University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

(USC Thesis Other)

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

How Teacher Preparation Programs Prepare White Teachers to Teach in Urban School
Settings

Callah Darmali

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2023

© Copyright by Callah Darmali 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Callah Darmali certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Eugenia Mora-Flores
Lindsey Chapman
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
University-based teacher preparation programs are a pipeline responsible for training preservice
teachers prior to entering the workforce. In this study, university based-teacher preparation
programs were examined through the eyes of seven new White teachers to explore how they
trained White teachers to work in urban, low-income communities of color. Through qualitative
semi-structured interviews, new teachers recounted their experiences in their teacher preparation
program to prepare them to work in K–5 settings presumably different than their own. Topics
surrounding critical reflection, curriculum, instruction, and student teaching were explored as
first and second year teachers shared their experiences with their university-based teacher
preparation program. The study found discord regarding curriculum and instruction, a disconnect
between the university-based support and student teaching components, and the intentional and
unintentional power the mentor teacher holds with preservice teachers. Teacher preparation
programs have made tremendous progress since their inception, but there remains work to
prepare White teachers to teach in urban settings. This study will acknowledge the growth and
make recommendations for the future.

v
Acknowledgments
With gratitude and appreciation, I acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh
Samkian. Her patience, support, and guidance led me through this process. She is selfless and an
educator I admire very much. She pushed me to be better and to keep going when I thought I
could not. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores and Dr.
Lindsey Chapman for their commitment, time, and insights that strengthened work. Their area of
expertise was the component I needed to round out my study.
I also would like to acknowledge my Rossier colleagues in the Office of Admission and
Scholarships. Tabitha Courtney, a supervisor who has always supported this endeavor and
supported me whenever I needed her. Colleagues checking in to see how the program is going
and offering words of encouragement when I doubted myself.
Gratitude is also extended to my partner, Jackie Diaz. Working countless hours side-by-
side and always holding space for me. Always checking in and ensuring I stayed the course.
Finally, I want to thank my family. My mom and dad always instilled the importance of
education. I never thought a doctorate would be a part of my journey. I hope taking on this
endeavor and the work I have ahead makes them proud.
This dissertation is dedicated to all the students of color who are not afforded the same
opportunities as their White counterparts. The fight for equitable educational opportunities is one
I will always advocate for.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 7
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
History of Teacher Preparation Programs ......................................................................... 11
Contemporary Landscape ................................................................................................. 14
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 17
Curriculum and Instruction in Teacher Preparation Programs ......................................... 26
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Responsive Teaching ............................... 33
Student Teaching .............................................................................................................. 36
Reflective Practices ........................................................................................................... 41
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 48
Chapter Three: Research Methods ................................................................................................ 55
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 55
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 60
Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 61
vii
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 62
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 63
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 64
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 66
Reflective Practices ........................................................................................................... 66
Student Teaching .............................................................................................................. 72
Soft Reform in Pedagogy .................................................................................................. 86
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 95
Chapter Five: Summary of Findings ............................................................................................. 97
Implications and Recommendations ............................................................................... 103
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 108
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 110
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A: Research Protocol .................................................................................................. 123
Setting the Stage ............................................................................................................. 124
Heart of the Interview ..................................................................................................... 124
Closing Questions ........................................................................................................... 128
Closing Comments .......................................................................................................... 128

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant List…………………………………………………………………………58
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1. Journey of Novice Teacher As They Matriculate Through a Teacher Preparation
Program..........................................................................................................................................49

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Teacher preparation programs have been in existence since the 1800s (Schneider, 2018).
The demographic landscape of those who currently matriculate into the teaching profession in
the United States has overwhelmingly been White, middle class, women. This trend is supported
and demonstrated in the statistic that 83% of teachers in the K–5 workforce are White, middle
class, women (Ametea et al., 2012). This trend is not by mistake or a fluke. Rather, there are
historical underpinnings within the United States that have influenced the race and gender of K–
5 teachers. These historical underpinnings will be discussed in a later section.
This overwhelmingly White, middle class, and female teaching force is an issue because
a majority of students enrolled in K–5 public schools do not mirror their teachers’ characteristics.
The racial diversity among K–5 students has increased over time and teachers are not adequately
prepared or trained to teach students with different backgrounds than their own. According to the
National Center for Education Statistics (2022), between 2009 and 2020, the number of K–5
Hispanic students increased from 22 to 28%, White students decreased from 54 to 46%, Asian
students remained constant at 5%, and Black students decreased from 17 to 15%. Overall, there
was an increase in students of color and a decrease in White students during this 10-year span.
The increase in racial diversity can be attributed to demographic changes and improved ways to
report accurate data on race and ethnicity (Melillo, 2022). The demographic mismatch between
the K–5 student population and their teachers matter because studies have found inequitable
teaching practices for students of color, which ultimately affect students’ academic achievement
(Schneider, 2015).
It is important that society cares that kids of color from low-income neighborhoods are
not performing well within their formal education. Berlak (2001) found that Black students were
2

4.5 times more likely to be placed in the lowest ranked math class and twice as likely to be
placed in the lowest reading class compared to their White counterparts. Additionally, within
gifted education, students of color made up 6% and White students made up 23% of students
who had access to gifted curricula (Berlak, 2001). According to May and Sanders (2013), how a
student performs in their K–5 school, which is facilitated or constrained by the curriculum and
instruction they have access to, is a key indicator for future success. Future success can be
defined in many ways, but it is important that success not be defined solely by the White,
hegemonic narrative, which places weight on standardized test scores. Yet, academic success
using test scores has been studied and is indicative of employment and life chances. May and
Sanders (2013) stressed the importance of an equitable education for all students, not just those
from the dominating racial class. Equitable education should be of interest to all because our
society is ultimately the beneficiary of productive citizens who were equitably served by the
formal education offered in the United States.
With an increase in racial diversity within the K–5 student body, one way to help address
the mismatch between K–5 educators and their students is for teacher preparation programs to
adequately prepare White novice teachers to teach students of color, particularly those in urban,
low-income environments. The literature suggests that when White teachers are teaching racially
minoritized students, they tend to be less supportive, hold negative racial stereotypes, and hold
more physical space between themselves and their students when compared to White K–5
students (Quinn & Stewart, 2019). These behaviors, such as social distance, have the potential to
negatively affect a student’s relationship with their teacher, and ultimately their learning (Quinn
& Stewart, 2019). As such, this study focused on how teacher preparation programs prepare
White teachers to work in urban, low-income communities of color, so as to counteract these
3

negative influences on their students once in the classroom. Some of the practices teacher
preparation programs can implement to prepare White preservice teachers to teach in urban, low-
income communities are engaging in critical reflection, cultivating novice teachers’ cultural
competence, and ensuring all stakeholders involved with the teacher preparation program (i.e.,
mentor teachers) are vetted and committed with the overarching mission to prepare White
preservice teachers to teach in urban, low-income communities (Yost, 2000; Creasey et al.,
2016).
There are structural underpinnings that guide the teacher candidate’s experience within a
teacher preparation program. All teacher preparation programs have the goal to prepare novice
teachers to teach in a K–5 setting, yet all programs have different means to arrive at this goal.
Teacher preparation programs are often under scrutiny as critics say their effectiveness has not
been proven. These individuals view teacher education as overly general and formulaic
(Schneider, 2015). There is an ongoing debate regarding the curriculum coupled with the
instruction that should be implemented to prepare preservice teachers to teach in the K–5
classroom. In the chapter that follows, details of the differing curriculums will be explained in
greater detail. Additionally, the way these curriculums are delivered to preservice teachers is
often in question and will be discussed in Chapter 2.
The purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions new White teachers have about
their teacher preparation programs to prepare them to teach students of color in urban, low-
income communities. Teacher participants were asked to reflect on the preparation they received
prior to becoming the teacher of record in an urban, low-income school and how they believed
this preparation did or did not position them for success once they entered the classroom. This
topic is of interest because White teachers dominate the teaching profession and with the
4

increase in diversity in the K–5 population, it is imperative that teachers are adequately trained
through their teacher preparation program to best teach the diverse student population.
Ultimately, we need to prepare a teaching force that ensures all students have a teacher who can
aid in the advancement of their education.
Background of the Problem
Before examining the preparation teachers received in their teacher preparation programs
as they enter the teaching profession in K–5 urban, low-income schools, we must take a deeper
look at K–5 students’ achievement along racial lines. Many researchers have studied the
achievement gap that has persisted across the K–5 grades. While the term achievement gap is
problematic in the sense that it puts the blame on the student for not performing to hegemonic
standards without looking at the structural issues that surround the students’ learning, the term is
widely embedded in the literature and thus necessitates explanation because it serves as a
window into how students’ academic needs are not being met (Ladson-Billings, 2016). The term
achievement gap was coined in 1963 in the article “The Nation” by Walker (Valencia, 2012).
Achievement gap can be defined as discrepancies in standardized test scores between differing
racial groups (Ladson-Billings, 2016). Gwartney (1970) published the first academic journal in
1970 that highlighted the widening achievement gap between non-White and White students.
The term achievement gap is also present in legislations such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
thus demonstrating its pervasive influence on education as a field. NCLB stated that one of its
goals was to, “close the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially
between minority and non-minority students” (115 Stat. 1440 of the NCLB Act). The way
student achievement is often captured is through test scores. Inherently, tests students take are
biased and designed for those from the dominating racial class to succeed and those from
5

marginalized communities to fail (Ladson-Billings, 2016). To this day, on average, White K–5
students outperform their peers from marginalized, low socioeconomic backgrounds in a variety
of academic metrics (Valencia, 2012). These metrics have led to discourse surrounding the
students not performing well. Researchers argue it is time the achievement gap is reframed to
reveal the educational debt we owe to these students. Rather than blaming students for not
meeting the standards, it is argued that the system, the resources, and the K–5 teachers need to be
in question. As Milner (2012) argues, we need to interrogate the opportunity gap, not blame
students for not performing to predefined standards.
As stated above, one way to focus on the education debt is to examine the role of the
teacher in not meeting the needs of their students. Consequently, it is important that teacher
preparation programs be examined for their failure to adequately prepare their White teachers for
contexts they are unfamiliar with. While the history of teacher preparation programs will be
discussed in Chapter 2, it is important to highlight here that the intended recipient of education,
including higher education, was originally White males (Schneider, 2018). At its inception,
teaching was a profession that did not require a high school diploma, so many White females
entered into the profession since they were not given opportunities to complete post-secondary
schooling. It was not until 1920 when teacher training become mandatory. Even with mandatory
teaching training, the United States education system still had its flaws.
Education has a dark history plagued by racism. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is a
landmark case in United States history which still affects our educational system today. In a
unanimous vote, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal educational facilities based on
race was not equal (Stephan, 1978). Rather, racially divided schools were inherently unequal.
Despite this legislation, schools remain segregated. Schools today are still mostly segregated
6

based on educational gerrymandering. Educational gerrymandering is when school district
boundaries are set in a similar way to politics boundaries to exclude a group of people (Siegel-
Hawley, 2013). These boundaries are intentional and ultimately have repercussion to
marginalized student learning as many K–5 schools are still segregated by race. The division of
race within K–5 schools will affect how teacher preparation programs should prepare White
novice teachers to teach in particular contexts.
A common thread throughout the history of teacher preparation programs has been the
racial identity of those who traditionally enroll in teacher preparation programs. As noted above,
according to Ametea et al. (2012), 83% percent of K–5 teachers identify as White, middle class,
women. In order to understand the demographic make-up of the K–5 workforce, it is important
to understand the origins of the teaching profession. In the early 1800s, there was not a college
requirement for teachers. In actuality, many teachers did not have a college diploma. This
funneled many women into the teaching profession as females were not permitted to access
higher education (Schneider, 2018). It was not until the 1920s when preservice training became
mandatory as lawmakers realized the profession would benefit from formal training for teachers.
While there was increased agreement to professionalize education, there has been an on-
going debate on how to best prepare preservice teachers. Some argue that teacher preparation
programs can act as an extension of hegemonic practices (Cochran et al., 1993). Meaning, novice
teachers are trained to perpetuate and reenforce the dominant culture and the status quo. One
example is the argument that children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds often gain access
to rigorous, high-quality curriculums based in academics while children from marginalized
communities have traditionally had access to more narrow curriculums focused on vocational
and practical skills (Oakes et al., 2018). Many critique teacher preparation programs for not
7

adequately preparing teachers to provide equitable education, and for producing a workforce of
teachers who are unable to meet that needs of K–5 students today, especially those from
marginalized communities (Schneider, 2018). One stated reason is that preservice teachers are
thought to be culturally incompetent and are unable to disrupt the inequities within our society
through their teaching. Many blame teacher preparation programs for the lack of preparation to
address the inequities that arise because of the demographic mismatch between teacher
candidates and the students they ultimately serve in urban, low-income communities.
Statement of the Problem
White, middle class, women dominate enrollment in teacher preparation programs. Many
White preservice teachers hold deficit minded viewpoints about marginalized students (Ametea
et al., 2012). A deficit mindset within a K–5 setting can result in disinterest or watering down
expectations from the preservice teacher when working with students of color (Ametea et al.,
2012). Many preservice teachers have shaped their perceptions and knowledge of the world
around them with the lens of their Whiteness. Many White people become blind to their privilege
and the dominant narrative is perpetuated through common ideas, conversation, and curriculum
within the K–5 learning environment. Perpetuating the White perspective is problematic as
almost 50% of all K–5 schools in the United States do not have a teacher of color on their staff
(Picower, 2009). It is imperative that teacher preparation programs hold the space for preservice
teachers to be critically reflective in their thoughts in hopes to unearth hidden assumptions and
engage in a transformational learning process. Hidden assumptions and the transformational
learning process will be discussed further in the chapters that follow. In this study, I interviewed
participants who identify as White, work in an urban low-income community, and have been
teaching for 1–2 years. The purpose of the interviews is to holistically understand how their
8

teacher preparation programs prepared them to work in urban, low-income communities, if at all.
The participants’ insight provided a window into their experience in their teacher preparation
program, and how well their program prepared them in their current work in communities
different than their own.
Purpose of the Study
There is a plethora of research that focuses on the inequities within the K–5 setting and
the implementation of teacher preparation programs. The information I obtained from my
participants will build on past studies to directly addressed the sociocultural mismatch White
preservice teachers face when they enter urban, low-income K–5 schools as new teachers. The
purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the preparation White teachers
received prior to teaching in urban, low-income communities. The study also explored how new
teachers’ experiences in their teacher preparation program informs their current teaching
practices. The intent was to understand how a teachers’ own race and socioeconomic background
has influenced new teachers’ teaching practices and if their teacher preparation program aided in
the preparation to enter a community different than their own.
Throughout the study, I focused on the preparation the novice teachers received prior to
teaching in the K–5 classrooms. Thus, the research questions were: What are White teacher’s
perceptions of how their baccalaureate granting institutions prepared them to teach in urban, low-
income communities? How has the matriculation through a teacher preparation program
influenced new White teachers’ culturally relevant teaching practices in urban, low-income
contexts?
9

Significance of the Study
More research on teacher preparation programs, particularly the preparation of White
teachers is needed. I aim to deepen the understanding of White teachers’ perceptions and
practices so as to inform policy and enact changes in the teacher preparation domain. As will be
discussed in the following chapter, a majority of the research focuses on teacher preparation
curriculums and a blanket understanding of how novice teachers are prepared. I hope to deepen
the research previously conducted that focuses on White preservice teachers entering an
environment completely different than their own. As such, the aim of this study is to shed light
on the experiences of new White teachers and their perception of how their teacher preparation
program prepared them to teach in urban, low-income communities. Additionally, this study
aims to examine the hegemonic underpinnings so deeply engrained in teacher preparation
programs and translated in the K–5 learning space. I asked participants to recount their
experiences in their teacher preparation program and how what they learned influences their
present teaching practices. I interviewed participants about how they interpreted their experience
as a White teacher entering an urban, low-income environment and what they believed they
needed more of to better position them as teachers. Through this study, I aim to uncover aspects
of teacher preparation programs and how they influenced participants’ career trajectories to
becoming the teacher they are today. This information has the potential to inform how teacher
preparation programs operationalize and prepare their candidates to be K–5 teachers.
Organization of the Study
In the chapter that follows, I provide a literature review that focuses on the history of
teacher preparation programs, curriculum and instruction, reflective practices, and student
teaching. Within the history of teacher preparation programs portion, I reviewed the barriers and
10

common themes seen in contemporary teacher preparation. It is important to provide a contextual
background as it gives the reader a better understanding of how teacher preparation shaped the
existing structure today. I also highlighted curriculum and instruction. There are two polarizing
sides of the debate on how to best prepare teacher candidates through curriculum. Reflective
practices are important as this study focuses exclusively on White teachers and how they are best
prepared to teach in a context seemingly different than their own. Student teaching is a critical
component in any teacher preparation program. Student teaching encompasses many complex
stakeholders including a mentor teacher and a K–5 school site. These different components will
be discussed in the next chapter. I then conclude the chapter with a conceptual framework. A
visual is provided to illustrate the framework to the reader.
In the third chapter, the design of the study is presented. For this particular study,
narrative inquiry as a form of qualitative research is used. I highlight the reasoning behind the
selection of participants and describe their criteria for participation. Chapter 3 also details the
data collection method to be used, namely semi-structured interviews. The chapter also
foreshadows the thematic coding data analysis technique I used, and finally, I discuss how I
increased the credibility and trustworthiness of the study, what the limitations and delimitations
are, and the ethical considerations for this specific study.

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
University-based teacher preparation programs in the United States have evolved as
internal and external factors have greatly influenced how programs have been constructed and
delivered to teacher candidates. Critics of university-based teacher preparation programs are
bountiful as the intellectual rigor and practices are often in question (Wilson, 2014). Each year,
over 200,000 candidates graduate from a university-based teacher preparation program (National
Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). These programs are, on average, 2 years in length and cost
thousands of dollars in tuition (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013). Yet, there has been
little research to support the effectiveness of university-based teacher preparation programs
(Wilson, 2014). This lack of research has resulted in critics questioning the need for university-
based teacher preparation programs or creating alternative pathways to teaching (i.e., Teach for
America). As one examines the importance of teacher preparation programs, it is important to
consider historical underpinnings, the contemporary landscape, and how university-based teacher
preparation programs prepare candidates to teach in differing contexts. This section will detail
each of these areas to illuminate the characteristics of programs that prepare a large percent of
our nation’s teaching force.
History of Teacher Preparation Programs
Schneider (2018) outlined teacher preparation as having four distinct eras with each era
demonstrating unique characteristics. The first era spanned from 1800-1860. During this time,
there was little to no formal preparation for teachers. Teachers rarely had a high school diploma,
and society viewed teaching as a short-term job. College was only accessible to men until 1833,
which limited access for woman to a plethora of careers (Cohen and Kisker, 2010). With a lack
of access to higher education, females matriculated into the profession of teaching as there were
12

no college requirements to enter the profession. Despite the lack of college requirements,
particular groups of individuals were seeking to provide some type of training to future teachers.
Private academies slowly opened professional courses for those who were interested in the
teaching profession. These institutions often hired alumni from their program to become teacher
educators and train novice teachers.
Era two spanned from 1860–1920. During this era, policy makers contemplated if formal
teacher training should be mandatory (Schneider, 2018). An argument was made that instituting
a strict policy would drastically cut the teacher workforce and many who were teaching would
leave the profession to pursue other careers (Hawley, 1986). Hawley (1986) went on to argue
that reducing requirements to become a teacher has historically been the approach to get
individuals to enter the profession. Despite these concerns, policy elites were adamant on
building a uniform and standardized way to engage in the training of teachers. This notion would
align with strict policy and possibly deter some from pursuing a teaching profession.
This group of policy elites believed that matriculating through a teacher preparation
program would guarantee an increase in teacher effectiveness. The argument that teacher
preparation programs would increase teacher effectiveness was driven by the idea that
curriculums would be thoughtfully planned out as a means to train novice teachers (Schneider,
2018). While it was difficult to find someone who disagreed with this concept, some argued that
a large teacher workforce would suffer in numbers if additional barriers existed to enter the
profession, such as taking a course. Ultimately, during this era, formalized teacher training did
not become mandatory.
In addition to formal teacher training, another idea that was introduced between 1860-
1920 was the concept of fieldwork. Fieldwork takes place when preservice teachers go into the
13

K–12 classroom to engage in observations or to practice teaching (Lee et al., 2010). The purpose
of fieldwork is to gain real-world exposure. This exposure in the K–12 field was a push from
policy elites to couple formalize teacher training courses with real-world experiences (Schneider,
2018), which was thought to increase teacher effectiveness.
From 1920–1980, teachers could no longer decide if they wanted to participate in
preservice training as it became mandatory. Within the larger context of education in the United
States, legislation was passed in 1918 which required school attendance for grades K–12 (Katz,
1976). This legislation for compulsory education resulted in a demand for more teachers.
Teachers had to engage in formal teacher training as it was mandatory. With this mandate, came
scrutiny. Critics, for example, viewed teacher education as overly general, bureaucratic, rigid,
and formulaic (Schneider, 2015). The reason for the criticism was derived from the barrier to
enter the teacher profession; yet degrees in education were not thought to be rigorous. Many
times, teacher candidates received their teaching license without substantial coursework in the
content area they intended to teach (Schneider, 2015).
During this era, there were also structural limitations to teacher preparation programs.
The federal government decided to sponsor Master of Arts in Teaching programs to increase
flexibility. When researchers took a closer look at teacher preparation program effectiveness in
the early 1920’s, they saw serious methodological missteps in the training of teachers and the
researchers neglected to review evidence of student learning (National Council on Teacher
Quality, 2013). This shed new light and perceptions on the effectiveness of teacher preparation
programs, as many shifted their beliefs on the effectiveness and need for teacher preparation
programs. They argued there was not a clear link between preparation and effectiveness of
novice teachers when entering the K–12 classroom (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013).
14

Gansle et al. (2012) stated that the effects of teacher preparation programs are limited based on
prior research. This begs the question if teacher preparation programs are irrecoverable and
unsustainable with the need to rethink the ways in which teacher preparation programs are
created and implemented for teacher candidates.
Contemporary Landscape
Today, teacher preparation programs are still under scrutiny. Some argue that the purpose
of teacher preparation programs is to teach teachers to pass on the dominant culture onto children
(Oakes et al., 2018). Many from the dominant culture believe teacher preparation programs
should stick to the basics and avoid any teachings that question the dominant culture (Oakes et
al., 2018). For example, most traditional K–12 classrooms in the United States take a “heroes-
and-holiday” approach when teaching a multicultural curriculum. Meaning, the dominant culture
celebrates holidays like Thanksgiving and Columbus Day from a hegemonic perspective. These
teachers’ preparation has not, thus, prepared them to disrupt an outdated multicultural
curriculum. Hegemonic ideology is the power of the ruling class to eradicate differing
viewpoints and make their idea of thinking known as common sense and accepted around the
world (Bartolome, 2009). Many critics believe teacher education programs continue to reproduce
these hegemonic ideologies.
The argument has also been made that there is K–5 education for the elite and K–5
education for the masses (Oakes et al., 2018). Children from higher socioeconomic backgrounds
have consistently had access to a curriculum based in academics. Conversely, those from
marginalized backgrounds (often immigrants), have had access to a curriculum focused on
vocational and practical skills and knowledge (Oakes et al., 2018). Teacher preparation programs
15

need to prepare novice teachers to bridge the gap in instruction for those from higher
socioeconomic backgrounds and those from marginalized communities.
Subject matter proficiency is highly valued within the teaching profession. More
specifically, subject matter refers to the academic orientation of content area knowledge and is
seen as the more traditional approach within teacher preparation curriculums (Nguyen, 2018).
Howard and Milner (2014) found that students who attend school in urban communities are more
likely to have a teacher who is not proficient in the subject matter they are teaching. This lack of
preparation can be detrimental for many students as a teacher is the biggest influence on a child’s
academic outcomes (Howard & Milner, 2014). Ball and Forzani (2009) argue that the primary
responsibility of a teacher is to be proficient in subject matter and interpret subject matter from a
myriad of perspectives. They argue that if a K–5 teacher is not proficient in subject matter, this
lack of preparation can have long term consequences on a student’s educational journey.
Shulman (2015) argued that the idea of domain-specificity within subject matter is hard
to articulate yet is very important. Shulman (2015) defined domain-specificity as an overarching
knowledge base of a particular subject with the understanding of common misconceptions
regarding that overarching topic. Shulman (2015) went on to say that domain-specificity will
differ depending on the setting and culture of a school. For example, when teaching a geography
lesson on weather, the introduction to snow may look different depending on the setting of a
school. A school situated in a cold climate will most likely have students enrolled who have
background knowledge regarding that weather pattern. If you are teaching the same lesson in a
school located in a tropical climate background knowledge may be limited. The lesson
introduction and content should vary in these two contexts.
16

Many policy makers argue that prospective teachers need to be proficient in subject
matter to be an effective teacher (Mulenga, 2015). The importance of subject matter competency
is reiterated by many state laws and regulations surrounding proficiency. For instance, the state
of California requires all teacher candidates to pass the California Subject Exam for Teachers
(CSET) through the California Commission on Teaching Credentialing (Howard & Milner,
2014). The purpose of the CSET is to ensure preservice teachers have subject matter proficiency
before they teach in the K–5 classroom.
Within the last 2 decades, accountability has played a large role in the landscape of
teacher preparation programs (Cochran-Smith et al., 2017). Holding teacher education programs
accountable has been the approach to reform teacher education in the United States. The idea of
accountability emerged due to five key developments including, a tireless public narrative
highlighting the failure of university teacher preparation programs (Cochran-Smith et al., 2017).
The narrative around failing university teacher preparation programs was constructed by the
United States Department of Education, conservatives, the business community, and education
professionals and scholars (Cochran-Smith et al., 2017). Common themes of concern for the
effectiveness of the preparation of teachers from earlier eras also emerged in the scrutiny of
teacher preparation programs in the past 2 decades. This time these critiques related to student
achievement and a focus on graduates of teacher preparation programs seen as mediocre as a
result of teacher preparation programs that don’t produce the workforce of teachers our country
needs (Schneider, 2015). Given the Nation at Risk report, which initiated a national concern
about the state of education in this country, public attention inevitably turned to the teachers as
the main reason for our “educational failures” (Oakes et al., 2018). As such, policy makers made
17

a push to also holding teacher preparation programs accountable for student learning outcomes
1
.
In the late 1980s, nearly one third of school districts required standardized testing for those who
hoped to enter the teaching profession. By the mid 1990s, this number increased to one half (U.S.
Department of Education, 1987, 1999). On one hand, there is a group of people saying we need
accountability, while on the other hand, there are educators calling attention to cultural
incompetence and not teaching in culturally relevant ways or in ways that disrupt the inequities
in our society and in education, a microcosm of our society. This scrutiny and the push for
accountability for teacher preparation programs is an important backdrop when considering the
demographic mismatch between teacher candidates and their students they serve once they enter
the classroom in an urban context, which ultimately shapes how they teach them. Many have
called for teacher preparation programs that better prepare teachers for urban contexts. Urban
context, however, can look different depending on the setting one is examining. As such, it is
important to specify the context when using the word “urban.”
Definitions
Throughout the study, terms such as urban, urban education, White, students of color, and
low-income will be used. It is important that all terms are defined as it relates to this study to
ensure all readers have a shared definition. With the support of literature, key terms will be
defined and applied to specific scenarios.

1
While teachers are a critical component to student learning, these contemporary critiques often
ignore other societal factors that shape how students learn and the outcomes we see. While
examination of these societal issues are outside the scope of this study, it’s important to note that
teacher preparation programs cannot single-handedly “fix” our educational outcomes.
18

Defining Urban Education
When examining how teachers are prepared to teach in urban communities, it is
important to first define what is meant by “urban” and “urban education.” Urban education has
unique nuances that one does not see in other contexts. These nuances are important to describe
given the research question for this study focuses on urban, low-income communities and the
ways in which White, often middle-class, novice teachers are prepared (or not prepared) to teach
in these contexts. According to Milner (2012), urban education has been defined in many ways.
However, for the purpose of this study, urban education can be defined as a characteristic to
describe a location and population of students (Milner, 2012). When defining urban, Milner et al.
(2015) went into great detail to develop a typology, which will be explained further below.
Responding to the fact that the literature had not come to a conclusive definition of urban,
Milner et al. (2015) broke the term urban into three categories. The first category is what they
called “urban intensive.” Urban intensive contexts include schools in metropolitan cities such as
Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. Under the urban intensive category, the cities are densely
populated as they can exceed 1,000,000 people. There are a lot of great benefits to living in large
metropolitan cities, such as increased access to public transportation and varying housing
options. These resources can have a direct impact on what happens in a K–5 classroom (Milner
et al., 2015). For example, students might have increased access to get to school via bus or train
that may not be available to others who live outside the urban intensive context. With the
increased resources, also come limitations. For example, when examining the K–5 space, there
are often limited classroom resources, because a large number of students need to be served
under a tight budget. Limited funding is often a concern for schools within metropolitan cities as
they face overcrowding (Yendol-Hoppey, 2009).
19

The second category in Milner et al.’s (2015) typology is “urban emergent.” Urban
emergent consists of schools in large cities, but not as big as major cities (Milner et al., 2015).
Examples of urban emergent cities are Austin, Texas, Nashville, Tennessee, and Columbus,
Ohio. Urban emergent cities tend to mirror urban intensive schools as they have limited
resources and serve many students (Milner et al., 2015). Student characteristics in urban
emergent may include immigrants, first-generation, lower socioeconomic status, or having
parents who do not speak English (Milner et al., 2015).
The last category Milner et al. (2015) define is “urban characteristic.” Under the urban
characteristic umbrella, schools mirror the characteristics of urban districts, such as a large
English Language Learners population, a more diverse student body, and an increased number of
students from a low socioeconomic background but are not situated in a big city. Oftentimes,
these schools are located in rural or suburban areas. Forte and Flores (2014) found that many
novice teachers are leaving urban schools and opting for the suburbs. Much to their surprise, the
novice teacher may find many of the same student characteristics in suburban schools as urban
intensive and urban emergent schools. Milner et al. (2015) brought this idea to light as they
argued that many teacher preparation programs are preparing candidates for classrooms that do
not exist.
Howard and Milner (2014) argued that within the United States, teacher candidates are
not well prepared to teach in any of these three urban contexts. For example, many teachers lack
cultural competence which in turn creates more barriers for urban teaching (Creasey et al., 2016).
It is the responsibility of teacher preparation programs to ensure educators are prepared to align
their teaching with the students and the community they will be serving. Given the definition of
“urban emergent” includes the characteristics of students, Milner et al. (2015) pointed to the need
20

to focus on who the students and families are and the fact that they need to be served differently
given these specific characteristics.
For the purposes of my research study, I will delimit my study to teachers who teach in
what Milner et al. (2015) called urban intensive. While I recognize the two other categories of
urban areas may have similar challenges, my own personal experience in teaching and recruiting
has taken place in urban intensive environments. Additionally, narrowing my research to the
urban intensive category allows me to have a deeper understanding of that specific type of school
community, and how to best prepare teacher candidates within the urban intensive context.
Defining White
When examining the topic at interest, it is important that there is a shared understanding
of how White is defined. Race and ethnicity are complex and can be difficult to define. One
reason for the complexity is for some, racial identity is derived by biological characteristics and
for others, racial identity is categorized by social characteristics (Chavez & Guido-DiBrito,
1999). For the purpose of this study, race will be defined by the social construction of race.
Meaning, “a sense of group or collective identity based on one’s perception that he or she shares
a common heritage with a particular racial group” (Helms, 1993, p. 3). One’s relationship to their
Whiteness is unique to each individual. Generally, being White may mean someone identifies
with a European origin, but that generalization may not always reign true. When screening
participants for my study, I will ensure they identify as White.
Defining Students of Color
Throughout this study you will often see the phrase students of color. To ensure all
readers share the same definition, students of color are those who identify with any race or
ethnicity outside of White. Students of color encompass many different races and ethnicities
21

including but not limited to: Black or African American, Hispanic/ Latino, Asian or Asian
Pacific Islander, Native American, and Native Hawaiian.
Defining Low-Income
There are many ways to define low-income. When examining the state of California,
there are schools that are categorized as Title I. Title I schools are identified by local education
agencies based on the number of students enrolled from low-income families (California
Department of Education, 2023). Those from low-income families can qualify for free or
reduced lunch depending on the threshold of their household income and the amount of people
within the home. There are many schools within the state of California that identify with the
label as Title I. For the purpose of this study, I focused on Title I schools when recruiting my
participants.
Sociocultural Mismatch
Sociocultural mismatch can be defined as a lack of cultural synchronization as novice
teachers enter a classroom with students who hold polarizing life experiences and backgrounds
different from their own (Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). The ethnic makeup of the teaching workforce
remains constant, while we witness a shift in the ethnic makeup of the K–5 student population.
Almost 50% of all K–5 schools in the United States do not have a teacher of color on their staff
(Picower, 2009). White, middle-class, women continue to dominate enrollment in teacher
preparation programs. Women make up 83% of all K–5 teachers (Ametea et al., 2012). This has
resulted in many high school graduates having only encountered White teachers (Picower, 2009).
This can be seen as problematic as many teachers have shaped their perceptions and knowledge
with the lens of White privilege (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005). Whiteness remains masked and
many members of the dominating racial class become blind to their privileges (Picower, 2009).
22

Garrett and Segall (2013) emphasize that ignorance of teacher candidates is not empty, passive,
or innocent. Rather, ignorance is a defense against knowing. Additionally, the K–5 student
population is becoming increasingly diverse, despite this persistent trend that a majority of
preservice teachers are White (Creasey et al., 2016, Bartolome, 2009). Many of these White
preservice teachers hold deficit minded viewpoints or hold stereotyped attitudes about
marginalized students (Ametea et al., 2012). The deficit mindset often manifests itself as
incompetence or disinterest and must be addressed in teacher preparation programs.
In the current era, there have been increased pathways to teaching outside of university-
based teacher preparation programs. These increased pathways have been created to address the
deficit mindset that exists among particular communities, specifically within urban, low-income
communities (Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2010). Additionally, alternative programs are charged by
political undertones as university-based teacher preparation programs are under attack. Educators
have been tasked to do the impossible as teachers are expected to solve every societal ill
including, but not limited to poverty and mental health. The criticism of university-based teacher
preparation programs have resulted in an increase in popularity in alternative programs in adding
additional pathways to teach in the K–5 classroom as many who oversee alternative programs
believe they are can train teachers better and faster than traditional teacher preparation programs.
Specifically, Teach for America is sending college graduates to urban, low-income communities
without formal teacher training (Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2010). By some, this has been viewed as
harmful because students in urban, low-income communities need highly skilled and highly
trained teachers the most but are instead receiving teachers without a background in education
(Vasquez Heilig & Jez, 2010). While alternative programs are not the focus of the research
below, it is important to note that these pathways exist as alternative pathways have produced
23

many teachers within the workforce. Irrespective of pathway, I contend that teachers who teach
in urban communities must be positioned to do so by their teacher preparation programs,
especially given the sociocultural mismatch that most will experience. The curriculum and
instruction a preservice teacher delivers to their K–5 students can highlight and exacerbate
sociocultural mismatches. The nuances novice teachers can have with curriculum and instruction
has implications on student learning.
Hidden Assumptions
Given my topic is about the preparation of teacher candidates to work in low-income
urban intensive schools, one important element that should be incorporated in teacher
preparation programs is the dissection of hidden assumptions through critically reflective
practice. Unearthing hidden assumptions is a crucial practice in teacher preparation, because
many teacher preparation programs that integrate reflection steer clear of the pressing issues
facing teacher education such as social justice and race (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Teacher
preparation programs necessitate reflective practices to ensure preservice teachers are reflecting
and expanding their world views. Reflective practices are crucial in teacher preparation as
preservice teachers have hidden assumptions that need to be unearthed as they engage in
teaching practices. All humans hold hidden assumptions, yet when teachers hold these
assumptions without being aware of them or trying to challenge them, they can have negative
effects on the students they teach. This is relevant given the topic as we are preparing novice
teachers to teach in urban, low-income communities.
Novice teachers need to reflect on their own hidden assumptions and become aware of
them. Teachers tend to be a homogeneous White workforce in an increasingly heterogeneous K–
5 student population (McCarthy, 2018). White teacher candidates tend to lack knowledge about
24

race, and teacher education programs need to incorporate race into the conversation to debunk
hidden assumptions teacher candidates may have about marginalized communities (Garrett &
Segall, 2013). A common hidden assumption is students of color do not have the same capacity
to learn as White students (Ametea et al., 2012). When teacher preparation programs do discuss
issues of race, White preservice teachers have been shown to resist and claim ignorance (Garrett
& Segall, 2013).
Hidden assumptions have important consequences for students. In 1970, Ray Rist
conducted a study in which they examined the inequalities imposed and educational experience
of students who attend urban schools. The goal of the research was to measure academic
potential of students and the perceived differential treatment the students received based on their
socioeconomic status. For their research methods, formal and informal observations were used.
Formal observations took place with handwritten accounts being documented while the
interaction or activity occurred. When informal observation occurred, notes were not taken
during the classroom visit, but comments were documented after the visit. The sample within this
study pulled from an urban area that had a 98% Black population. For Rist’s study, 13 Black
kindergarten aged children were the participants. During the initial sample, the kindergarteners
were formally observed twice a week for a duration of one and a half hours throughout the
school year. When the students matriculated to first grade, they were informally observed four
times. The last wave of data collection occurred in second grade with formal observations. Rist
(1970) explained his reasoning behind his methods as there was a gap in literature within urban
education and a lack of longitudinal studies.
Rist (1970) found that the kindergarten teachers identified “fast learners” and “slow
learners” based off attributes that have been deemed desirable by middle class educated adults.
25

“Fast learners” possessed the appearance of being clean, interested in class material, pursued
interactions with adults, and displayed leadership. “Slow learners” possessed characteristics of
being dirty, smelled of urine, passive participant in class, spoke a linguistic dialogue different
than the teacher, did not display leadership, and came from low socioeconomic backgrounds.
There was a lack of evidence that any of the traits used to measure academic success were
measurable components of academic potential. When the students matriculated to first and
second grade, the teachers maintained the original groupings the kindergarten teacher set. There
was a clear system of segregation in the classroom. The glaring piece of injustice that was
displayed within this study was academic potential of the students was never objectively
measured in kindergarten and a self-fulfilling prophecy shaped the lived experiences of the
students in this study. The placement of students in “fast learners” and “slow learners” groups
had long-term repercussions on the students’ academic journey and the way in which they
integrated within society. Rist (1970) argued, if one wants our society to retain the historical
social class configuration, one would be satisfied with the way students were placed into groups,
treated, and segregated. This study demonstrates the importance of teachers using their own
hidden assumptions to categorize and subsequently treat their students. As explained above,
critical reflection can mitigate this unfortunate inequitable practice.
Many teacher candidates who enroll in private, baccalaureate granting institutions have
never engaged with low-income, minoritized communities. Because our society perpetuates
stereotypes about low-income, minoritized communities, this results in teachers having a deficit
orientation and implicit biases (Gorski, 2008). One example of a deficit minded orientation that
has had a significant effect on American education is the idea of “culture of poverty.” Oscar
Lewis coined this term in 1961. Culture of poverty encompasses many aspects of hidden
26

assumptions within teacher preparation programs. First is the idea that people from low socio-
economic status are unmotivated and have a poor work ethic (Gorski, 2008). This hidden
assumption can transfer to the K–5 space as teacher candidates may jump to conclusions as to
why a student does not complete their homework or is not participating in an activity. Teacher
candidates are likely to assume a deficit mindset and draw conclusions based off society’s
definition of work ethic and what they deem as a productive use of time based on their own lived
experiences.
Another assumption within the culture of poverty narrative is marginalized parents are
uninterested in their children’s school and do not value education (Gorski, 2008). Parents’
absence in school settings has often been interpreted as a lack of interest. Teacher preparation
programs needed to shift preservice teachers’ assumptions about parent engagement. Access can
play a large role in one’s engagement with their child’s school as parents may work multiple
jobs, work in the evenings, or transportation can inhibit one from physically being in their child’s
school. Oppressive structures and practices will likely remain if educators and leaders do not
push against oppressive ideologies (Khalifa, 2018). Khalifa (2018) highlighted the reproduction
of racism if educators and leaders are not self-aware and knowledgeable on the history of
oppressive structures, and a lack of self-awareness and knowledge can lead to a muting of the
community voice.
Curriculum and Instruction in Teacher Preparation Programs
An important part of university-based teacher preparation programs is the curriculum
they use. There is a large discrepancy between curriculums in teacher preparation programs
across the United States (Zeichner, 2012). University-based teacher preparation programs have
introduced two approaches to developing curriculum for teacher preparation programs. On the
27

one hand, some argue that it is important to teach teacher candidates the subject matter they are
going to teach, called “subject matter curriculum approach,” while others argue for a
competency-based approach where teacher candidates are taught the skills necessary to be a
teacher. There is a debate about whether the subject matter curriculum approach, competency-
based curriculums, or a combination of both approaches within teacher preparation programs are
most advantageous for novice teachers.
While the subject matter competency approach within teacher preparation programs is
common, there are critics of this approach. Traditionally, a subject matter approach to curriculum
consists of a skill transfer without questioning or reflecting on what has been deemed as “true”
(Mulenga, 2015). As already mentioned, many from the dominant culture believe teacher
preparation programs should stick to the basics and avoid any teachings that question the
dominant culture (Oakes et al., 2018). Critics argue, however, that teachers must be positioned to
question the hegemonic ideologies embedded into K–5 curriculums when interpreting subject
matter (Cochran et al., 1993). Hegemonic ideology is the power of the ruling class to eradicate
differing viewpoints and make their idea of thinking known as common sense and accepted
around the world (Bartolome, 2009). Teacher candidates are seldom guided to think critically
when consuming subject matter content and how to best teach this content to students. In other
words, subject matter is not neutral, but must be questioned, however teacher preparation
programs seldom adopt this perspective.
Some argue that the purpose of a subject matter curriculum approach within teacher
preparation programs is the transfer of knowledge from the dominant culture onto children
through the knowledges deemed valuable (Oakes et al., 2018). The subject matter curriculum
approach commonly highlights mainstream-centric ideologies that can be dangerous (Banks,
28

1993). As Cochran et al. (1993) reiterated, teachers need to be flexible in their construction of
content knowledge as they interpret subject matter-based curriculums when interacting with
students with differing worldviews. These interactions coincide with the day-to-day nuances of
teaching as teacher educators share content knowledge to students through conversation, actions,
and attitudes. Conversely, multicultural curriculums allow space for different racial and ethnic
groups along with differing perspectives and frames of reference (Banks, 1993). For example,
rather than taking a “heroes-and-holiday” approach to teaching about Thanksgiving and
Columbus, critics argue teachers must learn an alternative history (to arrive at a more expansive
subject matter knowledge) so as to push back on these partial teachings. Teachers should hold a
flexible understanding of subject matter as there are a variety of viewpoints and interpretation
can vary depending on a student’s background.
Another critique of subject matter competency curriculums is teacher preparation courses
that overwhelmingly focus on subject matter curriculum approach miss the opportunity to teach
about the nuances of the day-to-day realities of being a classroom teacher (Mulenga, 2015).
Shulman (1987) found that teacher preparation program curriculums that focus primarily on
subject matter tend to yield very little bearing on the improvement of a novice teacher’s teaching
and learning. The day-to-day realities get lost within a subject matter curriculum approach and
therefore is not advantageous for those preparing to teach in a K–5 setting (Mulenga, 2015).
These day-to-day realities can consist of pivoting a lesson plan due to external factors such as a
fire drill, describing a concept in multiple ways to a class, and others. Zeichner (2010) stated that
traditional teacher preparation curriculum is divided into subjects and does not link theory to
practice. In other words, subject matter content is taught to candidates in teacher preparation
programs, but that is where the preparation ends.
29

The critique of the subject matter curriculum approach is supported by the work of
McGinnis and Parker (1999). McGinnis and Parker conducted a study in which they distributed a
questionnaire with 37 statements to 535 students who were actively enrolled in a teacher
preparation program. Of the 535 teacher candidates, 313 completed the questionnaire. Each
participant was asked to react to the statements using a Likert scale. In this study, there were five
possible responses ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” The questions were
intentional to pinpoint the attitudes and beliefs of those who participated in a subject matter
curriculum-based teacher preparation program. The questionnaire was given to the preservice
teachers while they were enrolled in their teacher preparation program. Within their study,
McGinnis and Parker (1999) found that those who were actively enrolled in a teacher preparation
program using a subject matter curriculum struggled to make connections between content and
their students. This was evident in participants’ responses to questions such as, “I expect that the
college courses I take will be helpful to me in teaching science in elementary or middle school”
and “the idea of teaching scares me.” 69% of responses indicated that those enrolled in a teacher
preparation program under a subject matter curriculum feared teaching.
Alternatively, given the concerns that an overwhelming focus on subject matter in teacher
preparation programs will not best prepare students for the realities of teaching, competency-
based curriculums have been advanced. A competency-based curriculum approach to teacher
education focuses on the transfer of learning outside of a K–12 classroom. A transfer to learning
outside of the K–12 classroom means practical problem-solving skills that address the
contemporary issues that face our society today. This approach is experimental as the curriculum
in this approach incorporates more modern viewpoints within education and steers away from
the more traditional view of education seen in the subject matter curriculum approach
30

(Serdenciuc, 2013). In other words, curriculums must be responsive as new perspectives and
challenges faced in our society. For example, as new legislation emerges, education must reflect
these changes. These contemporary viewpoints consist of tangible competencies such as problem
solving, critical thinking, life-long learning, and information processing. This set of
competencies are taught to teacher candidates within their teacher preparation program so that
they will then be positioned to transfer these competencies to their students within competency-
based curriculums.
The idea of a competency-based curriculum was inspired by fields outside of education.
Competency based curriculums are very popular within the medical field. For example, the
Indiana University School of Medicine implements a competency-based curriculum (Litzelman
& Cottingham, 2007). Within their curriculum there are nine core competencies that must be
followed. Some of the competencies consist of moral, humane, and professional values. These
ideals have been transferred to competency-based teacher preparation programs. Competency
based curriculums push the boundaries outside of a more traditional subject matter competency
approach. There have been pioneers within teacher preparation programs who have been willing
to adopt competency-based curriculums of teaching. Two Idaho universities under the Albertson
Foundation Grant pursued competency-based approaches (Cator et al., 2014). These approaches
have been acknowledged as essential to K–5 students’ success as learning should be personalized
and meaningful.
Researchers have sought to examine whether the subject matter or competency-based
approach is more effective in preparing teachers. An empirical study was conducted by Kim et
al. (2004) in which survey data were collected from 334 students in teacher preparation
programs. 213 of the participants were taught from a subject matter-based curriculum and 121
31

students were taught under a competency-based curriculum. The institutions where data were
collected were predominately White. Nine non-White students were represented within the
subject based curriculum group, and one non-White student was represented within the
competency-based curriculum. The low non-White numbers reinforce the dominance of the
White racial class within the K–5 teaching workforce. In terms of gender, Kim et al. (2004)
study also reinforces and reflects the dominance of females with the teaching profession. 31
students self-identified as male under the subject matter-based curriculum, and 27 students self-
identified as male under the competency-based curriculum.
In Kim et al. (2004) findings, preservice teachers who engaged in a competency-based
curriculum were thought to be stronger teacher candidates than those who entered the teaching
profession after completing a subject matter competency curriculum. This was measured by
anecdotal evidence from university supervisors, administrators, and supervising teachers.
Through the competency-based curriculum, the teacher candidates had an opportunity to increase
their understanding of themselves and internalize professional competencies needed to be
successful in a K–5 classroom. The study also found that novice teachers who matriculated
through a competency-based curriculum self-reported reduced levels of stress when first entering
a K–5 classroom compared to those students who matriculated through a subject matter
competency curriculum. According to the results of the Kim et al.’s (2004) study, the reasoning
behind the reduced stress was the amount of time dedicated to basic survival skills and realities a
new teacher faces in a K–5 classroom setting that are traditionally embedded into competency-
based curriculums for novice teachers.
Since the inception of teacher preparation programs, there has been a debate about
whether a subject matter curriculum approach or a competency-based approach is most
32

advantageous. Amongst scholars, there has been an agreement that there are strengths and
weaknesses within each approach (Howard & Milner, 2014). Curriculums can hold
characteristics from both a subject matter and competency-based perspective as they do not have
to be mutually exclusive. For example, mastery within subject matter is important. A high school
algebra teacher understanding the algebra concepts they are teaching their students is critical.
Additionally, competency-based characteristics should also be present within a curriculum. To
build on the high school algebra example, students should be able to think critically when given
an algebra equation and use problem solving skills to arrive at the correct answer. In this
example, getting the right answer to a math equation may seem trivial, but the ability to critically
think and utilize problem solving skills are transferable to other real-world contexts.
In one study, researchers asked teacher educators their perspective on this debate about
curriculum. Raymond et al. (2020), conducted a cross-sectional study in which 457 teacher
educators were invited to participate. These 457 teachers represented 67 teacher preparation
programs. Ultimately, 65 teacher educators completed the survey. The data were collected
through a survey with a combination of closed and open-ended questions. The data were
analyzed using a comparative method to identify similarities and differences within participants’
responses. In this study, one of their findings was 85% percent of respondents preferred a
combination of a subject matter-based curriculum and a competency curriculum. One participant
stated in an open-ended item that teacher preparation program curriculums need to connect
curriculum standards with real-world application.
Shulman (1986) wrote a seminal piece about what teachers need when he theorized
“pedagogical content knowledge.” He defined pedagogical content knowledge as the most
routinely taught topics within a specific subject area and the prior knowledge a student brings
33

into the classroom as they make sense of subject specific concepts. Further, the way in which a
teacher teaches content can reflect Shulman’s pedagogical content knowledge approach. When
teachers have pedagogical content knowledge, they use the knowledge they have regarding best
teaching practices and integrate those practices to subject matter (Shulman, 1986). Subject
matter, as it relates to K–5 teaching, should be organized from a teaching perspective rather than
a research perspective. In other words, the organization and delivery of content are intentionally
structured for a K–5 setting when aligning with the pedagogical content knowledge approach.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Responsive Teaching
While the debate surrounding subject matter and competency-based curriculums are a
key factor within teacher preparation programs, it is also important that teacher candidates are
prepared to be culturally competent. Howard and Milner (2014) argued that subject matter
competency, pedagogy, and cultural competence are key in teacher preparation curriculums.
Subject matter alone is not sufficient to meet the needs of students particularly in urban contexts
(Howard & Milner, 2014). Neither is pedagogy. As mentioned above, many White preservice
teachers, who often interact with students of color, view marginalized students and their families
with a deficit lens (Ametea et al., 2012). Many educators and the general public view students of
color and poor students as genetically and/or cognitively deficient (Bartolome, 2009). Teacher
preparation programs have a responsibility not only to build teachers’ content and pedagogical
knowledge, but to build racial and cultural competence with their teacher candidates to challenge
the status quo.
Within the literature, there have been conversations about culturally relevant pedagogy
and culturally responsive teaching as one answers to disrupt dominant teaching approaches that
view marginalized students in a deficit-minded way. Culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally
34

responsive teaching have distinct characteristics as well as characteristics that overlap. Ladson-
Billings (2014) defined culturally relevant pedagogy using three tenets. The first tenet focuses on
student learning and academic success. Second, is the development of a students’ cultural
competence to aid in positive interactions with their social and ethnic identities. Third, is a
critical consciousness to recognize and question societal inequalities. Gay and Kirkland (2003),
on the other hand, defined culturally responsive teaching. Culturally responsive teaching is based
on the idea that multicultural education, excellence, and educational equity are interconnected.
Teachers must hold themselves accountable when examining their own teaching beliefs,
behaviors, and developing a consciousness about what is being taught and to whom (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003).
Gay and Kirkland (2003) wrote a seminal piece on culturally responsive teaching and
their theory is not unlike Ladson-Billings’. They argued that preservice teachers often follow
trends of the dominant racial class. Often, teacher preparation programs emphasize these
ideologies when explaining or analyzing culture, ethnicity, class, and racism. More often than
not, White preservice teachers are unwilling or unprepared to take on deep rooted issues of
equity within their instruction (Achinstein & Athanases, 2005). Garret and Segall (2013)
acknowledged that teacher candidates have a lot to learn on the subject of race, and that, as
hinted to above, White preservice teachers often resist this knowledge by claiming ignorance.
Ignorance surrounding the topic of race is not empty, passive, or innocent. Rather, ignorance
surrounding race is a critically conscious act that can be a defense against knowing. Often,
preservice teachers repeat and perpetuate White, hegemonic ideas without questioning
explanations that have been traditionally used (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Ultimately, these
teachers transfer knowledge that can harmful and dangerous to some groups. Students of color
35

need teachers who are racially aware, sensitive, and competent (Milner, 2010). Teacher
educators need to pose tough questions related to race to actively engage preservice teachers to
reflect on their own racial identities. This reflection creates the space and opportunity to build
culturally aware, sensitive, and competent teacher educators (Milner, 2010). Picower (2009),
argued that opportunities for self-reflection need to be provided throughout teacher preparation
programs. Yet, teacher preparation programs tend to offer few high-quality spaces for guided
self-reflection withing teacher education (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Both culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching can be seen as the
first step in bridging the gap between school and home. The component of reflection is crucial as
novice teachers begin to work in the K–5 space. A study done by Jones-Fosu (2021) supported
the claim that teacher preparation programs need to increase space for teacher candidates to
actively engage in culturally competent conversations and engage in reflection. Jones-Fosu
(2012) used a case study qualitative design for their study. Jones-Forsu spoke with three teacher
candidates on their perception of race and equity as it relates to teacher preparation program.
Through the lived experience of the three teacher candidates, Jones-Forsu was interested in the
integration of race and equity within their teacher preparation curriculum. Data were collected in
a one-hour semi-structured virtual interview. In their findings, the theme emerged that race and
equity need to be woven into the teacher preparation experience. This can be done in a multitude
of ways to increase exposure to candidates. There is an inherent gap in teacher preparation
curriculums surrounding topics related to race and equity. Further, there was a lack of teaching
how to enact culturally relevant pedagogy and culturally responsive teaching within teacher
preparation programs. Additionally, teacher preparation programs need to be bold and
36

courageous when making curricular decisions to dismantle racist ideologies and systems. These
decisions need to be direct, intentional, and continuous (Jones-Forsu, 2021).
Student Teaching
Student teaching is a critical component of any teacher preparation program. Student
teaching can be defined as real-world exposure as preservice teachers are placed in K–5
classrooms for practice teaching and observation (Lee, 2010). Feuer et al. (2013), emphasized
the importance of student teaching saying that clinical experiences are the most powerful
component of any teacher preparation program. Historically, there has been an international
trend to increase the amount of time preservice teachers spends in student teaching (Villegas-
Reimers, 2003). This trend is supported by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher
Education (1989) decision to increase the student teaching requirement in the United States from
8 to 10 weeks for certification. According to Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012), the contemporary
take on student teaching within the United States, tends to have two iterations within teacher
preparation programs. First, when a preservice teacher is in the beginning stages of their
program, clinical experience tends to be completed in short durations often complimenting
coursework the student is taking at the college or university. In this early stage, the preservice
teacher is often seen as an assistant or observing the K–5 classroom. Second, as the preservice
teacher makes progress in their teacher education program, the culminating experience is often
called student teaching where the preservice teacher takes on a bulk of teaching responsibilities
still under the guide of a mentor teacher. Some policy makers believe increased time in student
teaching will increase teacher effectiveness, yet others believe that there is not enough data to
support the claim that extended time in the K–5 classroom will result in a more effective teacher
37

(Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012). Despite the two sides of the debate, student teaching is an integral
part of any teacher preparation programs.
Sociocultural Mismatch in the Classroom
Student teaching is particularly important for White, middle-class teachers who plan to
work in urban communities. This is because of the sociocultural mismatch discussed earlier
between novice teachers’ experiences and their future students. Everyone holds beliefs and
assumptions about others as they walk through the world (Lee, 2010). This is not a unique
characteristic to preservice teachers. What is unique is the culture shock preservice teachers face
when matriculating through a teacher preparation program to serve urban, low-income schools.
A sociocultural mismatch, in the context of teaching, can be defined as teachers having
extremely different life experiences than the students they serve. This situation can cause a lack
of cultural synchronization as teacher candidates walk into their student teaching (Yendol-
Hoppey, 2009). This challenge is very common as there is a widening gap demographically
between U.S. teachers and their students (Ametea et al., 2012). Creasey et al. (2016) argued that
preservice teachers have less confidence in teaching in urban schools when students are from a
different cultural background than their own. It is important for teacher preparation programs to
support preservice teachers’ understanding of the populations they will be serving. Additionally,
these programs should make preservice teachers aware of this sociocultural mismatch, to support
the development of teachers’ critical consciousness, and to position them to address biases they
have that ultimately affect teaching practices.
According to Howard and Milner (2014), building critical consciousness is an important
component of teacher preparation programs when a preservice teacher enters student teaching.
Student teaching in an urban context has proven challenging for some student teachers as it can
38

reinforce negative attitudes and deter preservice teachers from pursuing a career in urban
education when not introduced and scaffolded correctly (Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012).
Additionally, Howard and Milner (2014) argued that creating the space for teacher candidates to
acknowledge their own beliefs, values, and ideologies that have been so deeply engrained is the
first step in addressing the sociocultural mismatch we see with many preservice teachers working
in urban, low-income schools.
Yendol-Hoppey (2009) acknowledged that there is a lack of cultural synchronization
when preservice teachers enter student teaching with students who have differing life
experiences and positionalities. Traditionally, teacher candidates have very limited exposure to
urban classrooms during their preparation program (Lee, 2010). This lack of exposure and
insufficient length of time can be combated by ensuring teacher candidates engage in diverse
fieldwork experiences throughout their teacher preparation program. Prospective teachers who
had higher quality student teaching experiences felt more prepared to teach. Student teachers
were found to have a higher quality experience student teaching when they have faculty support,
a supportive mentor teacher, and an involved university supervisor (Ronfeldt & Reininger,
2012). Embedding exposure and coursework allows the space to unpack assumptions, beliefs,
and concerns (Lee, 2010).
In a study conducted by Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012), 1057 novice teachers were
surveyed prior to student teaching and followed up with an exit survey after the novice teachers
completed their student teaching. The average age of the student teachers was 31 years old, 81%
of the participants in this study were female, and all were student teachers within the same urban
school district. The overall response rate for those entering student teaching was 50%. The
overall response rate for the exit survey was 61%. The gender percentage closely mirrored the
39

United States national average of 83% of teachers identifying as female (Creasey et al., 2016).
The research questions Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012) asked were as follows:
1. “How do teachers’ perceptions of instructional preparedness, efficacy, and career
plans change across student teachings?
2. What is the effect of having longer or better student teaching on perceptions of
preparedness, teacher efficacy, and career plans?
3. Do the effects of length or quality of student teaching vary by the demographic
characteristics of students in schools that are used as field placement sites?”
To answer these questions, Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012) posed several survey questions
and respondents answered using a Likert Scale. Some of the questions that were posed prior and
after student teaching were, “When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult students”
and “If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some
techniques to redirect him/her quickly.”
Ronfeldt and Reininger (2012) found that as novice teachers exited student teaching, they
felt more prepared, effective, and more interested in working in urban environments. Ronfeldt
and Reininger thought these results would lead to novice teachers wanting to stay in the teaching
profession longer, but compared to their initial survey, the exit survey revealed that many
planned to exit the profession of teaching faster than anticipated upon completing their student
teaching. Ronfeldt and Reininger’s (2012) results support the claim that preservice clinical
preparation has perceived effect on novice teachers. A limitation to this study is all outcomes
were self-reported. Meaning, what a novice teacher reported on a survey may not be accurate to
behavioral outcomes.
40

Teacher education programs must be aware when a preservice teacher experiences a
sociocultural mismatch within their student teaching experience. Since many preservice teachers
have limited exposure in the K–5 field besides their own education, novice teachers’ deficit
mindset may be more pronounced. This deficit mindset can manifest itself in negative
perceptions of their students and their students’ caregivers (Lee, 2010). Preservice teachers often
hold limited knowledge during their student teaching experience regarding life circumstances
and perspectives of urban, low-income students and their families (Ametea et al., 2012).
Responsibility falls on the preservice teacher and the teacher preparation program to ensure
White preservice teachers gain the appropriate exposure and scaffolds when entering urban, low-
income context. Mentor teachers can help guide these experiences.
Mentor Teacher
Selecting a mentor teacher who oversees a novice teacher during student teaching is an
important decision within teacher education programs. The role of a mentor teacher is complex
as it encompasses assisting preservice teachers gain knowledge and skills to allow them to teach
in ways differently than the way they were taught (Jaspers et al., 2014). Competing priorities can
exist within the mentor teacher role. A mentor teacher is not only responsible for their PreK–12
students’ learning but must also be conscience of the novice teacher’s growth, engagement, and
learning in the classroom. Student teachers’ learning can be in jeopardy when a mentor teacher is
more concerned with their K–5 students’ learning than the student teachers’ learning (Edwards &
Briers, 1998). For instance, student teachers may not have the freedom, responsibilities, and
autonomy in the K–5 classroom if the students learning is the mentor teacher’s sole priority
(Collison & Edwards, 1995). This lack of freedom, responsibilities, and autonomy can result in
insufficient learning for the student teachers. Cross (1999) found that oftentimes if a conflict of
41

interest arises, it tends to be the student teacher’s learning that suffers as opposed to the K–5
student advancement in their curriculum.
A gap within the mentor teacher literature is the number of years a mentor teacher should
have taught prior to becoming a mentor. Ganser (1995) found that 8 to 15 years of teaching
experience was preferred. Those mentors who had less than 8 years of experience were viewed
by novice teachers as “green” with not enough practical knowledge to offer advice and support.
Conversely, those with over 15 years were viewed by novice teachers by being too far removed
from their own student teaching experience. This lapse of time has caused some to believe that
the mentor teacher would not remember the struggles one faces as a beginning teacher.
Reflective Practices
Teacher preparation programs need to engage teacher candidates in reflective practices
(Rodgers, 2002). This is particularly important for White, novice teachers teaching in urban,
low-income communities given the sociocultural mismatch and deficit ideologies discussed
above. While this has been a growing practice, teacher education programs tend to focus on low
levels of reflection, when the emphasis should be on reflection to unearth implicit biases that
results in changed behavior from the novice teacher (Yost, 2000). Within teacher preparation
programs, reflective models must be exhibited to ensure candidates can mimic the reflection
process (McCarthy, 2018). Reflection can be defined as persistent, active, and a careful
consideration of any ideology in which there are grounds to support a claim and can be
transferable in the future (Yost, 2000). Reflection can be deeply complex intertwining a myriad
of skills. According to McCarthy (2018), teachers are inherently reflective, but teacher educators
must model selecting appropriate texts, engaging in conversation, reflection as a process of
inquiry, and modeling critical reflection. This section highlights the importance of reflective
42

practices for teacher candidates as they matriculate through a teacher preparation program so
they can unearth their hidden assumptions, engage in the transformational learning process, and
practice active critical reflection.
Reflection Versus Critical Reflection
If one is asking teacher preparation programs to engage candidates in reflective practices,
it is imperative that the type of reflection and the expectation is clear. Namely, there is a
distinction between reflection and critical reflection. Critical reflection occurs when a person
looks at reflection with a political, moral, and ethical lens within their teaching (Howard, 2003).
Additionally, Howard (2003) argued that access, equity, and social justice tends to be at the
forefront of critical reflection when issues are being examined. Assumptions our society accepts
as common sense are often the assumptions constructed by the dominant group to ensure those
who are marginalized remain in that position (Brookfield, 2010). Given the mismatch between
teachers and their urban school students mentioned earlier, teacher preparation programs should
strive to prepare teacher candidates to be critical in their thinking and reflective practices so they
can challenge the systems that perpetuate a hegemonic mindset (Yost, 2000) and ultimately
hegemonic practices if left unexamined.
Critical reflection is very complex, and requires a wide range of skills (Yost, 2000).
Teacher preparation programs tend to focus on low levels of reflective thought, which misses the
mark that reflection should enact change (Yost, 2000). Critical reflection can be interpreted in
many ways (Brookfield, 2010). For the purpose of this dissertation, I will follow Howard’s
(2003) three-prong approach of critical reflection: One, teacher candidates must acknowledge the
notion that deficit-based mindsets of marginalized students perpetuate what has traditionally
been used in K–5 education. The teacher candidate must have the space to reflect on their own
43

practices to ensure they do not reinforce deficit minded behavior. This space needs to be created
within teacher preparation programs for novice teachers to engage in this practice. Two, teacher
candidates must explicitly acknowledge the link between culture and learning. Every student a
teacher candidate interacts with will have cultural capital. Teacher educators need to emphasize
to their students that cultural capital is an asset and will not hinder their students’ success or
learning. Embracing students’ culture and folding it into the learning process is a key component
of critical reflection. Three, those who critically reflect are conscious that traditional teaching
practices mirror European American, middle-class values. Critical reflection becomes
transformative when it fosters a space in which those participating can counter hegemonic
practices (Brookfield, 2010). It is crucial that novice teachers engage in critical reflection within
their teacher preparation program to evolve into culturally relevant educators.
There are different ways to engage preservice teachers in critical reflection. One of those
ways is journaling. Hatton and Smith (1995) identified a framework utilized in preservice teacher
preparation programs that outlines four levels of reflective practices in journal writing.
1. Descriptive writing is not reflective at all. This type of writing describes a situation or
event.
2. Descriptive reflection includes a preservice teacher’s rationale for some of their
personal judgement. Descriptive reflection could include a preservice teacher’s
interpretation of course readings incorporated in their response.
3. Dialogic reflective journaling takes place when a preservice teacher engages in
conversation with themselves. During this dialogue the preservice teacher explores
different reasonings for situations.
44

4. Critical reflective journaling encapsulates the reason why the preservice teacher made
decisions and how those decisions relate to the broader social, political, and historical
context.
For teacher candidates to engage in reflective journal writing, teacher educators must understand
and possess the knowledge of critical reflection to assist their students in developing a reflective
skillset (Yost et al., 2000).
Tillman (2003) used journaling as a means for reflection as the exercise allows for
uncovering expectations and frustration for novice teachers as they enter the teaching profession.
Reflection was defined as an inner dialogue where a person pulls on their own beliefs,
experiences, and perceptions surrounding a particular idea (Tillman, 2003). This study sampled
its participants from a large, urban high school that was predominately African American. The
high school served approximately 1,200 high school students. The participants of the study were
a novice African American female teacher and a mentor. The mentor was the school principal
who identified as a White male. Data were collected through journaling and reflection through
group and individual interviews. Journaling and interviews allowed participants to document and
explore their feels, thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes in relation to the experience the novice
teacher was having at the K–12 school. Tillman found that reflection and journaling were
effective in unearthing frustrations. Reflective journaling allowed for a channel of
communication for thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors towards members of their school
community, including students. Additionally, the journaling revealed that isolation was evident
within the teaching profession and building community needed to be a priority.
45

Transformational Learning Process
Critical reflection is an essential piece of teacher preparation programs. It is also a
mechanism in the transformational learning process. Transformative learning is a process that
consists of assessing, exploring, and working to rethink frames of references and habitual actions
(Kasl & Elias, 2000). To counteract new teachers’ hidden assumptions, a transformational
learning process is critical. Learning is complex, and teacher preparation programs must guide
teacher candidates in the transformational learning process to ensure the process is executed the
way it was intended. Individuals who engage in the transformational learning process are
different afterwards intrinsically and extrinsically (Merriam & Bierema, 2013).
As humans we observe the world around us and try to make sense of our existence.
Transformational learning requires one to look inward and challenge one’s own beliefs (Slayton
& Mathis, 2010). This learning process is difficult as one unearths historically entrenched
inequities that have been so deeply ingrained within our society. Transformational learning
typically starts with individual change (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). Through looking inward,
one has the ability to identify inequities that have been woven into our everyday lives and begin
to challenge them. One must challenge the dominant ideologies and the reproduction of the
hegemonic mindset within oneself (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). All teacher candidates, and
affluent and/or White teacher candidates in particular, need their teacher preparation program to
afford the opportunity to learn in a transformative way.
When one begins the journey of transformational learning, it is typically prompted by a
disorienting dilemma (Merriam & Bierema, 2013; Taylor, 2000; Mezirow, 1991). A disorienting
dilemma occurs when a life event results in crisis (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). A crisis can be
cognitive, a reframing of a long-held belief, or a situation that induces change that challenges an
46

established perspective (Mezirow, 1978). A disorienting dilemma can be traumatic for some, so
structures must be in place to support the teacher candidates and strategies must be implemented
to cope with the discomfort that usually results from disorientation dilemmas (Wergin, 2019).
Mezirow (1991) reminded us that a disorienting dilemma is specific to each individual student.
Two people can experience the same situation and be affecting in different ways. Some of these
strategies include reflective journaling, mentioned earlier, connecting with the school’s
community, and creating a safe and brave space for students to air their ignorance (DeAngelis,
2021). It is imperative that teacher preparation programs allow the opportunity to learn in a
transformative way, and for teacher candidates to experience disorienting dilemmas before they
get to their student teaching assignments, especially if those dilemmas involved hegemonic,
hidden assumptions that could affect how they teachers their students.
Zone of Proximal Teacher Development
As teacher educators, we want disorienting dilemmas to be constructive disorientations so
novice teachers can learn and grow in productive ways (Roberts, 2013). Having teacher
candidates experience a disorienting dilemma before they get to their school sites can be a
productive use of time within teacher preparation programs. As Heckman and Montera (2009)
stated, learning is not linear. When examining a teacher preparation curriculum, it is important
that colleges and universities account for this nonlinear process to ensure learning takes place
within candidates’ zone of proximal teacher development (ZPTD). The ZPD was coined by Lev
Vygotsky who argued learners should initially be given tasks they can accomplish with
assistance or completed with guidance from others (Santrock, 2002). The goal should always be
to have activities or experiences stay within the zone. The ZPTD will vary for every individual.
Warford (2010) teased out Vygotsky’s ZPTD into four stages. First, self-assistance requires
47

teacher candidates to reflect on experiences and assumptions they hold surrounding teaching and
learner. Second, teacher-assistance was introduced. During the second stage of ZPTD there are
more interventions as the teacher candidate engages with academic discourse. Novice teachers
experience live and videotaped teaching demonstrations. Connecting the theory into practice.
Third, internalization is present. During the internalization phase, the teacher candidate increases
their writing. When writing the preservice teacher starts to weave together their personal,
professional, and theoretical knowledge. Formal statements should be written on the teacher
candidates’ beliefs surrounding teaching. The teacher educator should take note of prior
assumptions and beliefs that may be present. Fourth, recursion is the phase in which teacher
educators should witness transformative change in the preservice teachers’ approach to teaching.
Teacher candidates should embrace conflict as it is a catalyst for change. There should be a
balance of action and reflection. Examining the ZPTD from a wide lens, accommodating new
ideas and information throughout all phases of Vygotsky’s ZPTD and providing ‘just enough’
assistance is key to its success.
Those who enroll in teacher preparation programs may be engaging with urban, low-
income communities for the first time. Everyone has a different starting point and a trajectory as
to where this journey of learning will lead them. Teacher preparation is a dynamic landscape that
requires flexibility and a willingness to find multiple means to fixed ends (Darling-Hammond,
2014). There is not a fixed way to navigate teacher education. Engaging in critical reflection can
be overwhelming, and it is difficult, but ultimately will situate the teacher candidate in the best
place possible when entering student teaching.
48

Conceptual Framework
When examining how teacher preparation programs train White preservice teachers to
work in urban, low-income communities, several ideas should be taken into consideration. As
suggested in the literature, teacher preparation programs consist of key components that
preservice teachers engage with prior to becoming a K–12 teacher. As seen in figure one, my
framework has the novice teacher situated at the top. This individual has a downward arrow
leading to critical reflection. The teacher education program has two main components:
curriculum and instruction and student teaching. These two components do not overlap, rather
they sit side-by-side with arrows connecting the two concepts. The relationship between
curriculum and instruction and student teaching is one that requires strengthening as they do not
exist in isolation. Curriculum and instruction and student teaching are equally important within
teacher preparation programs and consist of different components. The framework concludes
with a downward arrow leading to a culturally competent teacher. Using this conceptual
framework, I argue that a culturally competent teacher is the ultimate goal for the novice teacher
matriculating through a university-based teacher preparation program. There needs to be a
distinction between a novice teaching gaining cultural competence and the novice teacher
utilizing culturally competent teaching practices within their practice. In addition to being aware
and knowledgeable, one should see culturally responsive teaching impact their teaching as the
novice teacher implements the knowledge gained through their teacher preparation program. The
components in this conceptual framework do not work in isolation. Within the teacher
preparation program, curriculum and instruction and student teaching do not occur in a
sequential order. Rather, curriculum and instruction and the student teaching experience occur
simultaneously and work in tandem to support and prepare White novice teachers to work in
49

urban, low-income communities. See Figure 1 for a visual representation of the conceptual
framework described above.

Figure 1
Journey of Novice Teacher As They Matriculate Through a Teacher Preparation Program

50

Reflection on Novice Teacher’s Identity
Within the conceptual framework, the novice teacher is placed outside of the teacher
preparation program as that individual made a conscious choice to enroll in a teacher preparation
program. The novice teacher has yet to experience any training from the university until they
transition into the box labeled teacher preparation program. When a White, novice teacher enters
a teacher preparation program with intentions to teach in urban, low-income communities, it is
imperative for the novice teachers to engage in critically reflective practices to unearth implicit
biases (Yost, 2000). Making a clear distinction between reflection and critical reflection is the
first step to engage in a meaningful practice. Using Brookfield’s (2010) work as a guide, the
teacher educator should model and present opportunities to engage in critical reflection.
Traditionally, teacher preparation programs have focused on low levels of reflective thoughts,
but I argue that creating the space for high levels of critically reflective thoughts hold the
potential to enact change (Yost, 2000).
The reflection the novice teacher engages in should be critical which I contend assists in
the development of cultural competence. There are many ways to engage in critical reflection.
Hatton and Smith (1995) outlined reflective journaling can be an effective way to engage
preservice teachers in critical reflection. Ideally, the teacher educator will facilitate this reflective
activity and ensure the novice teachers reflect on their own decision-making process and how
those decisions relate to broader social, political, and historical contexts (Yost et al., 2000).
Tillman (2003) also explained that reflective journaling can allow the space to uncover
expectations and frustrations a preservice teacher may experience as they enter a setting
completely different from their own. This can be very important when White, preservice teachers
prepare to teach in urban, low-income communities.
51

Teacher Education Program
Within the teacher education program, curriculum and instruction are represented in a
circle. That circle is overlapping with another circle encompassing student teaching. The reason
why these two components are represented in two circles overlapping each other within the
larger context of the teacher preparation program is because they inform each other and
simultaneously occur. There is a strong relationship between curriculum and instruction and
student teaching. They are separate components of the teacher preparation program that require
overlap to streamline the overall teacher preparation program experience.
Student Teaching
Student teaching is the clinical experience within a teacher preparation program. Some
argue that student teaching is the most powerful component of a teacher preparation program
(Feuer et al., 2013). Within the student teaching circle, I have listed components necessary to this
experience. The first being mentor teacher. A crucial relationship that forms during student
teaching is with the novice teacher and mentor teacher. Based on the literature, there are key
characteristics the mentor teacher must hold to maximize their effectiveness with White
preservice teachers in urban, low-income contexts. Ganser (2015) wrote a piece that quantifies
the amount of teaching experience a mentor teacher should have prior to working with novice
teachers. Mentor teachers need to have a minimum of 8 years of experience in a K–5 setting
prior to mentoring a preservice teacher. The 8 years in the classroom not only allows for a
diverse set of experiences but represents time in which the K–5 landscape may have evolved and
how that mentor reacted and overcame any challenges outside of their control (Ganser, 2015). In
terms of those teachers who have taught for many years, those who have been in the classroom
15+ years can still have value as a mentor teacher as long as they have engaged in meaningful
52

professional development and continue to stay up to date on the contemporary landscape of K–5
education. It is the responsibility of the teacher preparation program to gather this quantifiable
data prior to folding them into their program to work with their teacher candidates.
Another important component of student teaching the literature suggests is the
opportunity for White preservice teachers to experience an urban, low-income community within
their student teaching (Lee, 2010). Many times, White preservice teachers have had very
different life experience than the students they will serve in urban, low-income communities
(Lee, 2010). Preservice teachers have less confidence when entering student teaching when
students come from a different cultural background than their own (Creasy et al., 2016).
Recognizing and holding conversations within the teacher preparation program about a potential
sociocultural mismatch for White preservice teachers may face during their student teaching is
important. Holding space for teacher candidates to address their biases can ultimately affect their
teaching practices (Howard & Milner, 2014).
Curriculum and Instruction
Curriculum and instruction are represented in a circle within the teacher education
program. Within curriculum and instruction circle, I have placed subject matter curriculum and
competency-based curriculum and instruction with a plus symbol between them. As detailed in
the literature review, there is an ongoing debate whether subject matter or competency-based
curriculums are the most advantageous for novice teachers (Zeichner, 2012). While there are
many scholars on either end of this polarizing debate, I believe, drawing on Shulman’s concept
of pedagogical content knowledge, that there is value in both curriculums and particular
components from both subject matter and competency-based curriculums can be of value when
training White preservice teachers to teach in urban, low-income communities.
53

When examining curriculum and instruction, it is important to blend components of
subject matter and competency curriculums. It is essential that preservice teachers hold a firm
understanding of the content knowledge they are teaching within a K–5 setting (Mulenga, 2015).
With that, it is important that preservice teachers do not accept everything that is written in the
curriculum as truth. Preservice teachers need to question hegemonic ideologies that have been
embedded into K–5 subject matter curriculums when in the implementation phase (Cochran et
al., 1993). This may be difficult for White preservice teachers as they may have never had to
challenge or question hegemonic ideologies.
Along with components of subject matter curriculums, competency-based curriculums
hold characteristics important to incorporate within teacher preparation programs. Promoting
problem solving, critical thinking, life-long learning, and information processing are all
important when working with K–5 students (Serdenciuc, 2013). Many White preservice teachers
view students from urban, low-incomes communities with a deficit lens (Ametra et al., 2012).
Further, educators view students of color and poor students as genetically and/or cognitively
deficient (Bartolome, 2009). Pulling in culturally relevant pedagogies allows for critical
consciousness from the novice teacher within a competency-based curriculum (Gay & Kirkland,
2003). Reenforcing these concepts with subject matter competency is important for teaching
preparation programs curriculums.
A plus symbol was appropriately conveyed between both types of curriculums and
instruction. The instruction a K–5 teacher implements informs the curriculum and curriculum
design for the future. Under instruction, I have listed pedagogy, differentiation, language, and
diversity as these components all play a factor in the implementation of the curriculum.
54

Cultural Competence
When matriculating through a teaching preparation program, the ultimate goal is for the
White novice teacher to become culturally competent upon when entering the K–5 classroom as
the teacher of record. Creasey et al. (2016) suggested that many novice teachers lack cultural
competence. Given preservice teachers often lack cultural competence, teacher preparation
programs should be revised to address this gap. Some of these practices can include constructing
pedagogical instruction that has relevance and meaning to a diverse set of social and cultural
realities that students hold (Howard, 2003). The conceptual framework above suggests that
through critical reflection, and the interaction of curriculum and instruction with student
teaching, White novice teachers will build cultural competence to work in urban, low-income
communities.
55

Chapter Three: Research Methods
This chapter will outline the research methods for the study, participants, and details on
how data was collected and analyzed. I will also highlight the strategies I used to maximize
credibility and trustworthiness. Further, I will outline the ethical underpinnings of the study in
relation to the research participants. The chapter will conclude with limitations of the study and
an in-depth analysis of my positionality as it relates to teacher preparation programs preparing
White teachers to teach in urban, low-income communities.
Research Design
The research questions for the study examined teacher preparation programs and how
White preservice teachers are prepared to work in urban, low-income communities. These
questions were: What are White teachers’ perceptions of how their baccalaureate granting
institutions prepared them to teach in urban, low-income, communities of color? How has the
matriculation through a teacher preparation program influenced new White teachers’ culturally
relevant teaching practices in urban contexts? In hopes of answering these questions, I utilized
qualitative methods as qualitative research affords the opportunity for the researcher to conduct
open ended interviews. Interviews allowed the participants to share their experience in their
teacher preparation program and how the skills they learned and experiences they encountered
shaped their current teaching practices. Because their teacher preparation experiences are in the
past, interviews are the best method of data collection. And while current teaching practices can
be observed, this study was most interested in the teachers’ own perceptions of how their
preservice learning influenced their current teaching.
Specifically, interviews can be used in narrative inquiry as it consists of “the use of
stories as data, and more specifically, first-person accounts of experience” (Merriam & Tisdell,
56

2016, p. 112). Further, this study included semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions.
Interviews are a conversation with a purpose (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The key to receiving
good data from interviews is to ask good questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A semi-structured
interview format allowed the new teachers to recall their experiences in their teacher preparation
program and how those experiences affect their current teaching practices while assuring that the
participants do not lead the conversation in an unproductive direction for the purpose of the
study.
Sample and Population
Since the study focused on the preparation that White preservice teachers received to
work in urban, low-income, communities of color, I used criterion-based sampling to ensure I
had the right kind of participants in my study. These criteria influenced the following:
participants needed to identify as White, needed to have matriculated through a California
university-based teacher preparation program, and participants needed to have taught in a K–5
urban, low-income school for between 1–2 years at the time of the study. Recognizing the
delimitation of sampling White teachers for this study was intentional. While there is existing
literature on critical Whiteness, this delimitation was inspired by my experience in a university-
based teacher preparation program and situations I did not have the vocabulary to articulate what
I was experiencing. It is important to note that Whiteness is a socially constructed concept, and
the experiences the participants share are not necessarily unique to White teachers. Meaning,
teachers of color can also experience similar challenges when working in urban, low-income,
communities of color. I decided to delimit my participates to 1–2 years of experience as my
research questions are focused on experiences related to the teacher preparation program. I argue
that when you ask teachers questions regarding their teacher preparation program beyond 2
57

years, they may not remember specific details or may begin to confuse knowledge gained
through their teacher preparation program and professional development their current school
may have offered. Additionally, I am limiting my participants to those who have attended a
university based in the state of California. I decided to do so as each state has different standards,
has contextual factors, and functions differently. I chose California because that is the state in
which I am currently living and working, thus making it more feasible for recruitment. Lastly, I
was interested in speaking to teachers who are teaching at the elementary level grades K–5.
Narrowing my study as such allowed for more nuanced questions within the research protocol.
To recruit participants for my study, I needed to ensure I was purposeful. In order to do so, I took
a two-prong approach. First, I began by emailing several program directors of teacher
preparation programs asking if they have a list of alumni I can reach out to. Once I obtained a
list, I created a screener. This screener consisted of qualifying questions to ensure participants
met the criteria that align with the research question, including their race and where they taught
at the time of this study. The second prong was identifying communities around the state of
California that identify as urban intensive (Milner et al., 2015). From there, I researched school
districts within those communities. I then identified a member of the school community to email
those who have taught for 1–2 years on my behalf to participate in my study. These two
recruitment strategies were implemented simultaneously.
For this study, I interviewed teachers who currently teach in a K–5 low-income, urban
intensive environment in the state of California (Milner et al., 2015). There was not particular K–
5 schools I was targeting within the state of California, rather the focus of my study is on the
individual teachers who have 1–2 years of teaching experience within California. I was able to
58

recruit seven individuals to participate in my study. See Table 1 for their participant number and
pseudonyms.

Table 1
Participant List
Participant number Participant name
1 Olivia
2 Fiona
3 Melissa
4 Abby
5 Codi
6 Lauren
7 Sadie

59

Data Collection
In order to understand the perceptions of new teachers on their preparation to work in
urban, low-income communities, I used narrative inquiry as a research method. Once I identified
the participants for my study, I scheduled an interview with each teacher with a possibility of
follow ups, if needed. I reached out to these individuals to schedule online interviews given the
possibility that they will be located throughout the state of California.
For the purpose of this study, I used semi-structured interviews with open-ended
questions. This format allowed the participant to guide the conversation while staying within the
parameters of the topics I needed to discuss for the purpose of the study and as aligned to my
conceptual framework. The seven interviews I conducted lasted approximately 60 minutes, for a
total of 7 hours of interview data. All interviews were completed via Zoom online conferencing.
I recorded the interviews on Zoom and asked for permission from participants to record. Luckily,
all participants agreed to be recorded. Additionally, I took detailed interview notes to capture
their responses and captured non-verbal cues and body language that was expressed.
Many of the interview questions I used asked about the new teacher’s experiences as it
relates to their teacher education program in preparation to teach in urban, low-income
communities. The study focuses on participants’ experiences in their teacher preparation
program and transferable skills related to cultural competence they were able to utilize in the K–
5 space. Many of the interview prompts were open-ended. The open-ended questions were
followed up by clarifying or probing questions as needed. Questions that were asked were
grouped into four distinct buckets:
• background in education questions
• larger school environment
60

• curriculum
• student teaching
Data Analysis
In the initial stage of data analysis, I used the transcripts recorded in Zoom. All of the
participants agreed to having their conversation recorded. The transcripts were reviewed and
cleaned up for any errors using the software “Otter.” Once the transcriptions were cleaned, they
were inputted into Dedoose, Dedoose is a data software. In this study, Dedoose was used to
organize the codebook and assist in finding patterns and themes within the dataset. Initially, each
transcription was read word-for-word meticulously creating emergent codes that came directly
from the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I then used thematic coding to collapse the larger
codebook into a smaller multi-level coding scheme. For example, one of the larger codes I used
was student teaching with subcodes labeled mentor teacher and observations. Another example
was culture with smaller multi-level codes containing school culture, student culture, and teacher
culture. Originally, I had all of the codes standing alone when I did my initial read through my
dataset. Then I clustered and collapsed the codes based on frequency and theme. For instance,
school culture was coded eight times, student culture twelve, and teacher culture six. Putting
these codes in a multi-level scheme assisted in applying the dataset to my conceptual framework.
In the specific example of culture, it assisted in shaping finding surrounding critical reflection
and cultural mismatch. A priori coding was also used because it allowed me to use my
conceptual framework as a guide as codes are informed by the literature. For example,
curriculum is a key component of a university-based teacher preparation program and was used
as a code when conducting data analysis. As I coded, I developed a codebook within Dedoose to
capture what was present in the data. This codebook also allowed me to count the number of
61

times a code was used, thus helping me identify themes in the data. For instance, the code
“students of color” was present numerous times in my dataset. Whereas, the code teacher culture
was limited signaling to me the more pronounced themes within the dataset.
Additionally, I used analytic tools as recommended by Corbin and Strauss (2008). More
specifically, these analytic tools consist of examining language, questioning, making
comparisons, structure of narratives obtained, and emotional context of interview items. I
reviewed these various items to identify codes that I did not initially detect in my initial analysis.
I then adjusted my codes to compensate for any biases I may hold.
Positionality
In my role as a researcher, it is important that I acknowledge my identities.
Acknowledging one’s identities is important as everyone holds biases as they perceive the world
around them. This can affect how a researcher approaches their study and how they analyze their
data. I possess both dominant and marginalized traits within my positionality. I identify as a half
White and half Asian cis-gendered female who is able bodied and comes from an upper-middle
class family. The dominant traits I hold are being half White, cis-genders, able bodied, and the
socioeconomic class my family comes from. The oppressed traits I hold are being half Asian and
female. Growing up, I often found myself in spaces with exclusively White people, which is a
form of privilege. Both of my parents are college educated, and they stressed the importance of
education from a young age. I always loved school and looked up to my teachers. When I was
younger, I wanted to be like them when I grew up. The relationships I built with my teachers
ultimately guided my professional goals in education.
I enrolled in a teacher preparation program while completing my undergraduate studies at
the University of Miami. The University of Miami is a private, research university situated in the
62

Miami suburb of Coral Gables. My first experience in a low-income, urban community was
during my student teaching experience in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. This experience
is similar to many White teachers who go off to work in low income, urban, communities of
color. I also hold the identity of being a former K–12 teacher who ultimately left the profession
to work in higher education after 4 years. As such, I may find that I relate to my teacher
participants who currently work in the profession as I have matriculated through a university-
based teacher preparation program.
These different components of my identity relate to my study as I am interested in the
preparation, or lack thereof, teacher preparation programs provide to those who identify as White
when entering a space in which a sociocultural mismatch takes place. In my opinion, the
University of Miami did not adequately prepare me to teach in an urban, low-income
community. I recall being upset with the university for the lack of preparation they provided their
teacher candidates to work in an environment completely different than the ones they had grown
up in. At the time, I did not have the vocabulary to express the experience I was going through.
But through my work and my research at the University of Southern California, I am now able to
recognize and articulate the experiences I had many years ago. My hope for this study is to
identify the gaps within teacher education experiences and to be able to share what I find so as to
ensure teacher candidates are better prepared to teach in urban, low-income communities.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
When interacting with participants, my background as a former teacher allowed for
greater ease in conversation as we have a mutual understanding of matriculating through a
teacher preparation program. On the other hand, my lived experiences had the potential to result
in researcher bias (Maxwell, 2013) and participants not telling me the details of their
63

experiences. Participants may not have shared particular details as they may have assumed I
already have knowledge on the structure and expectations of teacher education programs. My
identity as being half White had to potential to also lead to bias when questioning or analyzing
the data. To help mitigate any bias, I engaged in self-reflection before and after interviews. I
actively and intentionally looked to disconfirm what I thought I would find within the research.
When conducting the interviews, I aimed to encourage authentic responses from the participants.
I did this by building rapport with them throughout the interview, listening carefully, and
providing non-verbal cues that signal to the participant my genuine interest in their responses. I
leaned on my peers in the Doctorate of Education in Educational Leadership program for support
and my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian for peer review (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I had
assistance in reviewing my interview protocol to ensure my questions were balanced (i.e., I was
not only asking about how the teacher preparation program failed to prepare them). Additionally,
I leveraged my dissertation committee who have experience with qualitative research methods
and have knowledge of my area of interest to assist in the review. Having others review my work
aids in the credibility of my study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
The participants in my study were selected through criterion-based sampling. In order to
minimize bias, I decided not to use snowball sampling within my networks as I did not want my
participants to be selected out of convenience and then to be potentially identifiable. Relational
ethics is something to consider when participants have an indirect or direct relationship with the
researcher (Glesne, 2011). I leaned on my network when reaching out to program directors and
school districts as individuals had connections to distribute my call for participants. This indirect
relationship is something to note as it relates to ethics. Acknowledging that someone may have
64

participated in my study as a favor to the program directors or school district leader who put out
a call for participants.
Personal experiences within a participant’s teacher preparation program or K–5 spaces as
it relates to race and income may be a sensitive topic and could result in the retraumatization for
some. As the researcher, I was thoughtful and respectful when emotions were brought to the
surface during the interviews (Glesne, 2011). When a situation came up that elicited emotion, I
paused, allowed the participant time to feel that emotion, verbally asked if they are okay and
ready to continue the interview. Additionally, when sharing my interview protocol prior to
recording, I ensured that participants were aware that they do not need to answer all questions if
questions bring up memories they do not want to relive. Participants always have the opportunity
to opt out of a question or stop the interview at any time. Pseudonyms were used when referring
to participants in place of their preferred name. Additionally, I used pseudonyms for school
names and other identifiable information to ensure confidentiality.
Limitations and Delimitations
A limitation I faced was not being able to meet participants in-person for the interviews.
As stated earlier, my study was restricted to the state of California, but not a particular district. I
had participants geographically located throughout the state of California. There is a different
kind of connection and rapport you can create with an individual online versus in-person. An
online connection can limit my study as there is a potential for unstable internet which will lead
to disruption, only reading the body language of the participant from the shoulders up, and the
potential for heightened distractions as a participant will be in their own space.
Also, I interviewed teachers with 1–2 years of teaching experience with the K–5 grade
range. I had to rely on participants to recount events through their lens. Some of my participants
65

struggled to remember every detail of their teacher preparation program. In some cases, I was
relying on their memories from 2 years ago to contribute to my findings.
A delimitation of my study is the time constraints. If I had the luxury of time, a
longitudinal study might have provided a more holistic understanding of new teachers’
preparation into the teaching profession. Interviewing a novice teacher while enrolled in their
teacher preparation program and interviewing them again when they are in a teacher of record
has the potential to provide interesting insight.
Another delimitation is my choice to do an interview-only study. Observations could
provide further insights into teacher participants’ actual teaching practices. Whereas in the
design chosen, I only heard participants’ self-reports and descriptions of their past experiences
and their current teaching practices.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to better understand the preparation of White preservice
teachers within their teacher preparation programs to work in urban, low-income, communities
of color. I used narrative inquiry as the approach to qualitative research to recount new teachers’
experiences. I used semi-structured interviews and relied on thematic coding and a priori coding
to analyze the data. I engaged in self-reflection and relied on peers and mentors to increase
credibility and be mindful of ethical considerations when interacting with participants and
sharing the insights they were kind enough to share with me.
66

Chapter Four: Findings
Through the analysis of the interviews, my participants recounted their experiences
within their teacher preparation program and their preparedness to work in urban, low-income,
communities of color. When speaking with participants and building out the findings, it was
important to keep the research questions front of mind. Those questions are: What are White
teacher’s perceptions of how their baccalaureate granting institutions prepared them to teach in
urban, low-income, communities of color? How has the matriculation through a teacher
preparation program influenced new White teachers’ culturally relevant teaching practices in
urban, low-income contexts? In the section that follows, I will discuss findings as they relate to
the research questions and in relation to my conceptual framework. First, I will highlight findings
related to reflective practices followed by student teaching and curriculum. Finally, I will
examine my participants’ relationship with culturally relevant teaching practices as these
teaching practices often manifest in different reform spaces.
Reflective Practices
Drawing on literature, I contended that teaching, modeling, and allowing the space for
critical reflection are key components of an ideal teacher preparation program. Within my
conceptual framework, critical reflection is highlighted as a cornerstone of any course of study in
hopes of preparing a culturally responsive teacher. Brookfield (2010) shared that reflection
becomes critical when a space is fostered when participants can counter hegemonic practice.
Using Howard’s (2003) three-pronged approached discussed in Chapter 2, I will apply what my
participants shared in their interviews to Howard’s definition of critical reflection.
I asked each of my participants what reflective practices they engaged in during their
teacher preparation program, if any. According to Milner (2010), reflection creates the space and
67

opportunity to build culturally aware, sensitive, and competent teachers. When I asked the
question above, all participants, with the exception of Codi, needed additional probes to discuss
reflection on a deeper, critical level. This suggests that for most of my participants, reflective
practice, much less critical reflection, was not a central part of their teacher preparation
curriculum. For example, when I asked Olivia if she engaged in any critical reflection as it
relates to who she is as a White woman in the classroom, she responded with the following, “I
feel like it was something that we had a discussion on, but it wasn’t continual. I never have felt
uncomfortable teaching in the community that I am teaching in.” I would like to bring attention
to the phrase, “I never have felt uncomfortable teaching in the community that I am teaching in.”
Using the Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) technique to analyze word choice, there are ways to
interpret the way Olivia used the word never, but it appears that Olivia was trying to convey how
she is comfortable in her Whiteness at her school. This argument can be made as Olivia used the
above phrase when probed to reflect on her identity as a White woman in the classroom. Later in
our conversation, I asked Olivia how her students’ cultures inform her teaching practices. She
shared the following example.
I try to be very mindful, because a lot of the early units for ELA are on segregation, and
that kind of stuff. Like, we kind of touched on slavery and segregation and all that stuff.
And I very carefully try to word it. One of my students was like, so people like you
owned people like me? I was like, moving on. Because I do not know how to handle that
situation.
Within Olivia’s response, she stated she tried “to be very mindful” when using her
students’ cultures to inform her teaching practices, but when presented with a challenging
discussion, Olivia opted to “move on.” While Olivia stated that she was trying to be “mindful”
68

when incorporating her students’ culture, it appears in this particular situation she did not have
the skillset through the teaching of critical reflection to facilitate a conversation regarding race
and thus ultimately “moved on.” There has been a considerable amount of research on avoiding
interracial interactions. Plant and Butz (2006) conducted a study focused on avoidance-related
responses within interracial interactions. Individuals veered towards avoidant responses when
one believed that an interracial interaction may be unpleasant or awkward (Plant & Butz, 2006).
There is also existing literature about self-efficacy and if an individual believes they can navigate
a conversation to what they believe is the desired outcome. I argue that Olivia conveyed negative
self-efficacy in this situation as the behavior of avoidance is often coupled with anxiety and the
need to quickly “move on.” When I asked a follow-up question on how Olivia would respond if
that situation arose in their classroom today, she said the following:
If they asked me that same thing next year. I still [have] no idea how I’m gonna handle it.
Because I don't really have anyone at my school who I could go ask this question to,
because they're all people of color. I am the sole White girl here.
When using Howard’s (2003) three-pronged approach to critical reflection, one
component is ensuring individuals have the space to reflect on their own practices, so they do not
reinforce deficit minded behavior. Based on Olivia’s response, she still had “no idea how I’m
gonna handle it” if a similar situation comes up in the future, and Olivia felt isolated as the “sole
White girl” at her school surrounded by teachers of color. It appears that in addition to not
having guidance from her teacher preparation program about how to handle such a comment,
Olivia also had not fostered a community or space which would allow her to critically reflect on
experiences and speak to others about her practice. Olivia's comment also suggests that her
teacher colleagues could not possibility understand or help her because they do not identify as
69

White. Brookfield (2010) argued that critical reflection involves the individual recognizing their
assumptions that drive our actions and thoughts with different relationships and communities.
When Olivia said she is the “sole White girl” suggesting her peers could not offer sage advice, it
displayed Olivia’s lack of critical reflection. Additionally, Olivia contradicted herself when she
initially said, “I never have felt uncomfortable teaching in the community that I am teaching in.”
but later shared, “One of my students was like, so people like you owned people like me? I was
like, moving on.” When Olivia said she wanted to “move on” it signaled avoidance of an
uncomfortable situation she didn’t know how to handle. Olivia was not adequately prepared to
facilitate this important conversation in part because of her lack of engagement in critical
reflection.
As previously stated, all participants but one needed additional probes to discuss
reflection on a deeper, critical level. I had probed participants asking them to explain if/how their
teacher preparation engaged them in critical reflection as it relates to their positionality as White
women. I had intentionally delimited my study to those who had graduated from their teacher
preparation program within the past 2 years with hopes that the coursework and conversations
my participants had within their teacher preparation program would not be fleeting. Yet, when
probed with the questions about critical reflection, I received similar responses from six out of
the seven participants indicating they did not or did not remember engaging in critical reflection.
For example, Fiona’s response when probed if they engaged in critical refection within their
teacher preparation program as it relates to their positionality was, “We did have a class. I don’t
remember the name. It’s been so long. But it was really, really surface level. Most of the heavy
lifting had to come from friends of mine. I wasn’t really prepared.”
70

Fiona was not alone when telling me she “doesn’t remember” an aspect of their teacher
preparation program. Similarly, Melissa shared “I’m like, so not helping” when having trouble
recalling aspects of their teacher preparation program. One could argue that it is problematic that
less than 2 years later, the content that was taught within Fiona’s teacher preparation program
was difficult for her to recall or perhaps critical reflection was not covered at all. Additionally,
Fiona stated within her response that she “wasn’t really prepared” when asked about critical
reflection and “most of the heavy lifting had to come from friends.” According to Milner (2010),
critical reflection can be understood to mean very different things. It seems Fiona did not have a
firm grasp on the concept of critical reflection and how to articulate their practice of reflection.
She relied on friends to have conversations with her about her Whiteness in the classroom
instead of participating in facilitated conversations within their teacher preparation program and
learning to apply those skills of critical reflection into her career.
As mentioned earlier, Codi was a participant who often gave atypical responses. When I
asked Codi how she engaged in reflective practices she was quick to respond:
Being a reflective practitioner is one of the most important things. I wish I was taught a
bit more about reflecting. I wish I had gotten more support, this sounds so dumb, but like
how to be a White teacher in front of kids that aren’t White. The conversations you have
need to be culturally responsive.
Codi did not require any probes when asked how she critically reflects. While she rushed
to acknowledge its importance, similar to Fiona, Codi did not feel adequately prepared by her
teacher preparation program to “be a White teacher in front of kids that aren’t White.” Where
Codi stands apart, was she was able to make the connection and articulate that there are
hegemonic assumptions and wished she had learned to reflect in ways that would counter her
71

hegemonic practices as a White teacher (Milner, 2010). Codi did express feeling “dumb” that she
needed support to be a “White teacher in front of kids that aren’t White.” The word “dumb”
assigns meaning that Codi believed she should already know and be prepared to “be a White
teacher in front of kids that aren’t White.” However, what Codi was communicating was that this
isn’t in fact something that comes naturally. White teachers need to intentionally engage in the
process of understanding how to be, given the power dynamics between White teachers and
“kids that aren’t White.” Critical reflection is meant to foster spaces of confusion and regression
that ultimately lead to progress (Milner, 2010), and Codi understood the value that learning how
to critically reflect could bring to her teaching practice.
Codi was not alone when being ill-equipped to practice critical reflection. Four of the
seven participants offered soft reform examples when recounting how their teacher preparation
program engaged them in “critical reflection.” Sadie shared an example, “we did have a class
where I remember going through marking our privileged areas, and then talking about privilege
as a concept and reflecting on our life and areas where you’ve been privileged.” Sadie then tried
to remember what she did once she completed that activity but drew a blank. Sadie’s inability to
remember beyond the activity is problematic as it shows the activity did not resonate with her in
ways that would allow the practice to be sustained. The argument can be made that the activity
Sadie described can be classified as soft reform as de Oliveira et al. (2015) described the social
cartography of soft reform as the responsibility of the individual person to determine their own
success and failure in reference to the existing system. While Sadie described this activity as a
reflective practice she engaged in while enrolled in her teacher preparation program, I argue that
this activity did not enact change or challenge her thinking, because it didn’t leave a lasting
impression to help Sadie become a culturally responsive educator.
72

I contend that reflective practices are a critical component of any university-based teacher
preparation program. When preparing teachers to teach in urban, low-income, communities of
color, it is imperative that preservice teachers have the opportunity to critically reflect on their
positionality and how their positionality may be perceived by the student they interact with.
Engaging in critical reflection is one of many components that can assist in preparing novice
teachers to be culturally responsive in their teaching practice.
Student Teaching
Another key element of an effective teacher preparation program, as outlined in my
conceptual framework, is the student teaching component. I asked each of my participants how
their university-based teacher preparation program supported them while at their student
teaching site. Answers varied, but students mostly reported that they didn’t have a lot of support
from their teacher preparation program during their student teaching. Some mentioned COVID
as a reason for the absence of their university-based supervisor, and others quickly defended
their teacher preparation program and the support they received while offsite at their student
teaching placement. Through the conversations I had with my participants, I am suggesting that
the support preservice teachers received at their student teaching site from their university was
not sufficient. Further, the student teaching experience was disjointed from university teachings,
resulting in a break in the streamline learning experience from university to real world
experience.
Fiona and Abby attended the same teacher preparation program. I point this out because
these two individuals who matriculated through the same program shared different levels of
support and experiences at their student teaching site. Fiona and Abby’s differing perspectives
begs the question how do preservice teachers interpret and use the teachings from their teacher
73

preparation program when entering an urban, low-income, community of color? This concept is
complex as there are various variables that can shift a novice’s teachers intended learning
outcomes of their university-based teacher preparation program. Some of these variables are the
context of their student teaching placement and partnerships within the teacher education
program. During the interview, Fiona shared an interaction she had with a student during their
student teaching which demonstrates a lack of awareness of her students’ lived realities at home.
This example shows how Fiona could have benefited from a closer tie between her student
teaching experience and her teacher preparation program.
I had a student come in one day and tell me about how they walked in on their mom
overdosing. It’s like, oh, I didn’t think that I’d have a kid who knows about that. That
class size at some points, because kids were going in and out all the time, was 35. Which
meant that the teacher and me were spread really, really thin in terms of the support and
the help that we could give the students.
Fiona did not think a student in her third grade class would know what an overdose was.
This indicates that she did not want to make assumptions about the realities her students faced in
their home life. Lee (2010) argued that White preservice teachers often have very different lived
experiences than that of the students they serve in urban, low-income, communities of color. By
saying “I didn’t think that I’d have a kid who knows about that,” Fiona revealed her lack of
knowledge about what the kids in her classroom knew. Fiona also volunteered information about
the number of students in her student teaching classroom. The 35 students led to her and her
mentor teacher to be “spread really, really thin.” This particular comment on the classroom size
was strategically shared after Fiona’s comment about her student’s mom’s overdose. Making this
comment signals Fiona’s desire to inform me of the reason she could not “support and help” their
74

students the way she had hoped. In other words, because of the large class size and being “spread
really, really thin” they weren’t able to help. I followed up with Fiona asking if she asked anyone
in her teacher preparation program for advice or if supports were in place at the university when
a situation arose during student teaching that the teacher candidates did not know how to handle.
She said,
I don’t really remember having a supervisor that was really communicative with me, or
easy to reach out to. I talked to my mentor teacher about it. And it sounded like a lot of
stuff had already been handled in terms of the parent, and she was staying with her uncle.
In that case, I was kind of taught, hey, unless it’s like an emergency situation, like
immediate, you kind of just stay out of it.
Fiona shared she did not have “a supervisor that was really communicative with me, or
easy to reach out to.” This is problematic as I point out in my conceptual framework that the
student teaching component of a university-based teacher preparation program occurred
simultaneously with the curriculum and instruction teacher candidates received. Yet, the two
components had minimal overlap, leaving the different components of a teacher preparation
program disjointed. Fiona illustrated in our conversation that these two components, the teacher
preparation program and student teaching, worked in isolation as their university supervisor was
not “easy to reach out to” and therefore often “talked to [their] mentor teacher” when seeking
advice. Teacher educators should play an important role in scaffolding their students’ learning
(Lee, 2010). Coupling a discussion on how she might have handled this interaction with her
mentor teacher and university-based supervisor would have been a great way for Fiona to share
this moment of practice so that she might reflect on it with more than one perspective.
75

It is also troubling that, after discussing with the mentor teacher, Fiona was taught that
“unless it’s like an emergency situation, like immediate, you kind of just stay out of it.” This is
troubling because it leaves the onus on the (student) teacher to decide when it’s appropriate to
intervene. Who defines what an emergency situation is given that an emergency can be perceived
differently depending on who is asked. Because the school site advised her to “stay out of it,”
Fiona lost the opportunity to learn how to best support this student, and in the future, other
students who share similar details about their personal lives. This was a missed opportunity to
demonstrate authentic teacher care (Valenzuela, 2010)
As mentioned earlier, Abby attended the same teacher preparation program as Fiona. I
asked Abby if she felt their teacher preparation program touched upon any challenges seen
within their student teaching site. Unlike Fiona, Abby felt well prepared to address challenges
she faced in the classroom. She shared the following, “Yeah, I don’t remember what class
exactly it was. But I do remember, we each got like a challenge that you could face. And we had
to research that challenge and present it to the class. I had lice.” By saying “we each got like a
challenge we could face,” Abby argued that her program was being proactive in their
anticipation of challenges and was using examples as case studies. While lice can be a nuisance,
one could argue that it is a low level “challenge” that could be a great issue to research on and
share with a class of novice teachers but would still not prepare candidates for more difficult
challenges that deal with students’ health and safety. Perhaps with the expansion of case studies
and other mid to high level challenges, this exercise could be effective in preparing novice
teachers. In other words, knowing what to do with a lice case would not have prepared Fiona to
address the student having “walked in on their mom overdosing.” It’s possible that a classmate
had a similar challenge to research, but Abby did not mention it in our interview. There appears
76

to be a disconnect between what is being taught in this particular university-based teacher
preparation program and the realities students face once they are at their student teaching site.
Codi attended a different teacher preparation program than Abby and Fiona. Codi often
gave atypical responses compared to my other participants. When I asked Codi how their teacher
preparation program supported them at their student teaching site she shared the following,
So, I was doing a lot of lesson planning, and really using my professor’s knowledge and
staying after class and going over the lesson plans with them. So, I think that I more
utilized the lesson planning side of it because COVID didn’t allow professors on campus.
So, they couldn’t come watch.
Codi took the initiative to gain her “professor’s knowledge” when lesson planning and
would stay after class to have that opportunity. Codi’s teacher preparation program was
structured with classes in the evening after student teaching the full school day. Codi took it
upon herself to stay after class to gain the “knowledge” she was craving from her faculty. This is
another atypical response as no other participant mentioned staying “after class” to gain
additional support. This begs the question why wasn’t this support integrated within the
curriculum so all students enrolled in Codi’s teacher preparation program could benefit from the
“knowledge” of their professors to improve their lesson plans? Codi also mentioned “COVID
didn’t allow professors on campus” suggesting a physical disconnect from the student teaching
and university-based instruction as they were two separate experiences without any physical
overlap. It would be interesting to investigate how COVID may or may not have an everlasting
effect on the teaching practices of those who were enrolled in a teacher preparation program
during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
77

Lauren also shared how their teacher preparation program supported them at their school
site. Similar to Codi, Lauren mentioned lesson planning and their university-based teacher
preparation program’s involvement at their student teaching site: “They supported me in that
they kind of allowed me freedom to design the types of lessons I wanted to design and teach
what I wanted to teach. It was pretty hands off in my opinion.” Lauren appreciated the “freedom
to design” different types of lesson plans yet described their teacher preparation program as
“pretty hands off” when it came to their student teaching placement. Drawing on Fiona, Abby,
Codi, and Lauren’s experiences, it appears my participants encountered isolated experiences
when on their university’s campus and their student teaching placements. As such, in all these
cases, there was a missed opportunity to integrate the student teaching experiences into the
teacher preparation program as a whole.
Feedback
The purpose of student teaching is to gain real world experience (Lee, 2010). When
gaining experience is it of upmost importance that student teachers receive feedback on their
teaching practice (Feuer et al., 2013). The feedback received should be critical and constructive
to help improve the novice teacher’s practice. Four out of the seven teachers I interviewed shared
that no one from their university-based teacher preparation program physically came to their
school to observe their teaching. This absence was justified to the participants due to the
COVID-19 pandemic and the professors’ inability to enter the K–5 school. Some shared they
videotaped their lessons and shared the footage with their professors instead, but not everyone
did this.
Melissa did have a university-based supervisor come out to her school site in order to
observe her and give her feedback. I asked Melissa how their teacher preparation program
78

supported them at her school site. She divulged information on the quality of the feedback from
her professor.
I didn’t feel like I got as much criticism or like, what’s the word, constructive criticism
from her as much as I feel like I should have gotten, like, I don’t want to be super cocky
or anything, either. But she was saying, like, a lot of my lessons were super good. And
she wouldn’t change anything. But I feel like there’s got to be something that I could
have done better.
Melissa shared in our conversation that she was craving more “constructive criticism” from her
university-based supervisor. It was not helpful for Melissa to hear that her “lesson were super
good” and “she wouldn’t change a thing.” So, while Melissa’s supervisor did visit her in her
student teaching assignment, it wasn’t, according to Melissa, a good use of her time. This
example of feedback could beg the question of the standards we place on novice teachers as they
enter the teaching profession. Melissa was self-aware enough to acknowledge that “there’s got to
be something that I could have done better.” I then asked Melissa if she asked her university
supervisor for more “constructive criticism.” She said,
There’s a few times where I asked and that’s when she was kind of like, oh, I thought you
did great. And if she would say something to change, it was like, super, super miniscule
like one kid was out of their seats, like, oh, just make sure you pay attention to that.
Melissa’s follow up comment shows that she had to actively seek out the feedback from
the university-based supervisor. When Melissa probed her for “constructive criticism” she was
met with disappointment because the suggested changes were something “super, super
miniscule.” Melissa was met with surface level comments that did not teach her what to do
differently, or even what specifically was effective about her pedagogy. Melissa stated that she
79

is, “always super hard on myself and think I did a lot worse than I actually did. I didn’t have
growth from my supervisor from the university, just because she didn’t provide me with critiques
to like, change.” This must be revisited when training faculty to observe student teachers at their
K–5 school sites as “growth” should be the ultimate goal to produce a culturally relevant teacher
upon matriculation of a university-based teacher preparation program (Vavrus, 2008).
While Melissa experienced a university-based supervisor physically coming to her K–5
classroom, Fiona did not have the same experience. When I asked Fiona how their teacher
preparation program supported them at their student teaching site, if at all, she stated the
following: “There wasn’t really much support. I would send in a few videos of me teaching very
rarely. And besides that, it was it was really quiet.” The videos Fiona submitted to her faculty
members were mandated by the program, showing that the structure for feedback was present.
While there is existing literature that argues that a video of a lesson allows for more constructive
and actionable meetings with a university mentor (Harvard College, 2015), Fiona’s university-
based supervisor remained “really quiet” even after receiving the videos and did not give
feedback, let alone critical feedback on the video of their lessons. The literature suggests that
when a preservice teacher receives feedback through video observations, the process is typically
perceived as more useful and fair compared to an in-person observation. The positive response to
video feedback is attributed to the ability to watch back a lesson opposed to relying on sheer
memory of a specific moment in time (Harvard College, 2015). Additionally, video observations
allow for more nuanced skills and abilities to be recognized as one can focus on a particular
aspect of one’s teaching and rewatch the video for another aspect (Harvard College, 2015).
Melissa felt like “there wasn’t really much support.” Coupling that comment with her descriptive
80

word “quiet” indicates that there was an inherent gap between the support Fiona received and the
quality of feedback she craved from her university-based teacher preparation program.
Mentor Teacher
Mentor teachers are crucial stakeholders in any teacher preparation program. Mentor
teachers have varying amounts of experience, hold unique positionalities, and assist preservice
teachers in navigating experiences in the K–5 classroom. Mentor teachers hold a lot of power as
preservice teachers rely on them when at their K–5 student teaching site. When speaking with
Sadie, she mentioned being a White woman in a classroom with a majority Black students. I
asked Sadie if she spoke in her university classes or with university faculty on how she can feel
best supported in an environment like this.
You know, I didn't, and I wish I did. I talked to my mentor teacher about it and got a lot
of support from her. She was also a White woman, pretty privileged background, went to
a private university had a very similar experience to me, so she helped a lot.
Sadie expressed some regret in not seeking support from the university-based teacher
preparation program yet found solace in their mentor teacher as “she was also a White woman”
with a similar background as Sadie. Sharing the same positionality with her mentor teacher
resulted in Sadie feeling safe to receive “a lot of support” from her mentor teacher. Sadie went
on to share why she did not ask for help within their teacher preparation program when she
needed support in navigating race in the K–5 classroom.
Am I gonna offend someone? Am I going to like expose myself as being like, very, you
know, privileged, I think I was nervous to bring it into the program at that stage because
we have people from all over in the program and you know, people are really passionate
about their backgrounds, which is awesome. I think I was just nervous.
81

Sadie felt “nervous” when contemplating if she should ask questions about race with her
classmates and professors at the university setting. Cole and Verwayne (2018) shared that the
creation of safe spaces to explore topics of racial differences is more important than ever given
our current cultural and political climate. Sadie did not have a safe space within her teacher
preparation program as she did not want to “offend someone” or “expose” herself as
“privileged.” This led to Sadie feeling more comfortable speaking with her mentor teacher who
shared her characteristics as she was also a White woman from a privileged background teaching
in a classroom with a majority of Black students.
Olivia had a different experience with her mentor teacher. While Olivia did not mention
race when speaking about her mentor teacher, she did highlight her experience student teaching
in the K–5 classroom.
I guess I sound a little mean, but like, [my two student teachers] kind of just like threw
me to the wolves. And were like, you're gonna do it, you can handle it. You got this. Um,
and were just like, “This is what you’re doing. You can do it. We believe in you.” Which
was nice.
Olivia used the phrase “threw me to the wolves” which traditionally alludes to being ill-
equipped but trying anyway. The mentor teachers believed in Olivia that she could “handle it”
and encouraged her to try something she may not have been comfortable with. Is using the phase
“threw me to the wolves” how a novice teacher should describe their experience with their
mentor teacher while student teaching? Olivia felt she was not prepared for particular
experiences within their student teaching but ultimately described it as “nice” to have someone’s
confidence. Perhaps a gradual release of classroom responsibilities would have helped Olivia
feel comfortable with the tasks her mentor teacher assigned to her.
82

Subject Matter
Curriculum within teacher preparation programs is an important element of a novice
teacher’s experience. The participants I interviewed teach all subject areas to their K–5 students.
It was important to understand their level of exposure to different subject areas and how the
curriculum was presented within their university-based teacher preparation program. When I
asked Fiona to describe the curriculum, she experienced she said the following, “I don't even
know if I did math, because I was focused on English. English was the main element of the
program.” In Fiona’s statement, she is unsure if she “did math” within her teacher preparation
program. Fiona was quick to share that her teacher preparation program “focused on English.”
Fiona’s teacher preparation program placed a priority on English when in theory all subject areas
should be taught with equal importance in a multiple subject credential program. I probed Fiona
after her response, asking if she touched upon any other subjects besides English as elementary
teachers typically teach all subject. Fiona then responded with the following.
I was primarily focused on English. There may have been a math. I don't remember much
about it. I know that there was a science one. I remember the science, and I remember the
English. But unfortunately, I don't remember much math.
While a teacher preparation program cannot be approved for K–5 unless all subject areas
are present in their curriculum, Fiona’s teacher preparation program did not cover all subject
areas well enough to inform candidates’ knowledge. When probed, Fiona said, “there may have
been a math [class],” but not with certainty. She then mentioned a science class that she
remembered alongside English. Fiona was not alone in experiencing a disjointed subject matter
curriculum.
83

While Fiona mentioned an English focus in their teacher preparation program, Melissa
did not pinpoint a specific subject area having more importance than another.
There wasn't much about necessarily like how to teach different subjects. I had an
elementary science class, there was an elementary math class and social studies. But I
don't know, it's kind of hard to like, learn how to teach a subject.
In Melissa’s teacher preparation program, while the content classes were certainly
present, she stated there was not an emphasis on “how to teach different subjects.” I then
followed-up and asked Melissa for an example of a lesson she modeled within their teacher
preparation program. She said the following, “There are different ways you can teach about
Native Americans or about the gold rush. Those subject level classes were kind of more surface
level just because there was a lot of different areas you have to touch on.” When probed, Melissa
described the curriculum she interacted within her teacher preparation program as “surface
level.” Melissa also acknowledged that “there was a lot of different areas you have to touch on”
given that K–5 teachers teach all subject areas to their students. Both Melissa and Fiona took
classes focused on particular subject areas, yet Fiona had a hard time recounting what she
learned in those courses and Melissa described the classes as “surface level.”
Implementation
When speaking to my participants about their philosophy surrounding the implementation
of curriculum to K–5 students, I received a wide array of perspectives and responses. Much of
the philosophies were influenced by the teacher preparation program they attended, and
sometimes those philosophies conflicted with what they experienced in their first positions at a
school site. Lauren, for example, shared that she follows the curriculum given to her very
closely. “We basically follow it to a tee. Like you better be following the curriculum every single
84

day, and if some walks in, we better be following the curriculum.” Lauren’s response showed
that her context did not allow for much creativity in her teaching as she was following the district
mandated curriculum “to a tee.” Additionally, she mentioned the threat of someone walking into
her classroom and the expectation that she is to follow the curriculum. When I asked Lauren if
she felt prepared to deliver curriculum to her students upon matriculation of her program she said
the following,
No, I feel they prepared me to design my own lessons. I was really surprised. I came into
the classroom ready to make my own lessons and have fun. But I realized I had to follow
this curriculum. I was like, oh gosh, I don’t know what I’m doing here. Like, this is
awful.
Lauren experienced a mismatch of what she had learned in her teacher preparation
program and what was expected of her at her school site when it came to delivering curriculum.
She was “surprised” at the rigidity described it as “awful” in part because she did not know what
she was doing. This example indicates a structural challenge within teacher preparation programs
as these programs are required to teach planning, but not how to use adopted curriculum. In
Laurens’s case, when she was required to use adopted curriculum she “[didn’t] know what [she]
was doing.”
Melissa had a different philosophy when implementing curriculum to her students. She
took into account the curriculum that was given to her along with adapting her lessons when
necessary if it benefited her students. She said, “I think it’s kind of situational where if you need
to change it a little bit to make it more accessible for your students it is okay.” Unlike Lauren,
Melissa operated under the purview that it is okay to “change it a little bit” when it comes to the
curriculum and instruction. When I asked Melissa how their teacher preparation program
85

prepared them to deliver curriculum, she “remembers writing lessons plans based off a standard.
So, I’ll take a standard and write a random lesson off of it. It wasn’t focused on a certain area.” It
was not clear how the standard was selected to write a “random lesson.” When Melissa used the
word “random” it indicates pedagogy took priority over content, yet Melissa was unable to
articulate this distinction. Additionally, Melissa added that “it wasn’t focused on a certain area.”
Meaning lessons she wrote spanned different content areas.
As mentioned before, Codi often gave atypical responses compared to the other
participants. Codi’s views on curriculum stood out amongst the rest. When I asked Codi if she
used curriculum in her current teaching practices she responded with the following.
Curriculum is so not good. I mean, talk about lack of cultural responsiveness. The
curriculum sucks, but it has some good stuff. You know it’s just like thrift shopping. You
have to look through it very tediously. And it takes a lot of work.
Codi was not shy to tell me that the curriculum was “so not good” and that it “sucks.” Codi also
mentioned the lack of “cultural responsiveness” within the curriculum which no other participant
mentioned. Codi did state there is “good stuff” within the curriculum after she said it “sucks.”
She uses the analogy of “thrift shopping” when sifting through to find and then use parts of the
curriculum. Codi represented a stark difference to Lauren who “follows [the curriculum] to a
tee.” Codi said “it takes a lot of work” when sifting through the existing curriculum. Unless a
teacher is willing to put in that time and energy to adapt it, the curriculum a K–5 student
experiences can vary drastically depending on their teacher’s philosophy and ability to change
the given curriculum.
I also asked Codi if she felt her teacher preparation program prepared her to deliver
curriculum to her students. Again, Codi was forward in her response: “They definitely did not. I
86

didn’t have practice with curriculums because my guiding teachers didn’t use curriculum.” In
Codi’s response she highlighted the inherent gap between the university-based teacher
preparation program and their student teaching. Codi “didn’t have practice with curriculum
because [their] guiding teacher didn’t use curriculum.” Why did Codi’s experience with
curriculum hinge on their guiding teacher’s philosophy on curriculum? Codi highlighted the
separation between their teacher preparation program and student teaching when it came to
curriculum.
Lauren, Melissa, and Codi all had different views on curriculum. Lauren and Codi
expressed polarizing views regarding the implementation of curriculum from “following it to a
tee” to “the curriculum sucks” and must be adapted. Melissa’s experience and perspective was
between that of Lauren and Codi. One philosophy is not better than another, but all three of them
did not feel their teacher preparation program prepared them for the realities in the classroom.
Soft Reform in Pedagogy
Black History Month
In the United States, the month of February is deemed Black History Month. Black
History Month was established in 1976 when Carter Woodson argued that Americans often
overlooked this racial group and urged the American people to acknowledge the achievements of
Black Americans (NAACP, 2023). Five out of my seven interviews took place in the month of
February. Interview participants mentioned Black History Month throughout my interviews
when these new teachers were asked how their teacher preparation program prepared them to
incorporate students’ culture in their classroom.
Using the work of de Oliveira et al. (2015), the cartography of the social landscape can be
categorized in four different reform spaces. I argue the acknowledgement and integration of
87

student’s cultures in the classroom by the participants is presented and operated in a “soft reform
space.” A soft reform space exists when there is dialogue and a conciseness which does not
require a major shift in hegemonic ideologies often accepted as truth (de Oliveira et al., 2015). In
other words, people are complicit in these hegemonic practices and thus reproduce the status
quo. There is a commitment to innocence within the soft reform space. Meaning that ignorance,
about the existence of racism for example, is a defense against knowing. However, as Garrett and
Segall (2013) argued, innocence is not empty or passive and must be interrogated.
Four out of five teachers I interviewed during the month of February mentioned Black
History Month as an example of something they acknowledged in their classroom. There were
mentions of different Black historical figures, art pieces, and even a showcase. For example,
Melissa had a perspective similar to other participants when it came to Black History Month.
Melissa viewed each month as a way to celebrate students’ cultures. When discussing her
administration’s encouragement to bring in Black History Month activities, she said, “I have a
few African Americans in my classroom, and they are super excited about what we are
celebrating in February.” By naming her African American students and saying, “they are super
excited,” this teacher demonstrated that her focus was on her students. Additionally, Melissa
stated that Black History Month helped some of her students feel seen and heard in the
classroom. When referring to the celebration of Black History Month, Melissa said, “it really
makes them kind of feel seen and heard in the class and that they have, like kind of an impact on
the class and what we do.” Melissa thought that the activities her students engaged in helped her
students feel a sense of belonging. She expressed incorporating students’ cultures in her class as
a way to value her African American students, particularly in the month of February. The
language Melissa used throughout the interview aligned with de Oliveira et al.’s (2015) distinct
88

space of soft reform. The soft reform space focuses on the inclusion, without critique, of
particular groups of people who have historically been marginalized. When stating, “it really
makes them kind of feel seen and heard” Melissa was communicating that the Black History
Month activities made a substantial impact on her students. However, I argue that by only
“celebrating” this large and diverse group of people in an uncritical way and only in the month of
February, she perpetuated the existing system without pushback or offering alternatives (de
Oliveira et al., 2015). Melissa did not question the Black History Month activities given to her by
her administration, rather she adopted and implemented them within her classroom.
When I asked Melissa how their teacher preparation program guided them in
incorporating students’ culture within their teaching practices, Melissa drew a blank. I provided
wait time and Melissa nervously laughed and said, “I’m like, so not helping.” Melissa did not
recall participating in training within their teacher preparation program to incorporate students’
cultures in her classroom. Melissa’s inability to remember her training to incorporate students’
culture is telling as she interpreted their administration’s directive on Black History Month as
“celebrating” their students. I also asked Melissa how their teacher preparation program
introduced culturally responsive teaching. Melissa said, “I think just being able to recognize that
obviously kids are coming from different cultures and are going to learn things and approaches
in different ways.” From her response, Melissa demonstrated that she did not have a clear
understanding of culturally responsive teaching. It does not come as a surprise that she operated
in a soft reform space given what she remembered about the training she received from her
university-based teacher preparation program.
While Melissa’s sentiment was most common, not all participants were in agreement
with incorporating Black History Month activities in their classrooms. One of the participants
89

framed the celebration of Black History Month as something extra she had to do on top on all
their other responsibilities. Olivia stated the following.
There was an email sent out for Black History Month, saying that, on top of everything
else we had to do, you also have to make sure you do a Black History Month project. We
don’t have time for this. That is not happening.
Olivia questioned why she had to take up instructional time to acknowledge and celebrate
Black History Month. By saying “on top of everything else we had to do” and “you also have
to,” Olivia was communicating a forced task that felt like a burden to her. Including Black
History Month was not something she did by choice, because to her, it took “up instructional
time,” which demonstrates how Olivia saw the forced task as both an add on and something
unrelated to her students’ learning.
I asked Olivia how their teacher preparation program introduced culturally responsive
teaching and she responded with the following. “I feel like it was only ever brought up in math
problems. Like include the students’ names in the word problems. I don’t feel like we learned
how to like teach about different holidays and stuff like that.” Olivia’s sentiment that it was a
forced task to include Black History Month in their classroom makes sense in the context of the
training she received. Learning only that it’s about including student names in math problems
and sharing she did not learn how to teach “about different holidays” shows how little the teacher
preparation program did to teach them to be culturally responsive teachers.
When conducting my interviews, Codi often gave atypical responses in comparison to the
other participants I interviewed. When using de Oliveira’s et al. (2015) social cartography, Codi
often lived in the “radical reform space.” The radical reform space requires a disruption of the
status quo and recognizes the inequities in knowledge production (de Oliveira et al., 2015). Codi
90

acknowledged that February is Black History Month but disagreed with the tendency to only
celebrate Black history during a particular timeframe. She believed students’ cultures should be
woven into everything that is taught. For example, she stated, “I try to not just celebrate Black
history during Black History Month. I think that same about Hispanic Heritage Month. It’s
always incorporated and yes, that month is extra special, but it’s throughout absolutely
everything I do.” When Codi mentioned Hispanic Heritage Month, she showed an articulation
beyond the activities in the month of February. This was atypical as my other participants did not
mention other cultures that are celebrated in particular months. This comment demonstrated
Codi’s awareness of the need to engage the rich histories of all marginalized groups, not just
Blacks during Black History Month. When she said she incorporates her students’ culture in
“absolutely everything I do” she demonstrated that she believed she implements the opposite of
what is generally communicated in most classrooms. For instance, Olivia was begrudgingly
incorporating her Black students’ culture and history because it was a requirement of their
administration and saw the activities as something “extra” she had to do. Codi, on the other hand,
challenged the status quo and gave their fifth-grade students the space to question their textbook
and express their own lived experiences as it relates to their culture. Codi also stated, “I kind of
just let the kids pick apart the textbooks and what we have to do on their own and express their
different perspectives.” By giving her students the space to “pick apart the textbook” suggests
that Codi has questioned and reflected on what is deemed as “true” within the prescribed
curriculum (Mulenga, 2015). Cochran et al. (1993) argued that teachers need to be positioned to
question the hegemonic ideologies within K–12 curriculums. And Ladson-Billings (2016) stated
that a key tenet of culturally relevant pedagogy is to develop students’ sociopolitical
consciousness. Codi not only communicated doing so, but she also allowed her students to
91

“express their different perspectives” when consuming curriculum. In other words, she didn’t let
the curriculum be deemed as more powerful and “true” than their perspectives and experiences.
Codi did mention her desire to have an entire class on social studies within their ideal
teacher preparation program as she were hoping to engage in more conversations regarding
culturally relevant teaching practices.
I think social studies that’s one thing that I will say that I wish I had a full course on how
to properly teach. I wish I was taught more how to be a culturally responsive teacher
during social studies because you don’t want to be the teacher that’s like, you see how
this is written by a White person? That doesn’t include you.
Codi acknowledged that most of the content she distributed to their students is written by
someone from the dominating racial group and does not represent many of their students’
cultures and perspectives. Her comment alludes to her belief that it is time to showcase different
viewpoints and question the hegemonic mindset that has universally been accepted as truth
(Bartolome, 2009), but that she needed training on how best to do that.
When I asked Codi how their teacher preparation program discussed cultures, she as
unable to differentiate between her lived experience and her program but spoke highly of her
experience.
I don’t know if this is what I’ve learned just from being a teacher or what I learned from
the program, but I think it’s probably a mix of both. Culture is not just race. Culture is
who you grew up with, who you grew up around. It can be religion it can be so many
things that create a student’s culture. And I think we were really taught just to honor it
and create a safe space where they were able to express their culture and feel proud of it.
92

Codi was able to blend her two experiences and articulate what culture means to her and share it
“is not just race.” Codi gave some examples of what makes up someone’s culture and the
importance of creating a “safe space.” In the earlier comment, she recognized many of the
materials distributed to her students are “written by a White person” and challenged those
perspectives in hopes to “honor” other cultures, to help her students “feel proud of it.” What is
different about Codi’s comment compared to the other participants’ is her articulation of the
intersectionality of her students. Rather than celebrating students’ races in a siloed way (e.g.,
during Black History Month), Codi recognized that her students’ cultures were more complex
and that her role was to create a space for them to express those cultures.
While Black History Month originated from efforts put forth by Carter Woodson,
hegemonic ideologies continue to narrow some people’s thinking to reproduce a particular line
of thinking. Olivia viewed the activities related to Black History Month as something “extra” she
had to do, so Black history was not considered central to her work. While Melissa demonstrated
through her interview a positive reaction to the Black History Month activities as it made their
students “kind of feel seen and heard,” this siloed way of bringing in this history only serves to
reproduce hegemonic ideologies that Black people’s history is an add on, something only to be
celebrating once a year. The way in which Melissa demonstrated their idea of culturally relevant
teaching showed that she operated in a soft reform space. Conversely, Codi communicated
celebrating Black History Month and acknowledged it is not enough to only celebrate during this
one month. Codi operated in de Oliveira’s et al. (2015) radical reform space. de Oliveira et al.’s
(2015) framework and cartography of different reform spaces is evident in the language and
examples mentioned by my participants. While there was one atypical response, the other
participants who mentioned Black History Month all operated in a soft reform space. As outlined
93

in my conceptual framework, if the ultimate goal of a novice teacher matriculating through a
teacher preparation program is to be a culturally responsive teacher, in my small sample of
participants there remained a gap in both knowledge and commitment to incorporating students’
cultures in their classroom.
Highlighting Differences
de Oliveira et al.’s (2015) cartography can be illustrated in many different scenarios
within a K–5 classroom. My interviews also demonstrated the manifestation of soft reform in
contexts outside of Black History Month. In particular, by highlighting differences in their
classrooms without providing proper context and a learning opportunity, the teachers engaged in
the soft reform space. For instance, simply using different names in class examples showcased
how some teachers thought they were incorporating students’ culture in the classroom. When I
asked Abby how she incorporate her students’ culture in the classroom, her response was the
following:
Our math book, definitely, there’s lots of names. And there’s lots of like, even food in the
math book too. And like, that’s not something like you would typically see in like
California, it might be something more of like another culture.
When Abby said, “that’s not something like you would typically see in like California, it
might be something more of like another culture,” suggests that Abby believed the state of
California is not multicultural and diverse. In reality, the 2020 census, “39% of Californians are
Latino, 35% are White, 15% are Asian American or Pacific Islander, 5% are Black, 4% are
multiracial, and fewer than 1% are Native American or Alaskan Natives” (Public Policy Institute
of California, 2023). Additionally, over 10 million Californians are immigrants (Public Policy
Institute of California, 2023). This comment begs the question if Abby’s teacher preparation
94

program, that was in the state of California, ever discussed the rich cultural landscape of the state
and the students’ rich cultures they may interact with. Rather, Abby’s comment suggests that she
believed that using particular student names and foods outside of her own White culture
demonstrated the incorporation of their students’ culture. What’s more, Abby mentioned the
inclusion of different names and cultural foods in the curriculum she used in their class. It was
not something she incorporated independently, thus telegraphing its lack of intentionally. de
Oliveira et al. (2015) would categorize this type of behavior as soft reform as this example
demonstrates the act of including without any conflict or change of structure or power relations.
Just like the use of names was one way that one can showcase different cultures in a soft
reform space, the use of classroom libraries was another. Classroom libraries often house many
books that students can read throughout the year. Books range in topic, reading difficulty, and
storyline. Fiona showed great enthusiasm when articulating to me how she tries to “learn” their
students’ culture. It was important to Fiona that all her students feel, “seen, heard, and
represented. And just supported.” She went on to tell me that in her classroom this year she has a
student who is a child of deaf parents.
There was a book on sign language that I got in my library about a student who uses sign
language and everything. And I thought, oh, that’s cool. He’s going to be able to see, like,
oh, I’m going to be represented.
Fiona communicated that she had good intentions when placing this book in her classroom
library as she hoped it would make the student feel represented. Fiona later shared that this
student was brave enough to ask her to remove the book from their classroom because she was
getting a lot of unwanted attention from her classmates. Fiona recalled the conversation: “Hey,
can you do me a favor? Can you take the book out of the library? And he's like, they won't leave
95

me alone. And it's getting frustrating because I’m trying to tell them it's just another way of
communication.” Fiona thought by adding a book to her classroom library that aligns with their
student’s home life that the student would feel represented. When adding the book to the class
library there was no overarching conversation with classroom agreements ensuring students
knew how to broach the topic of someone different than them. Fiona said, “I’ll make sure that
I'm more careful next time. I truly apologized if that caused any distress. A lot of the time has
really been just finding things out on my own.” This begs the question of how their teacher
preparation program prepared them to address students’ cultures outside of their own, a topic that
will be discussed in more detail below. When Fiona inserted, “A lot of the time had really been
just finding things out on my own,” she suggested there was no preparation when it came to
culturally responsive teaching. Fiona thought placing a book in her classroom library was a
sufficient way to incorporate her student’s family. Rather Ladson-Billings (2014) defined the
three-prong approach of culturally relevant pedagogy which includes a development of cultural
competence to assist in positive interactions with social and ethical identities and the cultivation
of sociopolitical consciousness to help students think critically about positionality in our society
(Ladson-Billings, 2014). It is evident that there was a lack of cultural competence in Abby and
Fiona’s teaching practices and there was no attempt to develop or cultivate sociopolitical
consciousness.
Conclusion
In this study, I sought to answer the following two questions: What are White teacher’s
perceptions of how their baccalaureate granting institutions prepared them to teach in urban, low-
income communities of color? How has the matriculation through a teacher preparation program
influenced new White teachers’ culturally relevant teaching practices in urban, low-income
96

contexts? I framed my study with key factors from my conceptual framework that include
reflective practices, student teaching, curriculum, and culturally relevant teaching practices. As
the conceptual framework showed in Chapter 2, there must be overlap between student teaching
and curriculum to unify novice teacher’s experience in their university-based teacher preparation
program. What was learned is that many times critical reflection is not present, and components
exist in isolation and do not speak to one another. Through practices of critical reflection, the
components of student teaching and curriculum, I argue that the goal of an individual attending a
teacher preparation program is to become a culturally responsive educator.
97

Chapter Five: Summary of Findings
Through my research, I was able to weave together participants’ responses to ultimately
craft my findings. I grouped the findings into four distinct areas: reflective practices, student
teaching, curriculum, and soft reform. My participants were vulnerable in sharing their stories,
experiences, and training which lead them to craft their own style and philosophy surrounding
their teaching practice.
Soft reform, coined by de Oliveira et al. (2015), is one of the four distinct reform spaces.
Through analysis, I argue that many of my participants operate in a soft reform space when
acknowledging and integrating their students’ culture in the class. As de Oliveira et al. (2015)
demonstrated through their work, the soft reform space exists when dialogue is present and there
is a conciseness which accepts hegemonic ideologies as truth. As such, the majority of teachers
in my study would not be considered culturally competent teachers who incorporate culturally
responsive practices in their classrooms.
When conducting my interviews, four out of the five participants I interviewed during
February mentioned Black History Month. These four individuals had their own views on Black
History Month. Some thought it made their students feel seen and heard, others viewed Black
History Month activities from their administration as a burden on top of all the other
responsibilities, and others acknowledged Black History Month but argued that their students’
cultures should be celebrated in everything they do. These three different viewpoints are of
interest as those with these differing viewpoints all matriculated through a university-based
teacher preparation program. A key tenant of culturally relevant pedagogy is critical
consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Critical consciousness was not present in many of my
participants responses when sharing their view on Black History Month. If the goal of a teacher
98

preparation program is for the novice teacher to transform into a culturally responsive teacher,
my participants showcased gaps in knowledge and commitment in highlighting and embracing
their students’ cultures in their classroom.
While the mentioning of Black History month was a pattern I witnessed within my
dataset, soft reform spaces were often illustrated in other capacities throughout my
conversations. When highlighting student differences, the teachers I interviewed often shared
responses that did not push back on the hegemonic mindset perpetuating a soft reform space (de
Oliveira et al., 2015). For example, Abby, one of my participants, shared they used particular
student names in class examples and deemed that as incorporating student culture in their
teaching. Abby also shared they would use names you would not typically see in California,
suggesting that California is not a multicultural or diverse state. Fiona shared the use of
classroom libraries as a means to celebrate students’ cultures. She shared an example of
including certain books in her library representing a student’s family without any explanation or
overarching classroom agreement. The K–5 students did not know how to appropriately broach
the topic with their classmate, ultimately making a student feel uncomfortable and asking Fiona
to remove the book from their classroom library. These two examples point to the need for
teacher preparation program to better prepare teachers to address cultures outside of their own.
There is evidence of a lack of cultural competence from some of the participants in my study
who matriculated through a university-based teacher preparation program.
Another pronounced area when speaking to my participants was reflective practices.
Reflective practices, as seen at the top of my conceptual framework in Chapter 3, is an important
component of a teacher preparation program. Howard’s (2003) work approaches critical
reflection with a political, moral, and ethical lens. I asked each of my participants if they
99

engaged in reflective practices throughout their teacher preparation program. Many of the initial
responses I received when participants were asked if they engaged in reflective practices within
their teacher preparation program, jumped to “reflecting” on their lesson implementation. This
type of response suggests that critical reflection is not top of mind. Critical reflection requires a
wide range of skills and is very complex (Yost, 2000). When probed, some said critical reflection
was present within their teacher preparation program, but it was not consistently incorporated
into the curriculum. Most notably, when Olivia was asked if she engaged in critical reflection,
she stated she was comfortable in her Whiteness in the community she is teaching in. Yet, when
an uncomfortable conversation arose surrounding race, she quickly wanted to “on move” as she
“did not know how to handle that situation.” When presented with a challenging situation
involving race, Olivia chose avoidance. This type of reaction is not uncommon if the person
facilitating the conversation believes the interaction could turn unpleasant or awkward. A key
component of critical reflection for teachers in the K–5 is to embrace the cultural capital of all
students (Howard, 2003). Olivia did not demonstrate the act of critical reflection in this example.
There is also existing literature surrounding self-efficacy and one’s individual belief surrounding
their confidence to navigate a conversation surrounding race. When Olivia shared they had a
discussion on reflective practices but it was not continual, it supports the idea that she was not
adequately prepared to facilitate conversations surrounding race due in part because of her lack
of engagement in critical reflection.
Fiona is another participant who elaborated on their experience engaging in reflective
practices. She shared they enrolled in a class that touched upon reflective practices, but it was
“really surface level.” Fiona also shared that she relied on friends to have conversations when it
came to race. I contend it is critical to the matriculation of culturally responsive teachers to
100

participate in reflective practices and engage in critical reflection beyond what is classified as
“surface level.”
Codi, often an outlier in my dataset, shared their viewpoint on reflective practices. While
Codi modeled an outcome that is most aligned with what I hope one would share about critical
reflection, I question if her inquisitive and insightful comments were a result of her teacher
preparation program or other external factors. The reason I question this is because other
participants in my study matriculated through the same program as Codi but were unable to
articulate a response similar to hers when asked about reflective practices.
Along with reflective practices, student teaching is a key component highlighted in my
conceptual framework. One area I was very interested in was the support the student teacher had
from their university while at their K–5 student teaching site. Answers varied, but a similar
theme was that there was not much support from the university once preservice teachers left their
university campuses. This results in a disjointed experience and relies heavily on external
stakeholders to be key drivers within the teacher preparation program. Fiona recounted an
experience that occurred during their student teaching and how they were completely unaware of
the hardships many of their students face at home. Fiona shared they did not have a
communicative supervisor from their university during their student teaching, and when wanting
to intervein, their mentor teacher told them to “just stay out of it.” The student teacher lost the
opportunity to best support their student in this particular instance with an absent university
supervisor and a mentor teacher who used avoidance in the particular situation.
Abby shared an example of how their teacher preparation program attempted to prepare
them for potential situations they would face in the classroom. Abby was given a “challenge” to
research and present to the class. Abby got the “challenge” of lice. This low-level challenge is
101

not an adequate way to prepare novice teachers to work in urban, low-income communities.
There seemed to be a clear disconnect between what is being taught in university-based teacher
preparation programs and the realities students face once they are at their student teaching site in
an urban, low-income community.
In terms of support from a university supervisor while participating in student teaching,
participants used words and phrases like “pretty hands off” and “staying after class” when
describing their experience. These descriptors are problematic as a university supervisor should
not be “hands off” and require students to “stay after class” to gain what they need from their
professors. Later on, I will argue the need to strengthen the bridge between the university-based
teacher preparation program and the student teaching component.
Feedback is another important scaffold necessary throughout the student teaching
journey. Four out of the seven participants shared that no one from their university-based teacher
preparation program physically came out to their student teaching site to observe their teaching.
Melissa was a participant who had a university supervisor observe her teaching in-person, but
felt she did not get constructive criticism she was craving. She shared that “there’s got to be
something I could have done better.” When she probed for more feedback, she was met with
suggestions that were “super, super miniscule.” This must be revisited when training faculty to
observe student teachers at their K–5 school site.
Others provided video tapes of their teaching for observation. Fiona said she didn’t have
much support and once she sent in her videos for review to her university faculty they were
“really quiet.” While there has been research on the benefits of videotaping and providing
feedback on prerecorded lessons, it is not beneficial if those who are supposed to provide the
102

feedback are “really quiet.” These descriptive words suggest there is a gap between the support
Fiona was receiving and what she craved from her university-based teacher preparation program.
Mentor teachers are ae key stakeholder of any student teaching experience. The mentor
teacher and student teacher are side-by-side in the K–5 classroom for a prolong period. Often a
special bond is formed, and as evident in my conversations with participants, they seek support
from their mentor teacher. Sadie opted to seek support from their mentor teacher opposed to their
university-based supervisor as she shared similar characteristics. “She was also a White woman,
pretty privileged background, [and] went to a private university.” Sadie did not seek support
from their university-based teacher preparation program as she feared she was going to offend
someone or expose themselves as privilege to their cohort and faculty. She shared feeling
“nervous” when race was mentioned in their classes as Sadie was not in a safe space to share
their authentic truths and experience surrounding race. This led Sadie to rely heavily on her
mentor teacher for guidance and advice.
Coupled with student teaching, curriculum plays a large role in the structure of teacher
preparation programs. There is an ongoing debate regarding teacher preparation curriculum and
which curriculum is most advantageous for novice teachers. Subject matter competency was
present in most of the curriculums my participants enrolled in, yet there was a “primary focus”
on one particular subject or there were specific pinpointed classes for the different subject areas,
but not much was retained. While a K–5 teacher is responsible to teach all subject areas, I argue
that it is important that all preservice teachers have content knowledge in the areas they will be
teaching.
Another important component is the implementation of curriculum. Meaning, once you
have your curriculum how does one deliver the content to their students. There was a wide range
103

of responses within my dataset. Some follow the curriculum very closely as that is their
administrators’ expectations, others adapted the curriculum to their classroom needs, and others
thought the curriculum “sucks.” Teacher preparation programs need to prepare students for the
realities they will face once entering the workforce and how to best serve their students. While
all these philosophies differ, it is important that novice White teachers feel grounded in their
curriculum and how to best implement it to serve all students in an urban, low-income,
communities of color.
Implications and Recommendations
The findings detailed in Chapter 4 may have one questioning why do they matter? The
implications of the findings can be examined and grouped in two different ways. First, policy
implications and recommendations will be examined. Policy can be implemented at different
levels of government: local, state, and national. The sections that follow will identify the level in
which I suggest the policy should be implemented and how the policy recommendations will
ultimately improve university-based teacher preparation program. Additionally, practice will be
examined. The implications I suggest for practice and the recommendations I detail below is
intended to assist university-based teacher preparation programs with their holistic training of
preservice teachers.
Policy
When reflecting on university-based teacher preparation programs, there must be policies
in place pertaining to the training of future teachers. In Chapter 2, I outlined the history
surrounding teacher training and politics and policies that have been embedded overtime. In the
current iteration of university-based teacher preparation programs, there must be uniform policy
as those who experience and matriculate through a university-based teacher preparation program
104

should have the goal of graduation from their program as a culturally responsive teacher. I
recommend that these policies consist of curriculum mandates at the state level which include
engaging in reflective practices as it relates to one’s positionality, a blend of both subject matter
and competency based instruction which allows university-based teacher preparation the liberty
to be creative within their curriculum planning, and a state policy that strengthens the bridge
between the university-based teacher preparation program and the student teaching component.
In Chapter 4, a majority of my participants shared they did not engage in critical
reflection when enrolled in their teacher preparation program. When preparing teachers to work
in urban, low-income, communities of color, I recommend a national policy should be in place
that requires preservice teachers to engage in critical reflection within their university-based
teacher preparation program. The goal of this policy is to foster spaces where preservice teachers
can counter hegemonic practices with the goal of being a culturally responsive teacher
(Brookfield, 2010). There must be a faculty member or members within the teacher preparation
program who are knowledgeable on critical reflection and the implementation of such practices
pulling on seminal authors such as Brookfield (2010). Additionally, the university-based faculty
members must be held accountable to ensure spaces to engage in critical reflection for novice
teachers is made available. As the population of the United States becomes increasingly diverse,
there must be policies in place to ensure our teacher workforce is equipped to help all students
learn within their K–5 education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). I argue one
must be aware of their positionality within the context of their school environment to better serve
their student population. As this research study specifically examined White teachers’
preparation to work in urban, low-income, communities of color contexts, a national policy that
requires all preservice teachers to engage in critical reflection with the guidance of a well-trained
105

faculty member will aid in training preservice teachers to be culturally responsive in the K–5
classroom with the guidance of Ladson-Billings (2014) work.
Curriculum is often a point of contention within university-based teacher preparation
programs as there are polarizing viewpoints as to which type of curriculum is most advantageous
for preservice teachers. I contend that a state policy should be modified to streamline curriculum
within university-based teacher preparation programs to ensure all novice teachers are properly
trained in subject matter, competency-based instruction, and content pedagogy. While the
currently policy focuses on content pedagogy, triangulating the curriculum to include subject
matter and competency-based instruction is of importance. The reason I argue a state policy
under the purview of curriculum is every state has unique challenges and experiences students
encounter. For example, when teaching students climate, a student in New York has a different
lived experience than a student who lives in Florida. Those curriculums on climate could and
should vary. Within the state policy surrounding curriculum, it should aim to assist preservice
teachers on how to teach and the way decisions can be made no matter the curricular program
they are given It is important that curriculum touches upon key competencies and consist of
some uniformity across all university-based teacher preparation programs.
Finally, I suggest there should be policies to strengthen the bridge between the university-
based teacher preparation program and the student teaching component. In my findings, many
preservice teachers rely on their mentor teachers to guide them in their student teaching
experience of their teacher preparation program. While the mentor teacher is a key stakeholder, a
novice teacher should also receive support from their teacher preparation program in the form of
constructive feedback they can use to improve their teaching practice. The mentor teacher has
many competing factors as they are responsible for the K–5 students’ learning along with the
106

preservice teacher (Edwards, 1998). A state policy can manifest itself in many ways. Some
recommendations are ensuring mentor teachers receive thorough and continuous training from
the university outlining expectations. While the state of California currently requires a 10-hour
training prior to becoming a mentor teacher, I contend this training constantly evolves and is
reviewed as the needs of preservice teacher and the K–5 population shift. Another
recommendation is requiring university-based faculty members to provide critical feedback when
preservice teachers are student teaching, or, through curriculum design, designating space for
preservice teachers to unpack what they are experiencing within their student teaching placement
within the university community. The bridge between these two components is vital to the
teacher preparation experience and training one receives. Too often, once a preservice teacher is
at their student teaching site the support from the university-based teacher preparation program
starts to slip. State policy can hold universities accountable to strengthen the relationship
between these two components to create a positive and meaningful experience for the preservice
teacher.
Practice
While policy is a driving force behind the success of teacher preparation programs,
practice is another component that requires attention. The practice implications can span a
variety of components within teacher preparation programs. Some of my recommendations are
in-service professional development sessions that reiterate what was taught within their teacher
preparation program and requiring preservice teachers to attend a school event outside of their
K–5 classroom to gain a more holistic understanding of the community they are serving.
The in-service component is one that cannot be ignored as those who matriculate through
a university-based teacher preparation program often become a teacher of record. I argue that
107

there is a need to bridge the university-based component with the in-service component. As
illustrated in my interviews with participants, the conversations often highlighted the lack of
remembering or inability to recall what was taught within their teacher preparation program.
With my participants in their 1st or 2nd year of teaching, it was alarming that many of them had
trouble recalling key components of their teacher preparation program. Therefore, I am
suggesting the need for an in-service component that is still attached to their teacher preparation
program. While there is currently a policy in place where new teachers get support during their
first year of teaching, I am suggesting it should be affiliated with their university-based teacher
preparation program. The in-service component can manifest itself as professional development
sessions in which a university faculty member leads a training for those who were enrolled in
their program. At these professional development sessions, the in-service teachers will be given
the opportunity to share their experiences in the classroom, hardships of the transition from
student teacher to teacher of record, and partake in guided activities and lectures from a
university-based faculty member. These types of sessions are important because if we do not
have teachers remembering that they had learned in their teacher preparation program, how can
one expect a new teacher to translate what they had learned back into their K–5 workspaces?
These sessions, led by university-based faculty, are crucial to bridge the gap between new
teachers’ preparation program and their new role as a teacher of record.
Along with the in-service component lead by a university-based faculty member, it is also
important that preservice teachers are in tune with their school and community outside of their
own student teaching classroom to assist in transforming into a culturally responsive teacher. I
argue that when many preservice teachers enter a context presumably different than their own
upbringing, they are not aware of challenges their students may face. This cultural mismatch that
108

White preservice teachers face is something that needs to be addressed. Howard and Milner
(2014), contend that we much hold space for preservice teachers to address their biases that have
the potential to affect their teaching practice. It is important that preservice teachers can widen
their lens and gain a holistic understanding of their school and community. I recommend, that
preservice teachers are required to attend at least one community event outside of their K–5
student teaching classroom while enrolled in their university-based teacher preparation program.
Example events are a community play, sporting game, or a band/orchestra concert. This type of
engagement is important because these extracurricular activities allow the novice teacher to
interact with other stakeholders around their school’s community. It is very easy for a new
teacher to become overwhelmed and only allot time for tasks needed within their classroom.
While their classroom is a macrocosm within the larger school community, taking an afternoon
or evening to step outside of the day-to-day can assist the novice teacher in better understanding
the community in which they are serving.
Future Research
When I conducted my study, there were components that limited and delimited my study.
In Chapter 3, I shared these limitations in detail. To briefly recap, all participants needed to
identify as White. The participants I interviewed needed to be in their 1st or 2nd year of teaching
at a K–5 school in an urban, low-income community. I used the parameters of Milner’s (2012)
work to define urban and ultimately decided to use their definition of urban intensive when
defining the term in my study. I used public data to identify K–5 schools that were deemed Title
I by the state of California to classify the schools as low-income for my study. I had a very
challenging time recruiting teachers for my study. This came as a surprise as the statistics show
that a majority of K–5 teachers identify as White. My committee aided me in narrowing my
109

study as we wanted to ensure the new teachers could differentiate between what they learned
during their teacher preparation program and what they learned as their school site as a teacher.
Yet, many shared they had a foggy memory of what was taught during their program.
Additionally, I delimited my study to those who teaching in the state of California as every state
has their own governing bodies overseeing teacher credentialing and curriculum standards. I had
a small sample size of seven, and while the stories and conversations I held were valuable,
expanding the characteristics I was looking for in my participants may yield a larger sample size
that would ultimately result in a more robust study.
I made the intentional decision to obtain my data with my participants in semi-structured
interviews. I suggest that future research incorporates observations to help corroborate what the
participants are saying and what the participant is doing in the K–5 classroom. The triangulation
of data will strengthening future research. The component of observations along with semi-
structures interview does require more time. If a researcher has the luxury of time, I contend that
including observations will strengthen the findings the researcher is making about teachers’
practices.
Looking ahead to future research, I hope this study is built upon. I would love to see my
study scaled to a larger sample size. I am sure with a larger samples size nuances would be
picked up, evidence with be stronger, and connections would be strengthened. I am also
interested in a study based off mentor teachers rooted in the materials I obtained in my study.
The mentor teacher is a critical stakeholder of teacher preparation programs. I am interested in
how the mentor teacher influences the practice of preservice teachers. As it stands, my
participants shared there is minimal bridging between the university and the student teaching
component of teacher preparation program. As some of my participants shared, they relied
110

heavily on their mentor teacher to guide them during the practical portion of their university-
based teacher preparation program. It is important that future research examines the influence a
mentor teacher plays within university-based teacher preparation programs as it was evident in
the conversations I held that the mentor teacher wields more power and influence than intended.
Another area of future research I am interested in is the correlation between the school a
preservice teacher is placed at for student teaching and where those who matriculate through a
university-based teacher preparation program ultimately decide to teach upon graduation.
Through my conversations, many of my participants are the teacher of record at the school they
participated in their student teaching in. Meaning, those K–5 schools who have connections with
university-based teacher preparation programs may have an advantage when recruiting new
teachers. This topic is worthy of future research as the United States is facing a teaching
shortage. Those who are trained through a university-based teacher preparation program may be
intentionally or unintentionally funneled into certain schools based of their student teaching
placement dictated by their teacher preparation program. While I cannot say for certainty that
this correlation exists, I would encourage future researchers to investigate this topic as a potential
area of research.
Conclusion
Engaging in this study afforded me the opportunity to explore a topic of interest
important to me. Speaking with individuals who matriculated through a university-based teacher
preparation program, similar to my own experience, was insightful and exposed components of
teacher preparation programs I was curious about. Living in urban intensive environments my
entire life, my curiosity grew when I was exposed to theories, literature, and conversations with
viewpoints different than the ones that had been instilled in me my entire life. Having access and
111

the privilege to learn about different worldviews is not by chance. I am fortunate for the spaces I
get to listen, engage, and lead. While crafting my study, I was drawn to the K–5 age group as
that is where my career started, as a fourth grade teacher in a Title I school in Miami-Dade
County. The shock I experienced stepping into my student teaching placement was one I did not
have the vocabulary to describe as a 21-year-old matriculating through my university-based
teacher preparation. Continuing my journey as a teacher, working on federal research grants, and
institutions of higher education, I often think back on my student teaching experience in
bewilderment. How was I so underprepared for the realities of the classroom millions of children
across the United States face every day? As I interviewed my participants, I knew I held a
position of power as the researcher, but tried to create a space where they felt comfortable to
share their truth when it came to matriculating through a university-based teacher preparation
program as a White person working in an urban, low-income, community of color. While some
opened up more than others, I am grateful for all their stories, their commitment to their students,
and their drive to provide a quality education for all their students.
As I look ahead, I hope the research I conducted will inspire future research to deepen
and strengthen my findings. There is certainly room for improvement in university-based teacher
preparation programs, but it is important that we acknowledge how much they have grown since
their inception. There are teacher preparation programs that are effective and changing the
landscape of teacher education. As the racial, ethnic, and financial landscape of the United States
shifts, teacher preparation programs must continue to adapt. The fight for equity within
education should be a priority for university-based teacher preparation programs as they train the
workforce that will ultimately have a hand in shaping future generations. All children deserve a
112

quality education, and I hope my research is a small datapoint in the journey of improving
education for all.

113

References
Achinstein, B., & Athanases, S. Z. (2005). Focusing new teachers on diversity and equity:
Toward a knowledge base for mentors. Teaching and teacher education, 21(7), 843-862.
Amatea, E. S., Cholewa, B., & Mixon, K. A. (2012). Influencing preservice teachers’ attitudes
about working with low-income and/or ethnic minority families. Urban Education, 47(4),
801-834.
Banks, J. A. (1993). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. Multicultural education:
Issues and perspectives, 2, 195–214.
Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
Bartolome, L. I. (2009). Introduction: Beyond the fog of ideology. Counterpoints, IX-XXIX.
Berlak, H. (2001). Race and the achievement gap. Rethinking Schools 15(4).
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). New York: Springer
Cator, K., Schneider, C., & Vander Ark, T. (2014). Preparing teachers for deeper learning.
Digital Promise.
Chavez, A. F., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1999). Racial and ethnic identity and development. New
directions for adult and continuing education, 84, 39–47.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of teacher Education, 44(4), 263-272.
114

Cochran-Smith, M., Baker, M., Burton, S., Chang, W. C., Cummings Carney, M., Fernández, M.
B., & Sánchez, J. G. (2017). The accountability era in US teacher education: Looking
back, looking forward. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5), 572–588.
Cohen, A. M. & Kisker, C. B. (2010). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence
and growth of the contemporary system (2
nd
Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harvard University. (2017). Charles William Eliot.
Creasey, G., Mays, J., Lee, R., & D’Santiago, V. (2016). A survey to assess barriers to urban
teaching careers. Urban Education, 51(7), 748–769.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design issues, 15(2), 5–10.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Strengthening clinical preparation: The holy grail of teacher
education. Peabody Journal of Education, 89(4), 547–561.
DeAngelis, L. (2021). Enabling the Exploration of Disorienting Dilemma in the Classroom.
Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022057421991865
Edwards, M. C., & Briers, G. E. (1998). Assessing the Inservice Needs of Entry-Phase
Agriculture Teachers in Texas: A Discrepancy Model versus Direct Assessment.
Edwards, A., & Collison, J. (1995). What do teacher mentors tell student teachers about pupil
learning in infant schools? Teachers and Teaching, 1(2), 265–279.
Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. (2013). Evaluation of Teacher
Preparation Programs: Purposes, Methods, and Policy Options. National Academy of
Education.
Forte, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2014). Teacher collaboration and professional development in the
workplace: A study of Portuguese teachers. European journal of teacher
education, 37(1), 91–105.
115

Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Burns, J. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ
across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in
Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 304–317.
Ganser, T. (1995). A Road Map for Designing Quality Mentoring Programs for Beginning
Teachers.Garrett, H. J., & Segall, A. (2013). (Re)Considerations of ignorance and
resistance in teacher education, Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 294–304.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.
Goldhaber, D. (2019). Evidence-Based Teacher Preparation: Policy Context and What We
Know. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(2), 90–101.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118800712
Gorski, P. C. (2008). Good intentions are not enough: A decolonizing intercultural
education. Intercultural education, 19(6), 515-525.Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995).
Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching &
Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49.
Hawley, W. D. (1986). Toward a comprehensive strategy for addressing the teacher
shortage. The Phi Delta Kappan, 67(10), 712–718.
Heckman, P. E., Montera, V. L. (2009). School reform: The flat worm in a flat world: From
entropy to renewal through indigenous invention. Teachers College Record, 111(5),
1328–1351.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.
116

Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In Handbook of
urban education (pp. 195–211). Routledge.
Jaspers, W. M., Meijer, P. C., Prins, F., & Wubbels, T. (2014). Mentor teachers: Their perceived
possibilities and challenges as mentor and teacher. Teaching and teacher education, 44,
106–116.
Jones-Fosu, S. (2021). Putting Equity to Work: A Qualitative Case Study Exploring Teacher
Candidates Perceptions on Equity and Social Justice Pedagogy in a Teacher Preparation
Program (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte).
Katz, M. S. (1976). A History of Compulsory Education Laws. Fastback Series, No. 75.
Bicentennial Series.
Kasl, E., & Elias, D. (2000). Creating new habits of mind in small groups. Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress, 229–252.
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Kim, M. M., Andrews, R. L., & Carr, D. L. (2004). Traditional versus Integrated Preservice
Teacher Education Curriculum: A Case Study. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(4),
341–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487104266778
Ladson-Billings, G. (2016). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Lee, R. E., Eckrich, L. L., Lackey, C., & Showalter, B. D. (2010). Pre-service teacher pathways
to urban teaching: A partnership model for nurturing community-based urban teacher
preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 101–122.
117

Litzelman, D. K., & Cottingham, A. H. (2007). The new formal competency-based curriculum
and informal curriculum at Indiana University School of Medicine: overview and five-
year analysis. Academic Medicine, 82(4), 410–421.
May, J. J., & Sanders, E. T. (2013). Beyond Standardized Test Scores: An Examination of
Leadership and Climate as Leading Indicators of Future Success in the Transformation of
Turnaround Schools. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 9, 42-54.
McCarthy, M. D. (2018). Critically teaching criticality? Modeling social and pedagogical inquiry
with literary texts. Studying Teacher Education, 14(2), 174–193.
McGinnis, J. R., & Parker, C. (1999). Teacher Candidates' Attitudes and Beliefs of Subject
Matter and Pedagogy Measured throughout Their Reform-Based Mathematics and
Science Teacher Preparation Program.
Melillo, G. (2022). United States schools remain segregated even as student population grows
more diverse. The Hill.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Chapter 5. Transformative learning. In Adult learning:
Linking theory and practice (pp. 82–103). John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Chapter 6. Experience and learning. In Adult learning:
Linking theory and practice (pp. 104–126). John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering transformative adult learning. In Transformative dimensions of
adult learning, (pp. 196–226). Jossey-Bass.
118

Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208.
Milner IV, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of urban education. Routledge.
Milner IV, H. R., Murray, I. E., Farinde, A. A., & Delale-O’Connor, L. (2015). Outside of school
matters: What we need to know in urban environments. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 48(4), 529–548.
Mulenga, I. M. (2015). Curriculum Design in Contemporary Teacher Education: What Makes
Job Analysis a Vital Preliminary Ingredient?
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Racial/Ethnic Enrollment in Public
Schools. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cge.
National Council on Teacher Quality (2013). A review of the nation’s teacher preparation
programs. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Prep_Review_executive_summary.
Nguyen, H. (2018). Teacher preparation programs in the United States. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 14(3), 76–92.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Chapter 4. Policy and law: Rules that
schools live by. In Teaching to change the world (5
th
ed.). (pp. 113–146). Routledge.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yO0fxVsITuYvFcmW-
KIQwD2sTaklSb3E/view?usp=sharing
Picower, B. (2009) The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: how White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
119

Picower, B., and Kohli, R. (2017). Confronting racism in teacher education: Counternarratives
of critical practice. Routledge.
Quinn, D. M., & Stewart, A. M. (2019). Examining the racial attitudes of white pre-K–12
educators. The Elementary School Journal, 120(2), 272–299.
Schneider, J. (2018). Marching forward, marching in circles: A history of problems and
dilemmas in teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 330–340.
Roberts, N. (2013). Disorienting dilemmas: Their effects on learners, impact on performance,
and implications for adult educators.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching?. Teaching and teacher
education, 28(8), 1091–1106.
Raymond, R. D., Sharp, L. A., & Piper, R. (2020). Developing Instructional Capacity and
Competence among Preservice Teachers: Voices of Literacy Teacher
Educators. Excellence in Education Journal, 9(2), 29–54.
Rist, R. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling prophecy in
ghetto education. Harvard educational review, 40(3), 411–451.
Santrock, J. W. (2002). Life-span development.
Schneider, J. (2018). Marching forward, marching in circles: A history of problems and
dilemmas in teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(4), 330–340.
Schneider, M. K. (2015). Common Core dilemma—Who owns our schools? Teachers College
Press.Serdenciuc, N. L. (2013). Competency-based education–Implications on teachers’
training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 754–758.
120

Siegel-Hawley, G. (2013). Educational gerrymandering? Race and attendance boundaries in a
demographically changing suburb. Harvard Educational Review, 83(4), 580–612.
Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Review, 57, 1–22.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
educational review, 57(1), 1–23.
Shulman, L. S. (2015). PCK: Its genesis and exodus. In Re-examining pedagogical content
knowledge in science education (pp. 13–23). Routledge.
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre-K
through 12 education. Advances in Educational Administration (Vol. 11). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)0000011005
Soslau, E., & Raths, J. (2017). Problems in student teaching. Journal of Teaching and
Learning, 11(1).
Stephan, W. G. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v.
Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin, 85(2), 217.
Taylor, K. (2000). Chapter 6. Teaching with developmental intention. In Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 151–180). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory Into Practice,
42(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203
U.S. Department of Education. (1987). What’s happening in teacher testing? An analysis of state
teacher testing practices. Government Printing Office.
121

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). The condition of education, 1999. Government Printing
Office.
Valencia, R. R. (Ed.). (2012). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and
practice. RoutledgeFalmer.
Valencia, R. R., & Solorzano, D. G. (1997). Contemporary deficit thinking. In R. Valencia (Ed.),
The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice (pp. 160–210).
RoutledgeFalmer.
Valenzuela, A. (2010). Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State
University of New York Press.
Vasquez- Heilig, J., & Jez, S. J. (2010). Teach for America: A review of the evidence.
Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: an international review of the
literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and teacher
education, 27(2), 252–258.
Wergin, J. F. (2019). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, S. M. (2014). Innovation and the evolving system of US teacher preparation. Theory into
practice, 53(3), 183–195.
Yendol-Hoppey, D., Jacobs, J., & Dana, N. F. (2009). Critical concepts of mentoring in an urban
context. The New Educator, 5, 25–44.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). The construct of critical reflection:
Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal of Teacher
Education, 51(1), 39–49.
122

Zeichner, K. (2012). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.001

123

Appendix A: Research Protocol
The purpose of including the research protocol is to provide supplemental materials to the
reader of the exact prompts that were used in order to obtain information from the seven
participants of the study. Through conversation, participants shared information that assisted in
shaping the findings and recommendations.
Introduction
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about an hour, does that still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer
any questions you might have about participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am
conducting a study on new teachers’ perceptions of their teacher preparation programs. I am
particularly interested in understanding White teachers’ perceptions of how their teacher
preparation program prepared them to teach in urban, low-income communities. I am
interviewing multiple teachers to learn more about this.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments
on how you are performing as a teacher. I want to understand your perspectives and experiences.
As I mentioned in the Study Information Sheet, this interview is also confidential. What that
means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team in
connection to the perspective you provide. I will not share them with other teachers, your
principal, or the district.
124

The data for this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some
of what you say as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a
pseudonym to protect your confidentiality and will try my best to de-identify any of the data I
gather from you. I am happy to provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
As stated in the Study Information Sheet I shared with you, I will keep the data in a
password protected computer and all data will be retained for study record keeping purposes per
USC’s policy.
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? I have brought a
recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me. The recording
is solely for my purposes to best capture your perspectives and will not be shared with anyone
outside the research team. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
Setting the Stage
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions.
1. First, could you tell me about your background in education?
• How did you become interested in teaching?
• How long have you worked as a teacher?
• What roles or positions have you held?
Heart of the Interview
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about your larger school environment.
2. Tell me about the school you currently teach at?
• Describe the school’s students where you currently teach.
• Describe your students’ cultures.
• Tell me about your school’s teachers where you currently teach.
125

• Tell me about your school’s leadership where you currently teach.
3. What are some strengths of the school’s leadership? What are some areas of
improvement of the school’s leadership?
4. What are things you love about your current school?
5. What are things you wish were different about your current school?
6. Compare your school’s environment to the environment of the elementary schools
you attended when you were a student?
• Please describe similarities.
• Please describe differences.
7. Some people would say working in an urban, low-income school is not as challenging
as it’s made out to be. What are your thoughts about this perspective?
Now, I’d like to ask you about your teacher preparation program.
8. Tell me about your teacher preparation program.
• Which school?
• What state is it located in?
• How long was the program?
• What was the focus of the school? (i.e., social justice)
9. Describe the curriculum you experienced in the teacher preparation program.
• What did they teach you about subject matter? (probe for specific examples)
• What did they teach you about pedagogy? (probe for specific examples)
• What reflection practices did you engage in, if at all? (probe for specific
examples to help ascertain critical or not)
126

10. How did your teacher preparation program introduce culturally relevant or responsive
teaching, if at all?
11. What did you learn about CRP during your teacher preparation program, if anything?
12. Tell me how your teacher preparation program discussed student culture. Please
provide a specific example.
13. How does what you learned about student culture inform your teaching practices
today, if at all?
Now we are going to chat about your student teaching.
14. Please describe your student teaching placement. Share how you were involved in
this process, if at all.
15. Compare the school environment you are currently teaching in with the school in
which you did your student teaching?
• Please describe similarities? (probe for specific examples)
• Please describe differences? (probe for specific examples)
16. How did your teacher preparation program support you at your student teaching site,
if at all?
• What was the role of the university when you were student teaching, if
anything?
• (Ask if they had a role) How frequently did someone from the university
observe your teaching?
• (Ask only if they had a role) What was the nature of their visits? (probe for
specific things they did and what they learned from those visits)
17. Please describe your relationship with your mentor teacher?
127

• What are some things they did well as a mentor teacher?
• What are some things they did not do well as a mentor teacher?
• If you could create the ideal mentor teacher, what qualities would that
individual have? (probe for preparation to teach in urban, low income school).
Now I would like to ask you about your current teaching practice.
18. What drew you to teaching in this school? Describe your future plans as it relates to
the kind of school you wish to be teaching in.
19. Please describe the curriculum you are currently using.
• What are your district’s policies on curriculum?
• How was this curriculum chosen?
• When implementing the curriculum, what are your school site’s expectations?
20. How did your teacher preparation program prepare you to deliver curriculum to your
students, if at all?
21. Some people say teachers should follow the curriculum given to them very closely.
What are your thoughts on that?
22. Please describe your current approach to instruction.
• How do you engage your students?
• What role does your students’ culture play in how you teach them, if at all?
23. How does your instruction demonstrate high expectations, if at all? (probe for
examples)
24. How does your instruction support the development of students’ cultural competence,
if at all? (probe for examples)
128

25. How do you engage your students in social and political issues, if at all? (probe for
examples)
26. Please define what culturally relevant teaching means to you.
• Describe any culturally relevant teaching practices you engage in.
• Has your cultural competence as it relates to teaching changed over time?
Closing Questions
27. What else would you like to add about your teacher preparation program today that I
might not have covered, if anything?
28. What other insights would you like to share about how your teacher preparation
program prepared (or didn’t prepare) you to teach in your current school site that I
didn’t ask about, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for you sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate
your time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is really helpful for my
study. If I find myself with a follow-up question, I am wondering if I might be able to contact
you, and if so, if email is okay. Again, thank you for participating in my study. As a thank you,
please accept this small token of my appreciation.
Post interview summary and reflection
[ADD shortly after each interview]

Abstract (if available)

Abstract University-based teacher preparation programs are a pipeline responsible for training preservice teachers prior to entering the workforce. In this study, university based-teacher preparation programs were examined through the eyes of seven new White teachers to explore how they trained White teachers to work in urban, low-income communities of color. Through qualitative semi-structured interviews, new teachers recounted their experiences in their teacher preparation program to prepare them to work in K–5 settings presumably different than their own. Topics surrounding critical reflection, curriculum, instruction, and student teaching were explored as first and second year teachers shared their experiences with their university-based teacher preparation program. The study found discord regarding curriculum and instruction, a disconnect between the university-based support and student teaching components, and the intentional and unintentional power the mentor teacher holds with preservice teachers. Teacher preparation programs have made tremendous progress since their inception, but there remains work to prepare White teachers to teach in urban settings. This study will acknowledge the growth and make recommendations for the future.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

PDF

Examining how teacher pre-service/credential programs prepare teachers to teach BIPOC students

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

Stop, dismantle and reimagine teacher preparation programs: an examination of racial justice practices of beginning preservice teachers…

PDF

Exploring three outcomes of online teacher preparation: teaching for social justice, critical reflection, and voluntary collaboration

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Urban teacher residencies and their impact on teacher retention in high-needs school settings

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

The lived experiences of Latino Male Elementary School Teachers

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Universal design for learning in teacher preparation: preparing for a classroom of diverse learners

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Preservice teachers' understanding's of how to teach literacy

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

Asset Metadata

Creator Darmali, Callah (author)

Core Title How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/12/2023

Defense Date 09/12/2023

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Teacher education,teacher preparation,university,Urban,White

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Chapman, Lindsey (committee member), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member)

Creator Email callah.darmali@gmail.com,darmali@rosssier.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113340412

Unique identifier UC113340412

Identifier etd-DarmaliCal-12376.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-DarmaliCal-12376.pdf

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Darmali, Callah

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230913-usctheses-batch-1097 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu