University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

(USC Thesis Other)

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE
1

Transformative Justice in California’s Public Schools:
Decreasing the Education Debt Owed to California’s Latino Students through Collaboratively-
Developed Professional Learning for Secondary Teachers
by
Jessica Rachelle Kachaenchai

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

May 2019

2019 Jessica Kachaenchai
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 2

Acknowledgements
This work is dear to me because it is so intrinsically tied to the work I am so passionate
about: ensuring our teachers are encouraged and supported to offer the most effective instruction
to students who truly and deeply deserve our very best. I am so grateful to my district for
allowing me to do the work here, with our people, to see what impact we can truly have on our
students.
I offer sincere gratitude to our Chaffey Joint Union High School District Board of
Trustees: Art Bustamonte, Shari Megaw, Sue Ovitt, John Rhinehart, Gil Zendejas, and (recently
retired) Charles Uhalley. Their belief in me despite my age and length of administrative
experience inspired me to glean every last morsel of learning I could draw out of this program
and this process.
I offer my most profound thanks to my superintendent and fellow Trojan, Dr. Mat
Holton, who believed in me enough to allow me to pursue this work with the same focus and
passion I hope he sees me demonstrate in everything I do. I will forever seek to make you proud
of the faith you have shown in me, sir. Fight on!
Thank you to the members of our Cabinet, both pre and post my embarking upon this
project: Tim Ward, Lynne Ditfurth, Rick Wiersma, Dr. Kern Oduro, Jim Cronin, Dr. Phil
Schuler, whose help with edits and data I am eternally grateful for, Dr. Chris Hollister, my
carpool buddy whose friendship helped me through this endeavor, and Dr. Virginia Kelsen, my
friend, mentor, editor, committee member, and voice of reason and focus throughout my career
and this entire process.
I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Briana Hinga, who supported me and
inspired us to remain focused on the fundamental importance of supporting our students, and
who allowed me to use my voice throughout this study. I am so grateful for this chance to learn
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 3

from her both within the dissertation process and throughout the courses of the program – she
holds us all accountable to make sure the work we embark upon is meaningful and purposeful
and driven by the needs of our most underserved students.
Surviving this program would not have been possible without the emotional support from
my sisters, my father, my brother-in-law, and from my mother, who has always supported me as
a fellow mother trying to pursue her academic and professional dreams. While I sat through
classes, work, and this study, she watched my children with the love and patience only a
daughter could ask for. And, of course, no academic pursuit would be complete without a thank
you to my father, who inspired me to become a teacher, who inspires me with his profound
capacity to be an educator to generations of students, and who is always willing to read his
daughter’s lengthy and academic papers.
Finally, thank you to my sons who spent a lot of time without me throughout this
program, but who still showed up with hugs and support when I needed them, and who have
already forgiven me for the time I spent away. Finally, I offer up my sincerest love, gratitude and
appreciation to my husband who kept our home running, who kept our children fed and dressed,
who chauffeured them to hockey while I attended classes, who kept them busy and loved while I
wrote and wrote, and who navigated the myriad of other trials that arose from raising two young
boys, all so I could pursue a dream I didn’t believe was in my future -- thank you. I am forever
grateful for the love you showed us and the way you took care of us all. Thank you.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 4

Table of Contents
List of Tables 7
Abstract 8
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 9
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 9
Purpose of the Study 12
Research Questions 14
Delimitations of the Study 14
Limitations of the Study 14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 16
Introduction and Overview 16
An “Education Debt” in California 17
Contributing Factors to the Education Debt in California 20
Segregated Schools Based Upon Socio-Economic Factors 20
Lack of Access to Educational Attainment 21
Cultural Disparities between Teachers and Students 22
Lack of Teacher Preparation to Meet the Needs of California’s
Diverse Student Population
23
How Teacher Retention in California Contributes to the Education
Debt
24
Why Teacher Retention is a Problem/Benefits to Teacher Retention 25
Factors Which Contribute to Teacher Retention, Attrition and
Motivation for Ongoing Learning
26
Linking Teacher Preparation and Professional Learning to Student Outcomes 28
Problems with Systems of Professional Learning for Teachers 29
Defining Effective Professional Learning 30
California Policy Related to Teacher Retention and Professional
Learning
33
California’s Quality Professional Learning Standards 33
Theoretical Framework 39
Historical Framing of Topic
Figure 1 43

Chapter Three: Methodology 44
Positionality

44
Methodology 48
Context 51
Participants 54
Data Collection and Instrument Protocols 56
Instruments. 56
Process. 59
Data Analysis 61
Limitations and Delimitations 62
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 5

Delimitations. 62
Limitations. 62
Credibility and Trustworthiness 63
Ethical Considerations 66

Chapter Four: Presentation of Data and Findings 68
Introduction 68
Participants 70
Teacher One 71
Teacher Two 72
Teacher Three 73
Teacher Four 73
Teacher Five 74
Brant 75
John 75
Dave 75
Breanna 76
Larry 76
Findings 76
Findings for Research Question 1: Implementing the Quality Professional
Learning Standards
76
QPLS 1 and 3: The Use of Data for Reflection and Building Equity 77
Student and Teacher Data 77
Program Effectiveness Data 79
QPLS 2: A Focus on Content and Pedagogy 83
QPLS 3 and 4: Designing and Structuring the Learning through
Collaboration and Shared Accountability
84
QPLS 5: Resources 89
QPLS 6: Alignment and Coherence 91
Structuring Opportunities for Reflection 92
Findings for Research Question 2: The Forming of Teachers’ Belief Systems 94
Participants’ Prior Experience with Professional Learning
Opportunities
94
Extent of Ongoing Professional Learning. 94
Characteristics of Impactful Professional Learning. 94
Characteristic #1: Interactive. 95
Characteristic #2: Relevant. 95
Characteristic #3: Change in Student Outcomes. 95
Teacher Belief Systems 96
Teachers’ Belief Systems Regarding Why Students Struggle: Student
Community and System-Based Factors
96
Student Community Factors. 97
Economic Status. 97
Internal System-Based Factors. 98
District-Wide Emphasis on Performance Metrics. 98
Counselors. 101
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 6

Teachers’ Expectations of Learning. 101
Teachers’ Experiences in Education . 102
Extra-Curricular Demands on Teachers’ Time. 102
Grade Distributions and Shifts in Practice 104
Brant. 104
John. 104
Dave. 104
Breanna. 105
Larry. 105
Bi-Directionality of Learning and Relationship Building 107
Overall Shifts in Belief Systems 110
Final Reflections by the Researcher

113
Chapter Five: Discussion 118
Summary 118
Findings 119
Recommendations for Practice 122
Systems and Policies to Promote Teacher Retention and Growth 122
Future Research 125
Conclusions 126

Works Cited 128

Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent Letter 136
Appendix B: Initial Teacher Survey Protocol 140
Appendix C: End of Day 1 Feedback Survey Protocol 142
Appendix D: End of Day 2 Feedback Survey Protocol 142
Appendix E: End of Day 3 Feedback Survey Protocol 142
Appendix F: Journal Responses Protocol 144
Appendix G: Classroom Observation Protocol 145
Appendix H: Lesson Feedback Aligned with Observation Protocol 146
Appendix I: Program Assessment Protocol 147
Appendix J: Post-Program Teacher Survey Protocol 148

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 7

List of Tables
Table 1 Data Collection Instruments and Timing of Distribution 58
Table 2: Teacher Characteristics 75
Table 3: Key Data from Program Effectiveness Survey 82
Table 4: Grade Distribution of Ds and Fs for 2017-2018 and 2018-19 School Years 106

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 8

Abstract
This study used Brown’s emergent strategy theory, Fullan’s theory of educational change and the
California Superintendent’s Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLS) as the theoretical
framework for understanding how professional learning could be shaped in such a way as to
result in increased opportunities afforded to English Learner students through the classroom
practices provided by their teachers. The purpose of this study was to explore how districts could
strategically implement systems of professional learning which aligned with the Quality
Professional Learning Standards (QPLS) and to examine how collaboratively-developed systems
of professional learning could impact teachers’ belief systems about their own capacity to
positively influence student outcomes. The study involved five US history teachers whose
student population was predominantly comprised of Latino students and English Learners.
Findings for the study were collected through a variety of qualitative surveys and observations,
and through collaborative conversations which occurred throughout the program. Findings for
this study indicate that the QPLSs are difficult to implement with fidelity as limited through a
myriad of variables. These variables also impeded the capacity of professional learning programs
to sufficiently shift teachers’ beliefs about their own practice, including a lack of sufficient time
to collaborate, to critically examine their collective worldviews, and to develop and implement
instructional practices which best meet their students’ needs. This study concludes that funding
and resources are not enough to truly impact teachers’ belief systems. Districts and schools must
find creative ways of scheduling teacher learning and teaching so that sufficient time can be
allocated to develop the deep and meaningful relationships, the collaborative and shared
accountability, and the pedagogical experimentation necessary to shift the opportunities provided
to students to truly support their learning and outcomes.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 9

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Hispanic or Latino students represent the largest ethnic group in California’s public
schools (California Department of Education, 2017), with 95% of these students having been
born and raised in the United States (The Education Trust-West, 2017). These students continue
to be underserved by California’s public-school system at large, accruing what Ladson-Billings
(2006) defines as an “education debt”. In the 2014-2015 school year, Latinos constituted 53.97%
of California’s overall school population (California Department of Education), and yet only
34.6% of graduating Latino seniors met the University of California/California State University
(UC/CSU) minimum requirements (UC High School Articulation Unit, 2019) that would enable
them to apply to one of the California State or University of California campuses (California
Department of Education, 2015). Furthermore, the United States Census Bureau reported that in
2015, only 61.6% of Latino citizens in California possessed a high school diploma or higher, and
only 11.9% possessed a Bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to the overall population where
82.2% achieved a high school diploma or higher, and 30.1% achieved a Bachelor’s degree or
higher (United States Census Bureau, 2015). While the educational attainment for Latinos has
improved in California in the past decade, these statistics indicate that not enough has been done
to truly impact the overall population of California’s Latino youth (The Education Trust-West,
2017).
Statement of the Problem
This education debt can be attributed to a number of factors: Latinos attend the most
segregated schools in the country; there are vast cultural discrepancies between the dominant
teaching force and the student population; a lack of culturally relevant curriculum and
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 10

instructional practices in the classroom play a role in the ongoing struggle to support Latino
students; and for California, specifically, there is a lack of adequate professional training to
support teachers to meet the needs of diverse students (Gandara & Aldana, 2014; Goldenberg,
2014; Orfield & Ee, 2014; Portes & Salas, 2007; Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012). The
contrast between the cultural and educational experiences of the students and those of their
teachers illuminates a prevailing need to ensure teachers are adequately informed throughout
their teaching careers about the academic needs of their students (Goldenberg, 2014). This
problem is compounded through teacher attrition rates in California, particularly in schools that
serve predominantly Latino or socio-economically disadvantaged students (Task Force on
Educator Excellence, 2012).
This disparity in educational outcomes for students is, in large part, addressed through
ensuring that the California teachers who support learning in the classroom are sufficiently
prepared to meet the needs of their students (Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012). Teacher
training, however, including teacher preparation and ongoing professional learning, is
inconsistent, lacks relevance, and is difficult to measure in regard to quality and impact (Darling-
Hammond, Hyler, Gardner, & Espinoza, 2017; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon, & Firman, 2002;
Fullan, 2007).
In 2015, funding for professional development in California was provided through the
Educator Effectiveness Grant (EEG) at the rate of $1,466 per certificated full-time educator
(FTE), for a total of $490 million dollars, allocated by Local Education Agencies to promote
educator quality and effectiveness for three years (California Department of Education). Minimal
guidance was provided to schools and districts regarding the type of effective professional
learning that best supports students’ needs (California Department of Education). In 2015,
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 11

California also released the Quality Professional Learning Standards, but there was no
expectation that they be used to guide districts in the use of the EEG funds. This reveals a lack of
accountability and guidance for districts when it comes to utilizing funding equitably to ensure it
is directed toward effective programs of professional learning, particularly as they might support
teachers of Latino students, and the need to effectively measure the impact of professional
learning on teachers’ instructional practice as it pertains a) to their perceptions and beliefs of
student capacity and b) to their own self-efficacy to provide meaningful and engaging curriculum
that supports the learning of all students, especially those whose results indicate an opportunity
gap.
This research addresses the problem of fostering and promoting teacher growth in order
to provide educational learning environments which promote and support Latino students,
particularly English learner students, and thus attempt to remunerate on the education debt. This
problem is important to address because student academic outcomes in California reflect grave
disparities between student populations. In not meeting the needs of students in high school,
schools reduce the potential for students to enter and complete their post-secondary academic
and career choices successfully, thereby limiting their economic mobility (Zaback, Carlson, &
Crellin, 2012), further perpetuating a generational cycle of economic hardship and lack of access
to educational resources.
At the heart of academic success for students are the conditions in which they are
provided opportunities to learn in their schooling communities, most significantly in their
classrooms and by their teachers. In schools that have proven most successful for Latino
students, there is shared accountability and responsibility for improving student opportunities;
the schools involve the teachers in identifying solutions to students’ needs and then provide the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 12

training they need to respond to those needs (Waits, Campbell, Gau, Rex & Hess, 2006).
Focusing on the capacity of the teacher to build these environments means we have the
opportunity to build spaces for students to learn where they feel supported, honored, and
encouraged to grow and develop in the most engaging and compassionate ways.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to examine how collaboratively developed programs of
professional learning, shaped by the recommendations outlined in the Quality Professional
Learning Standards, can impact United States history teachers’ belief systems about teaching and
learning, particularly for Latino students in an urban high school whose student population is
predominantly Latino and designated socio-economically disadvantaged. The study will provide
teachers with a myriad of data points, including student input, as viewed through a variety of
angles, so that they may collaboratively analyze the root causes of student success, paying
specific attention to how the learning environments teachers establish and those of the systems in
place in the public-school setting contribute to student outcomes; teachers will reflect upon the
gaps in their own learning and seek out the programs of professional learning that they need to
be most effective in the learning opportunities and communities they create for students. This
study aims to partner with teachers to examine their own capacity to influence the pedagogical
and institutional variables which adversely impact student learning, valuing the teachers’ voices
in the direction and shaping of their learning, building a partnership between researcher and
participant that is dependent upon trust and understanding so that teachers feel empowered and
supported academically to make the shifts that their students deserve.
Theory of change, as defined by Tuck (2009), is the process by which the researcher
defines the “ethical stance of the project, [the] … data, what constitutes evidence, how a finding
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 13

is identified, and what is made public and kept private or sacred” (p. 413). This theory of change
has an overarching umbrella over the basic design facets of the study, focusing on what is
known, who is a member of the researching “we”, and what the intended purpose is of the
research (Tuck, 2009). For the purpose of this study, the “we” is defined as the researcher and
the teachers and administrators from Oak Tree High School, the pseudonym I have assigned to
the school to protect the confidentiality of the participants. I sought to partner with the teachers
to uncover what they saw as the flaws in their current system of professional learning as they
pertain to their own desire for growth and in improving student outcomes, and then to design a
system that more effectively encouraged and supported their learning so that they could more
effectively support their students. Too often professional learning is done to teachers, informed
by independent and unarticulated objectives from site, district, and policy leaders. Instead, the
goal of this study is to provide teachers with the resources they need to make informed decisions
about their own target areas of desired learning in order to best support student learning. This
study moves from move from what Tuck (2009) terms as “damage-centered research” (p. 409) to
a “desire-based framework” (p. 416), one which allows teachers to both articulate their
frustrations with past practices but which also fosters their own voices as they advocate for their
own paths of learning, so that they, too, might see students as individuals with a diverse and
valuable amount of social and academic capital that should be promoted and valued throughout
their educational experiences. The final member of the “we”, as Tuck (2009) defines it, is the
students’ voices themselves. At the heart of the study is the belief that students should be the
impetus for teacher improvement – when the commitment to students and the relationships that
can be fostered are at the core of a school’s culture, students’ identities, voices, and needs shape
the direction and goals of the learning community.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 14

The purpose of this research is to address the following questions and to identify
implications for local district policymakers looking to design professional learning programs
within their district.

Research Questions
Two research questions guide the study:
1. How are the sequence of recommendations outlined in California’s Quality Professional
Learning Standards practically implemented for US History teachers within an urban
high school whose student population is predominantly Hispanic?
2. How are US History teacher belief systems regarding students’ capacity/agency
shaped throughout a personalized, collaboratively-developed professional learning
program over the course of a semester?
Three theories shape the design and methodology of the study: a) Brown’s (2017)
Emergent Strategy for Change; b) Fullan’s (2007) theory of educational change; and c) the
California Department of Education’s Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLSs) (2015).
These frameworks will be further discussed in Chapter Two.

Delimitations of the Study
The delimitations of a study are the factors which limit the scope of a study; key
decisions on the part of the researcher to determine the components necessary for answering the
research questions most effectively (Simon & Goes, 2013). The delimitations of this study are in
the time frame, as this study took take place over the course of a semester, and in the
participants, as it included only five US History teachers.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 15

Limitations of the Study
The limitations of a study are the factors which impede the credibility and validity of a
study due to methodology and design decisions on the part of the researcher (Simon & Goes,
2013). This study will answer the research questions in a particular context, in this case Oak
Tree High School, with key demographics. The needs of these teachers would not necessarily
reflect the needs of other groups attempting to replicate the study. I was an active partner in the
study, making it incumbent upon me to be both facilitator and collaborator, and requiring me to
return to this sense of place within the research as the study progressed and in the subsequent
data analysis.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 16

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction and Overview
The California public school system continues to underserve its English learners (ELs),
and its Latino students in particular. While the initial data presented in Chapter One reflects the
2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years, one could look back upon decades of disproportionate
outcomes between Latino students and White students in the state, reflecting what Ladson-
Billings (2006) terms an historically-prompted “education debt”. This debt has accumulated in a
myriad of ways: California’s public schools which remain highly segregated; there is a lack of
access to educational attainment for Latino students; there are cultural disparities between the
teacher and student populations; there is a lack of adequate support for teachers to understand the
cultural capital of Latino students; and California is experiencing a teacher shortage and
problems with retention (Darling-Hammond, 2014; Gandara & Aldana, 2014; Goldenberg, 2014;
Orfield & Ee, 2014; Portes & Salas, 2007). Focusing on teacher preparation and ongoing
professional learning could trigger significant improvements for students (Darling-Hammond,
2014). However, there are a number of problems with systems of learning for teachers – they are
often inconsistent, disconnected from school reform efforts, focus only on short-term visions for
improvement, and do not motivate change at the meaningful and transformative level (Darling-
Hammond, Hyler, Gardner, & Espinoza, 2017; Desimone, et al., 2002; Fullan, 2007). California
developed a system of standards, the Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLSs)
(California Department of Education, 2015) to promote professional learning which can be used
by schools and districts to design and facilitate systems of learning for teachers, but there is an
absence of research surrounding how these standards are practically implemented and to what
degree they have an impact.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 17

These elements come together to inform the purpose and design of this research. The
literature presented will be viewed through Ladson-Billings’s (2006) lens of the education debt
and the factors in California which contribute to that debt. Brown’s “emergent strategy” theory
of change underlies the design and implementation of the study (Brown, 2017). Their
overlapping concepts of meaningful, transformative change will inform the use of the QPLS
(California Department of Education, 2015) as the framework for designing effective
professional learning. For too long, systems of professional learning happen to teachers,
undermining teachers’ capacity to understand and address the complexities and nuances of
educating children. Systems of policy and district-wide initiatives are viewed as metaphorical
hoops teachers must jump through to attain a goal rarely articulated without the understanding of
why and how these initiatives should be implemented (Darling-Hammond, Hyler, Gardner, &
Espinoza, 2017). Teachers are set up to take the blame when students fail but are rarely mentored
and trained sufficiently to warrant such culpability (Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012).
For our students, I believe that we can do better by reconstructing a system that sets students up
for success by increasing the capacity of their teachers to support student learning. The purpose
of this literature review is to analyze the ways in which the achievement debt has accumulated
for Latino students, including English Learners, and the responses that have occurred in
California from a policy and system level.
An “Education Debt” In California
Despite the shifting demographics of California schools toward a marked increase in Latino
learners that has occurred over the last 40 years, the California educational system continues to
see significant disparities in the academic success of its Latino population when compared to
White students, reflecting a debt that has continually accrued over time (Perez Huber, Velez, &
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 18

Solorzano, 2014). This debt, as Ladson-Billings (2006) has termed it, has accrued generationally
as families of color and of poverty consistently lack access to strong schools and resources that
support educational level attainment (Ladson-Billings, 2006). These cycles of poverty continue
as children continue to remain barred from access to these resources (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
For instance, in the 2014-2015 school year (the most recent year for which this data is available),
Latinos constituted 53.97% of California’s overall school population (California Department of
Education), and yet only 34.6% of graduating Latino seniors met UC/CSU requirements (UC
High School Articulation Unit, 2019) that would enable them to apply to one of the California
State or University of California campuses (California Department of Education).
This trend is seen throughout many levels of educational attainment for Latinos in California.
The United States Census Bureau reported that in 2017, only 61.6% of Latino citizens in
California possessed a high school diploma or higher, and only 11.9% possessed a Bachelor’s
degree or higher, compared to the overall population where 82.2% achieved a high school
diploma or higher, and 30.1% achieved a Bachelor’s degree or higher (United States Census
Bureau, 2017). In 2017, the overall dropout rate for Latino students was 10.8%, while the state’s
overall rate was 10.7%, and the dropout rate for white students, specifically, was only 9.6%
(California Department of Education).
In 2018, 49.9% of all of California’s students met or exceeded standard in English Language
Arts (ELA) and 38.6% of students met or exceeded standard in mathematics on the California
Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), the state-mandated assessment
which measures students’ college readiness in English and mathematics. However, only 7.49%
of English Learners (EL) met or exceeded standard in ELA and only 5.55% of ELs met or
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 19

exceeded standard in mathematics. Latino students met or exceeded standard at 46.62% in ELA
and 19.19% in mathematics (California Department of Education).
These results are not surprising when one looks at the suspension rate for Latino students – in
2017-18 they accounted for 55.6% of the suspensions for the year, despite the fact they represent
only 54.2% of the population (California Department of Education) while their White
counterparts represented 23.2% of the population but only represented 19.9% of the suspensions.
Prior year data shows a decrease in this disproportionality: In 2011-2012, Latinos accounted for
52.2% of the population, but 54.5% of the students suspended and 56.2% of the students
expelled; Whites, in contrast, accounted for 25.7% of the population but only 21.1% of the
students suspended in that year and 21.9% of the students expelled in that year (California
Department of Education). When compared with 2011-2012, 2017-2018 does not show that
much has improved for Latino students. In 2017-2018, Latinos accounted for 54.2% of the
population, but 55.3% of the suspensions, and 59.6% of the expulsions. Whites, however,
constituted 23% of the overall population, but only accounted for 19.9% of the suspensions and
17.1% of the expulsions. This means that the Latino population increased by 2% but increased
.6% in suspensions and strikingly, 3.4% in expulsions. Whites accounted for a 2.7% decrease in
the population but saw a 1.2% decrease in suspensions and a 4.8% decrease in expulsions.
Research illustrates the negative impact suspension and expulsion have on students’ abilities
to develop academically and eventually graduate (Arcia, 2006; Davis & Jordan, 1994; Gregory,
Skiba, & Noguera, 2010). The consequences for increased time away from school result in
students becoming, “less bonded to school, less invested in school rules and course work, and
subsequently, less motivated to achieve academic success” (Gregory et al., 2010, p. 60). What is
lesser known is to what extent teachers are aware of these trends in the data and if they have
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 20

been prepared to address these inequities in a purposeful way so as to reverse and improve the
outcomes for Latino students. This study examine the factors which contributed to this accrued
debt, how teachers respond when presented with data such as this in regards to their specific
population of students, and how that presentation might impact their belief systems about their
own capacity to improve the learning environment for students.
Contributing Factors to the Education Debt in California
Critics argue that students of color encounter obstacles in attaining academic success
through a myriad of systemic factors that are outside of their direct control: their forced
segregation through socioeconomic influences; their likely presence in the United States as
involuntary minorities; cultural discrepancies between the dominant teaching force and the
student population; the lack of culturally relevant curriculum and instructional practices in the
classroom play a role in the ongoing struggle to find success; and for California, specifically, a
high teacher turnover rate in schools mainly populated by socioeconomically disadvantaged
students and students of color contributes to these systemically inequitable outcomes (Gandara &
Aldana, 2014; Goldenberg, 2014; Orfield & Ee, 2014; Portes & Salas, 2007).
Segregated Schools Based Upon Socio-Economic Factors
Orfield and Ee (2014) argue that California’s schools remain largely segregated as
Latinos increasingly and predominantly attend school with only other Latino students, separated
from fellow student population groups, far more segregated than in any other state in the country.
Latino students are most likely to attend schools predominantly populated by students of color; a
typical Latino’s student’s school is, on average, populated by a 74% majority of Latino students
or other students of color (Orfield & Ee, 2014). As a result, schools in these communities are
more likely to receive less funding and a less-prepared teaching force (Gandara & Aldana, 2014),
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 21

which perpetuates a dearth of access to resources for students of color (Goldenberg, 2014).
Social and political factors which impact student success must be addressed in order to truly
decrease the education debt; institutionalized policies of segregation and maintenance of poverty
will continue to have profound impacts on students despite shifting practices that might be
employed in the classroom (Dover, 2009; Portes & Salas, 2007). In 2013, California adopted the
Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) aimed at addressing the inequities found in fiscal
resources attributed to schools predominantly populated by Latino and/or socio-economically
disadvantaged students (California Department of Education, 2013), but since it is relatively
new, there is as of yet little confirmed data about the impact that it might be having on student
outcomes. California also implemented the California School Dashboard to promote
accountability and transparency so that schools, parents, and communities could make informed
decisions about meeting the needs of the diverse student populations (California Department of
Education, 2018).
Lack of Access to Educational Attainment
While California has seen growth in the number of Latino students graduating from high
school increase by 50% since 2006, it has not yet made a significant impact on the overall
percentage of Latinos with a post-secondary degree (The Education Trust-West, 2017).
These indicators highlight the persistent need to continue to provide academic
environments that support and foster educational attainment for California’s Latino students.
This puts teachers at the forefront of that discussion: when teachers receive effective professional
learning geared towards addressing the specific needs of students then student outcomes improve
(Ancess, 2000; Goe, 2007; Guskey & Sparks, 2002). This issue is particularly important when
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 22

analyzed further through the lens of demographics not just of the student body but of the
teaching force.
Cultural Disparities between Teachers and Students
In California, the culturally and ethnically diverse student body is predominantly taught
by a White teaching force. In the 2016-2017 school year, Latino students accounted for 54% of
the population of California’s public schools, and White students accounted for 24% (California
Department of Education, 2017). In contrast, the ethnic distribution of public-school teachers in
California for 2016-2017 (the must current data available) was predominantly white and female:
63.3% of all teachers were White, and 73.3% were female; only 20.2% were Latino; and only
3.9% were African-American (California Department of Education). This demographic makeup
has been pretty consistent: In 2011-2012, 66.8% of all teachers were White, and 72.4% were
female; only 17.6% were Latino; and only 3.9% were African-American (California Department
of Education) This contrast in ethnic and cultural makeup signals a tension between the cultural
and academic experiences of the teachers and those of their students. There is a significant need,
then, for teachers to evaluate the divide between the predominant cultures of the student
population and that of the mainly White teaching population (Goldenberg, 2014).
Teachers in California reflect the “dominant culture” (Carter, as cited in Goldenberg,
2014, p. 112) while students represent the “non-dominant” culture (Carter, as cited in
Goldenberg, 2014, p. 113), thus igniting tension between the two in the development of
relationships and understanding. The predominant curriculum often reflects White middle-class
values, limiting students’ own voices in the representation of what they read, write, and in the
expected behavior norms (Griner & Stewart, 2012). In this light, students of color do not have
the opportunity to see their own cultural experiences reflected in the curriculum of their schools.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 23

This is not to say that White teachers cannot support Latino students in California. But it does
highlight the need for White teachers to adequately support and understand their students of
color; they must learn to value the cultural capital of their students of color and utilize it within
their instructional practice (Goldenberg, 2014), highlighting another issue to be addressed in
understanding the education debt that has accrued: California educators need adequate support
and learning for teachers to broadly understand the cultural capital in students and bring that
understanding into instructional practice and curriculum (California Department of Education,
2015; Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012).
Lack of Teacher Preparation to Meet the Needs of California’s Diverse Student Population
Academics and researchers have analyzed the myriad reasons for why California’s Latino
students struggle to achieve academically and have yet to come to a prescribed solution to
address the issues Latino students face, though they have offered numerous responses, such as
culturally relevant pedagogy, social justice teaching, and implementation of various educational
policies. Understanding these conflicts, many have looked directly at the preparation of the
teacher as the true arbiter of shifting the academic outcomes for Latino students, focusing on the
development of culturally aware and responsive teachers as a critical need in teacher preparation
schools (Assaf, Garza, & Battle, 2012; Dover, 2009; Gay, 2002; Garcia, Beatriz Aria, Harris
Murri, & Serna, 2010; Goldenberg, 2014; Lalas, 2007; Lenski, Crumpler, Stallworth, &
Crawford, 2005; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). One of the responses proposed to address the problem
is culturally responsive pedagogy; proponents argue that it has the potential to meaningfully
engage students in curriculum that is reflective of their own cultures and experiences (Gay,
2002). This form of pedagogy is shown to have also impacted students’ own perceptions of their
academic success and self-efficacy (Chun & Dickson, 2011). Specifically, some have argued that
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 24

social justice teaching, closely aligned with culturally responsive pedagogy in its integration of
connections to the lives and homes of students outside of school, has significant positive effects
on students and their ability to meet the demands of state and federally-mandated programs
(Dover, 2009).
Others, however, believe that culturally-responsive pedagogy and social justice teaching do
not do enough to meaningfully address the disparities in student outcomes, and that in the 40
years since its inception, little has changed for Latino students (Portes & Salas, 2007). Teachers
should develop students’ awareness of the institutional inequalities and social practices which
exist that impede students from gaining academic success, meaning that teachers, first, must be
highly knowledgeable and aware of these inequalities (Lenski et al., 2005).2005). For those who
do not see culturally-relevant teaching enough of an answer, there is again the need to inform
teachers about the opportunities denied to students through institutionalized policies and
practices. There is a significant need, then, for teachers to evaluate the divide between the
predominant cultures of the student population and that of the mainly White teaching population
(Goldenberg, 2014).
How Teacher Retention in California Contributes to the Education Debt
California is and has been experiencing a teacher retention problem. Twenty two percent
of California teachers leave after their first four years of teaching (Red et. al 2006, as cited in
Futernick, 2007). Shortages disproportionally impact low-income and students of color
(Learning Policy Institute, 2017). Ten percent of teachers working in high-poverty schools
transfer to other campuses each year (Futernick, 2007). 2017 saw a 1% decrease in number of
fully-credentialed teachers serving in CA public schools (Suckow & Lau, 2017). And young
teachers are 171% more likely to leave than middle-aged teachers (Ingersoll, 2001). California
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 25

did see a slight increase in issuances of teaching credentials in 2015-2016 (Suckow & Lau,
2017). There was a 1.65% increase in newly issued credentials across all types of preliminary
teaching credentials; however, teacher preparation program enrollment has declined between
2010-11 and 2013-14. 2014-15 saw an increase of 10% (Suckow & Lau, 2017), but overall, there
has been a decrease by 12,000 candidates in the last five years. 2015-2016 is the second year to
see a small increase, with 15,457 new applicants in 2015-2016 and 15,214 in 2014-2015. Neither
reaches the number in 2011-12, which was 16,450 (Suckow & Lau, 2017). In 2017, The
Learning Policy and Institute (2017) released its annual report on the state of teacher preparation
and retention for the state of California. Alarmingly, the number of math, science, and special
education teachers preparing to become teachers continues to shrink; California will likely be
unable to meet the needs of bilingual students; and all of this will disproportionately adversely
impact low-income students and students of color (Learning Policy Institute, 2017).
Why Teacher Retention is a Problem / Benefits to Teacher Retention
Teacher retention is a problem because it leads high levels of employee turnover and
leads to decrease in the functioning of organizations (Podolsky et al., 2016; Futernick, 2007;
Ingersoll, 2001). It also has an adverse impact on student outcomes: students in schools with
high teacher turnover rarely receive teaching from veteran teachers who are statistically more
effective and who have lower rates of student absenteeism and student disruptions (Ladd &
Sorenson, 2017). There is significant cost to districts with high turnover rates as they pay to
prepare and train new teachers without teachers remaining, thus decreasing the resources
available for other efforts at reform (Podolsky et al., 2016). In schools where there is high
teacher turnover, one is also more likely to see a negative impact on teacher morale (Jackson &
Bruegmann, 2009).
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 26

Conversely, however, when there is a higher teacher retention, schools can see greater
consistency in instruction; more willingness to share practices and try new ways of teaching,
more success in solving problems of practice; increased job satisfaction; greater and more
significant improvement in practice, including a willingness to ask for and receive feedback and
input on their practice; a desire to remain in the profession; and, most importantly, increased
student achievement (Futernick, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Podolsky et al., 2016). The Southeast
Center for Teaching Quality (2004) reported that improvements in the work environment are
positively associated with improved student learning (as cited in Futernick, 2007). When all
these factors coalesce, then, to create a positive sense of community and cohesion, school
performance increases overall (Ingersoll, 2001).
Factors which Contribute to Teacher Retention, Attrition and Motivation for Ongoing
Learning
In order for schools in California to retain their teachers, they must examine what the factors
are which most contribute to teachers leaving the profession. The reasoning teachers use for
leaving fall into critical categories to examine: personal characteristics and reasons, teaching and
learning conditions, and comparative compensation in other fields (Borman & Dowling, 2008;
Futernick, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Podolsky et al., 2016). Personal characteristics include age,
education level, and longevity in career (Ingersoll, 2001). Forty two percent of all departures are
attributed to job dissatisfaction (Ingersoll, 2001).
Teacher attrition represents a U-shaped distribution (Futernick, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001) with
more teachers leaving early and later in their careers; thus, the reasoning for leaving differs
between novice teachers and veteran teachers. For instance, novice teachers who are not
provided strong induction programs are likely to leave, while veteran teachers are more likely to
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 27

leave due to other factors (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Teacher turnover is 171% higher in
novice teachers than in middle-aged teachers (Ingersoll, 2001). Veteran teachers are more likely
to cite early retirement (Harris & Adams, 2007, as cited in Borman & Dowling, 2008) and
greater salary compensation as more important factors for leaving or remaining (Borman &
Dowling, 2008).
Significant factors that teachers cite for remaining in or leaving the profession are the
teaching and learning conditions of the schools’ communities, including the administrative
support, the collegiality and collaboration among staff, and the demographics of the student body
(Borman & Dowling, 2008; Futernick, 2007; Ingersoll, 2001; Podolsky et al., 2016). Teachers
are more likely to leave when they perceive a lack of administrative support by the principal or
the district office regarding access to instructional resources and adequate time for collaborating
with fellow colleagues (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Futernick, 2007).
One such learning condition which can have a positive impact on teacher retention is the
ability to participate in leadership and decision-making (Futernick, 2007; Podolsky et al., 2016).
Thirteen percent of teachers in 2011-12 who left, “cited a lack of influence over school policies
and practices as extremely important or very important in their decision to leave” (Ingersoll,
2001, p. 515). Teachers not deeply involved in crucial decisions on campus or about their own
professional learning are more likely to feel dissatisfied and disconnected from their school,
resulting in a desire to leave.
Another prominent factor in teachers remaining on a campus over time is the demographic
make-up of the student body (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Futernick, 2007). Teachers at schools
where numbers of socio-economically disadvantaged and/or minority students are higher are
more likely to request a transfer to another school or leave the teaching profession altogether.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 28

One factor teachers likely encounter in such schools is the perceived increased student discipline
issues (Ingersoll, 2001). It is important to note that Ingersoll (2001) is merely reporting on
teachers’ reasoning; the teachers’ assertions are not validated through statistics which support
their claims; however, the perception is enough to keep teachers from teaching on these
campuses or may encourage them to leave.
These factors are important to consider in designing change efforts to bring the most
prepared and committed teacher force to campuses with high percentages of students of color
and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Futernick’s (2007) study found that 20% of
teachers expressed interest in transferring to a high-poverty school when teaching and learning
conditions were improved. In fact, there are number of factors which keep teachers in the
profession: systems designed to support mentoring and ease difficult teaching assignments and
loads from new teachers increase new teacher retention (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Futernick,
2007). Teachers have been shown to stay when strong collegial support is in place and when they
have “an important say in the operation of the school” (Futernick, 2007, p. 3).
Linking Teacher Preparation and Professional Learning to Student Outcomes
A substantial body of research has been published which links teacher quality and
training to improved student outcomes (Ancess, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Goe, 2007;
Guskey & Sparks, 2002; Klem & Connell, 2004; Meiers & Ingvarson, 2005); however, systems
of professional learning both for pre-teaching certification and for ongoing preparation and
support are inadequate to meet the needs of California’s teachers and students (Task Force on
Educator Excellence, 2012).

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 29

Problems with Systems of Professional Learning for Teachers
Significant funding is spent on professional learning in the United States every year and
yet the measures by which that funding is appropriately allocated and effective, namely in
improvement of practice on a large-scale, show very little impact, in part because we do not have
consistent means of measuring funding spent on professional learning and subsequent
improvements in student gains (The New Teacher Project, 2015). In 2017, the United States
spent approximately $2,652 billion on state programs geared toward promoting teacher
development across states (United States Department of Education, 2017). In 2015, Gov. Jerry
Brown authorized funding for professional development in California through the Educator
Effectiveness Grant at the rate of $490 million dollars to be allocated by Local Education
Agencies to promote educator quality and effectiveness for three years (California Department of
Education, 2015-2016). Few stipulations were in place on how the funding should be spent, other
than that the funding be tied to improving instruction, connected to California state content
standards, and to training and mentoring new and struggling teachers; very few
recommendations were provided to school districts about designing effective systems of
professional learning (California Department of Education, 2015-2016). Minimal accountability
was tied to the funding to demonstrate whether or not it had an impact on student outcomes. The
only information districts were required to report was where and how the money was spent,
specifically in the area of professional learning aligned to the state’s content standards,
supporting struggling teachers, and mentoring new teachers.
Much of the professional development for teachers is inconsistent, disconnected from
school reform efforts, and not long enough to sustain long-term shifts on practice (Darling-
Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone et al. 2002). It also often fails to make an impact on teacher
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 30

practice or belief systems (Fullan, 2007). Effective professional learning or development
programs should result in teachers’ knowledge and teachers’ practice as they relate student
learning and teacher efficacy (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). Furthermore, there should be,
“substantial improvements over time and [teachers] consistently reaching a level of mastery over
core instructional techniques before their growth levels off” (The New Teacher Project, 2015, p.
12). In a study conducted by The New Teacher Project (2015), spanning four large school
districts throughout the United States, which employed over 20,000 teachers collectively, and
served almost 400,000 students, it was discovered that the districts they surveyed spent an
average of slightly less than $18,000 per teacher per school year. It was projected based upon
national statistics of enrollment and employment, the 50 largest districts in the country could
spend up to $8 billion dollars in professional learning for teachers, a significant amount of
money to say the least. The study concluded that this funding resulted in minimal change in
teacher’s practice despite teachers reporting that they spent up to 17 hours per month on
professional learning outside the classroom. The study tracked teacher improvement over a two-
year period through a, “multiple-measure evaluation system” (p.4) that was already implemented
in the three major districts. Overall, only 30% of teachers demonstrated substantial
improvement, while 50% remained the same, and 20% saw a decline in their performance (The
New Teacher Project, 2015).
Fullan (2007) argues that “[t]his is less a criticism of teachers and more a problem of the
... the lack of opportunity for teachers to engage in deeper questioning and sustained learning.
Meaningful reform escapes the teacher, in favor of superficial, episodic reform that makes
matters worse” (p.28). Systems of collaboration are unstructured and ineffective and lack
coherence (Fullan, 2007). In the United States, few opportunities occur for “practice-based
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 31

inquiry and teaching for understanding” (Cohen and Hill, as cited in Fullan, 2007, p.26) occur
within a teacher’s school year.
Defining Effective Professional Learning
Effective professional development can be identified through the following
characteristics: the professional learning experiences must 1) be content-focused; 2) incorporate
active learning; 3) be collaborative in structure; 4) use models and modeling; 5) provide
coaching and mentoring support; 6) offer feedback and reflection; 7) be sustained and ongoing;
and 8) collaboratively examine student work (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Desimone et al.,
2002; Ingvarson et al., 2005). Desimone, et al. (2002) recommend that districts establish
priorities for professional development, develop common knowledge and understanding about
what constitutes effective professional development, and focus on system-level infrastructure to
support such programs both through monetary and human capital. Linda Darling-Hammond, in
her article, “Want to close the achievement gap? Close the teaching gap” (Darling-Hammond,
2014), argues that in order to address these issues, states and districts need to put in place
practices which address the inequities that undermine learning, that value teaching and teacher
learning, redesign schools to create time for collaboration, and create meaningful teacher
evaluations that foster improvement.
In a study of over 80 different programs throughout Australia, Ingvarson et al. (2005)
examined the factors which had the greatest impact on teacher practice and presented significant
findings. To determine which factors had the greatest impact, they first delineated key features of
professional learning experiences that could potentially impact teacher practice outcomes: first,
they identified background variables such as gender, experience, school sector, school level,
school support, and school size. Second, they determined structural features that were variables,
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 32

including contact hours, time span spent in the learning, sufficiency of time, and collective
participation. Third, they examined the opportunities teachers experienced in the learning – was
the training content-focused; did it involve active learning; was there follow-up; did it include
collaborative examination of student work; and was feedback on practice included? Ultimately,
they wanted to examine whether or not the experiences could be deemed effective: did the
learning impact teachers’ knowledge; did it impact teachers’ practice; did it impact student
learning; and did it impact teacher efficacy (Ingvarson et al., 2005)?
Their findings showed that teachers’ knowledge was most greatly impacted when a
program included a focus on content. Researchers discovered that opportunities in the program
for active learning and reflection on practice not only impacted teachers’ practice, but it also had
impact on teacher efficacy. Finally, the learning in all areas was enhanced through professional
learning programs which strengthened the professional communities within the content area and
across the school community (Ingvarson et al., 2005).
Desimone, et al. (2002) conducted a three-year longitudinal study, spanning 30 schools,
10 districts and five counties, that also examined how these key features outlined above impact
teacher practice. Their study surveyed teachers at three points in the study and focused on
teachers from one elementary, one middle, and one high school. They defined and analyzed the
professional learning experiences by focusing upon six characteristics: “structural features”
(p.83), which include reform type, duration, and collective participation, and “core features”
(p.83), which include active learning, coherence, and content focus (2002).
Their study concluded that professional development is most impactful when it involves
support through collaborative groups either at grade or site-level, when it involves active
learning opportunities, and when it aligns to other efforts of reform on a site, meaning that the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 33

program is cohesive with the initiatives on a campus and builds upon teachers’ prior knowledge.
Specifically, if the learning focused on specific teaching practices or several related practices,
those strategies were more likely to take place in teachers’ classroom instruction. This
application was even more likely to occur if the professional learning experience was of “high
quality” (Desimone, et al., 2002, p.88), meaning it met the criteria outlined above.
Guskey (2002) proposes that there are four key phases in significantly shifting teachers’
practice toward any objective: 1) there must be professional development, 2) followed by
changes in teachers’ classroom practice, 3) followed by a change in student learning outcomes,
4) to result in changes in teachers’ beliefs and attitudes. The thrust of Guskey’s (2002) argument
is that true change only occurs after teachers have witnessed evidence of improved student
outcomes, after specific practice has been implemented, particularly when teachers of struggling
learners find that implementation of a new strategy produces positive results after other efforts
have not proven successful.
California Policy Related to Teacher Retention and Professional Learning
In 2012, California State Superintendent Tom Torlakson convened a task force on
educational excellence. The final report, “Greatness by Design: Supporting Outstanding
Teaching to Sustain a Golden State” (Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012) provided
recommendations for California on how to prepare, develop, sustain, and hold accountable an
effective and robust educational instruction force throughout the state. One of the key
components of the report focused on recommendations for a “continuum of professional
learning” (Task Force on Educator Excellence, 2012, p. 12). The report’s authors recommended
that California a) establish professional learning expectations for educators linked to the
certification renewal process and orchestrated through individual learning plans; b) establish a
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 34

strong infrastructure for ongoing high-quality professional learning that ensures educators will be
able to develop the skills they need to support student success; c) create review processes to
support statewide learning about high-quality professional development; and d) provide
consistent, high-leverage resources for professional learning.
California’s Quality Professional Learning Standards
In response, California adopted the Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLS)
(California Department of Education, 2015). These standards, “describe the criteria for quality
professional learning and point educators and stakeholders toward evidence-based elements and
indicators to use when they make decisions about how to create and/or improve professional
learning in their own systems” (California Department of Education, 2015, p.1). The standards
define professional learning, propose what it looks like in application, provides direction in how
to apply the standards, and, finally, fully outlines the standards themselves. These standards
focus on seven key areas of direction: data; content and pedagogy; equity; design and structure;
collaboration and shared accountability; resources; and alignment and coherence (California
Department of Education, 2015). Since these standards will serve as part of the conceptual
framework framing this study, it is imperative that time is allocated here to delve into the
standards more analytically.
Data, as defined by the QPLSs, refers to multiple measures used to gauge student
academic achievement and teachers’ capacity to meet the diverse needs of the student body
(California Department of Education, 2015). By focusing on data, educators are able to assess
students’ areas of strength and areas of growth in the learning. From there, educators and the
schools work to establish priorities on the part of educators as to the professional learning
necessary to address these priorities. Data in this system does not only apply to students. Data
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 35

should also be collected as to the effectiveness and impact of any programs of professional
learning, ensuring that educators are evaluating the impact on their own growth and, ultimately,
the sources of impact as they are relevant to student learning. The data are broken into four
elements: students’ capabilities and needs; educators’ capabilities and needs; program/school
quality; continuous review of quality and impact. Within these four components, the California
Department of Education emphasizes multiple sources of data, including student voice and
feedback, disaggregated academic formative and summative achievement data, family and
community data, and participant feedback as indicators for both the priorities established in the
development of the program and in the evaluation of the effectiveness of the program.
The second standard of the QPLSs is centered around content and pedagogy. In order for
educators to assess data and thus determine priorities for educator learning, they must be
equipped with the academic and theoretical understandings surrounding their subject areas and in
effective pedagogical practices (California Department of Education, 2015). The three main
areas within this standard are curriculum content and materials, pedagogy, learning support
because teachers must have expansive knowledge about the instructional strategies and practices
which provide the most effective learning environments for students’ diverse needs. This
includes the capacity to work with fellow teachers and colleagues to evaluate where students are
in their learning and how to adapt and modify instruction and curriculum aligned to student
progress and outcomes. This standard also specifically addresses teachers’ belief systems about
learning and the extent to which they are responsible for differentiating learning scaffolds as they
pertain to students’ learning needs.
The third standard outlined in the QPLSs focuses on equity, equitable outcomes for all
student groups, and also on the inherent biases that teachers come to the classroom possessing
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 36

(California Department of Education, 2015). Within this standard are three key areas of focus: 1)
academic equity in the form of teachers’ ability to understand and address the learning needs of
all students, with particular emphasis on how educators can support students from diverse ethnic
and cultural backgrounds, students with special needs, foster students, and students from
poverty; 2) systemic equity that promotes and develops policies across a school and district that
support equitable outcomes for all students and provide the professional learning educators need
to establish these policies; and 3) climate equity, which focuses on the community and climate of
the school itself, and maintains, again, that professional learning is provided to support educators
in developing relationships with their students and their stakeholders, and also to help support
them in their ability to address the “cultural, intellectual, social, emotional, and physical
development of each learner” (California Department of Education, 2015, p.15).
The fourth standard focuses on the design and structure of the professional learning that
is provided for educators. As outlined above, it is not simply enough that educators be provided
opportunities to grow and learn, but the methods by which the learning is delivered and
implemented are crucial in their potential to positively impact educators’ belief systems and
practices. First and foremost, “quality professional learning is purposeful, focused, and sustained
over time” (California Department of Education, 2015, p.16). The purpose and need align to the
students in their schools and to the site and district goals and initiatives. The learning should be
dedicated within the school day with time for reflection, collaboration, observation, and ongoing,
sustained support from the site and district instructional leaders. This leads to the next
component: the professional learning should be embedded in practice – educators need to see
relevant problems of practice identified, posed, and addressed through new forms of application
and practice. This then needs to be followed up with more opportunties for reflection and
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 37

feedback from peers and instructional leaders so that the learning becomes fully integrated into
the teachers’ practice. The QPLSs further focus on the need for differentiation within the
professional learning program. Teachers just beginning their careers have different learning
needs than veteran teachers, just as teachers adapting to evolving student populations have their
own needs for learning. Finally, just as with students, learning for educators needs to be diverse
and engaging, grounded in evidence-based practices, and ongoing throughout educators’
developing practice needs. The final caveat outlined is that technology should be integrated so as
to enhance the learning for both educators and students.
The fifth standard centers on collaboration and shared accountability. This accountability
and shared sense of responsibility toward student learning permeates every facet of a campus,
from the principal, to the paraeducators who support learning in the classroom, to the nurses and
librarians. Relying upon the research that indicates that learning is most impactful when done in
a collaborative process and with common goals, this standard maintains that the learning must
include “broad, collaborative participation” across the learning environment (California
Department of Education, 2015, p. 19). This is accompished through a collaborative culture of
shared accountability whereby educators hold one another responsible for adhering to aligned
goals and expectations, and through the external networks that are imperative to student success,
including the relationships that should be fostered and leveraged with all stakeholders within the
community. These stakeholders include not only students’ families, but the existing partnerships
that can be developed and harnessed with local businesses and institutions of higher learning –
partnerships that can support unique and diverse opportunities for students outside of the
traditional classroom setting. The use of technology is emphasized as a valuable resource for
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 38

broadening students’ opportunities to connect with the community and educators’ opportunities
to connect with resources that can broaden their own sphere of support for stduents.
The sixth standard of the QPLSs is the resources that must be provided to support
effective programs of professional learning (California Department of Education, 2015). These
resources are imperative in driving the success of a program, but they must be allocated
equitably with the understanding that different sites have different needs based upon the
population of students and the educators who serve them. Sites and districts must analyze the
fiscal and human capital at its disposal, the time allotted for learning, and the equipment and
materials necessary to support the learning, and, ultimately, provide those responsible with
allocating this capital with the necessary learning to understand how to allocate resources
equitably and effectively. The QPLSs maintain that there be strong oversight on how the funds
are distributed and on the impact said programs are having on student and educator outcomes. In
addition, it is vital that the capactiy of the leadership be built and honed to support effective
professional learning. This also means allowing for creativity within the day and structure of the
overall system to allow for opportunities for teachers to learn from and alongside one another. If
learning happens through observation, as the QPLSs argue that it does, then the structure of the
larger system must allow for flexible staffing and for coaching from leaders. One significant
warning provided is that external professional learning providers should be “vetted against
rigorous criteria” (California Department of Education, 2015, p. 23). External expertise can be
employed when necessary, but simply paying external providers to come in and do drop-in
workshops without critically analyzing their capacity to provide relevant and meaningful training
is abdicating the responsibilities emphasized here. This encompasses a wide array of resources
necessary to support learning – if technology is needed, then it ought to be provided, and all
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 39

funding should be leveraged most effectively to ensure equitable access to the resources needed
to support educator and student learning.
The seventh and final standard of the QPLSs is the alignment and coherence necessary to
ensure quality professional learning. This encompasses alignment to federal and state policies, to
district and school goals and needs, and to the professional career continuum. If school and
district goals are aligned to the policies and regulations provided by the state and federal
government, and if educators’ goals are aligned to the school and district vision for student
learning, then there is a “coherent system of educator learning and support” (California
Department of Education, 2015, p. 25). This will allow sites to build a collaborative and common
system of expectations for student learning that enhances and supports students from all angles
within the capacity of the school.
Theoretical Framework
Historical Framing of Topic
The literature presented has been viewed through the lens of what Ladson-Billings has
termed the “education debt”, and it will theoretically outline the research framework for the
subsequent study (Ladson-Billings, 2006). This debt is an amalgamation of a variety of factors
that have contributed to disparities in outcomes between White students and students of color in
the United States, that is, the “historical, economic, sociopolitical, and moral decisions and
politics that characterize our society have created this debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2016, p. 5). It is
argued that viewing achievement gaps between student groups only allows for short-term
solutions. When one analyzes the historicity of the education debt having accrued over time, one
can look to the root causes of this debt and design research opportunities that focus on deep
systems of change rather than reactionary short-term responses that come with only viewing the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 40

outcomes as achievement gaps. Finally, in looking at the research through this lens, one can
move from a “deficit paradigm” to one of potential for growth. This will prove fundamental to
my research as I begin to tie the design of the study to the “desire-based research” coined by
Tuck (2009) rather than to deficit-based research.
The overarching theory of change which directs this study is founded upon Brown’s
theory of transformative justice, which she terms “emergent strategy”, or how one can “leverage
relatively simple interactions to create complex patterns, systems, and transformation (Brown,
2017, p. 24). Brown’s theory emphasizes, most significantly, the impact of the “fractals”, the
small yet meaningful interactions and relationships which must lay the foundation for change in
any sort of action or research. From these relationships stem the elements she outlines: fractals,
intentional adaptation, interdependence of one another and decentralization of power, change as
nonlinear and iterative, resilience through liberated relationships, and ultimately, creating more
possibilities. These elements contribute to deep and meaningful change, collaboratively
developing a collective imaginative intelligence to feed pathways toward a variety of change
systems. As one or one’s group moves toward shifting beliefs and designing theories of action
for change, the collective element in a “nonlinear and iterative” manner, unfurls toward the
systems of action that are settled on in the present moment for the most impactful element of
change.
Parallel to this theory is Fullan’s (2007) theory of educational change, which focuses on
an effort to reculture an institution rather than a restructuring of the institution, demystifying
teachers’ perceptions about change and shifting their beliefs about their level of engagement and
accountability to the teaching and learning that occurs in their schools (Fullan, 2007). This is an
important disctinction in that reculturing requires teachers and the individuals within the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 41

organization "to question and change their beliefs and habits" (Fullan, 2007, p.25). This shift
leads to a deeper ownership on the part of the learners and stronger commitment to the change
that is to be implemented. For deep change to occur in education, schools must develop
“infrastructures and process that engage teachers” in the learning process and create
philosophical shifts about teaching and learning (Fullan, 2007, p. 29). This reculturization occurs
when “shared meaning is achieved across a group of people working in concert” (Fullan, 2007,
p. 37); it requires change in materials, teaching approaches, and an alteration of beliefs. Fullan
(2007) provides three key elements in order to achieve these shifts: the institution must provide
new or revised curriculum materials to promote innovation; it must introduce new teaching
approaches; and there must be a focus on shifting teachers’ belief systems about teaching and
learning. Finally, all must be provided in practice to reach the levels of change that must occur.
Collaboration is key but it only makes a positive difference “when it is focused on student
performance for all and on the associated innovative practices that can make improvement
happen for previously disengaged students” (Fullan, 2007, pg. 285). Fullan (2007) insists upon
standards of practice. The use of the QPLSs as a model for designing professional learning
program systematically across districts and schools, then, would align with his recommendations.
These two converging theories then construct the image of what must be accounted for in
order to transform teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about students’ capacities to grow and learn
– connect teachers and students to one another and support the relationships that will develop
into “ways to manage resources together, to be brilliant together (Brown, 2017, p. 23). While
Fullan’s (2007) work does focus on deep and meaningful change, the elements imbued
throughout Brown’s (2017) theory take that change to a “fractal” level and drives the need for
the relationship building at the core of the transformation.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 42

Finally, I look to California’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Quality
Professional Learning Standards to define the theoretical elements integral to to an effective
professional learning system, the design and implementation elements to be considered for the
purpose of the study. The report posits that while it is not intended to be a checklist of essential
design structures, it is intended “to inform and customize [stakeholders’] own profesional
learning design and implementation plans to fit their priorities and specific context” (California
Department of Education, 2015, p. 5). The elements outlined focus on the key components that
must be in place when an institution hopes to draw teachers into the learning process and then
transform their practice and belief systems.
These theories are the foundation and integral to understanding the purpose and design of
the research (Figure 1). If teachers are provided systems of professional learning that require
engaging in deep, meaningful, and transformative learning opportunities, can California
metaphorically pay down the education debt owed to its Latino students? This begins with
honing in on the relationships and collaborative opportunities teachers have to learn alongside
and from one another; but it requires a broader understanding about the historicity present in the
disproportionally and inequitable opportunities provided to students in the public-school system.
The purpose of this study is to examine, then, how the recommendations outlined in the QPLSs
can support schools and districts in providing the sort of effective professional learning outlined
above, and how such programs impact teachers’ belief systems regarding students’ capacity to
learn and grow.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 43

Figure 1. This figure illustrates the theoretical integration between Brown’s Emergent Strategy
(2017), Fullan’s theory of Educational Change (2007) and the Quality Professional Learning
Standards (2015).

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 44

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Positionality
Positionality is the role the researcher plays in the relationships established socially and
academically between the researcher and the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These
relationships reveal power dynamics which potentially impact the relationship, authenticity of
communications, and trust and rapport that should be developed in the research. Positionality is
also a recognition of the identity of the researcher and participants as constructs reflecting the
experiences, history, genealogy, and social constructs that have contributed to the formation of
said identity (Patel, 2015). Merriam & Tisdell (2016) identify three key factors in analyzing this
dynamic: insider/outsider issues; positionality issues; and researcher reflexivity.
In this study, I partnered with the teachers at Oak Tree High School to first uncover what
they saw as the flaws in their current system of professional learning as they pertained to their
own desire for growth, and then to design a system that more effectively encourages and
supports their growth toward identified areas of learning. I must take a moment to acknowledge
that in alignment with the methodology I outline below, my partnership in the learning requires
me to reflect upon my own place in this research: I am a White, female who began her career as
an English teacher at the school where my study was conducted. I currently oversee professional
learning in the same district and thus have prior relationships with the individuals in the study.
This was intentional. I hoped that this foundation of a relationship would help me build upon the
deep and meaningful relationships that Brown (2017) emphasizes and that the methodology I
selected is founded upon. As such, I have used the first person throughout this chapter and the
following chapters to reflect my intentional and purposeful situational relationship with the
participants in the study. While I believe that the collaborative nature of the study and my
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 45

historical connection with the location of the study place me as insider, I had to acknowledge
that my current position in the district could still place me as an outsider. This is why an
acknowledgment of the power dynamics was vital and why the researcher reflexivity was so
integral to this process, focusing on role-remediation and the decentralization of power within
the team.
Too often professional learning is done to teachers, informed by independent and
unarticulated objectives from site, district, and policy leaders (Darling-Hammond et al. 2017;
Desimone et al., 2002). Instead, I hoped to provide teachers with the resources they needed to
make informed decisions about their own target areas of desired learning. I wanted to move from
what Tuck (2009) terms as “damage-centered research” to a “desire-based framework” – rather
than focusing on the damage that has been inflicted upon the students and teachers in this
community, I wanted to move toward empowerment and offer teachers a chance to take
ownership of their capacity to positively influence student outcomes and advocate for the
learning that would most help them accomplish this.
Articulating one’s positionality allows for what Patel (2015) defines as the “deep pause”
(p. 2), the forcing of reflexivity on the part of the researcher. This reflexivity develops an
awareness on the part of the researcher as to how the power dynamics at play in the relationship
between researcher and participants impacts, enhances or hinders the “process of partnering”
within the research process (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016, p 174.). Bang and Vossoughi (2016)
recommend a critical analysis of one’s positionalities in order to develop role re-mediations, a
constant evaluation of the reciprocity, or lack thereof, and bidirectionality of decision-making in
the design process. Research should not reinforce systems of inequitable partnering; rather, it
should consider systems of hierarchy embedded in the historic, social and economic backgrounds
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 46

of the participants within the study, including an analysis of the researcher’s own part in these
systems (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016). As such, I attempted to remove myself as much as possible
from dictating the direction of the study. I asked questions constantly of the team as to what they
wanted to learn and implement in their classrooms based upon our conversations. I took surveys
anonymously to allow for teachers to potentially be more candid in their reflections. And I
provided the bulk of the resources early on. However, as the study progressed, that need shifted
slightly and the teachers began developing and bringing to the table their own resources.
Reflexivity is crucial to understanding how the research is situated with the larger
historical and social context, and fundamental to seeing research as more than simply an
“object/subject relation of human study and consideration” (Patel, 2015, p. 2). I must articulate
my own position on a macro level within the larger contexts of the research and at the micro
level in relation to the participants of the study, further aligning with Brown’s (2017) focus on
the power dynamics at play contextually within the scope of the study, focusing on teachers’ own
experiences in the broader context of their own professional learning and to what extent I was
reinforcing their own conceptions of power or if I was actually subverting them. Patel (2015)
argues that “the actions of all beings and entities impact each other” (p. 61). This is important in
understanding how the research goals are developed and how the evolving design of the study
takes critically into account the situational and historical facets which can impact the
relationships between the researcher and the participants.
Thus, as I reflected upon the biases I brought to this research, I considered my own
experiences with professional learning as an educator, and my sensitivity to the need for learning
on a wide-scale as the individual who now oversees the facilitation of professional learning for
fellow educators. Throughout my own teaching career, I felt supported and empowered to seek
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 47

out opportunities for my own growth and learning as they pertained to my effectiveness as a
classroom teacher. I was frustrated, however, by what I perceived to be a lack of ambition or
desire on the part of colleagues to seek out their own learning experiences. When I was offered
the position of instructional coach for my district, I was both inspired by the chance to sit at the
collaborative table with teachers to foster further learning and disillusioned by the apathy of
some and blatant cynicism of others regarding their own potential for pedagogical improvement.
What I had not fully realized, however, was the history of many teachers’ experiences over the
duration of their careers in relation to district initiatives, curriculum projects, collaborative
efforts, and/or policy shifts in methods for addressing accountability. All of these facets
coalesced to leave many teachers feeling dejected, angry, apathetic, and even hostile to
professional development experiences. Few viewed these opportunities as having any direct
connection to their classrooms and to their students. My own experience was not the norm.
Five years into this position I have a greater understanding of the motivations and
frustrations engendered throughout a teacher’s career. There are system-level issues that must be
addressed to combat these lived experiences, beginning when a teacher first decides to go into
teaching: How does an institution foster long-term growth and motivation? How can a system
empower teachers to advocate for their students through their own ongoing efforts at learning?
How does a teacher adapt throughout her career to the evolving demands of an ever-changing
student body so that she can best meet their needs and upset systems of inequities and oppression
inherent in the larger world? And yet I grapple with teachers who have abdicated their
responsibility to develop their teaching over time to meet the needs of their students, who
complacently enter their classrooms without fully accepting responsibility for the role they play
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 48

in students’ successes and failures. I see the students who sit in classrooms disengaged, isolated,
and alienated from their own education.
It is vital that I recognize these conflicting perspectives in relation to my fellow teachers
– I must take my own deep pauses repeatedly to reflect upon whether or not my own experiences
with learning unfairly expect too much from teachers whose experiences have been vastly
different from my own, whose careers have transpired in different political and social contexts. I
must also consider the opportunities teachers have had to understand the complex and varied
backgrounds their students come to the classroom with. As highlighted in Chapter Two, how
teachers are trained as pre-service teachers and how they are mentored throughout their careers is
vastly disparate – some are provided opportunities for deep and thoughtful analysis of how
students from nondominant cultures deserve to be supported and their learning fostered, yet some
teachers receive little to no support in this area, no chances for reflection and accountability as to
their own roles in promoting equitable outcomes for students.
Methodology
The foundational philosophical belief underlying the study is grounded in the following
words of Patel (2015): “Research is a project and product of culture, sociopolitics, and material
conditions. It does not exist outside of trajectories of thought and action but firmly within” (p.
58). The principles of Participatory Design Research (PDR) (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016) were
used for the overarching elements that shape the design and course of the research, as research
cannot be done in a vacuum but must occur with the acknowledgment and understanding of the
cultural, sociopolitical, and material elements which force themselves upon the relationships and
dynamics between the researcher and the participants of the study.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 49

PDR is grounded in the belief that transformative social change occurs through role re-
mediation within the research design, that by subverting the normal power dynamics of research
and developing, instead, collaborative partnerships in the research, more authentic and
meaningful change occurs. Often, as Bang and Vossoughi (2016) argue, the power dynamics of
research affirm and solidify structures of inequities formed through colonial sources of power in
the general social sphere; thus, the roles of researcher and participant must convert to a
collaborative, symbiotic relationship which transforms both those who participate and those who
facilitate the research. The researcher is not merely the facilitator, dictating the paths of learning
for participants. Rather, this is a focus on relationships that promote bi-directional learning on
the part of both participants and researchers.
PDR advocates for going beyond merely reaffirming systems of inequities by not simply
designing more effective ways of assimilation, but, rather, by transforming them and re-
imagining them for more significant change. The principles of PDR focus on “a) critical
historicity, b) power, and c) relational dynamics that shape processes of partnering and the
possible forms of learning that emerge in and through them … [how] normative hierarchies are
reproduced in practice” (Bang and Vossoughi, 2016, p. 174) This focus, then, is on the process
of learning, specifically, through the critique of structural systems which impede the learning of
both students, their families, and of teachers. This role re-mediation is necessary in order to push
the researcher and participants to go beyond what is practical and to seek out what is most
impactful and transformative, for practicality often undermines truly transformative and
imaginative thinking and further perpetuates systems of inequity. Instead, PDR adheres to
exploring unique and creative ways of discovering learning collaboratively.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 50

PDR focuses on partnering with the groups within society who are often marginalized
and who do not reflect the dominant culture. This research will not focus on students, but rather,
teachers whose role is to teach and support these students. PDR will be used in key components
of the overall study, the overarching design and structure is delineated by the methodology of
Social Design Experiment (SDE) (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010). Like PDR, SDE focuses on the
role re-mediation of researcher and participant because “change in the individual involves
change in the social situation itself” (Engestrom, as cited in Gutierrez and Vossoughi, 2010, p.
101). The study is co-designed, opening up for the researcher to learn alongside participants and
thus also shift philosophical beliefs within all parties of the study.
SDE explores how the design is developed in open and creative ways in order to, “create
spaces to experiment pedagogically, to design collective Third Spaces that heighten the potential
for deep learning to occur and for the development of powerful literacies that facilitate social
change” (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010, p. 102). The emphasis is that the learning is open and
creative, fluid in design, iterative in nature, and that the teaching and learning occur in practice.
There are multiple opportunities for persistent reflection. This shared, collaborative design must
then be open for potential contradictions, allowing space for there to be conflicting philosophies
and challenges to worldviews as participants examine the historical structures in place for
learning, the cultural capital of students from nondominant cultures that are present in the
experiences they bring to their own learning, and the sources for conflict between teachers’
experiences of learning and expectations.
This methodology aligns with the study’s theoretical framework, reflecting Brown’s
Emergent Strategy theory of change (2017) for creating deep and transformative change, the
QPLSs (California Department of Education, 2015) for developing systems of professional
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 51

learning that are meaningful and result in shifts in pedagogical beliefs and practices, and Fullan’s
theory of educational change for deep and lasting change (2007). In all methodologies and
theories cited, the focus is on the change within both the participants, the community of learning,
and in the researcher as well. PDR and SDE’s focus on creative and collaborative approach to
design aligns with Brown’s philosophy of the collective imagined possibilities to transform
student and teacher learning. Brown (2017) and Gutierrez and Vossoughi (2010) focus on the
collaborative process for the design of the research, as well as in the development of the intended
outcomes. The persistent need for reflection in PDR and SDE allows for the constant bi-
directional learning indicated in Brown’s (2017) theory and the QPLSs. Most importantly,
highlighted in the theories and in the methodology is the significance of the fluidity and
nonlinear trajectory of the learning. This openness allows for the path toward transformation to
be developed collaboratively and for the development of an acknowledgement that as learning
occurs and beliefs shift, so must the trajectory of the study.
The purpose of this study is to focus on teachers’ belief systems about students so that they
can seek out the programs of professional learning that they need to be most effective in the
learning environments they create for students. Teachers first develop an understanding and
awareness of the unique cultural experiences and philosophical experiences that their students
come to the classroom with and then take part in the direction and design of their learning which
will best support them in improving student learning.
Context
Oak Tree High School (OTHS) is a suburban high school located in Oak Tree, California.
Founded in 1891, the city began as an agricultural community but has since moved away from
this as a main source of business enterprise. In the city where my study will be conducted,
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 52

according to population estimates for 2017, 70% of the population is Latino, 47.2% is White, 6%
is Black or African-American, and 6% is Asian (United States Census Bureau, 2016). 27.5% of
the population is foreign-born, up two percent from the state average. 59% of the population
speaks a language other than English at home. 72.7% of the people living in the city are high
school graduates, compared to 82.5% for California. And only 15.6% of the population possesses
a Bachelor’s degree, as compared to 20.4% of the state’s population, reflecting a higher average
than the state average for Latinos at 12.2%. The median household income is $57,544, whereas
the median household income for California is $63,783. And most significantly, in 2016, the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services identified the poverty line at $24,600 annual
income for a family of four. In Oak Tree, California, 16.2% of the population lives in poverty
compared to the 14.3% of the overall population for California – the national poverty rate is
12.7% (United States Census Bureau, 2016).
OTHS has seen a shift in its student demographics in the last 17 years. In 2016-2017, Oak
Tree High School (OTHS) served 2,385 students: 89.3% were Latino; 85.2% were designated
Free or Reduced-Price Meals (FRPM) students; and 16.6% were ELs, and 16% speak Spanish as
the home language (“Enrollment Report, 2016-2017”). This is a significant shift from the 1999-
2000 school year. In that year, the student population was at 2,898 students, and 60.4% were
Latino. 24.4% of students we designated EL and only 35.9% of students were designated FRPM.
23% of the overall population of students spoke Spanish as the home language (California
Department of Education, 2000). This shift and current demographic state reflect Orfield & Ee
(2014) staticstical research which shows that California’s schools remain largely segregated as
Latinos increasingly and predominantly attend school with only other Latino students.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 53

The school has made significant gains in recent years in several areas of student
achievement. The cohort dropout rate has decreased from 13.6% in 2009-2010 to 6.1% in 2015-
2016. In 2009-2010, 15.1% of Latino students dropped out and 12.6% of African-American
students dropped out, while only 2.2% of White students dropped out (CA Department of
Education, 2009-2010). By 2016-2017, however, only 1.5% of the Latino students dropped out,
only 2.7% of African-American students dropped out, and 3.2% of White students dropped out
(CA Department of Education, 2016-2017).
In the 1999-2000 school year, only 13% of students graduated having completed the
UC/CSU admission requirements. At that time 15.5% of White students graduated having met
these required courses, but only 8.1% of African-American students met these requirements and
only 9.8% of Latino students met them (California Department of Education, 1999-00). By 2016-
2017, 54.1% of students graduated having met the UC/CSU required courses. Overall, 50% of
White students completed the required courses, 53% of Latino students completed the UC/CSU
required courses, and 43.8% of African-American students (California Department of Education,
2016-2017). Overall, this is a strong indicator that students are finding greater academic success
at OTHS.
There are some significant discrepancies in progress when analyzing other data sets,
disaggregated by ethnicity and language proficiency. The California Assessment of Student
Performance and Progress shows that OTHS students met or exceeded standard at 62.6% in
English and at 34.6% in math for the 2016-2017 school year. While Latino students met or
exceeded the standard at 62.1% in English, and 32.5% met or exceeded the standard in math,
only 15.9% of English Learners met the standard and 0% exceeded the standard in English, and
only 5.1% met the standard in math, and 0% exceeded the standard (California Department of
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 54

Education, 2017). Grades also demonstrate this trend for ELs at OTHS, as highlighted below in
the participants section.
As highlighted above, the school’s demographics are reflective of the community-at-
large. Increasing the success of the students in the community helps to support the community
overall. This school and community allowed me to gauge whether or not this type of professional
learning program could provide a positive impact on the community-at-large.
Participants
Criterion-based purposeful sampling was used in the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016);
the teachers needed to reflect specific experiences in a specific context. A school was selected
whose populations are predominantly comprised of Latino students and socio-economically
disadvantaged students. OTHS was also selected in part because of its disparity between the
demographics of student population and of the teaching population, an area addressed in Chapter
Two. OTHS has 112 teachers in the 2016-2017 school year. Of those, 32.1% are Latino, and
58.9% are White (California Department of Education, 2016-2017). The average teaching
experience of the teaching force is 13 years in the school. And only 7% teachers were in their
first or second year of teaching. This is not reflective of the trends outline in Chapter Two as to
why teachers stay or leave schools which are predominantly comprised of socio-economically
disadvantaged students or students of color. When teachers come to Oak Tree High School, they
tend to stay, as demonstrated by the tenure of the teachers working there.
The social science department was chosen for specific reasons: 1) They have a
willingness to come together to learn with and from one another. 2) The United States History
curriculum is driven by a need to develop academic vocabulary, discipline literacy, and inquiry,
as dictated by the 2016 California History-Social Science Framework, the California Common
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 55

Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
and Technical Subjects (CA CCSS for ELA/Literacy), and the California English Language
Development Standards (CA ELD Standards) (Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional
Resources Division, 2017). English Learners, in particular, are vulnerable to the demands of
these core subjects, and the framework articulates the need for teachers to “adopt an additive
stance toward the cultural and language of their students” (Curriculum Frameworks and
Instructional Resources Division, 2017, p. 511). 3) Finally, when analyzing the grade distribution
for the 2016-2017 school year, 40% of ELs receive a D or F in US History, as opposed to only
12% of the general population. One department was selected for the researcher to have time to
build relationships with the small group of teacher participants in the way that is dictated
throughout the theory and methodology outlined above. I had also worked with them previously
so I had the foundation of a relationship. With the duration of this study and its imperative focus
on developing dynamic and meaningful relationships through Brown’s (2017) fractals, I wanted
to begin the work where a foundation had already been established. I focused on developing
these relationships by allowing them to vent when they needed, to explore avenues of
conversations which, sometimes only tangentially, connected with the flow of discourse begun
with the data. We went to lunch together so that I could be present in the informal conversations
which occurred at this time, further attempting to feel like a partner in the process. I offered to
create resources when they needed them, and I offered to be present when they explored a new
strategy. All of these efforts I believed were paramount to building a collective of trust and
collegiality, wanting to upon up spaces for authentic and candid exploration of their worldviews
and beliefs about teaching and their students.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 56

Data Collection and Instrument Protocols
The qualitative study has the potential to uncover thorough and complex insights and
theories derived from specific individuals to generate theory and “encourage discovery”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 20).
Instruments.
A variety of qualitative data was collected throughout the study (see Figure 2). Teacher
belief data was be collected through anonymous online teacher surveys, both pre- and post-study,
that all US teachers took, administered through Google Forms ® (Appendices B and J). The
structured components allowed for clearer comparison between respondents and between pre-
and post-study responses. The survey was comprised of a variety of question types. The
introductory questions are Background and Demographic questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to
establish teachers’ backgrounds in professional learning and teaching experience. In each case,
understanding the teacher’s tenure on the campus was relevant to understanding the perspective
of the teachers. For example, each teacher was asked about how long they had been teachers,
which subjects they taught, how long they had been at Oak Tree High School, and if they had
ever taught at another school. These initial questions not only were intended to give insight into
the longevity of their teaching careers, but could also be used to find comparisons across data as
possible points of intersection between respondents. The questions also allowed time for the
respondent to get comfortable with relatively neutral questions before the process of deeper
reflection began (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Teachers were not asked about their gender as that
would identify the participants; there is only one female teacher in the group. The remainder of
the survey alternated between what Patton (as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) identified as
experience and behavior questions, feeling questions, and opinion and values questions. Each
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 57

question was targeted at eliciting specific answers in relation to the research questions. This
addressed the first research question regarding teacher belief systems. I collected these surveys
anonymously so teachers would feel safe as I asked them to reflect upon their worldviews as they
pertained to teaching and learning.
At the end of each day, teachers took an “End of Day” survey (see Appendices C - E) to
ascertain whether or not teachers were satisfied with the program they experienced and to gather
feedback for the direction of the learning. This survey was administered at the end of each day to
all participating teachers. This protocol will allow for evaluation of the program and its impact
on educator learning and on student outcomes. This provided important feedback for the second
research question and provided input for future program design models. It also provided
opportunities for the researcher as facilitator to provide the resources and learning participants
desired as part of role-remediation.
The teachers also took part in journal reflections throughout the process (see Appendix
F). SDE requires regular and persistent, “reflection and examination for informal theories
developed over the course of participants’ experiences as students and teachers” (Gutierrez &
Vossoughi, 2010, p. 101). This allowed the researcher to thoroughly address questions one and
two as they spoke both to how effectively the components of the QPLSs address their needs and
to what extent their belief systems changed over time.
Observation was also used to collect data for the study. Observation has the potential to
complement the surveys with further rich data that gives a broader picture of the respondent and
to the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this case, respondents voiced
their perceptions and beliefs about their belief systems and core values, but the observation
allowed for the researcher to see if and how those perceptions play out in the context of the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 58

classroom and instructional practice. The observation further provides the authentic setting a
researcher might have trouble visualizing in a more contrived setting. The observation in the
natural setting allowed for the visualization and realization of an interview respondents’ claims
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It also allowed for the triangulation of data, based on their
conversations and any subsequent findings which emerged from those conversations with how
the teacher interacted with students and the sort of community that is in existence.
A two-column table was used to allow for pure observation commentary on the left side
and observer’s comments in the right. This allowed the researcher to more quickly write down
any direct statements which needed to be included, and to isolate commentary and reflective
thoughts that occurred while watching the student and teacher actions and interactions.
The researcher was an overt observer in the room. Students were aware of the
researcher’s presence. This is important, as any adult in the room was likely to impact students’
natural behavior. The researcher did not speak or draw attention in any way other than is
necessary by physically being present. Notes were taken on a computer during the observation as
the researcher sat quietly in the back of the room. To complement the observation, a “Lesson
Feedback Survey” (Appendix H) was used as further insight into the teachers’ reflections about
their own role in shaping student outcomes.
The “Program Assessment Survey” (Appendix I) was administered to gauge the teachers’
overall satisfaction with the program and to what extent it sufficiently met their needs.
Table 1
Data Collection Instruments and Timing of Distribution
Instrument
Administration Timeline
Beginning End Throughout
Initial Teacher Survey X
Post-Program Teacher Survey X
Reflection Journal Responses X
Classroom Observation X
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 59

Lesson Feedback Reflection X
End of Day 1 Feedback Survey X
End of Day 2 Feedback Survey X
End of Day 3 Feedback Survey X
Program Assessment Survey X
Table 1. This table outlines the instruments that were used to collect data and the
moments within the study when the data was collected.

Process.
It was incumbent upon me to first determine if the Superintendent was comfortable with
action research being conducted on one of the high school campuses. Permission was also sought
from the principal of Oak Tree High School. Following the receipt of permission to conduct
research on campus, each of the teachers on the US History team was contacted to receive
consent for their participation in the study. Participant candidates were reminded that
participation was strictly voluntary, and that they were what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define
as co-researchers. As co-researchers, participants helped frame the problem of practice to address
and help shape the learning they believed most appropriately addressed the problem of practice
The process began with the “Initial Teacher Survey” (Appendix B) so that their responses
could be used to help design the first day of learning together. Participants then embarked upon
an analysis of key points of data that are informed by recommendations in the QPLSs; the intent
was to also have the participants take a critical look at the disparities in opportunities afforded to
their EL students. For the purpose of this study, student data and teacher data were used as
measured through the following data points for the following specific points of reflection:
 Student demographic data, including a comparison of student demographics between the
1999-2000 school year and the 2017-2018 school year;
 Student demographic data as they reflect the percentage of students who are FRMP;
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 60

 Graduation rate, disaggregated by ethnic group, over a two-year period of 2014-2015 and
2015-2016;
 Dropout rate from the 2009-2010 school year through the 2016-2017 school year;
 Students who met the UC/CSU minimum admission requirements, disaggregated by
student populations, including EL and ethnic groups;
 CAASPP data, disaggregated by student populations, including EL and ethnic groups;
 Suspension and expulsion data, disaggregated by student populations, including EL and
ethnic groups;
 Grade distribution of all US history students in the second semester of 2017-2018,
followed by the grade distribution of each individual teacher comparing the general
population data to the grade distribution data of their ELs specifically, delineating further
between those who are still classified as ELs and those who have been reclassified; and
 School climate data, as reported in the district’s LCAP survey.
Using the voices of the nondominant communities, in this case, students, as represented by the
school climate data above, ensured that their influence was integral to the learning elements for
teachers and that they were included in the learning environment reflections used for
conversations (Fishman, Penuel, Allen, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2013). This data was also highlighted
to ensure teachers analyzed and questioned the inequities present in the student outcomes.
The professional learning program is collaborative in nature, but I presented the initial
data which allowed teachers to reflect, dialogue, and determine a collective path of learning
moving forward. The proposed program design began with a collaborative analysis of key data
points for the teachers as outlined above. I asked teachers to focus upon issues of equity,
representation, and overall success as defined through these measures. This prompted a
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 61

discussion related to key student issues the teachers identified from the data points. I then asked
teachers to reflect upon their own practice: how often do they take students' backgrounds and
experiences into account in the design of instruction and the selection of content? Overviews of
the traditional curriculum were examined to see where students' cultural experiences are
reflected. As the conversation progressed, I provided resources for teachers to use as reflective
tools to analyze their own practice as it pertained to the outcomes for students: to what extent do
their own practices contribute to student outcomes as outlined above?
Teachers were asked to come together to determine and prioritize the areas of learning
they believed they need to support their own growth in these areas. Collaboration opportunities
were designed to support their learning in the targeted areas. I facilitated those opportunities and
provided resources teachers needed for those days. The support was facilitated by me, but the
direction and articulation of support was determined by the teachers.
Data Analysis
Findings were interpreted by following the steps Harding (2013) recommends for
determining codes and the eventual emergence of trends: 1) identifying initial categories based
upon readings; 2) writing codes alongside the transcripts; 3) reviewing the list of codes, revising
the list of categories and deciding which codes should appear in which category; and 4) looking
for themes and findings in each category. Analysis began with the identification of what
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) labeled open coding, assigning notations to discreet pieces of
information that strike the researcher as interesting or that is reflective of the literature around
the topic. The codes were limited to what the research said, as that would have provided a biased
lens of analysis (Glaser and Strauss, as cited in Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 62

Categories were developed based upon researcher established codes. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) define categories as themes or patterns that potentially answer one of the research
questions. For this process, “clustering” and “making contrasts/comparisons” were used to
determine categories and patterns (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014). Miles et al. (2014)
defined clustering as the process of “grouping and then conceptualizing objects that have similar
patterns or characteristics” (p. 279).
Limitations and Delimitations
Delimitations.
Delimitations are the boundaries outlined around the scope of a study, specifically
delineated by the researcher for the purpose of answering the research questions most effectively
(Simon & Goes, 2013). As outlined earlier, this study was conducted with only the US History
teachers at OTHS. This limited number of participants allowed me to more fully engage with the
teachers individually and to provide specific data to these groups of teachers within the time
frame established. This study took place over the course of the first semester.
Limitations.
Limitations are the potential shortcomings inherent in a study based upon method and
design, including timing and participants, reliability and validity (Simon & Goes, 2013).
Shortcomings to this design were the limited time factor. The span of a semester could limit the
long-term impact of any shift in teachers’ belief systems. The research was also intended to act
as a model for future collaborative plans of study, so other limitations are created through the
developing understanding and implementations of the QPLSs from the researcher’s perspective.
Finally, the sample represented teachers who taught between 0 – 20 years; no veteran teachers of
over 20 years were represented in the sample.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 63

Credibility and Trustworthiness
In order to maintain the validity and integrity of a qualitative study, it is imperative that
the researcher establish strategies to support the credibility and trustworthiness of the study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The quantitative researcher, in search of what Maxwell (2013) calls a
universal, objective truth, adheres to a strict protocol of validity and reliability. Qualitative
research, by nature, however, is looking to reveal and reflect unique experiences in unique
contexts, to develop understandings of personal and social situations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Maxwell, 2013); thus, the qualitative researcher cannot follow such a rigid pattern of strategies.
Qualitative research must still be held to standards of validity that allow for its authenticity and
reliability – the nature of qualitative research does not preclude it from being held to standards of
integrity if it hopes to impact a larger field of study. This research utilized Lichtman’s terms of
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability for how qualitative research can
protect the credibility and trustworthiness of the study (2013, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell,
2016).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define credibility as the means by which qualitative
researchers assess how closely a study aligns with reality and how closely it answers the
questions that are being asked in the research question(s). For qualitative research specifically,
there is the added component of the bias of the researcher because he or she is so intimately
involved with the respondents and the setting, particularly so in the research frames defined PDR
and SDE. Maxwell (2013) outlines two specific threats to qualitative study credibility: researcher
bias and reactivity. Maxwell (2013) further defines researcher bias as the threat of the personal
bias the researcher brings to the data selection, analysis and proposed theories in the findings.
The researcher must acknowledge and take steps to address the inherent subjectivity present
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 64

throughout the study to address how personal bias, or positionality, might influence the outcomes
of the study. In the case of PDR and SDE, I acknowledged and addressed this positionality as
fundamental to developing the relationships with the participants within the study. I went into the
study with the role of process facilitator, with the intent to partner with the teachers in the design
and instruments of support.
The second threat, reactivity, is defined as the influence the presence of the researcher
has throughout the duration of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Of note for the qualitative researcher,
then, as Maxell asserts, “is not to eliminate this influence, but to understand it and to use it
productively” (p. 125). In acknowledging my professional positionality as it relates to the
teachers within the school, it was incumbent upon me to reflect constantly, taking pauses
regularly, to ensure the provision of sound and thoughtful feedback and direction, but not
wielding direction from a position of power which overrode their ability to authentically
contribute to the process. Brown (2017) provides reminders of how to engage in this practice in
the following: “The idea of interdependence is that we can meet each other’s needs in a variety
of ways … it means we have to decentralize our idea of where solutions and decisions happen,
where ideas come from” (p. 87). It was desired for the teachers to feel empowered to drive the
direction of their learning, while taking the voices of their students into account about who
should lay the foundation for that direction. I provided the sources of information, and teachers
responded in a collaborative and authentic way. I held space for both the capacity to contribute to
the process and the threat personal positionality held.
In addition to the ongoing reflections to combat the aforementioned threats to the
credibility of the study, I used respondent validation as defined by Merriam and Tisdell (2016).
Respondent validation requires that the researcher gauge the accuracy of the emergent findings
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 65

through checks with the participants. This required me to verify with the participants that what I
was deducing from their discoveries matched their own intended meanings. As their own
discoveries about students and learning emerged, I tracked them, verified with teachers, and then
moved forward. The evolving nature of PDR and SDE ultimately demand that this occurs –
without respondent validation, I would be neglecting the principles of SDE.
Transferability is defined as the ability of the researcher to provide enough context of
local conditions and variables so as to be able to take the findings gleaned in one context and be
able to apply those lessons in another. The qualitative researcher must acknowledge that because
the research is defined within a social context with responses unique to each individual, the
replication of a study will never truly yield the same results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016); however,
this does preclude the findings from being able to be applied in other contexts. It simply means it
is the role of the researcher to be detailed and methodical in the description of the context, and it
is the role of others to determine the extent to which the findings are transferable. Strategies I
used to promote the transferability of my study were through the sampling I used. In this case, I
selected teachers who worked at a school with a specific demographic of students that was
reflective of many public schools in California, as highlighted in the statistics provided in
Chapter Two regarding the general demographic makeup of California’s public schools. This
was important to address as it pertained to the purpose of the study and the research question tied
to the potential relevancy and appropriateness of the QPLSs.
Another strategy I employed was the use of “rich, thick description” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I provided detailed understanding of the context of the study, the local conditions in
which it was situated, and a detailed analysis of the findings of the study. While Merriam and
Tisdell warn that it is not the sole responsibility of the researcher to determine to what extent the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 66

study is transferrable in all situations, it is incumbent upon the researcher to provide enough
detail so that the intended and unintended audiences can make decisions on their own as to
whether or not a study ought to be replicated in their own contexts, and to what extent the design
and structure match the needs of future practitioners. The ultimate goal of this study was to
provide a means of assessing how other schools and districts could adopt similar models of
professional learning for their sites; this can only be accomplished if I have provided sufficient
context and details for others to be able to determine transferability to their contexts.
Ethical Considerations
Theory of change, as defined by Tuck (2009), is the process by which the researcher
defines the “ethical stance of the project, [the] … data, what constitutes evidence, how a finding
is identified, and what is made public and kept private or sacred” (p. 413). This theory of change
has an overarching umbrella over the basic design facets of the study, focusing on what is it that
is known, who is a member of the researching “we”, and what the intended purpose is of the
research (Tuck, 2009). Smith’s (1999) guiding questions for determining the ethical
considerations were used in the study: specifically, for whom the study was relevant; what
positive or negative outcomes could come from the study; what knowledge I hoped to gain from
the study; and to whom was I accountable.
The power dynamic at play in this process was initially considered (Glesne, 2011). This
study was designed with the intent to aid other schools and districts who hope to develop
programs of professional learning that empower teachers to critically analyze the systemic
obstacles their students face and then respond pedagogically to undermine those obstacles within
the classroom. If implemented successfully, the findings have the potential to positively shape
academic outcomes for students who are traditionally underserved in the public-school setting. It
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 67

also has the potential to support teachers to take ownership of their own learning, to feel as
though they are equipped to respond to students’ diverse needs through their own professional
growth. It is my goal that this findings from this study frame future approaches to professional
learning in all schools and districts so that students are powerfully and effectively supported in
their own academic pursuits. To ensure that students’ experiences were not exploited through
this study, the emphasis remained on the teacher and teachers’ belief systems. The researcher
was ethically bound to the teachers who agreed to participate in the study; the intent was to
accurately portray their accounts of their experiences and their shifts in learning and ideology.
Furthermore, as the teachers’ ideologies shifted, the researcher hoped to improve personal
understanding about the dynamics students face in the school systems we provide, and in how
personalized approaches to professional learning are provided that could prove most impactful
for teachers.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 68

CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF DATA AND FINDINGS
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to examine how collaboratively-developed programs of
professional learning, shaped by the Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLS) (California
Department of Education, 2015) and Brown’s emergent strategy (Brown, 2017), can impact US
History teachers’ belief systems about teaching and learning, particularly for Latino students in a
high school whose student population is predominantly Latino and designated socio-
economically disadvantaged. This study also examined how the QPLSs can be practically
implemented in a school district seeking to design systems of professional learning that provide
deep and meaningful change in teacher practice so as to positively impact student outcomes and
thus decrease the “education debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2006). Following this methodology
required that teachers first develop an understanding and awareness of the unique cultural
experiences and philosophical beliefs that their students come to the classroom with and then
collaboratively develop an instructional growth program which is designed and directed toward
fostering their own growth as it pertains to best meeting the learning needs of the student.
The study focused on two key research questions:
1. How are the sequence of recommendations outlined in California’s Quality
Professional Learning Standards practically implemented for US History teachers within
an urban high school whose student population is predominantly Hispanic?
2. How are US History teacher belief systems regarding students’ capacity/agency
shaped throughout a personalized, collaboratively-developed professional learning
program over the course of a semester?
Three key theories of change and professional learning shaped the design and analysis of
the study: Michael Fullan’s theory of education change (2007), A. M. Brown’s emergent strategy
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 69

theory (2017), and the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Superintendent’s
Quality Professional Learning Standards (2015). Fullan (2007) provides the macro level of
analysis required to effect change in educational systems, while the QPLSs and Brown’s theory
provide the micro level of analysis for designing the programs, developing relationships, and
fostering teacher growth. This structure is rooted in Social Design Experiment theory (Gutierrez
& Vossoughi, 2010), reflecting deep learning through collaborative and open design, iterative in
nature, and embedded in application for transformative pedagogical experimentation. These
theories and structures combine to frame a research dynamic in which the researcher and the
participants are co-collaborators in the design and implementation – specifically the bi-
directional learning which occurs not only in the participants but in the researcher herself, as the
teachers reflect upon and shift their practice and the researcher enhanced and developed a
personal understanding of the variables which support teachers in their learning. At the heart of
the study is the belief that students should be the impetus for teacher improvement – when the
commitment to students and the relationships that can be fostered are at the core of a school’s
culture, students’ identities, voices, and needs shape the direction and goals of the learning
community.
This chapter reports the results of the data collected and analyzed for the purpose of the
study. It begins with an overview of the participants: their backgrounds as educators as well as
their beliefs regarding their core values as teachers. The findings will be delineated by themes as
they pertain to the participants’ responses over the course of the program and to the research
questions. Finally, findings are shared as they relate to the researcher’s own experience both as
researcher and as active participant in the research, as informed by the theoretical and
methodological frameworks which shaped it.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 70

Participants
Criterion-based purposeful sampling was used in the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016);
the teachers needed to reflect specific experiences in a specific context. I first selected a school
whose population is predominantly comprised of Latino and socio-economically disadvantaged
students. I chose OTHS in part because of its disparity between the student population and the
teaching population, an area addressed in Chapter 2. OTHS had 112 teachers in the 2016-2017
school year, 32.1% were Latino, and 58.9% of the teachers were White (California Department
of Education, 2016-2017). The average teaching experience of the teaching force was 13 years in
the district. Only 7% teachers were in their first or second year of teaching.
I chose the social science department specifically for a number of reasons: 1) In my
prior experience with this two group, I found them to be willing to come together to learn with
and from one another. 2) The United States History curriculum is driven by a need to develop
academic vocabulary, discipline literacy, and inquiry, as dictated by the 2016 California History-
Social Science Framework, the California Common Core State Standards for English Language
Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects (CA CCSS for
ELA/Literacy), and the California English Language Development Standards (CA ELD
Standards) (Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division, 2017). English
Learners, in particular, are vulnerable to the demands of subject-area standards, and the
framework articulates the need for teachers to “adopt an additive stance toward the cultural and
language of their students” (Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division, 2017,
p. 511). Finally, when analyzing the grade distribution for the 2016-2017 school year, 40% of
ELs receive a D or F in US History, as opposed to only 12% of the general population. Focusing
on one department would allow time to build relationships with the participants in the way that is
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 71

dictated throughout the theory and methodology outlined above. I also wanted to choose a group
with whom I had relationships. Brown’s (2017) emergent strategy focuses on fractals, on the
meaningful interactions and relationships which can build transformational change. I wanted to
work with a group where we could develop a stronger relationship in the hopes that their trust in
me would allow for deeper, more meaningful change.
Five teachers agreed to work with me on this project. The findings from this project are
based on two types of data: 1) face-to-face interactions that were not confidential and 2)
anonymous surveys. While I will be referring to the same five participants through the entire
findings, I have categorized the individuals in two different ways. To speak about this group, I
will have to refer to them in two different contexts: First, I have assigned a participant number to
them for the purpose of discussion because all of the surveys collected throughout the study were
anonymous and coded with a participant-selected number; this was done to protect participants’
identities and potentially open their willingness to share freely. This means that I could track
their responses and link them to the same teacher without knowing the identity of the respondent.
Second, I have additionally given a second pseudonym to each individual as part of narrative and
observational analysis, so I could reference them in a more personal way. This means that at
times I will refer to them through pseudonyms when reflecting upon direct conversations we had,
and at other times I will refer to them through their teacher number when discussing data
collected through the various surveys and journal responses. I will begin with a discussion of
each teacher as informed through the “Initial Teacher Survey” data (Appendix B).
Teacher One
Teacher One has been teaching US History between 16-20 years and has spent between
11-15 years teaching at OTHS (Table 2). This means he has experience teaching at a school
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 72

other than OTHS, but only for a year at an intermediate school. He was drawn to teaching
through his love of basketball and coaching. He grew up in the community where he currently
teaches, but it was his time with a host family and his host mother in particular that inspired him
to go into teaching. He stated, “Joann was an elementary teacher and would always have us go to
her school to volunteer as local college basketball kids. She noticed I did really well with the
students and when it came to decide a major at the end of my sophomore year she convinced me,
being a teacher herself, of all the wonderful perks of being a teacher. She was right, and it was
the best decision I ever made.” His teacher preparation program occurred out of the state and
believes it did fairly well in preparing to develop curriculum to support the population of
students he currently teaches. He loves teaching at OTHS:
“My experience at OTHS has been absolutely positive from our admin teams, to our
district training, to my relationships with colleagues and students. This positive
experience has made me a positive teacher and left me wanting to bring everything I can
to the table every day for my admin, district, colleague, and student population.”
He currently teaches US history and is the social science department chair for his site.
Teacher Two
Teacher Two has been teaching for fewer than five years and has spent that entire time at
OTHS teaching World and US History (Table 2). Teacher Two was drawn to teaching through
those who “surrounded me growing up, both in the classroom and in my family. Also, the drive
felt to help children and the clearest path to that goal was being an educator.” Teacher Two was
prepared to teach at a local public state school but does not feel that it truly prepared credential
recipients to teach at OTHS. Teacher Two was drawn to teach at OTHS through the “deep
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 73

connection with the school district and a job availability.” Teacher Two has appreciated the time
at OTHS as it has helped both professional and personally.
Teacher Three
Teacher Three has taught World and US History at OTHS for nearly the entirety of the
16-20 years taught overall (Table 2). Teacher Three taught at one other high school in the
district, one of which served a more affluent and predominantly White population at the time of
his teaching there. He cited tutoring kids while in college as the greatest impetus for becoming a
teacher. Teacher Three was prepared to teach at a local private institution and felt that while it
helped with organizational features of designing lessons, it “did not offer a variety of
pedagogical strategies.” Teacher Three came to teach at OTHS because of the opportunity to be a
head coach, and he values the “team atmosphere among the staff” as one of the elements most
appreciated about teaching there.
Teacher Four
Teacher Four has taught between 11-15 years but has only taught at OTHS for fewer than
five years (Table 2). He has experience working at two other high schools in the district, one
with a similar socio-economic demographic and a more diverse student population than that of
OTHS, and one of a more affluent demographics whose student population has far fewer
Hispanic students. Teacher Four was drawn to teaching through a love of coaching. In fact,
Teacher 4 believes “coaching is teaching.” Teacher Four attended a local public state school for
his teaching program. He stated that:
“Having prior experience in the classroom as an instructional assistant prepared me more
than anything I learned in the credential program. Classroom management skills,
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 74

collaboration with other teachers and lesson planning as an assistant did more for my
career than the credential program.”
Teacher Four came to OTHS because of an opening in the history department and loves teaching
at OTHS because it provides him ample opportunities for “finding ways to help students
succeed.”
Teacher Five
Teacher Five has taught between six-ten years and has spent fewer than five years at
OTHS (Table 2). Teacher Five has taught World History, US History, and government at OTHS.
Teacher Five did have experience teaching at a prior high school outside of the district as a
substitute and came to OTHS for the open teaching position. Teacher Five was in law school and
coaching when he made the decision to not complete law school and instead go through a
credential program at a local private university, where he obtained both a teaching credential and
administrative services credential. Of all five teachers, Teacher Five is the only one who reported
that the program placed an emphasis on supporting EL students but did not provide sufficient
opportunity to focus on classroom management or navigating the politics of a school. Teacher
Five speaks positively about teaching at OTHS but notes a few obstacles: “Working with the
staff has been great. The students generally are passionate about their school which is nice. The
difficult part can be the significant amount of language learners and how to teach effectively for
them.”
Their longevity on the campus is important as the literature cited in Chapter Two speaks
to the conditions which keep teachers at schools with high percentages of students of color
and/or socioeconomically disadvantaged students. All five teachers cited their appreciation for
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 75

the collegiality and collaborative culture on their campus as one of the key reasons for the
satisfaction for teaching on the campus.
Table 2
Teacher Characteristics
Teachers
Time
Teaching Time Spent at OTHS Experience Teaching at Prior School
One 16-20 Years 11-15 Yes
Two 0-5 Years 0-5 Years No
Three 16-20 Years 16-20 Years Yes
Four 11-15 0-5 Years Yes
Five 6-10 Years 0-5 Years Yes
Table 2. This table outlines the professional tenure of each teacher participant.
I will now outline briefly the pseudonyms of the team members for reference when I
discuss the findings as they pertain to the in-person collaborative conversations that occurred
throughout the program.
Brant
Brant is a White male who has served many positions at OTHS. Including coaching and
various advisors and directors on the campus. He currently teaches US History, government and
Advanced Placement (AP) European History.
John
John is the only Hispanic male teacher in the group. He currently teaches US History and
AP US History. He is also an advisor for clubs on campus.
Dave
Dave is the only African-American male in the group as well as in his department. He
currently teaches US History and is a coach on campus. He serves as club advisor to a number of
clubs.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 76

Breanna
Breanna is a White female, the only female in this group. She currently teaches US
History and World History, and she also serves as a club advisor on campus.
Larry
Larry is a White male and currently serves as department chair for the site. He currently
teaches US History and has served the school in many capacities over the years, including
coaching, director and club advisors.
Findings
Findings were analyzed as they pertain to the implementation of the QPLSs in the first
research question. This is followed by an outline of trends as they pertain to the second research
question, spanning across the participants’ experiences, as compiled through their anonymous
survey background data, and across our collaborative conversations together. Data unique to the
individual participants, contributed either through their conversations – where I will refer to them
by their pseudonym – or through their anonymous survey data – where I will refer to them as
Teachers One through Five – will be interspersed throughout the trends analysis.
Findings for Research Question 1: Implementing the Quality Professional Learning
Standards
The first research question for the study asked, “How are the sequence of
recommendations outlined in California’s Quality Professional Learning Standards practically
implemented for US History teachers within an urban high school whose student population is
predominantly Hispanic?” For this section, I will delineate findings by each of the QPLSs since
the objective of the study in this research question is to outline the obstacles and successes found
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 77

when implementing professional learning systems aligned to the recommendations of the QPLSs
themselves.
QPLS 1 and 3: The Use of Data for Reflection and Building Equity
Student and Teacher Data.
The QPLSs (2015) encourage the use of data through a myriad of measures: through
analyzing student and teacher capabilities and needs; through program/school quality data; and
through continuous review of quality and impact. For the purpose of this study, I focused on
student data and teacher data that would also allow teachers to view the data through the lens of
equity, the third standard of the QPLSs. I combined these two as a reflection of the overall
framework shaping this study, and to emphasize the focus on supporting EL students, a group
traditionally underserved in California’s public schools. These two standards focus on ensuring
equitable outcomes for all student groups, and also on the inherent biases that teachers come to
the classroom possessing, encompassing academic equity, systemic equity, and climate
equity. This forced viewing is tied to the principles of Participatory Design Research (PDR)
(Bang & Vossoughi, 2016) and Social Design Experiment (SDE) (Gutierrez & Vossoughi, 2010)
outlined in the methodology section of Chapter Three – the data is, in part, the opportunity for
the students’ own voices to come forward in the research design. The data presented to teachers
fell into the following categories:
 Student demographic data, including a comparison of student demographics between the
1999-2000 school year and the 2017-2018 school year;
 Student demographic data as they reflect the percentage of students who are FRMP;
 Graduation rate, disaggregated by ethnic group, over a two-year period of 2014-2015 and
2015-2016;
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 78

 Dropout rate from the 2009-2010 school year through the 2016-2017 school year;
 Students who met the UC/CSU minimum requirements, disaggregated by student
populations, including EL and ethnic groups;
 CAASPP data, disaggregated by student populations, including EL and ethnic groups;
 Suspension and expulsion data, disaggregated by student populations, including EL and
ethnic groups;
 Grade distribution of all US history students in the second semester of 2017-2018,
followed by the grade distribution of each individual teacher comparing the general
population data to the grade distribution data of their ELs specifically, delineating further
between those who are still classified as ELs and those who have been reclassified; and
 School climate data, as reported in the district’s LCAP survey.
This comprehensive data was viewed through the lens of equity, the third standard of the
QPLSs, which is why all of the data was delineated by ethnicity and language proficiency. I
wanted the teachers to have a chance to reflect upon who their students are and how they do in
the classes across all areas. I also wanted to create the Third Space (Gutierrez and Vossoughi,
2010, p. 102) where the team could come together to analyze critically their perspectives
regarding student achievement and the teachers’ own role in it. In looking at the demographics of
their students and the student climate data, teachers reflected upon the opportunities denied to
students through institutionalized policies and practices, as reflected in the literature in Chapter
Two. In every instance in the data, there was a disparate outcome for EL students versus White
students. This disparity prompted critical conversations about the outcomes (the trends in the
findings and their responses are outlined in connection with the second research question). We
coupled this discussion with examination of the student climate data. This data was compiled by
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 79

students’ own responses as to how safe they felt on campus, how connected they felt to teachers,
and how many felt that they could or could not reach out to their teachers or an adult on campus
for support. Students had positive responses to these questions. This began our next phase of
questioning: If this is the case and students predominantly felt safe at their school and included in
the overall community, what contributed to the disparities in outcomes? These are critical
questions we discussed and the teachers commented upon the opportunity in the “End of Day
One” (Appendix C) feedback survey: Teacher Two remarked that the data helped “how well I
have been helping my different groups of students and how I need to improve.” Teacher Two
further remarked that the discussion would have a significant impact on what happens in the
classroom; in fact, all five teachers said that it would have a significant impact. This focus on
data through a variety of lenses and specifically representing the students’ voices was
fundamental to ensuring the focus in the methodology on PDR and SDE – the voices of the
marginalized group needed to be interwoven throughout our conversations to ensure that this was
not simply about teacher practice; rather, it was about looking at the lack of systemic
opportunities afforded to their students and how to subvert those outcomes by the practices they
focused on in their classrooms. This lens also aligns with the study’s framework in ensuring that
the study focused on systems of inequities, as emphasized in the QPLSs, on how students were
traditionally underserved, denied opportunities and access to academic success, and how teacher
belief systems can impact these outcomes for students.
Program Effectiveness Data.
In addition to the aforementioned data presented to teachers, I collected data through
surveys (Appendices C - E) throughout the program to gauge the effectiveness and direction of
the learning program itself, and ensuring that the participants in the study had the opportunity to
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 80

change the direction and focus of the program as it suited their needs, as Brown (2017) insists
upon in her work. This means that I, as the researcher and facilitator of the learning, constantly
reviewed teachers’ feedback to shape the learning moving forward. I also used these feedback
surveys as opportunities to do my own “deep pause[s]” (Patel, 2015) in the research process,
focusing on how my positionality was situated in the larger social and professional context. For
example, the day one focus on data was reflective for the team, but I noted in the end of day
survey (Appendix C), that 60% of them only agreed that the day had been productive. In their
comments, I noted that Teacher Two reflected that “I felt like a lot of good conversation
happened starting the thought process in moving forward. Since we didn't get into making an
action plans I don't think we had a fully successful day.” Teacher Two further desired to “Make a
plan with the assessments and how we are going to move forward with them.” For them, the
conversation was not enough. My goal had been to use the conversation to probe their
worldviews and press them upon some of the biases they presented in their responses. From their
perspective, we needed to have produced a concrete product by the end of the day. I noted this
and used it to frame our subsequent day together.
This was coupled with a private conversation with Larry, who was particularly frustrated
by our lack of production, meaning that because we had not produced an assignment or, in his
expressed desire, developed a revised benchmark, he did not feel that the day had been truly
productive. He even remarked at the beginning of day two that “we didn’t get anything
accomplished last time.” Thus, when we met that second day, anticipating this response, I
adapted the outcomes to ensure that he had time to develop the assessment he needed.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 81

I was heartened to discover, though, that 80% believed that the conversation would
“Significantly” impact what they would do in their classrooms, while only 20% said it would
“Somewhat” impact their instruction.
I administered the same surveys at the end of the second and third days of collaborative
learning (Appendices D & E), each time adapting the next day’s agendas to address their
expectations. For the first two days I asked which direction they would like to go in the
following session to ensure that they were articulating the directions or needs for their own
learning, highlighting a key component from PDR and SDE to subvert the traditional roles of
professional learning and to allow for the co-designing of the program.
One obstacle to this collection of data is the challenge of meeting all participants’
learning needs simultaneously. On day two we focused on designing their benchmark, a key
element Teacher One wanted to accomplish, but Teacher Two grew frustrated by our lack of
changing the content of the assessment to better meet the Depth of Knowledge (DOK) levels
desired in assessments. In this case, Teacher One appreciated the dialogue but needed the
assessment written. Teacher Two appreciated the initial dialogue but then expected to see major
shifts occur in the production of the common benchmark. However, there was not enough time in
the one day to accomplish this large task, particularly in light of the fact that one team member
expressly articulated frustration with having to rewrite assessments all of the time. Dave, clearly
frustrated, said, “Look, we can do this again, but I feel like we have been doing this. I want to
focus on the teaching.” When teachers had left the room, Breanna expressed her frustration that
she had not been a part of the history of assessment building, that for her this is new, and she
wants to know why assessments look like and cover what they do.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 82

The largest surveys I administered were the “Initial Teacher Survey” (Appendix B), the
“Post-Program Teacher Survey” (Appendix J), and the “Program Assessment Survey”
(Appendix I). The “Program Assessment Survey” (Appendix I) and questions from the “Post-
Program Teacher Survey” (Appendix J) allowed me to cumulatively examine how the teachers
felt that the program met their needs directly. Only four teachers were able to take the “Program
Assessment Survey” (Appendix I) as one teacher was not able to make our final meeting.
However, all teachers participated in the “Post-Program Teacher Survey” (Appendix J). In both
surveys, all teachers responded either agreed or strongly agreed to all the questions in the surveys
which pertained to how well the program met their needs. Specific highlights include the data
indicating that 80% of the teachers strongly agreed that the program met their needs (Table 3)
and this is supported by the shift in grade distribution outlined below (Table 4). One hundred
percent of respondents intend to implement the strategies discussed in the program.
For key areas of consideration when developing future programs, I looked at which
categories had the highest percentages in the agree category as opposed to the strongly agree
category. For instance, I would have hoped that that 100% of the teachers believed that the
program impacted their belief systems about student capacity. However, only 50% strongly
agreed and 50% only agreed. Also, 60% of the team only agreed that the journals were a
meaningful exercise. This caused me to pause and consider whether this was because the
prompts were not deeply reflective enough, or whether teachers simply did not enjoy the practice
of ongoing reflection as recommended by SDE. Reflective practice is fundamental to SDE and to
Brown’s emergent strategy, so I concluded that the teachers have not had enough experience
with the practice in an intentional way and that while it was not a favored approach, it was
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 83

necessary and teachers did increase in their capacity to self-reflect, as highlighted later in the
findings.
Table 3
Key Data from Program Effectiveness Survey
Questions from the “Program Assessment Survey”
To what extent do you agree with the following
statements:
Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
The professional learning program met my
expectations.
75% 25% 0% 0%
The materials I received throughout were relevant
and useful.
50% 50% 0% 0%
The professional learning program provided me with
useful information about teaching to students with a
range of skill levels.
75% 25% 0% 0%
I intend to implement new strategies learned from
this professional learning program in my classroom.
75% 25% 0% 0%
In this professional learning program, the
presentation of content was effective.
75% 25% 0% 0%
In this professional learning program, the
presentation of teaching pedagogy was effective.
50% 50% 0% 0%
In this professional learning program, the data
presented impacted my belief systems about student
capacity.
50% 50% 0% 0%
Questions from the “Post-Program Teacher Survey”
The structure of the program was effective in
meeting my needs
80% 20% 0% 0%
The data presented throughout the experience shifted
my understanding of students' experiences and needs
60% 40% 0% 0%
The reflective journals were a meaningful exercise.
40% 60% 0% 0%
The opportunity to work closely with my peers
enhanced my capacity to be an effective teacher.
60% 40% 0% 0%
Table 3. This table reflects key data taken from the “Program Assessment Survey” and reflects
teachers’ overall responses to the program.

QPLS 2: A Focus on Content and Pedagogy
The QPLSs recommend that professional learning be directly tied to content and
pedagogy. In order for educators to assess data and thus determine priorities for educator
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 84

learning, they must be equipped with the academic and theoretical understandings surrounding
their subject areas and in effective pedagogical practices (California Department of Education,
2015). This is supported in the literature extensively – when teachers’ professional learning is
grounded in the content area and in the instructional practices most effective for supporting the
content area, the impact on teachers is more substantial (Desimone et al., 2002).
After spending the first day analyzing the data outlined above, we focused on the
content and instructional shifts recommended throughout the California History Social Sciences
(CHSS) Framework, narrowing our discussion to the development of writing skills. We honed in
on the essential questions outlined in their respective content chapter from the framework and
agreed to use those as the essential questions tied to each unit. These questions could then be
turned into writing prompts, which we developed for the unit they agreed to use as a writing task
for the common assessment. After developing agreed-upon prompts, we then discussed strategies
for supporting students in the writing process. This focus on content and pedagogy aligns to their
own characterization of effective professional learning, outlined above in the findings, but also
as part of the recommendations in the QPLSs. This focus on content and pedagogy reflected
positively in the participants’ feedback. Teacher Three reflected;
“I believe this workshop addressed some of my concerns as an educator. The
conversations about the various strategies to engage our students were eye opening. I
realized that we have made great progress in helping our students think critically, but we
have more work to do when it comes to building their ability to analyze information and
apply it to a given task.”
He further requested in his feedback that we discuss further strategies at our next meeting for
engaging students and supporting them in the ability to think critically.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 85

QPLS 3 and 4: Designing and Structuring the Learning through Collaboration and Shared
Accountability
The fourth standard focuses on the design and structure of the professional learning that
is provided for educators. It is not simply enough that educators be provided opportunities to
grow and learn, but the methods by which the learning is delivered and implemented are crucial
in potentially impacting educators’ belief systems and practices -- the purpose and direction of
the professional learning should align to the students’ needs in their schools and to the site and
district goals and initiatives. As such, the learning should be: job-embedded with time for
reflection, collaboration, observation; ongoing, with sustained support from the site and district
instructional leaders; include opportunities for reflection and feedback from peers and
instructional leaders so that the learning becomes fully integrated into the teachers’ practice;
differentiated within the professional learning program; diverse and engaging, grounded in
evidence-based practices, and ongoing throughout educators’ developing practice needs; and
include technology that is integrated so as to enhance the learning for both educators and
students (California Department of Education, 2015).
The fifth QPLS focuses on collaboration and shared accountability, accomplished
through a collaborative culture, through shared accountability whereby educators hold one
another responsible for adhering to aligned goals and expectations, and through the external
networks that are imperative to student success, including the relationships that should be
fostered and leveraged with all stakeholders within the community. It also means that teachers
have a voice in the direction of the school and in being accountable for student outcomes. This
reflects Fullan’s (2007) focus on linking internal accountability to external accountability – as a
group, yes, we were accountable to the school’s, district’s, and state’s goals, but, more
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 86

importantly, the group provided the opportunity for internal accountability. By agreeing upon
common assessment and writing prompts, they then also agreed upon expectations of
implementations and timelines for implementation.
This team is accustomed to working collaboratively, so there was little resistance to
meeting as often as we did. In fact, in the initial survey data three of them mentioned that one of
the elements they appreciate about teaching at OTHS is the collaborative nature of the staff as
whole. When asked about their strengths as a group in our first day together, they also stated
their ability to work collaboratively as a group as one of them. They mentioned that there was
not the same level of collaboration in other content areas. However, while the team was
accustomed to coming together and perhaps redesigning assessments, there was a lack of
consistent collaboration around instructional practice. Day three centered on a norming process;
it was the first time these individuals sat together for one day to collaboratively analyze student
work to determine areas of growth and how to shift instructional practice to support students.
In my initial conversation with them, I learned that while they did meet regularly to
calendar units of instruction and redesign assessments, they did not regularly share lessons or
instructional ideas. We all agreed to administer a common prompt for assessment on day two and
discussed important scaffolds that would need to be in place. John developed his own unique
scaffold to support the writing process, and Brant had previously built his own, and Larry and
Dave used the same simplified essay outline. They did not share these ideas with one another
prior to having students write. On day three, when we discussed the students’ responses, they
finally were able to see that a) students needed more scaffolding, b) they were responsible for
providing it, and c) they could have used the same scaffolds to help them develop students’ skills
and then assess student learning.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 87

I also learned that the informal, internal accountability system was not enough to ensure
that all teachers committed to and followed through on implementing agreed-upon strategies
with the same level of fidelity. The entire team agreed to both strategies that they proposed to
implement: the benchmark essay and the Socratic Seminar. All five teachers did have their
students complete the paper but not all five teachers were present for the norming of the essay
throughout the entire day. I discovered that they had not collaborated on the scaffolding of the
essay and they did not instinctually come together to ensure how the essay prompt was
administered and collected. This resulted in inequitable outcomes. We remedied this when we
collaborated upon how to do the Socratic Seminar, but as is highlighted later in this chapter, only
four of the teachers actually implemented the strategy in some capacity, and only three
committed to the activity with fidelity. As a result, there were very inconsistent outcomes in
student performance. While I had hoped that the team agreeing to strategies which they believed
were grounded in the Framework and necessary for student learning would be enough of an
impetus for all to collaborate fully and implement with fidelity, it simply was not.
Feedback regarding the structure of the overall program was provided in the “Program
Assessment Survey” (Appendix I). The survey asked to what extent they agree or disagreed with
the following statements: The opportunity to work closely with my peers enhanced my capacity
to be an effective teacher and the structure of the program was effective in meeting my needs.
80% of respondents strongly agreed that the opportunity to work closely with their peers
enhanced their capacity, whereas 20% agreed. Additionally, 80% of the teachers strongly agreed
that the structure of the program was effective in meeting their needs, and 20% agreed.
This feedback was intended to specifically decentralize the power of the research as
outlined in PDR, SDE, and Brown’s (2017) emergent strategy and also to allow for the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 88

intentional adaptations called for in Brown (2017). The structure for the program was not pre-
determined; rather, it was meant to be nonlinear and iterative as is reflected in the theoretical
framework which shaped the study, allowing the teachers’ own desires and willingness to engage
in practices to shape the design of the study as they expressed desire for developing different
strategies and assignments together. I attempted to hold open space for their contradicting beliefs
in a way that was sometimes contentious, as in the first day when we discussed the reasoning for
inequities in student outcomes, but always remained collegial.
The process did not produce the complete role-remediation I had envisioned through the
commitment to PDR and SDE. First, the teachers still looked to me to tell them what we should
discuss, and I usually found myself as the individual who would redirect the conversation to a
focused topic when it veered off track. I found myself often reflecting upon whether or not the
role-remediation can truly be subverted in education so long as the conversation is facilitated by
an individual not within the teacher’s content groups. This reflection brought to light the
emergence of Brant as a developing leader within the group. There were times when I reached an
impasse with the group, as in the second day when Larry was adamant that the benchmark had to
be completed for us to be productive. Brant was instrumental in helping to mediate the
philosophical disagreements that arose between the team around the quality and depth of specific
questions. He provided thoughtful compromises which helped the team move forward. I reflected
upon how when I was no longer working with the team, or in the times when they met
informally, he was and would be a vital component to ensuring that the group reached a
resolution in order to move forward. This leadership capacity in the individual teacher would go
a long way to developing the shared accountability outlined in the framework for this study.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 89

I did encounter obstacles in structuring and planning the collaboration meetings. Two of
the teachers served as coaches on the campus and had to leave our planning days early to attend
their coaching periods. This meant most of the discussion and planning had to occur by 1:30 pm.
Planning the dates for the collaboration was subject to planning dates they had for other teams
and for other site-wide initiatives on the campus which required collaborative planning time.
Finally, job-embedded means that teachers are not pulled together outside of their regularly
scheduled day. This is positive for teachers and the district: Teachers are not asked to come in on
a Saturday or after school and are thus more likely to attend. From the district’s perspective, this
is a cost-saving measure as it costs twice as much to pay teachers to come in outside of their
contracted hours as it does to pay a substitute to sit in for the teacher while he or she is pulled out
for collaboration. This is also a critical component of the QPLSs in that the learning should be
job-embedded and action-oriented. The negative to this, however, is that pulling a teacher out of
the classroom too often is detrimental to student learning. So any planning dates must be
balanced with the dates needed for other course-level teams, other site initiatives, or other
district-provided workshops, including Induction workshop and technology training, that
teachers might want to attend in order to further their own personal growth.
QPLS 5: Resources
The next standard of the QPLSs involves resources that must be provided to support
effective programs of professional learning (California Department of Education, 2015). These
resources are imperative in driving the success of a program, but they must be allocated
equitably with the understanding that different sites have different needs based upon the
population of students and the educators who serve them. This also means allowing for creativity
within the day and structure of the overall system to allow for opportunities for teachers to learn
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 90

from and alongside one another. If learning happens through observation, as the QPLSs argue
that it does, then the structure of the larger system must allow for flexible staffing and for
coaching from leaders. One significant warning provided is that external professional learning
providers should be “vetted against rigorous criteria” (California Department of Education, 2015,
p. 23).
As for the equipment and materials, this encompasses a wide array of resources
necessary to support learning – if technology is needed, technology ought to be provided, and all
funding should be leveraged most effectively to ensure equitable access to the resources needed
to support educator and student learning.
For this study, the team and I needed access to a wide variety of technology tools and
fiscal resources. We used district-provided technological devices for our collaborative agendas. I
also used district-provided technology for the administration of the surveys. This same
technology is used in the classroom for the development and administration of their common
assessments. The devices have also been provided to teachers through their participation in the
district rollout of application and subsequent training for classroom sets of technology.
Further costs include the costs to pay the substitutes while teaches were out of their
classrooms for the days we came together to meet. The district also provided the instructional
resources used to first inspire shifts in their belief systems, the research which supports the need
for shifts, and the instructional materials that students would use in the classroom to support the
identified needs for growth. The district covered my salary and the cost of working with the
team.
Finally, QPLS 6 provides a critical warning comes in the form of external providers;
outside providers should only be used if they are vetted against rigorous criteria. It especially
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 91

places an emphasis on recognizing the “leadership capacity of internal staff to present, facilitate
or coach targeted professional learning … engag[ing] external expertise when necessary”
(California Department of Education, 2015, p. 23). In this case, as mentioned prior, I am a
member and leader in this academic community. The district has invested in me and in an
instructional coaching team to lead and develop the majority of its professional learning
opportunities, engaging outside sources only when a specific expertise is needed that we cannot
provide.
QPLS 6: Alignment and Coherence
The sixth QPLS insists upon an alignment to federal and state policies, to district and
school goals and needs, and to the professional career continuum. Ultimately, if school and
district goals are aligned to the policies and regulations provided by the state and federal
governemnt, and if educators’ goals are aligned to the school and district vision for student
learning, then there is a “coherent system of educator learning and support” (California
Department of Education, 2015).
In the case of this study, there is are substantial systems of accountability to which the
learning must be aligned. First, the district has aligned its instructional goals to the Local Control
and Accountability Plan (LCAP), the funding plan that the district uses to ensure its meeting the
needs of its students in accordance with the expectations outlined in the various education laws
in California. The district further aligns these goals to the California School Dashboard
(California Department of Education, 2018), the system California uses to provide transparency
to its stakeholders about how schools and districts perform on a variety of metrics. The school
then aligns its instructional goals to the district’s goals, and more specifically to the needs of its
own student population. Further accountability is reflected in the Western Association of Schools
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 92

and Colleges (WASC) reports; these school studies are generated through the Accredition
Commission for Schools and are an accountability system to ensure overall school quality. Each
department on campus further aligns its own instructional goals to the site goals and to the
California State Content Standards specific to its discipline. So the objectives outlined in this
study were aligned to the school’s Schoolwide Learning Objectives (SLOs), the California
standards for History Social Science, the CA Framework, and the district’s specific goals
outlined in the Local Control Accountability Plan.
Structuring Opportunities for Reflection
One component that was not specifically delineated in the QPLS but which is
fundamental to perpetuating deep, powerful change, is the need for consistent and constructive
reflection, as supported in Brown (2017) and in SDE. I asked teachers to engage in reflective
journal exercises not just in our collaborative conversation but also in quiet moments with
targeted prompts at the beginning of each session together. I wanted these to be a relatively risk-
free way for them to reflect upon the day’s conversations, to reflect upon the potential conflicts
that arose about students, their practice, and why students struggle. There were also reflective
prompts in the “Initial Teacher Survey” (Appendix B) and in the “Post-Program Survey”
(Appendix J). Initially, teachers’ responses were clipped and not developed. By the end, their
responses were more developed and more thoroughly reflective – the skill of reflection increased
throughout the study. For instance, when asked how often Teacher One self-reflected upon
racism or prejudice in their own practices, the teacher initially responded, “I don't....is that good
I'm not a racist/prejudice or is that bad???” When prompted with that same question at the end,
Teacher One replied with a much more comprehensive answer:
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 93

“I do not. I feel like I am very progressive when it comes to race. My wife is Hispanic
and my kids are half black. I have always tried to treat everyone the same based on color.
[One thing] I find myself reflecting on is homosexuality or gender in the classroom.
Sometimes I might say to an athlete stop acting like a French school girl, I have since
stopped. Or if two boys are talking I would say stop asking him out to prom. These types
of things I reflect on and think they can be seen as offensive and since have stopped. I
have also made an effort to be more inclusive in our study with these two groups. The
FAIR Act training has really assisted in this. While it hasn't been introduced into formal
assessments it is discussed informally within class discussions.”
Teacher Five began the process as a reflective teacher and continued as such throughout
the research period. His initial comments were thoughtful, reflective, and lengthy. When
comparing responses in all of the various instruments he consistently provided paragraph
responses that reflected a teacher who engages in reflection often and adapts his teaching as a
result of that reflection. An example of his reflections occurs in the surveys when asked which
instructional is preferred. Teacher Five initially stated;
“I use scaffolding with my AP class. First, I allow them to read and outline a section. We
then utilize graphic organizers in groups to gather particular sets of information and then
share our findings with the class. Then we take that information and I give them a prompt
that will use their gathered information. They then write a thesis and then fill out an LEQ
graphic organizer. They then use the graphic organizer to help them write an LEQ to
answer the prompt.”
When asked the same question at the end, Teacher Five responded;
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 94

“Direct instruction is used most often because it allows for speed and making sure that
the content is simplified for understanding. I would rather not use direct instruction that
often. I don't use it almost at all in my AP course. I just facilitate, provide direction,
feedback, and explain particular skills, etc. I feel like my prep classes need extra
instruction to explain the material so I lecture more often. For example, I thought the US
class did well on the source analysis to break down the material as a group, but needs
massive amounts of direct instruction going forward in terms of how to effectively
answer a prompt.”
There is consistency in depth here, and one can see how his reflections direct his teaching toward
shifting practice in response.
Findings for Research Question 2: The Forming of Teachers’ Belief Systems
The second research question for the study asked, “How are US History teacher belief
systems regarding students’ capacity/agency shaped throughout a personalized, collaboratively-
developed professional learning program over the course of a semester?”
Participants’ Prior Experience with Professional Learning Opportunities
Prior to the professional learning experience, participants took an “Initial Teacher
Survey” (Appendix B). This survey asked them to reflect upon their prior experiences with
professional learning and what made them impactful, including their respective experiences in
their teacher preparation programs.
Extent of Ongoing Professional Learning.
All five teachers described their experience with professional learning to be extensive,
most often provided by the district they currently work in. Participant One even went so far as to
say that “who [he is] as a teacher has been shaped through constant training through our district
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 95

to stay informed on the most up to date strategies, data, and methods to a constantly evolving
curriculum”. The others referenced specific trainings including AVID (Advancement Via
Individual Determination), AP summer seminars, professional learning for new instructional
materials, technology training, job-embedded collaboration opportunities, and mental health
training.
Characteristics of Impactful Professional Learning.
All five participants believed that their professional learning experiences helped shape
their teaching, whether the experience was positive or negative. Teacher One specifically said,
“even the training I thought was pointless helped reinforce what I wanted to accomplish in my
classroom. So I would look at all training as positive. I have taken bits and pieces of each
training to better define and modify my philosophy.”
Characteristic #1: Interactive.
Two of the five teachers believed interactive professional learning made the experience
more impactful. Teacher Three felt strongly that the most lasting and impactful of all the
professional learning he experienced was interactive. This interactivity “allowed [him] to be
comfortable implementing [what he experienced] into the lessons”. This is reflected in his
philosophy about how one’s teaching is shaped: through one’s experiences. If experiences are the
most significant impact in shaping one’s career, it is not surprising for Teacher Three, then, that
his own experiential learning most significantly impacted his teaching.
Characteristic #2: Relevant.
Three of the five teachers mentioned relevancy as being an element in impactful
professional learning. For Teacher Five, the relevance of the learning was most profound for
him. He spoke directly of his time in the AP summer institutes and seminars because they
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 96

tailored the learning directly to his subject, aligning to the Ingvarson et al. (2012) findings
discussed in Chapter Two. This is significant because one of the issues he had with his credential
program was its lack of direct connection to his content area. He argued that the focus on general
lesson planning was not helpful to what he actually needed in his classroom.
Characteristic #3: Change in Student Outcomes.
All five participants mentioned that the most impactful learning they experienced was
directly tied to how they saw changes in students, either academically or in their relationships
with students, as a result. For Teacher Two, “all of these conferences/courses showed me more
and better ways to help my students.” They all articulated that the trainings provided them
opportunities to foster stronger relationships with students and help them with specific learning
goals. Teacher Five stated, “That impact on our students is the biggest impact on me because it
makes me want to continue professional develop and keep learning new ways to reach our
students in the most meaningful ways”. This aligns to Guskey and Sparks’s (2002) third of the
four phases discussed in Chapter Two and which inform the theoretical framework which
informs this study. Guskey and Sparks (2002) argue that true change only occurs after teachers
have witnessed evidence of improved student outcomes after specific practice has been
implemented, particularly with teachers of struggling learners.
Teacher Belief Systems
Findings were determined by an analysis of the collaborative conversations and through
the analysis of all of the survey data (Appendices B - J). I will first present the findings
connected to the individual teachers and then identify trends across their responses where it best
answers the research questions.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 97

Teachers’ Belief Systems Regarding Why Students Struggle: Student Community and
System-Based Factors
For the purpose of this analysis, I have broken the categories down for what the teachers
articulated for why students struggle. These categories include student community factors –
those factors that teachers believe stem from the students, their families, and their communities –
and internal system-based factors – those factors which stem from policy, the school’s
community, and the teachers themselves.
Student Community Factors.
Throughout the first day of collaboration together, we reflected upon the data, outlined
below, and participants shared a wide variety of reasoning for why students struggled
academically. I was told repeatedly that students cannot read and that they will not read, that
their families do not value education, families expect the schools to parent, teach, and do all the
hard work. One teacher said, “We do our job here at work and parents need to do their job at
home.” I pushed back on these assumptions, asking them to what extent they, too, were culpable
for this lack of opportunities afforded to their students. I asked them to reflect upon the structural
systems which impeded the learning for their students.
Economic Status.
One reason teachers believe students struggled was because of the obstacles their
economic status forced upon them. Collectively, they agreed that students’ economic obstacles
included a need to watch siblings at home, not having proper places to do their homework, and a
lack of access to the internet. They referred anecdotally to stories students shared with them
throughout their tenures as teachers. Brant specifically reflected, “A student is suddenly the
parent at home and doesn’t have time to do the assignments.” I asked to what extent this clear
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 98

obstacle influenced their decisions about what to include and not to include in their curriculum.
These reflections and beliefs have resulted in their collectively not assigning homework. But
they further acknowledged that other factors were also to blame for students not doing
homework, such as apathy and a lack of accountability. While they conceded that economic
factors prohibited students from being able to complete their homework and thus have greater
success in class, the only true concession they made was not assigning homework. What was
missing from their conversation was how to combat these systems and obstacles which keep their
students from doing homework. The teachers were willing to acknowledge and believe that
students’ economic status impacted students’ overall ability to do homework, but this realization
did not transform the teachers’ larger concepts of why students were successful or not. They
cited economic factors as connected to homework but not to the larger considerations that needed
to be addressed in developing an equitable and transformative education; thus, this realization
only impacted their belief systems superficially. They did not admit to making any significant
changes to their curriculum in light of the economic obstacles their students faced.
Internal System-Based Factors.
District-Wide Emphasis on Performance Metrics.
One source of frustration which emerged from the team for why students do not succeed
was their belief that their district’s emphasis on meeting the UC/CSU minimum admission
requirements outlined in previous chapters (UC High School Articulation Unit, 2019) and the
focus on testing were impeding students’ capacity to develop necessary skills. Ten years ago the
district embarked upon an ambitious effort to increase the number of students meeting the
UC/CSU minimum course requirement so that more students would graduate having met these
requirements and thus be eligible to enter into a four-year UC school. This has forced serious
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 99

conversations and efforts across campuses centered on analyzing students who are
disproportionally and adversely kept from achieving this outcome. Additionally, teachers’
reference above to a focus on testing refers to California’s mandated Standardized Testing and
Report (STAR) Program which the state used as a method of accountability for schools and
districts through subject-based assessments. Larry articulated, “We trained them to be this
way…a.b.c.d” (a reference to the fact that students were required to memorize facts from history
and use that information to select the appropriate answer form a multiple-choice assessment).
Dave further argued that “The focus should be on the student. Ever since we pushed testing there
is a lack of skill development”. And because these assessments covered a long list of standards
that had to be tested by April, teachers felt compelled to cover material at the cost of developing
skills to get through the standards. This forced adherence to the assessments and stripped
teachers, from their perspective, of their right to experiment pedagogically as SDE encourages
and adapt their teaching in transformative ways as outlined in the QPLSs. Fear of repercussions
from low test scores forced teachers to adopt practices that reinforced only surface-level learning
and did not allow for the deeper skill development students needed. Dave asked at a particularly
contentious point in the conversation:
“Do we have enough time to teach the desired skill? We can’t put the cart before the
horse. I can do this [adding skills back into the curriculum] but do we have enough time?
You can’t learn critical thinking without repetition, practicing the skills over and over
again. What am I sacrificing for the sake of getting through everything that I have to get
through?”
It was important to note that the assessment system which initially prompted this adherence to
coverage of standards by a particular time, and which Dave referenced above, has not been in
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 100

place in California for over five years. Yet these teachers have not abandoned the practice of
covering standards only superficially despite the lifting of these accountability measures. I
challenged them to comment upon this fact, that what they continued to refer to was no longer in
place as an accountability measure. In fact, the CA HSS Framework explicitly recommends that
teachers engage in the practices that Dave referred to in the quote above. This prompted them to
argue that while this assessment system was no longer in place it had been replaced by other
restrictive measures by the district.
The team believed that in the district’s efforts to increase the number of students meeting
their UC/CSU requirements, too many opportunities had been put in place for students so that
they never had to worry about failing. Specifically, they argued that the movement to keep
students from failing was instead producing generations of students who did not fear failing
because they knew they would have multiple opportunities to simply make up the failing grade.
John summarized this moment when he said, “We’ve made things easier -- you can fail your
classes; you can do credit recovery; and you can graduate.” In this case, the you he refers to is
students, in particular, students they believe who are given too many chances to remediate
without the consequence of failing. Here again I pushed back and asked them to examine why
the district began this emphasis in the first place; namely, that a clear majority of students were
graduating high school without the opportunity to go to a four-year UC or CSU because they had
not met the minimum requirements, and that this majority was disproportionately represented by
students of color and socio-economically disadvantaged students. The district’s efforts had
actually resulted in shifting inequitable student outcomes, particularly at OTHS and for their
Latino students, as outlined in the data presented at the beginning of our program together. While
they acknowledged that this was good for students, they were not willing to relinquish their
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 101

beliefs that the unintended consequences were students who could graduate and pass too readily.
They did not discuss how shifts in their practices in the classroom could still provide
opportunities for students to learn but hold them accountable for that learning in a positive way
and not through punitive measures.
Counselors.
One other source of frustration the team expressed centered on the counseling team on
their campus. They argued that teachers could not be the only individuals on a campus who had
high expectations for students. They expressed consternation over counselors who do not
encourage students sufficiently, who discourage students from taking more rigorous courses, or
who diminish the integrity of programs when the department has tried to provide courses that
highlight cultural relevance. They expressed specific anecdotes which students shared about
counselors who told them, “You don’t need this course.” A few years prior, there had been an
ethnic studies course developed by one of the teachers, but rather than it becoming an elective
which supported students inspired by the topic, it became “a dumping ground for behavior
issues”, said Dave, because counselors simply put students in there who needed a course. They
by-and-large felt that the push for students to succeed needed to be a campus-wide effort and that
teachers could not be solely responsible for placing and thus supporting students.
Teachers’ Expectations of Learning.
Finally, the conversations turned inward, and the teachers shared how their own
expectations for student learning adversely impacted student learning. One source of difficulty
they took ownership of was not being able to support students when they came to the classroom
without grade-level reading skills. They admitted that many teachers did not want to emphasize
reading because when kids could not read, it was too hard to teach and there was not enough
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 102

time. Dave simply put it: “We don’t require kids to read.” John admitted that it was not just an
issue particular to ELs: “This is not even an issue for our ELs; native speakers can’t read either.”
This lack of ability in students is exacerbated by a lack of the relevant skill sets for teachers to
properly support struggling readers in their content area. Teachers knew that students struggled
to read, but because they are not adequately trained to teach students how to become literate in
their content area, they lowered the expectations for reading and simply provided the information
to students through lecture.
Teachers’ Experiences in Education
One veteran teacher in the group, who was an EL as a student, spoke about the variety of
his experiences and how that shaped his own perspective. He spoke about his own experience
with the proficiency assessments and how that impacted him. I take a moment here because he is
also the teacher who emailed me after our first day of collaborating together and he asked me,
independently, away from the group, “So from my data am I failing too many kids? Maybe I’m
skewed because of my experience as an EL.” This teacher, upon analysis of the grade
disaggregation data highlighted below, saw for the first time that while only 8% of his English-
only students received a D or F, 30% of his ELs received Ds or Fs. This was an important
reflection and question. While I cannot speak to his own internal motivation, I can speak to the
community he inspires in his classroom. With students, he is funny, engaging, and committed to
trying new strategies, including technology. He is not one teacher who said OTHS students could
not do something, but he did state, “We’re going to give you every chance to succeed but we’re
going to hold you accountable”. This reflects an intention to both believe in students’ capacity
but also to hold himself accountable for the learning they receive. In this case, his own
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 103

experience as an English Learner, both positively and negatively in his perspective, has impacted
his work as a teacher and his expectations for students.
Extra-Curricular Demands on Teachers’ Time.
It is no secret that teachers are asked to do a number of activities outside of teaching on a
campus. This demand for outside-classroom activities forces a teacher to make choices about
where they focus their energy. All of these teachers on this team perform additional duties on
campus, from coaching to club advisor to athletic director (AD) (two of them have previously
been ADs on their campus). These extra duties take the emphasis away from their capacity to be
more effective teachers. In fact, Brant was honest when we discussed their grade distribution and
whether or not they had scaffolded the learning to meet students’ needs. He simply said, “It
wasn’t my focus last year because I was so focused on other things. I should have chunked
more” (referring to our discussion about scaffolding the writing expectations). In fact, Brant
actually pulled away from his extra duties and paired down to one item he feels passionately
about just so he could focus on his teaching. He admitted that his energy was on his other duties
and not on ensuring he was the most effective teacher he could be. Breanna is only in her second
year of teaching, yet in her first year, she was asked to become the advisor to a demanding
academic club, a job for which there was no training and minimal support. While she accepted
the job readily, in part because she loves students and was willing to do what her principal asked
of her, she was still struggling with simply learning how to be a teacher when her school asked
her to take on additional duties.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 104

Grade Distributions and Shifts in Practice
Brant.
When we first analyzed the data of his grade distribution, 14% of his English-speaking
students received Ds or Fs in his US History in the 2017-2018 school year, while 100% of his
ELs (of note, he only had one EL student) and 19% of his re-classified ELs received Ds or Fs
(Table 4).
After completing the study, 11% of his students received a D or F but only 66% of ELs
received a D or F and 38% of his reclassified students received a D or F. In reflecting upon why
he believes this shift occurred, he remarked that he;
“made the commitment to include more supports for students. Near the end of the first
semester, [he] started using guided reading summaries to introduce the section before any
lecture or answering questions based on the complete section from the actual textbook.
[He] also started to try to scaffold down the exams based on input from a former SpEd
teacher. department chair. Also, [he] committed to including more critical thinking and
writing elements into [his] instructional plans.”
John.
When we first analyzed the data of his grade distribution, 15% of his English-speaking
students received Ds or Fs in his US History in the 2017-2018 school year, while 67% of his ELs
and 2% of his re-classified ELs received Ds or Fs (Table 4).
After completing the study, John had only 13% of his students receive a D or F, 10% of
his ELs receive a D or F, and 15% of his reclassified students receive a D or F. Interestingly, he
only attributed this difference to invariance in content between the two semesters, meaning that
first semester was easier content, and that the kids were different. This semester he had one less
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 105

collaboration course than last year; these courses are co-taught by a general education teacher
and a special education teacher and have an increased proportion of special education students in
the population.
Dave.
When we first analyzed the data of Dave’s grade distribution, 12% of his English-
speaking students received Ds or Fs in his US History in the 2017-2018 school year, while 50%
of his ELs and 10% of his reclassified ELs received Ds or Fs (Table 4).
After completing the study, 40% of Dave’s English-speaking students received a D or F,
34% of his ELs received a D or F, and 29% of his reclassified students received a D or F. Dave
does have a different situation this year. Last year, he was the sole instructor for his courses. This
year, he has agreed to take on the collaboration courses. This co-teaching frustrates Dave, and he
attributed the shift in student outcomes to this dynamic: “I noticed a change in my special needs
students in my collaboration periods. They seemed to get a little confused with two teaching
styles causing their grades to slightly decrease. I think the different pedagogical skill levels really
confused the students.”
Breanna.
When we first analyzed the data of his grade distribution, 8% of her English-speaking
students received Ds or Fs in his US History in the 2017-2018 school year, while 31% of her ELs
and 0% of her re-classified ELs received Ds or Fs (Table 4).
After completing the study, 11% of her students received a D or F, while 5% of her ELs
received a D or F and only 3% of her re-classified students received a D or F. She believed that
this difference was because she “now ha[s] a better understanding of how to help these students
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 106

achieve success in [her] class … [she has] more strategies and techniques to assist [her] on this
path.”
Larry.
When we first analyzed the data of his grade distribution, 62% of his English-speaking
students received Ds or Fs in his US History in the 2017-2018 school year, while 80% of his ELs
and 39% of his re-classified ELs received Ds or Fs (Table 4).
After completing the study, only 35% of Larry’s students received a D or F, 28% of his
ELs received a D or F, and only 25% of his reclassified students received a D or F. His shift
reflects the greatest difference in the grade distribution overall. While he admits that different
student populations are likely to result in different results, he did admit that there was a “huge
difference”, that his students “were much more successful” this year. He attributed it to;
“moving away from the old CST stand and deliver method of cram as much as you can
within each period. This has allowed us to use more meaningful practices and I find the
students are more engaged and stimulated during class time. I also find that this has had a
major shift in my grades in a more positive way. My percentages of D/C are a lot lower
over the last 5/6 years and my A/B grades have dramatically improved. About 25% of my
students got an A first semester this quarter and I NEVER had that many As before.”
Table 4
Grade Distribution of Ds and Fs for 2017-2018 and 2018-19 School Years
Teacher
% of Overall Students
Who Received D or F
% of ELs Who Received
a D or F
% of Reclassified ELs
Who Received a D or F
2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19 2017-18 2018-19
Brant 14% 11% 100% 66% 19% 38%
John 15% 13% 67% 10% 2% 15%
Dave 12% 40% 50% 34% 10% 29%
Breanna 8% 11% 31% 5% 0% 3%
Larry 62% 28% 80% 35% 39% 25%
Table 4. This table reflects the grade distributions of the teachers prior to the study and after
completing the study.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 107

In all, all five teachers decreased their percentage of Ds or Fs for English Learner
students, and three of the five decreased their percentage of Ds or Fs overall. Dave, who saw a
significant increase in his overall D or F rate, had a significant shift in his overall student
population. For this year, his course sections had a larger proportion of special education
students as he was team teaching with a special education teacher. Breanna also saw an increase
in her students receiving Ds or Fs but she has more sections of US history this year than last
year, and that might have an impact. Finally, a further point to highlight is the percentage of
Reclassified English Learners who received a D or F. As part of the California’s accountability
model, schools and districts are measured on their English Learner progress; this has resulted in
an increased effort to ensure that ELs are progressing toward proficiency each year in
California’s public schools. These efforts are thus increasing the number of students who are
gaining reclassification status. As is evidenced in Table 4, while ELs found more success in
these teachers’ courses, the percent of reclassified of ELs receiving Ds or Fs has increased for
four of the five teachers. While analysis as to why is outside the scope of this study, this should
prompt a new focus of inquiry within the group for future reflection and focus.

Bi-Directionality of Learning and Relationship Building
The relationship dynamic at the foundation of our work together was fundamental to our
capacity to move forward collectively as a team. Merriam & Tisdell (2016) identified three key
factors in analyzing the power dynamics which potentially impact the relationship, authenticity
of communications, and trust and rapport that should be developed in the research:
insider/outsider issues, positionality issues, and researcher reflexivity. I regularly reflected in the
“deep pause” moments Patel (2015) describes so that the collaborative nature of the study and
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 108

my historical connection with its location were at the forefront of my effort to provide the most
authentic and desired learning on the part of the teachers. To what extent did my role as both
insider and outside play in our relationship? To what extent did my positionality influence the
outcomes of the study? To what extent was I able to reflect upon these issues so that the support
I provided was driven by their needs and not simply in the direction I wanted them to go? This is
why an acknowledgment of the power dynamics is vital and why the researcher reflexivity is so
integral to this process. Earlier in the chapter I highlighted how the program feedback surveys
helped to ensure this reflexivity on my part was tied directly to the insights and desires the
teachers provided.
The need for authentic relationships to be at the heart of the research and thus at the heart
of the professional learning provided for teachers emerged throughout the process as a reflection
of the collaboration and shared accountability and resilience through liberated relationships, and
just as importantly, the fractals that are a foundational element of the framework which framed
this study (see Figure 1). For instance, there were times when the team was reluctant to try a
strategy and it was their belief in my desire to support them that encouraged them to try the
strategy, a reminder that our collective relationship was a powerful impetus for change of
practice. For example, the team recognized that students needed more opportunities for academic
conversation skills practice because: a) they do not have comprehensive backgrounds in
developing these skills, and b) these skills are called for in the California History Social Science
Framework. We had agreed that they were going to try a strategy called Socratic Seminar, a
strategy where students are provided questions designed to promote analytical thinking as
students frame arguments through synthesizing material they have learned throughout a unit or
lesson of instruction (in the initial stages the teacher provides the questions while more advanced
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 109

practice allows for students to generate their own questions); students engage in academic
discourse with one another as they work to answer the questions posed. This strategy has been
found to foster critical thinking in students as it transitions them from passive recipients of
information into critical thinkers engaged in answering critical questions (Elder & Paul, 1998).
In general, the team had not formally introduced and supported academic conversations in their
classes and were particularly nervous about the scaffolding that was required. Larry stated,
however, for the group, “Okay, Jess, we trust you. If you promise to be there when we try it,
we’ll do it.” My journal reflection for that day specifically highlighted this comment as a
powerful moment in the day for me as researcher – because they believed I was there to support,
and we had researched how it was an effective strategy to develop students’ critical thinking
skills, they were willing to implement a strategy they were not completely comfortable with.
This was not the first time the teachers were willing to do something because they trusted me or
one another. This collaborative sense of shared accountability engendered a willingness to try.
Also, these fractals, as Brown (2017) coins them, were highlighted in Larry’s remarks above.
They emerged in light moments, at lunch together, and in deeper moments, here in this
conversation for instance. The fractals are the foundation for the relationship building and
accountability models highlighted in the framework.
When we sat down to analyze and norm the essay responses together, they initially
believed that all students would do terribly, in part because they had perused their own students’
responses and were dissatisfied with the results. The teachers were asked to comment upon
common issues they were seeing once several examples were graded. We discussed these and
found there was overlap but Brant’s students performed marginally better. The team wanted to
know what he had done, and he shared the scaffold he had made with the group. I asked why
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 110

they had not shared it prior and they said they simply had not had time. They asked Brant if they
could use his the next time and this prompted John to say that he had also made a scaffold. The
group discussed the merits of both and decided to blend them together so that everyone would
have the same level of support for students going in. The vulnerability displayed in asking Brant
what he had done, admitting that if they had done something like this for their own students then
they might have done better, was a direct result of their trust in one another. They were honest
about their own shortcomings and willing to recognize the growth they might see by employing
Brant’s approach. Again, one sees their resilience emerge through their liberated relationships.
Admitting that one could have adjusted his practice is a vulnerable admission and can only be
accomplished when the team feels safe within the space their team has established.
At one point in our conversation on day two, Larry asked, “What do you want us to do?
What is more important: the pacing guide or the skills?” This was an important moment for me
to recognize my positionality and as a reflection of Larry’s accustomed behaviors of asking and
then being told what the most important task was for their teaching. I had attempted to
decentralize the locus of power from me to be distributed throughout the whole team, but that
structure was anathema to their prior experiences with professional learning. Larry knew the
answer to the question he posed. But for them to believe that I did not have a directive for them
to follow has simply not been what they have become accustomed to.

Overall Shifts in Belief Systems
To determine shifts in belief systems, I analyzed data collected through the “Post-
Program Survey” (Appendix J) which, in part, had some of the same questions from the “Initial
Teacher Survey” (Appendix B) in order to facilitate direct comparison from the beginning to the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 111

end of the program. I first analyzed how the teachers responded to the question that “Overall, this
experience shifted my beliefs about designing learning experiences for students.” Forty percent
of them strongly agreed and 60% agreed. I received the same results for the question, “Overall,
this experience shifted my beliefs about my capacity to provide effective instruction.” I
triangulated these responses with the responses they provided in the comparative portions of the
“Initial Teacher Survey” (Appendix B) and the “Post-Program Survey” (Appendix I).
When asked directly about their core values as a teacher, Teacher One emphasized that
while his core values of focusing on skills has not shifted, the weight of them has:
“these skills have been redefined after this experience as more balanced. Before Critical
Thinking and Reading were at a smaller portion of Listening and Writing. Today they
aren't equal but there is more of an emphasis on Critical Thinking and Reading than
before.”
Initially Teacher One said he took student choice into account quite often, but in the final
reflection, he said he does not take it into account at all; rather, he adapts his instruction to meet
his students’ needs. The classroom environment has shifted from a “very structured
environment” to an “open atmosphere … rooted in routine and discipline … [where] students are
free to talk, discuss, or collaborate”. His most notable shift comes when he reflected upon his
grading practices. Initially, when asked to what extent he took into consideration the obstacles
his students faced when evaluating their work, he replied, “I don’t.” However, in the post
reflection, one can see the shift in his awareness: “As I get to know my students’ abilities, I take
into consideration their effort and understanding of an assignment when grading. I will grade an
EL student differently from a general ed. student on the same assignment. Or I will allow always
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 112

adhere to an IEP or 504 plan and take that into consideration.” The shift in awareness and
language is particularly powerful here.
This same trend in awareness and language is reflected in Teacher 2’s responses. When
asked how much time and effort Teacher Two took to self-reflect upon racism or prejudice, the
teacher responded, “Truly, I don’t take much time.” However, in the post survey Teacher Two
responded;
“Not as much as I should. I should look back after each lesson and see how I may have
ostracized a student by accident with some of the examples or verbiage I used. Right now
I only do it if I noticed a glaring statement of racism of prejudice I said or did while
grading ... I like to create a community, where we all feel comfortable and trust each
other so that my class is a safe environment for students.”
Teacher Two further articulated that when designing a lesson, “I try to create a lesson that is
achievable and entreating for all of my students decapitate their learning levels and
differentiation.” This intentionality was not present in the teacher’s initial remarks and shows a
significant shift toward integrating the reflection into practice when designing a classroom
community and curriculum that suits students’ needs rather than the teacher’s.
When asked about to what extent teachers take into consideration the obstacles their
students face when evaluating student work, Teacher Three shifted from sometimes initially, to
“my main concern is the language barrier for some. I want to make sure they do not feel inferior
when doing group work or evaluations.” Similarly, Teacher Five initially stated that “I admit that
I usually don't take that into consideration. I judge work on the work itself”. However, by the end
of the program he reported, “I am getting better at that. I try to look at what a student has
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 113

accomplished not in the lens of what it should be in an ideal setting but based on that student's
ability level.”
Teacher Five’s responses remained relatively consistent from the initial survey to the post
survey. He expressed a willingness to try to do what it takes to support student learning no matter
what and emphasized his own regular engagement with trying new and fresh approaches in his
teaching. He expressed cooperative learning as his favorite strategy in the initial survey and
added to it with the implementation of technology in the final remarks. The dynamic of his class
was open from the start but added there is “constant conversation (good noise) between teacher
and student and student to student.” The biggest shift occurred in the length of his response when
asked to what extent he self-reflected upon racism or prejudice. Initially, he said simply, “I know
many of my isms.” But in his final reflection he said, “within myself... some is cultural, and
some is based on the neighborhood I grew up in similar to [the community in which Oak Tree
High School resides]. Those teachings or experiences did shape the way I think in certain
situations.”

Final Reflections by the Researcher
As a co-designer and facilitator in this process, I have attempted to weave my own
reflections throughout the findings as they pertain to the process. In this section I would like to
frame my final thoughts regarding the experience of implementing such a professional learning
system that attempted to adhere to the decentralization of power and commitment to deep and
meaningful relationships outlined in PDR, SDE, and Brown (2017). To address Question Two
without taking into account the impact that relationships have on teacher belief systems would be
neglecting a fundamental component of the theoretical framework which framed this study.
Essentially, I dedicated significant time to preparing for each day and allocating resources to the
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 114

support of this team. I had intended to pull them out for collaboration more often, but that would
have adversely impacted their capacity to teach. Many of them, as outlined above, were
committed to a number of other responsibilities on campus and could not dedicate any more time
to this project as a result of those commitments. Time is always going to be a factor when
designing systems of professional learning. Time and the number of programs in place on a
campus and within a district. As the facilitator for the study, I still also had my own professional
responsibilities, an element that is as true for me as it is for the teachers who participated in the
study. In my own journal response after the first day, I wrote, “I wish I had more dedicated time
with the team.” I tried to supplement the time with observations and surveys but those, too, are
only as valuable as the time to debrief about them that we did not always have. Had I been able
to have extended periods of time, more might have been accomplished. Just as we would be
getting into the flow of collaboration, one of them would have to go to his athletics period where
he coached. Or another would need to leave early to get back to his room to prepare for the
students coming in for tutoring after school. And still another teacher would have to leave right
at the bell because she had her team of students coming in for their club activities.
Systems of professional learning do not happen in isolation from the commitments and
needs teachers support across the campus. In the instance of the Socratic Seminar instructional
strategy they experimented with, I would have loved to have them observe each other more. I
would have loved to have included more time for debriefing as a group after the shared
observations. But I could only schedule three of them time to observe one of the others
implementing a strategy because John’s period off was not during any other teacher’s scheduled
implementation, and Breanna could not join me because she was scheduled to do her post-
observation with the principal for her official evaluation as a probationary teacher. These
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 115

seemingly minor obstacles occurred in each day something we planned to do something together,
and that is simply the reality.
I also attempted to build the internal accountability through shared external
accountability as articulated in the framework. Accountability was established systematically
externally through the district and school-wide initiatives teachers mentioned in earlier sections
of the findings. But a more meaningful accountability, I believed, could be built within the
dynamic of the teachers’ team itself, without the added punitive weight associated with external
metrics. In this sense, the agreed-upon benchmarks served as leverage within the team to try a
strategy. But even this leverage can only go so far. When we agreed to implement the Socratic
Seminar as a strategy, only three teachers committed to the strategy with fidelity. Dave believed
that his classes would not find success because of their increased number of special education
students as well as EL students. John tried a slightly different approach because he had a number
of students who were preparing to leave for the continuation high school and thus lacked any
desire to engage in meaningful learning.
As I went and observed him I easily spotted the disengaged young men and noted how
forcefully Dave tried to draw them in. But they resisted all efforts. These two teachers reminded
me again how often what gets discussed at administrative-level initiative discussions is largely
theoretical, even if grounded in evidence-based research. It is the teachers who stand before the
students who must turn that theory into practice, and that shifting teachers’ belief systems is so
vitally important and complicated. While I could support the team in seeing how important
developing the students’ literacy skills was to their eventual capacity for success, they also
needed support in the day-to-day interactions they had with their students. Students would still
be apathetic at times, and disengaged as a result of a variety of factors, but it was the collective
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 116

responsibility of the team and of me to navigate these deeply entrenched student behaviors as
well as teacher behaviors after so long in the public-school system. As I observed all five of
these teachers, I could see their love and concern for their students. But I could also see how
their beliefs about what their students could do was sometimes reinforced by the students’ own
reactions to attempts at drawing them in.
Perhaps the most successful day was when I observed Larry doing the Socratic Seminar
with his students. He had observed Brant’s first period with me and then he went off to facilitate
his second period’s conversation while I observed Breanna. When I returned to Larry’s
classroom to observe him, he was bursting with pride at how well his students had done in their
first constructive conversation. He told me, “I even erased all of their extra work”, a reference to
the assignments he gives when individuals in class break the rules. This was a big deal for him.
He is a strong rule follower and implements a consistent system of rules and expectations. But he
was so proud of the depth and skill his students had demonstrated and he was actually already
mapping out how and where he would include the next Socratic Seminar. But I left that day
disappointed because I had not been able to get all of them to actually implement the strategy, to
all observe one another, and to have time to debrief at the end of the process. Instead I had to
settle for an email to the group praising their efforts and providing guiding questions for an
informal conversation that I hoped they would have in my absence. I do believe the enthusiasm
Larry and Brant displayed for the activity, and the subsequent success they found with it would
engender the same enthusiasm for the group, but I am left unsure when not everyone got to see
what a successful student demonstration got to look like. John, for instance, who had
implemented his own version, only got to see his students’ performance, not the successful
implementation of Brant and Larry’s classes. He might have felt differently if he would have had
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 117

a chance to observe one of the others. And so I returned to how we can build stronger systems of
internal accountability to foster a willingness to experiment pedagogically through building in
time to observe and learn from one another in a way that inspires such experimentation. Internal
accountability still requires external accountability and a shifting of the overall systems and
political and social structures in which the teachers work.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 118

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Summary
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers’ belief systems about students,
specifically their English Learners, are shaped through collaborative and bi-directional learning
environments in which they are seen as partners in the learning and thus supported to make
informed decisions about their growth to support students more effeectively. This study also
sought to examine how the Quality Professional Learning Standards could be implemented so as
to provide direction for districts desiring to implement these standards to direct and fund their
own systems for professional learning. Questions arose throughout the literature: Have teachers
been prepared to address the inequities our Latino students face in a purposeful way so as to
reverse and improve the outcomes for English Learner students? Are districts and schools
properfly informed as to the systems of learning which are most mpactful for shifting teachers’
belief systems and improving their practice long-term?
This study attempted to discover the factors which contributed to teachers’ belief
systems, how teachers respond when presented with data in regards to their specific population
of students, and how that presentation might impact their belief systems about their own capacity
to improve the learning environment for students.
Two research questions guided the study:
1. How are the sequence of recommendations outlined in California’s Quality Professional
Learning Standards practically implemented for World and US History teachers within an
urban high school whose student population is predominantly Hispanic?
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 119

2. How are US History teacher belief systems regarding students’ capacity/agency
shaped throughout a personalized, collaboratively-developed professional learning program
over the course of a semester?
Three frameworks shape the design and methodology of the study: a) A.M. Brown’s
Emergent Strategy for Change (2017); b) Fullan’s (2007) theory of educational change; and c)
the California Department of Education’s Quality Professional Learning Standards (QPLSs)
(2015). The structure of the study was grounded in Participatory Design Research and Social
Design Experiment methodology in order to supplant the power dynamics at play in research,
particularly in the field of education where teachers as participants are not often seen as
collaborators in their own learning. The study provided opportunities for purposeful reflection
both for the teachers and the researcher to support the bi-directionality of learning.
Findings
The Quality Professional Learning Standards provide a comprehensive and evidence-
based framework for guiding districts’ systems of professional learning. California needs to
provide strategic funding to not only support their implementation but also to educate the
individuals in districts responsible for the professional learning of teachers. Too much money is
spent on professional learning which is not impactful and does not net positive results for
teachers or students (The New Teacher Project, 2015).
It is important to note that not all collaboration is equal. To meet the expectations
outlined in the QPLSs surrounding standards three and four, schools and districts would need
flexibility in the timing and funding to support creativity in the scheduling process. If teachers
are to be supported in the cycles of continuous learning, peer observation, and experimentation
that these standards posit, then overall adjustments must be made to teachers’ daily teaching and
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 120

learning schedules. Otherwise, to align with all of the systems and learning goals in place from
the state-level to the teacher-level, teachers would be out of their classrooms more time than they
are in them in front of students.
Our students struggle for a variety of reasons, but we – the collective we of policy
makers, districts, and teachers – must take responsibility for our role in their learning and to pay
down the “education debt” Ladson-Billings (2006) reminds us we have been accruing toward our
students, particularly our students of color, for far too long. This means we must acknowledge
that we have too many layers of systems which place undue burdens on teachers outside of the
classroom – from No Child Left Behind to the numerous extra-curricular activities we ask
teachers to take on from very early points in their careers, teachers are left tired, burdened, and
unable to focus on the teaching they provide to their students in a consistent, focused and
evolving way.
Teachers are not provided sufficient time to develop the skills of reflection. They are
provided inadequate systems of support and conditioned to see systems of professional learning
as happening to them. They become conditioned to say, “Just tell us what to do,” not because
that is how they wanted it but because institutions have come to believe that teachers are not
capable of doing the work that they need to do to support all children.
Teacher preparation programs do not do enough to adequately prepare them, as many of
the teachers in my study concluded. They also do not provide an environment where teachers are
encouraged, supported, and sometimes forced to continue to grow. Teacher evaluation systems,
as seen through teachers’ perspectives, are inadequate, ineffective, and, in general, merely an
exercise in jumping through hoops and of futility.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 121

True reform of instructional practices takes time and persistent effort on everyone’s part.
Fullan (2007) tells us:
“[Reform] requires intensive action sustained over several years to make it possible both
physically and attitudinally for teachers who work naturally together in joining planning;
observation of one another’s practice; and seeking, testing, and revising teaching
strategies on a continuous basis” (pg. 7).
We need to invest in the capacity of our teachers to make change, from focusing on their
instructional practice to leading collaborative conversations between colleagues to foster
productive and impactful shifts in practice. Sites must provide leadership training to its teacher
leaders to ensure that they can facilitate conversations that are geared toward growth and
productive collaboration. Professional learning has been largely ineffective. Do teachers get
asked what they want to learn about? Are they presented with unique and insightful ways of
analyzing data to better understand their students? Are there creative sources of data teachers
don’t realize?
Effective programs require bi-directionality of learning and relationship building.
Teachers need to be included in the design process as outlined throughout the methodology of
PDR and SDE. They should be seen as partners who are capable of shaping their own learning
and who have the capacity to make informed decisions about their own teaching and learning. I
learned from my teachers and adapted as their needs spoke to me about direction and focus. I
needed to be keenly focused on their needs while simultaneously holding them accountable for
the expectations of student learning that needed to happen. I facilitated the thoughtful reflection
and they, in turn, directed the learning. As teachers grow and evolve in response to their
students’ needs, so should the systems of learning which support teachers in this process. These
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 122

systems must afford teachers the chance to experiment pedagogically and value their insight as it
pertains to impacting student outcomes.
Recommendations for Practice
Systems and Policies to Promote Teacher Retention and Growth
The first recommendation for practice is directed at both policy makers and district
leaders. Intentional funding must be set aside to provide creative and collaborative scheduling to
suit teachers’ needs for professional learning. Findings from this study suggest that teachers are
pulled out often and it is difficult to schedule the amount of collaborative learning that is
required to effect deep and transformative change within our current teacher schedules (Task
Force on Educator Excellence, 2012). If we want teachers to experiment, they need time to work
with fellow teachers, observe one another in practice, and collaborate around what the data from
student outcomes reveals to them regarding their practice (Task Force on Educator Excellence,
2012).
The second recommendation is that districts need to begin to create programs of
professional learning that are properly funded and support learning through focusing on what
students at the local level need most, thereby ensuring equitable outcomes, and through focusing
on content and pedagogy, as outlined in the QPLSs. Podolsky, et. al. (2016) recommend that
districts need to invest in the development of high-quality principals who work to include
teachers in decision-making and foster positive school cultures, that schools and districts need to
survey teachers to assess the quality of the teaching and learning environment, and to guide
improvements; and finally, that schools and districts should incentivize professional
development strategies and the redesign of schools to provide for greater collaboration. Prior to
their findings, and speaking specifically to California, Futernick (2007) recommended that
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 123

schools and districts should assess teaching conditions locally and continuously; California must
elevate its student funding to (at least) adequate levels; refocus school leadership on instructional
quality and high-quality teaching and learning conditions; establish statewide standards for
school teaching and learning conditions.
The third recommendation is that ultimately, these programs need to job-embedded,
ongoing and intensive; the days of top-down, one-and-done workshops do not serve long-term
goals or long-term impact on teacher practice – again, characteristics strongly encouraged in the
QPLSs. Programs must develop infrastructure to allow for meaningful collaboration time
between teachers, and for shared accountability across classrooms and grade levels. These
programs need to be clearly linked to other standards, initiatives, and policies occurring
throughout the district and school. If districts and schools follow these guidelines they are likely
to increase the number of teachers reentering the profession; reduce the overall shortage of
credentialed teachers by nearly one-third; and reduce the number of teachers transferring from
high-poverty schools (Futernick, 2007).
The fourth recommendation is that programs need to be individualized and yet
collaborative, as evidenced in the findings and recommended throughout the QPLSs. Teachers
need time to learn in workshops directly tied to their curriculum to make it most meaningful.
They need time to learn in the format and timeliness that is most impactful to them; this training
needs to be action-oriented, socially-built, and rely on the liberated relationships teachers
develop together, as encouraged by Fullan (2007) and Brown (2017). And yet they also need
ongoing time with peers for feedback and creative inspiration (California Department of
Education, 2015). This means that teachers’ voices must have a place in the develoment of these
programs. Districts must invest in the capacity of their teachers, not in packaged programs, and
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 124

allow for decentralization of power in who directs and dictates the systems of professional
learning.
The fifth recommendation is that a focus on a variety of sources of data is paramount to
building teachers’ understanding of the obstacles their students face, both socially and
academically, as is recommended in the QPLSs and evidenced by the shifts in belief systems the
teachers in this study experienced as they analzyed the myriad data points through the lens of
equity. Teachers must also look to the historical elements that are interwoven throughout a
child’s experience; academic or achievement data only provide a glimpse into the scope of the
experience for Latino students. Input must be gathered not only from historical achievement
data, disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, language proficiency, and special learning needs
students, but that data should be gathered from all stakeholders, including students, parents, the
community, and should center on issues of school safety, climate and social and emotional
health. This goes deeply to assessing students’ needs on a campus, but further data must also be
provided regarding the historical and geographical issues of power and privilege embedded in
the culture of the school and the outlying community.
The sixth recommendation is that districts also need teams of individuals who can help
provide this data and its subsequent deep and thoughtful analysis. Access to these teachers
allowed me to be creative in approach and present data in ways that teachers had not previously
seen. This access to data is fundamental to helping administrators hone in on the data points that
will be most impactful in shifting teachers’ perspectives and thus practice. There needs to be
individuals trained in analzying this data and in supporting collaborative conversations to support
the necessary learning that must take part in all stakeholders, either in the form of instructional
coaches or in developing teacher leaders on campus who can help facilitate and mediate
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 125

constructive conversations. These individuals need to be pulled from within the district so that
intentional focus can be honed in on developing the deep and meaningful relationships that allow
for transformational change as Brown (2017) so heavily emphasizes.
A final recommendation is that the individuals and districts who oversee the professional
learning within their districts need to be knowledgeable about the quality and impact of effective
professional learning so that they can provide the learning for teachers. The QPLSs were
disbursed to educators in California without any means of educating leaders as to how they
might be implemented or even that they should. Despite the significant funding provided in the
Educator Effectiveness Grant, no accountability to these standards was in place, and thus schools
and districts were allowed to spend the money with very little direction, guidance, or
accountability.
Future Research
What was not brought up in this research, as it was outside the scope of this study but
increasingly important in students’ life experiences, is to what extent students’ experiences with
mental health and trauma adversely impact their capacity to engage and be successful in the
learning communities, particularly as these experiences are lived out in the lives of students of
color in California. As our students’ needs evolve, this is a particularly important facet that needs
to be addressed in professional learning programs. School is not simply the learning and
academic material teachers provide. It must include the myriad other variables which influence
students’ capacity to grow and thrive. Research needs to be done which reveals what types of
professional learning will be impactful to help our teachers support students in this area.
Also, as outlined in the data in Table 4, is that while districts are being held accountable
for improving their English Learners’ progress toward proficiency, more needs to be examined
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 126

about what systems of support are in place to support students once they are no longer classified
as English Learners. Teachers will need ongoing learning to support the unique needs of those
students who have been reclassified but who will still need strategic learning strategies to support
their long-term growth.
Conclusion
Education is supposed to be the great equalizer. It is supposed to undo the systems of
oppression and injustice that exist outside of our campuses. But our schools, districts, and
educators are not prepared enough to disrupt those systems – we merely perpetuate them when
we underfund opportunities to increase growth in the instructional practices of our teachers.
Substantial research has been published as to what effective professional learning is and
why it is so integral to ensuring our students receive the most effective instruction and supportive
classroom environments possible (Ancess, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 2014; Goe, 2007; Guskey
& Sparks, 2002; Klem & Connell, 2004; Meiers & Ingvarson, 2005). There is also a lack of
accountability for teacher growth, but rather than simply resort to teacher evaluation systems that
seek to punish teachers, policy makers and districts must focus on developing systems of
empowerment which support teachers in their efforts for reflection and growth over the course of
their careers.
Teachers are still recovering from the pressures of No Child Left Behind, as evidenced by
the refrain the team of district instructional coaches with whom I work and I hear all the time:
“But I don’t have time because there is still so much to cover.” The compulsion to ‘cover’
standards and provide surface-level assessments only allows for students to develop their
memorization skills, not the thinking skills that will most serve them in their post-secondary
pursuits. We have generations of teachers who are adversely impacted by this rigid adherence to
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 127

national system of external accountability. And despite efforts to give teachers the time and
space to teach according to students’ needs, teachers feel compelled to ‘cover’ the material. This
comes not just from this study but now six years of anecdotal experience as an instructional
coach and director of professional learning.
Empowering teachers to direct their own learning is a difficult task. Teachers have been
told for a long time what to do without being told why or being supported to make their own
informed decisions. But if we properly support and implement effective systems of professional
learning, teachers will be more qualified, more satisfied, more knowledgeable about pedagogy,
and have a greater positive impact on student outcomes, and then maybe they will remain in the
profession. We must invest in the capacity of our teachers to grow so that we can continue to
invest in the capacity of our students and pay down the education debt we have been accruing for
decades. But internal systems of accountability will only go so far. It is time to build external
systems of accountability that hold teachers to the growth and evolution that should be required
to commit to the ever-evolving needs of the diverse student communities California’s public
schools serve. We must do all we can to foster and support teachers’ pedagogical and
professional growth over time, but we must also build systems which hold teachers accountable
for that growth, systems which demand that teachers hone their practice – from Induction
through retirement – through reflection, mentorship, and professional learning. Our students
deserve teachers who are equipped to meet their needs and who are willing to develop
classrooms which embody and honor students’ divergent cultural and socio-economic
experiences. Only then will we begin to pay down that education debt and truly provide students
with the educational experiences which foster their growth and deconstruct the destructive
systems which keep students from the academic and social opportunities they deserve.
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 128

Works Cited
Ancess, J. (2000). The Reciprocal influence of teacher learning, teaching practice, school
restructuring , and student outcomes. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 590-619.
Arcia, E. (2006). Achievement and enrollment status of suspended students: Outcomes in a large,
multicultural school district. Education and Urban Society, 38, 359-369.
Assaf, L., Garza, R., & Battle, J. (2012). Multicultural teacher education: examining the
perceptions, practices, and coherence in one teacher preparation program. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 37(2), 115-135.
Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory Design Research and Educational Justice:
Studying Learning and Relations Within Social Change Making. Cognition and
Instruction, 34(3), 173-193. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879
Bogdan, R. &. Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods - 5th ed. Boston, USA: Person Education, Inc.
Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research. Review of educational research, 78(3), 367-409.
doi:10.3102/0034654308321455
Brown, A. M. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. Chico: AK Press.
Brown-Jeffrey, S., & Cooper, J. E. (n.d.). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant
pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 38(1). Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-
proquest-com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/851623842?accountid=14749
CA Department of Education. (2009-2010). Dropouts by Ethnic Designation by Grade. Data
Reporting Office. Retrieved from
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/DrpGradeEth.aspx?cDistrictName=
ONTARIO+HIGH&CDSCode=36676523634482&Level=School&TheReport=EthOnly
&ProgramName=All&cYear=2016-17&cAggSum=Random&cGender=B
CA Department of Education. (2016-2017). Dropouts by Ethnic Designation by Grade. Data
Reporting Office. Retrieved from
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DropoutReporting/DrpGradeEth.aspx?cDistrictName=
ONTARIO+HIGH&CDSCode=36676523634482&Level=School&TheReport=EthOnly
&ProgramName=All&cYear=2016-17&cAggSum=Random&cGender=B
California Department of Education. (1999-00). Grads and Grads Meeting UC/CSO Entrance
Requirements by Gender & ethnicity. Retrieved from
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Schgrad.asp?cSelect=ONTARIO%5EHIGH%5E%5E
%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E--CHAFFEY%5EJOINT%5EU--3667652-
3634482&cChoice=SchGrad&cYear=1999-
00&ProgramName=All&cTopic=Graduates&cLevel=School&myTimeFrame=S
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 129

California Department of Education. (2000). Profile of School: Ontario High School, 1999-00.
Ed-Data: Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance Data on California's K-12 Schools.
Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataC
lassic/school/schoolprofileNew1.asp?reportNumber=16&level=07&fyr=9900&county=3
6&district=67652&school=3634482#specialprograms
California Department of Education. (2013). Local Control Funding Formula: Overview.
Retrieved from California Department of Education:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcffoverview.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). The Superintendent's Quality Professional Learning
Standards. Professional Learning Support Division. Sacramento: California Department
of Education.
California Department of Education. (2015-2016). Educator Effectiveness Funding. California
Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r14/educatoreffect15entltr.asp
California Department of Education. (2016-2017). Grads & Grads Meeting UC/CSU Engrance
Requirements by Gender and Ethnicity. Data Reporting Office. Retrieved from
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Schgrad.asp?cSelect=ONTARIO%5EHIGH%5E%5E
%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E--CHAFFEY%5EJOINT%5EU--3667652-
3634482&cChoice=SchGrad&cYear=2016-
17&cTopic=Graduates&cLevel=School&myTimeFrame=S
California Department of Education. (2016-2017). Teachers: Demographics by ethinicty,
average teaching experience. CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Ed-Data Education Data
Partnership. Retrieved from https://www.ed-data.org/school/San-Bernardino/Chaffey-
Joint-Union-High/Ontario-High
California Department of Education. (2017). CAASPP English Language Arts/Literacy and Math
Results 2017 Designated by Ethnic Group and Language Proficiency. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www.ed-data.org/school/San-
Bernardino/Chaffey-Joint-Union-High/Ontario-High
California Department of Education. (2017). Enrollment by ethnicity: California Public Schools
2012-2017. Ed Data Education Data Partnerships DCE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved
February 2018, from https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (2018, February). California School Dashboard and System
of Support. Retrieved from California Department of Education:
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/cm/
California Department of Education. (n.d.). California Assessment of Performance and Progress
Reports 2016. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Retrieved February
2018, from http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 130

California Department of Education. (n.d.). Cohort Dropouts by Race/Ethnicity 2014-2015. Ed
Data Education Data Partnership CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved February 2018,
from www.ed-data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator Effectiveness, Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
Finance and Grants. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Retrieved
February 2018, from www.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Educator Effectiveness, Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
Finance and Grants. Sacramento: California Department of Education. Retrieved
February 2018, from www.cde.ca.gov
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Enrollment by Ethnicity: California Public Schools
2012-2015. Ed Data: Education Data Partnership CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved
February 2018, from https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Expulsions by Ethnicity California Public Schools
2012-2015. Ed Data Education Data Partnership CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved
February 2018, from www.ed-data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Graduates by Race/Ethnicity Meeting UC/CSU
Course Requirements California Public Schools 2014-2015. Ed Data Education Data
Partnership CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved February 2018, from www.ed-
data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Suspensions by Ethnicity California Public Schools
2012-2015. Ed Data Education Data Partnership. Retrieved from www.ed-
data.org/state/CA
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Teachers by Ethnicity California Public Schools
2014-2015. Ed Data Education Data Partnership CDE/EdSource/FCMAT. Retrieved
February 2018, from https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA
Chun, H., & Dickson, G. (2011). A psychoecological model of academic performance among
Hispanic students. Journal of youth and adolescence, 40(12), 1581-1594.
doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9640-z
Curriculum Frameworks and Instructional Resources Division. (2017). History Social Science
Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve.
California State Board of Education. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Retrieved from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/hs/cf/documents/hssframeworkwhole.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L. (2014, June 30). Want to close the achievement gap? Close the teaching
gap. Huffington Post, pp. 14-18.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M., Gardner, M., & Espinoza, D. (2017). Effective Teacher
Professional Development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/teacher-prof-dev
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 131

Davis, J., & Jordan, W. (1994). The effects of school context, structure, and experiences on
African American males in middle and high schools. Journal of Negro Education, 63,
570-587.
Desimone, L., Porter, A., Garet, M., Yoon, K., & Firman, B. (2002). Effects of professional
development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Dover, A. (2009). Teaching for Social Justice and K-12 Student Outcomes: A Conceptual
Framework and Research Review. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 506-524.
doi:10.1080/10665680903196339
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (1998). The Role of Socratic Questioning. The Clearing House, 71(5), 297-
301. doi:10.1080/00098659809602729
Fishman, B., Penuel, W., Allen, A., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based
implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of
research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 136-156.
Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Futernick, K. (2007). A possible dream: Retaining California teachers so all students learn.
Sacramento, CA: California State University. Retrieved from
https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/139941242532061
Gandara, P., & Aldana, U. (2014). Who's Segregated Now? Latinos, Language, and the Future of
Integrated Schools. Educational Admnistration Quarterly, 50(5), 735-748.
doi:10.1177/0013161X14549957
Garcia, E., Beatriz Aria, M., Harris Murri, N. J., & Serna, C. (2010). Developing Responsive
Teachers: A challenge for a demographic reality. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2),
132-142. doi:10.1177/0022487109347878
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: a research synthesis.
Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Goldenberg, B. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students'
cultural capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111-114.
doi:10.1177/0042085912472510
Gray, L., & Taie, S. (2015). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five
Years: Results From the First Through Fifth Waves of the 2007–08 Beginning Teacher
Longitudinal Study (NCES 2015-337). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 132

Gregory, A., Skiba, R., & Noguera, P. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two
sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09357621
Griner, A., & Stewart, M. (2012). Addressing the achievement gap and disproportionality
through the use of culturally responsive teaching practices. Urban Education, 48(4), 585-
621. doi:10.1177/0042085912456847
Guskey, T., & Sparks, D. (2002). Linking professional development to improvements in student
learning. Educational Resources Information Center. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED464112.pdf
Gutierrez, K., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to retrn anew: Mediated praxis,
transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 100-117. doi:10.1177/0022487109347877
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. (K. Metzler, Ed.) Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis.
American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/94
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional
development programs on teachers' knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10). Retrieved from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n10/
Jackson, D., & Bruegmann, E. (2009, October). Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other:
The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers . American Economic Journal: Applied
Economics, 1(4), 85-108. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25760183
Klem, A., & Connell, J. (2004). Relationships Matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Ladd, H., & Sorenson, L. (2017). Returns to Teacher Experience: Student Achievement and
Motivation in Middle School. Education Finance and Policy. doi:10.1.1.589.2346
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding
achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3876731
Lalas, J. (2007). Teaching for social justice in multicultural urban schools: Conceptualization
and classroom implication. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 17-21. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/216509917?accountid=14749
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 133

Learning Policy Institute. (2017). California Teacher Workforce Trends Signal Worsening
Shortages. Learning Policy Institute, Palo Alto. Retrieved from
learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ca-teacher-shortage-2017-update
Lenski, S., Crumpler, T., Stallworth, C., & Crawford, K. (2005). Beyond Awareness: Preparing
Culturally Responsive Preservice Teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 85-100.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/23478723
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualtiative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, California: SAGE Publishing.
Meiers, M., & Ingvarson, L. (2005). Investing the links between teacher professional
development and student learning outcomes. Australian Department of Education.
Australian Council for Educational Research.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. H. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE
Publishing, Inc. .
Orfield, G., & Ee, J. (2014). Segregating California's future: Inequality and its alternative 60
years after Brown v. Board of Education. University of California, Los Angeles, Civil
Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. UC Regents. Retrieved from
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-
diversity/segregating-california2019s-future-inequality-and-its-alternative-60-years-after-
brown-v.-board-of-education
Patel, L. (2015). Decolonizing Educational Research: From Ownership to Answerability. Taylor
and Francis. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Perez Huber, L., Velez, V., & Solorzano, D. (2014). The growing educaitonal equity gap for
California's latina/o students. Los Angeles: UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center.
Retrieved from www.chicano.ucla.edu
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the Teacher
Shortage: How to Attract and Retain Excellent Educators. Palo Alto, CA: Learning
Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/solving-
teacher- shortage
Portes, P. R., & Salas, S. (2007). The dream deferred: Why multicultural education fails to close
the achievement gap. A cultural historical analysis, Cultura, 19(4), 435-446.
doi:10.1174/113564007783237724
Simon, M., & Goes, J. (2013). Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations. In Dissertation and
scholarly research: Recipes for success. Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success LLC.
Retrieved from http://dissertationrecipes.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/04/limitationscopedelimitation1.pdf
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 134

Suckow, M., & Lau, P. (2017). Teacher Supply in California A Report to the Legislature Annual
Report 2015-2016. Commission on Teacher Credentialing, Professional Services
Division . Sacramento: Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved from
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/commission/reports/ts-2015-2016-
annualrpt.pdf?sfvrsn=84d346b1_4
Task Force on Educator Excellence. (2012). Greatness by design: Supporting outstanding
teaching to sustain a golden state. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov
The Education Trust-West. (2017). The Majority Report: Supporting the educational success of
Latino students in California. Oakland: Education Trust - West.
The New Teacher Project. (2015). The Mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for
teacher develoment. The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from
https://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf
Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: a letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review,
79(3), 409-428.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). Fiscal Year 2017 Budget: Summary and Background
Information. Budget Summary, United States Federal Government, U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget17/summary/17summary.pdf
UC High School Articulation Unit. (2019, January). About Us. Retrieved from University of
California A-G Policy Resource Guide: https://hs-articulation.ucop.edu/guide/about-us/
United States Census Bureau. (2016). Pupulation Estimates Ontario City, California. U.S.
Department of Commerce. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ontariocitycalifornia/INC110216
United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Education Report, 2015-2016. United States Federal
Government. Retrieved February 2018, from https://www.census.gov
United States Department of Education. (2017). Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Summary and
Background Information. United States Department of Education.
Villegas, A., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers rethinking the
curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Waits, M., Campbell, H., Gau, R., Rex, T., & Hess, R. (2006). Why some schools with Latino
children beat the odds ... and others don't. Arizona State University, School of Public
Affairs, College of Public Programs. Tempe, AZ: Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494326.pdf
Warren, S. (2001). The differences between my children and my students: The expectations and
efficiacy of diverse urban teachers (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
(Order No. 3012316)
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 135

Watlington, E., Shockley, R., Guglielmino, P., & Felsher, R. (2010). The high cost of leaving: an
analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22-37.
Zaback, K., Carlson, A., & Crellin, M. (2012). The Economic Benefit of Postsecondary Degrees:
a state and national level. Boulder: State Higher Education Exectuive Officers. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540267.pdf

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 136

APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT LETTER

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Transformative Justice in California’s Public Schools: Decreasing the Education Debt
Owed to California’s Latino Students through Collaboratively-Developed Professional
Learning for Secondary Teachers

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Jessica Kachaenchai, MA, and
Briana Hinga, Ph.D., at the University of Southern California, because you are a social science
teacher at a secondary institution. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information
below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding whether to
participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also decide
to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will be asked
to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to design a program of professional learning that is collaboratively
developed between the facilitator and the teachers. The objective is to see how such programs can
enhance teachers’ understanding of students’ diverse needs and to support teachers in improving
their own instructional practice.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to analyze student data and work
collaboratively to decide what types of professional learning are necessary to best support
teachers as you work to best support students. You will take a survey before and after the study
to gain insight into your beliefs about teaching and learning. And you will take a post-program
survey to provide feedback about the quality of the program you participated in. You will also
complete reflective journal entries throughout the study to reflect upon your practice. Finally,
your research facilitator will conduct classroom visits to see your instruction in action.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 137

If you agree to participate, you will take part in the study throughout first semester on your
campus.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You will need to be out of your classroom on occasion for collaboration days and you will be
asked to be open and honest with other teachers about your own beliefs and practices. All
interactions, discussions, and classroom visits will be completely confidential and can in no way
be used for evaluation or punitive measures.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The results of this study could result in important information for the facilitator regarding the most
effective ways of conducting impactful professional learning for educators. It is also intended to
provide you with a unique opportunity to get personalized professional learning designed
specifically to address your needs and areas of interest.

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for participation in this study, but all substitute costs accrued in
connection with your collaboration days will be covered by Chaffey Joint Union High School
District.

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OF THE INVESTIGATOR
(A "Conflict of Interest (COI)" is a situation in which financial or other personal considerations
compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an individual's professional judgment in
proposing, conducting, supervising or reporting research.)
1. The only potential conflict of interest that could be posed in the fact that Jessica
Kachaenchai, the Executive Director of Instructional Development for CJUHSD, will be
facilitating the study. However, in her role as facilitator of this study, any interactions,
communications, classroom visits, and/or correspondence connected to this study will
remain anonymous and cannot be used for evaluative or punitive measures in your
professional roles as teachers within the district.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 138

The data will be stored on the Google platform and will be viewable only by Jessica Kachaenchai
and you. Your responses will be provided anonymously for surveys. The information will not be
released to any third party. The data will be kept for three years after the duration of the study but
will remain viewable only to you and Jessica Kachaenchai.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. Jessica Kachaenchai can decide to terminate
your participation in the study without your consent if for any reason you are repeatedly unable to
make the collaboration days in which the professional learning will occur.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Any teacher has the right to refuse to participate in the research. There is no alternative other
than simply not participating. However, as mentioned previously, there is no penalty associated
with not participating.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Jessica
Kachaenchai at 909-261-7191 or at jessica.kachaenchai@cjuhsd.net.

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

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

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

Name of Participant
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 139

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

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

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 140

APPENDIX B
INITIAL TEACHER SURVEY PROTOCOL

Initial Teacher Interview
RQ
Alignment Framework Alignment
Questions
RQ
#1
RQ
#2 Fullan Brown QPLS
1. Which subject areas do you teach? x
2. How long have you been teaching? x x
3. How long have you taught at Oak Tree
High School (OTHS)? x
4. Did you teach anywhere prior to OTHS?
Where? And for how long? x x
5. What initially brought you to teach at
OTHS? x x
6. Please share a little about your
experience of teaching at OTHS: What are
some aspects you have loved and what are
some challenges (if any) you have faced? x
7. I’d like to switch to your own journey
into teaching: What initially motivated you
to become a teacher? x x
8. Which programs did you participate in
for in obtaining your credential? x x
9. How would you describe that program’s
ability to prepare you to teach at OTHS? x x
10. Now I’d like to ask you about the
training you’ve received throughout your
career: How much ongoing professional
learning have you participated in throughout
your career? x x x
11. Did any of these experiences leave a
lasting impact, either positively or
negatively, on you either in regards to your
teaching, your teaching philosophy, or your
relationship with students? x x x
12. What do you think made these learning
experiences so impactful for you? x x x x
13. How do you believe your teaching is
shaped by what you’ve experienced
throughout your career? x x x
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 141

Initial Teacher Interview
RQ
Alignment Framework Alignment
14. How would you define your core values
as a teacher? x x x x
15. How do you see these core values
playing out in your classroom? x x x
16. What is your favorite instructional
strategy? x x
17. Which strategy do you use most often
and why? x x
18. To what extent do you take student
choice into account when designing a lesson
or unit of study? x x
19. How would you describe the
teacher/student dynamic you like to create in
your classroom environment? x x
20. How much time and effort do you take to
self-reflect upon racism or prejudice inside
yourself?* x x
21. To what extent do you take into
consideration the obstacles your students
face when designing lessons?* x x
22. To what extent do you take into
consideration the obstacles your students
face when evaluating student work?* x x
23. What are the best sources of information
regarding your students that help you as a
teacher?* x x
24. Do you have any final thoughts you
would like to share with me regarding your
experience as a teacher at OTHS? x x
*Questions #14-24 will be repeated for the post program survey.
*Questions #20 - 23 are derived from the following source: Warren, S. (2001). The
differences between my children and my students: The expectations and efficacy of diverse
urban teachers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Order No. 3012316))

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 142

APPENDIX C
END OF DAY 1 FEEDBACK SURVEY PROTOCOL

End of Day 1 - Reflections:
ID #
This workshop met my learning needs for today.
Please take a moment to explain your choice:
What was a key takeaway from today?
To what extent will this takeaway impact what you do in your classroom?
Please explain your previous response.
What would you like to learn about or what information would you like the next time we meet?

APPENDIX D
END OF DAY 2 FEEDBACK SURVEY PROTOCOL

End of Day 2 - Reflections:
ID #
This workshop met my learning needs for today.
Please take a moment to explain your choice:
What was a key takeaway from today?
To what extent will this takeaway impact what you do in your classroom?
Please explain your previous response.
What would you like to learn about or what information would you like the next time we meet?

APPENDIX E
END OF DAY 3 FEEDBACK SURVEY PROTOCOL

End of Day 3 Feedback
ID #:
What did the guided norming process reveal to you about your students?
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 143

What did the guided norming process reveal to you about your teaching?
How will you adapt next semester in response to what we discussed and planned this semester?
Which resources do you need to support this adaptation?

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 144

APPENDIX F
JOURNAL RESPONSES PROTOCOL
Day 2 Journal Response
ID #
How did our conversation last time cause you to think differently about what you do in your
classroom? Did you do anything differently in response?
If it didn't have any impact, please let me know why: too little time, need more information, not
sure how, etc.
Day 3 Journal Response
What was the new lesson or activity that you added to your unit(s) since we last met? If the
lesson wasn't necessarily new, did you try a new approach with it?
How did this new activity or new approach go? Why? What made it successful or not?

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 145

APPENDIX G
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Date: Location of Observation
Teacher Observed: Period Observed:
Class Title: Grade Level:
Diagram of Classroom:

Learning Objective of Lesson:
Essential Question:
Observation Notes Commentary

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 146

APPENDIX H
LESSON FEEDBACK ALIGNED WITH OBSERVATION PROTOCOL

Lesson Feedback Protocol
Teacher Name
How do you think the lesson went today?
How did you take your ELs into consideration when designing the lesson?
Were there any obstacles you anticipated when designing this lesson that you believed students
would have?
Would you have done anything differently for the lesson as you reflect upon it? Or did you
revise it throughout the day for any specific reason?
How is your classroom furniture design structured?
Why have you designed your classroom seats this way?

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 147

APPENDIX I
PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SURVEY PROTOCOL

Program Assessment Survey Protocol* RQ #1 RQ #2 Fullan Brown QPLS
To what extent do you agree or disagree with
the following statements: All questions were
answered by indicating Strongly Agree, Agree,
Disagree, or Strongly Disagree.
1. The professional learning experience met my
expectations. x x
2. The materials I received throughout were
relevant and useful. x x
3. The experience provided me with useful
information about teaching to students with a
range of skill levels. x x
4. In this professional learning program, the
presentation of content was effective.] x x
5. In this professional learning program, the
presentation of teaching pedagogy was
effective. x x
6. In this professional learning program, the
data presented impacted my belief systems
about student capacity. ] x x
7. Please provide any further feedback you
believe would be useful for future professional
learning programs. x x
**This survey was administered through a Google Form to allow for anonymity when
participants submit their responses.

TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 148

APPENDIX J
POST PROGRAM SURVEY PROTOCOL

Post-Program Interview Protocol RQ #1 RQ #2 Fullan Brown QPLS
1. I intend to implement new strategies
learned from this experience in my classroom
moving forward. x x x
2.The opportunity to work closely with my
peers enhanced my capacity to be an effective
teacher. x x
3. The reflective journals were a meaningful
exercise. x x x
4. The structure of the program was effective
in meeting my needs. x x x x
5. The data presented throughout the
experience shifted my understanding of
students' experiences and needs. x x x
6. Overall, this experience shifted my beliefs
about designing learning experiences for
students. x x x
7. Overall, this experience shifted my beliefs
about my capacity to provide effective
instruction. x x
8. If you disagreed with any of the above
statements, please indicate why and what date
would have been more useful.
9. What is one commitment you've made to
your instructional practice for the future? x
10. How would you define your core values
as a teacher? x x x x
11. How do you see these core values playing
out in your classroom? x x x
12. What is your favorite instructional
strategy? x x
13. Which strategy do you use most often
and why? x x
14. To what extent do you take student
choice into account when designing a lesson
or unit of study? x x
15. How would you describe the
teacher/student dynamic you like to create in
your classroom environment? x x
TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE 149

Post-Program Interview Protocol RQ #1 RQ #2 Fullan Brown QPLS
16. How much time and effort do you take to
self-reflect upon racism or prejudice inside
yourself?* x x
17. To what extent do you take into
consideration the obstacles your students face
when designing lessons?* x x
18. To what extent do you take into
consideration the obstacles your students face
when evaluating student work?* x x
19. What are the best sources of information
regarding your students that help you as a
teacher?* x x
20. Do you have any final thoughts you
would like to share with me regarding your
experience as a teacher at OTHS? x x
*Questions #20 - 23 are derived from the following source: Warren, S. (2001). The differences
between my children and my students: The expectations and efficacy of diverse urban teachers
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (Order No. 3012316)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

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

PDF

Improving professional learning for teachers

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Leveraging social-emotional learning to improve school climate, mental health, and student achievement in K-12 student populations

PDF

Transforming teaching and learning with technology: a case study of a California public school

PDF

Success in the sticky: exploring the professional learning and instructional practices that are sticky for distinguished secondary STEM educators of students historically…

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Creating conditions for Teacher Flow: supporting student-centered learning through design of optimal P-12 professional development

PDF

Professional development at an international school

Asset Metadata

Creator Kachaenchai, Jessica Rachelle (author)

Core Title Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/01/2019

Defense Date 05/09/2019

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

Tag collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning,social design experiment,social studies teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hinga, Briana (committee chair), Carbone, Paula (committee member), Kelsen, Virginia (committee member)

Creator Email jessica.kachaenchai@cjuhsd.net,jkachaenchai@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-163362

Unique identifier UC11660448

Identifier etd-Kachaencha-7380.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-163362 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kachaencha-7380.pdf

Dmrecord 163362

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kachaenchai, Jessica Rachelle

Type texts

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

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

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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