Can you tell me about it? Why was there a
disconnect?

5. What does a good teacher look like for you? Who is a teacher you emulate, and what is it
about that teacher that makes him/her such a good model?

6. How is teaching success at this school defined? What are the characteristics of an
excellent teacher from your leadership’s perspective?

7. What are some of your special teacher tricks that you rely on? What are your go-tos for
classroom management, engagement, building the culture you want in your classroom?

8. Why are you a teacher? What led you to the decision to become a teacher, and what
keeps you coming back?

9. Are there other things about who you are or who you see yourself as that influence how
you act as a teacher?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 207

10. Five years from now, what would your ideal job be? Where would you be five years from
now if you are successful?

AUTHENTIC CARE IN AN URBAN HIGH SCHOOL 208
APPENDIX G : OBSERVATION NOTES TEMPLATE

Class

Teacher Time
In

Time
Out

Date

Context

Student characteristics

Classroom Configuration

Observation Inferences/Notes

Questions Trends

Wonderings

Asset Metadata

Creator Moody, Kristin Leigh (author)

Core Title Authentic care in an urban high school

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/10/2017

Defense Date 10/13/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adolescents,authentic care,Care,High schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,Relationships,Students,Teachers,Urban

Language English

Advisor Crawford, Jenifer (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Green, Alan (committee member)

Creator Email kmoody@usc.edu,Kristin@AllKidsDeserveGreatSchools.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-453095

Unique identifier UC11265513

Identifier etd-MoodyKrist-5887.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-453095 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MoodyKrist-5887.pdf

Dmrecord 453095

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moody, Kristin Leigh

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The positive effects of caring, empathy-based relationships between teachers and students are well-documented. Those effects include the promotion of student-to-student empathy, self-esteem, motivation, and engagement (Battistich, Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994)