26
Radical Pedagogy (2015) Volume 12 Number 1 ISSN: 1524-6345 Picower.pdf Nothing About Us Without Us: Teacher-driven Critical Professional Development Bree Picower College of Education and Human Services Montclair State University, USA E-mail: [email protected] Abstract While the literature on social justice education (SJE) is robust, few professional development opportunities exist to support teachers committed to SJE. This article focuses on an example of critical professional development (CPD) called Inquiry to Action Groups (ItAGs) to understand how this model might support the social justice needs of educators. Findings from this qualitative study indicate that ItAGs supported the development of social justice teachers by providing them with a community characterized by a sense of camaraderie and professionalism. By providing support, reflection time, and discussions about SJE, ItAGs benefitted participants in three ways. Emotionally, they gained renewed motivation, energy and confidence. Intellectually, they gained content knowledge on the topic of their ItAG. Professionally, they gained resources such as readings and lesson plans. These benefits supported them to push their practice inside and outside of their classrooms. Understanding the impact of CPD can support others looking to fill gaps left by traditional professional development in the pursuit of SJE. Keywords: teacher professional development, social justice

Nothing About Us Without Us: Teacher-driven Critical ... · Radical Pedagogy (2015) Volume 12 Number 1 ISSN: 1524-6345 Picower.pdf Nothing About Us Without Us: Teacher-driven Critical

  • Upload
    doantu

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Radical Pedagogy (2015) Volume 12 Number 1 ISSN: 1524-6345

Picower.pdf

Nothing About Us Without Us: Teacher-driven Critical Professional

Development

Bree Picower College of Education and Human Services Montclair State University, USA E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract While the literature on social justice education (SJE) is robust,

few professional development opportunities exist to support teachers committed to SJE. This article focuses on an example of critical professional development (CPD) called Inquiry to Action Groups (ItAGs) to understand how this model might support the social justice needs of educators. Findings from this qualitative study indicate that ItAGs supported the development of social justice teachers by providing them with a community characterized by a sense of camaraderie and professionalism. By providing support, reflection time, and discussions about SJE, ItAGs benefitted participants in three ways. Emotionally, they gained renewed motivation, energy and confidence. Intellectually, they gained content knowledge on the topic of their ItAG. Professionally, they gained resources such as readings and lesson plans. These benefits supported them to push their practice inside and outside of their classrooms. Understanding the impact of CPD can support others looking to fill gaps left by traditional professional development in the pursuit of SJE. Keywords: teacher professional development, social justice

 

  2  

education, critical pedagogy, grassroots organizing

The National Staff Development Council (2007) created a set of nine standards for professional development which include content knowledge and quality teaching, research-basis, collaboration, diverse learning needs, student learning environments, family involvement, evaluation, data-driven design, and teacher learning. Glattenhorn (1987) explained that professional development is growth that occurs throughout the entire professional cycle of a teacher. While these broad strokes describe professional development as a whole, differences in understandings about the purpose of education in our society and the role of the teacher in schooling can create drastic differences in the content and delivery of how teachers are guided and developed throughout their careers.

There are a range of experiences that may fall into what can be loosely

called traditional professional development (TPD) and these vary in terms of both content and process (Kohli, Picower, Martinez, Ortiz, 2014). In terms of content, TPD may focus on improving educators’ pedagogical skills or support them in the implementation of new programs, strategies, and techniques. In terms of process, it may be delivered in ways that engage teachers as active learners, or it may treat them as empty receptacles to be filled by “experts” (Freire, 1970). However, TPD frequently does not meet the social justice needs of teachers who view education as a vehicle for social change because it does not support them in developing a critical systemic analysis of education in an active participatory manner.

Educators often complain about the content of TPD in that it focuses on

discrete strategies and skills (Cohen-Vogel & Herrington, 2005; LaGuardia, Grisham, Brink, & Wheeler, 2002) while ignoring issues of poverty, race and broader issues of inequality. Increasingly based on the implementation of corporate, boxed programs or educational reforms, this model of TPD often does not involve teachers in a critical examination of the pressing educational or equity issues that they or their students face, nor does it elicit their professional expertise in designing the educational reforms that they must implement (Corcoran, 1995; Darling-Hammond, 1997).

In terms of process, TPD such as district inservices, often uses what Freire

(1970) would describe as a “banking” method, which positions teachers to be unquestioning and forces them to be complicit in promoting education models that teachers interested in social justice may object to. In describing the “dramatic

 

  3  

shift” of professional development that goes along with current school reform, LaGuardia et al. (2002) explained the change in how teachers are constructed within TPD: “The essence of this change is from that of an active and creative participant in the change process, to one of passive recipient of externally designed and mandated training in how to improve test scores: from agents of change, to objects of change” (p. 14). Often focused more on compliance with program, district or reform strategies (Thomas, 2007), these top-down reforms have been described as “intellectually shallow, gimmicky or simply wrong” (Little, 1989, p. 178).

When TPD does not support teachers in critical content or active process, it

does not address the knowledge, mindsets and skill sets that develop educators to teach for social justice (Picower, 2012a). To develop teachers in this way requires a different kind of PD than the one-time workshops or trainings often provided. In contrast to the framing of teachers as passive vessels who simply need to learn methods of implementation, this article focuses on critical professional development (CPD) (Kohli et. al., 2014).

CPD aims to meet the social justice needs of educators by engaging them

in an active process that supports them to: examine ones’ positionality (Derman-Sparks & Phillips, 1997; Howard, 1999), develop a political analysis of power and inequality (Katsarou, E., Picower, B., Stovall, D. et al., 2010; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Freire, 1970; Kincheloe, 2005), create liberatory classroom environments with student relationships based on critical trust (Camangian, 2010; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, Picower , 2012a), develop culturally relevant, critical curriculum connected to students’ lives (Banks, 1999; Cammorota & Romero, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1994), develop students as activists with the power to create change (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2008; Christensen, 2009; Tan, 2008), and join movements for educational justice (Picower, 2012a; Montano, Lopez-Torres, DeLissovoy, Pacheo, & Stillman, 2002; Oakes, Rogers, & Lipton, 2006).

Within the CPD process, the role of the teacher is active, empathetic,

emotional, intellectual, and professional. Teachers take an active role in their own learning and development with a focus on content that allows teachers to “read the world” (Freire, 1970). This paper focuses on an example of CPD, a teacher-led PD series called Inquiry to Action Groups (ItAGs) offered by a grassroots teacher activist group in New York City, to better understand how this kind of model can meet the social justice professional development needs of educators.

 

  4  

Literature Review

Social justice education centers on issues of equity, access, power, and oppression demonstrating that teaching is a political act situated in cultural, racial, economic, and political tensions (Freire, 1998; McLaren, 2003; Montano et al., 2002; Schultz, 2008). To teach for social justice, educators must recognize the highly political educational context that masquerades as neutral (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; hooks, 1994; Kumashiro, 2008; Zeichner, 1993), and have a political analysis of how inequality, oppression, and power operate as a starting place for social justice teaching (Picower, 2012b). Zeichner (1993) argues that teacher actions have consequences, not just on individual students, their achievement, and life chances, but also in playing a part of the “realization of a more decent and just society” (p. 10).

However, in order for teachers to play this role, teachers need PD content

that is inherently political about whose interests are being served by schooling (Zeichner, 1993).

Teacher development…needs to be a means toward the education of everybody's children. It needs to support teachers' efforts to reflect on and change the practices and social conditions that undermine and distort the educational potential and moral basis of schooling in democratic societies. (Zeichner, 1993, p. 14) A major challenge to this kind of CPD is that in terms of process, much

TPD targets teachers as individuals rather than as a group of collective change agents (Anyon, 1981; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Zeichner, 1993). Even relatively progressive PD that focuses on teacher reflective practice has

a clear emphasis on focusing teachers’ reflections inwardly at their own teaching…to the neglect of any consideration of the social conditions of schooling that influence teachers’ work within the classroom. This individualist bias makes it less likely that teachers will be able to confront and transform those structural aspects of their work that hinder the accomplishment of their educational mission. (Zeichner, 1993, p. 8)

This individualism makes it less likely that teachers will connect with others. Firstly, they are so focused on their individual classrooms that they do not identify as a collective force and secondly, they learn to internalize problems as

 

  5  

individuals rather than connecting the dots between larger issues of social injustice (Zeichner, 1993). The process of TPD frames teachers as passive recipients who simply need to be told how and when to implement the latest corporate educational reform strategy in their classrooms (Cohen-Vogel & Herrington, 2005; LaGuardia et al., 2002). This maintains “the teacher’s subservient position to those removed from the classroom with regard to the core aspects of their work - curriculum and instruction” (Zeichner, 1993, p. 2). Teachers themselves view in-service professional development programs as merely being “outside experts with little knowledge of local conditions who present irrelevant, sometimes amusing, often boring prepackaged information…” and “…that these experiences are irrelevant and teach teachers little” (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 174).

In contrast to such reforms that deliver prescribed content rather than

activate teacher knowledge (Wilson & Berne, 1999), CPD must attend to teachers’ beliefs systems (Carlson, 1987; Hirsh & Hord, 2010). As Hirsh and Hord (2010) explain,

A pursuit of social justice begins with educators’ self-examination and results in not only acknowledging content needs and learning gaps, but recognizing where they lack a deep understanding regarding society, their students, their students’ circumstances, and what students need from schools and teachers to be successful (p. 14). By looking deeply within, while also making broader connections between

these knowledge gaps and societal structures, teachers can move to becoming political actors for social change. Carlson (1987) contends, “Only by critically reflecting on their own roles in the schooling process, theorizing about what could be, and working to promote specific changes consistent with a broad vision of a just society, can teachers expand and realize their capacity to challenge the status quo in ways that are transformative rather than merely reformist” (p. 307).

This kind of CPD which reflects inward while connecting outward to

broader societal issues could allow for the creation of networked community spaces in which teachers can take risks and tailor their learning to their own needs. Studies of CPD highlight particular features for success: self-organized and regulated (Hirsh & Hord, 2010; Kose, 2007), democratic participation with shared power and authority (Hirsh & Hord, 2010; Little, 1989; Picower, 2011a), collaborative interactions that foster active and interactive learning experiences

 

  6  

(Lambert, Leuz, & Verrecchia, 2007), safe space in which teachers can take risks to reveal what they do not know (Wilson & Berne, 1999), or to share political beliefs that may not be widely accepted (Picower, 2011b) is also a critical component of CPD. Finally, research shows that professional development opportunities that are ongoing and continuous provide a greater chance for the teacher’s practice to improve (Boyle, Lamprianou, & Boyle, 2005; Porter, Garet, Desimone, & Birman, 2003; Quick, Holtzman, & Chaney, 2009). Teacher practice and learning must be part of a continuous process that takes place over time (Lieberman & Pointer Mace, 2008).

A finding in the literature reveals the effectiveness of teacher driven PD:

“Teachers are each others’ main resource for professional learning, making successful collaboration key to professional growth” (Croft, Coggshall, Dolan, Powers, & Killion, 2010, p. 9). As Wilson and Berne (1999) contend, “teachers embrace these opportunities to be intellectuals, yet…the norms at school have taught them to be polite and nonjudgmental and the privacy of teaching has obstructed the development of a critical dialogue about practice and ideas” (p. 186). This desire for intellectual discussion within a culture with little space for it created the need for this kind of teacher-driven CPD.

Teacher-driven, Inquiry Based Professional Development

In contrast to TPD, a model of CPD that is gaining traction is teacher-driven, inquiry-based professional development. Practitioner inquiry is an umbrella for much of this PD, such as action research, teacher research and self-study among others (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). The “inquiry as stance” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) model looks at how educators can work both individually and collectively

in generating local knowledge, re-envisioning and theorizing practice, as well as interpreting and interrogating the theory and research of others. The work of inquiry in/on practice involves making problematic current arrangements of practice, the ways knowledge is constructed, evaluated, and used in various educational settings, and the roles practitioners play in facilitating change in their own work contexts. (Lytle, 2006, p. 2, cited in Ravitch, 2014).

Duncan-Andrade (2004) shows that critical teacher inquiry groups can support social justice teachers in the difficult work of creating just and engaged classrooms. Critical inquiry groups he facilitated “work to powerfully address the needs of

 

  7  

[teacher-participants’] students while they are engaged in their own professional growth” (Duncan-Andrade, 2004, p. 340). Research on UCLA’s Center X, a teacher education program that explicitly worked to develop social justice educators, found that the relationships created as novice teachers working together toward equity, positioned them as valued colleagues and leaders at their school sites and kept them in the profession longer than average (Quartz, 2003). Oakes, Rogers (2006) also provided a case study of teachers in Los Angeles who came together in university- sponsored inquiry groups aimed at critical reflection and leadership development for teachers interested in more equitable forms of schooling. (Oakes & Rogers, 2006, p. 92). In my own work with critical inquiry groups, I found that the group provided first year teachers with ongoing support, culturally relevant curriculum development and accountability to continue to teach SJE (Picower, 2007, 2011a). While the possibility of “inquiry as stance” professional development holds much promise for a form of institutional PD that can support the needs of social justice educators, the current context of education limits the potential for such kinds of institutional support. Groundwater-Smith and Mockler (2009) delineate the challenges our context presents in this kind of professional growth. From what they refer to as the “audit culture” in which all professional growth must be measurable, to increased standards and standardization, to the lack of faith in teacher professional judgment, to the discourse of “quality,” they argue that the pressure for compliance limits the opportunities for transformational teacher professional development.

Recognizing the gap between the challenges that the context for inquiry PD and the needs of social justice educators, grassroots groups across the country are creating independent spaces for teachers to build community and develop as activists (Picower, 2012a). While TPD is individualized, apolitical, focused on discrete skills and treats teachers as passive recipients of knowledge, this grassroots model relies on processes that are collaborative and teacher-led and engage content that is connected to broader societal issues. This paper focuses on an example of this kind of CPD, a teacher-led PD series called Inquiry to Action Groups (ItAGs) offered by a grassroots teacher activist group in New York City, to better understand how this kind of model can meet the social justice needs of educators.

Inquiry to Action Groups Recognizing this need for a new model to meet the needs of social justice educators, in the winter of 2005, New York Collective of Radical Educators

 

  8  

(NYCoRE) launched its first series of Inquiry to Action Groups (ItAGs) and they have run annually since then. An ItAG is a study group “in which educators make connections between social justice issues and classroom practice by sharing experiences, responding to readings, exchanging ideas and developing plans of action” (New York Collective of Radical Educators1). The goal is that after the group inquires into a particular topic, its members take some form of action around their area of study, making it a true community of praxis. By providing opportunities for self-directed political education, teachers and allies read and probe social justice themes and connect theory with classroom practice.

There are several elements of the ItAGs that set them apart from TPD – the first being the facilitators. Rather than send in outside “experts” or corporate representatives, NYCoRE identifies potential facilitators from within their network of progressive and radical teachers and activists. One of the two facilitators is almost always a classroom teacher; the other may be a teacher, or someone with knowledge or experience in the topic area, and successful effort is made to create co-facilitator teams that are diverse in race and gender. For example, an ItAG on Parent Organizing for Teachers was facilitated by an elementary school teacher as well as a parent organizer; both of who had worked at a school that was started by parents in Brooklyn. As in this example, ItAG facilitators typically have prior relationships with the organization, either as former ItAG participants or members of working groups. The facilitators and NYCoRE members are all volunteers.

ItAGs have been offered on topics such as: “Teachers as Organizers,” “Interrupting Islamophobia,” “Making Schools Responsive to Immigrant Youth,” “My Classroom is Anti-Racist,” “African Diaspora Cultural Arts Education,” “What does it Mean to be a Radical Educator?”, “Creating Safe Community for LGTB Youth and Straight Allies,” “Public Education for the 99%,” among others. These voluntary study groups with such explicitly political topics served to narrow the population of teachers who might be interested in participating in such an experience.

While the topic, scope and sequence of TPD are pre-determined by whoever is delivering the content, ItAG topics are generated from within the NYCoRE community. In the fall, NYCoRE core leaders brainstorm potential topics for ItAGs and consult with members at open events, narrowing the list to about four or five topics. Sometimes these topics arise from issues raised in ongoing NYCoRE meetings, such as teachers voicing their concern about discipline policies in schools. Other times, NYCoRE identifies dynamic members

 

  9  

of the network and invites them to facilitate on a topic of their choice. More often than not, former ItAG participants either request, or are invited, to facilitate a future ItAG.

Another unique feature is that the eight-week ItAG experience is co-constructed by the participants. Unlike TPD where the agenda is set by the provider and delivered to passive in-service teachers, the ItAG facilitators carve out an area and framework for the given topic, but leave enough flexibility for the participants to say what it is that they want to focus on, and what they want to get out of the ItAG. Often times the participants facilitate a session, suggest readings or bring in guest speakers who they know who can add to the topic.

Once the agenda has been co-constructed during the initial meeting, the ItAG meets weekly for at least six additional weeks and concludes with the members presenting a workshop on their topic at the annual NYCoRE conference, which is attended by hundreds of educators. Several ItAGs have decided to keep meeting after the formal culmination, and have become ongoing working groups within the organization or have spun off and launched other ongoing projects. For example, an ItAG on supporting queer youth became an ongoing part of NYCoRE, called NYQUEER, and has created curriculum2, sponsors an annual youth conference and organizes annual teacher workshops all on creating safe spaces for queer youth and teachers.

Methods

ItAGs have been offered annually since 2005, and at time of writing this article in 2014 there have been over 500 registrants. As a member of NYCoRE myself, I was involved in the creation and initial coordination of ItAGs. For the purposes of evaluating the program, NYCoRE collected surveys at the annual conclusion of the ItAGs four times (2008, 2009, 2011, 2013). Participants were invited to fill out anonymous online surveys (using SurveyMonkey) that captured participants’ reflection on the impact of the ItAG on their teaching practice and educational philosophy. These surveys were emailed to them at the conclusion of the ItAG and they were voluntary to complete.

The initial purpose of these surveys was to provide the NYCoRE with an ongoing evaluation of the participants’ experiences of the ItAGs. The full survey started with basic demographic questions (race, gender, position etc.). There were five open-ended questions. There was one lichert-style question that asked participants to rate the impact the ItAG had on a number of factors, using the

 

  10  

choices of “not at all,” “a little,” “strongly,” “very strongly,” and “N/A.” The factors were: “My teaching practice,” “My ideas about the role of teachers,” “My future involvement with NYCoRE,” “The way I interact with my students,” “The way I interact with my adult colleagues,” and “The way I think about education.” The final question sought primarily logistical advice from participants on different aspects of the ItAGs from cost to location among other items.

As a university researcher as well as a member of NYCoRE, I later began

to question in what ways these ItAGs served the social justice professional needs of the participants. I received Instructional Review Board (IRB) consent to examine these previously collected surveys as a secondary data source to focus specifically on the research question of how ItAGs might have served the social justice professional development needs of participants. I focused only on three of the open-ended existing survey questions that were suitable for providing insight into the social justice professional development needs of participants: 1) Name three things you feel you gained from participating in the ItAGs, 2) What impact, if any, did the tag have on your teaching practice? and 3) What impact, if any, did participating in the ItAG have on your thoughts about the role of a teacher?

The qualitative data were analyzed using grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006;

Foss & Waters, 2007) allowing the data to inform the analysis, rather than forcing a priori categories to fit (Glaser, 2011). As I read through the data while looking for responses to these questions, I used the constant comparison method to create code categories. Each piece of data was compared with every other piece of data so that similarities, differences, and consistency of meaning might be found (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The responses to the survey had repetition and frequency without many outliers, which demonstrated that the data captured the most frequent responses across a large group of people.

During the coding process, I wrote codes in the margins of the data for

each chunk of text that corresponded to the research question, creating short line-by-line units (Foss & Waters, 2007). For example, some responses to the question of “name three things you received out of participating” included responses such as “a great network,” “a new community that is going to continue,” “new friends,” and “like-minded professionals.” In early stages of open coding, there were creations of unique categories of codes such as these, which were coded staying as close to the participants’ words as possible.

After finalizing line-by-line codes, I then physically cut these line-by-line

units, and created piles of data that shared similar themes. I lifted the codes and

 

  11  

corresponding text out of surveys and re-categorized them into “focused codes” (Charmaz, 2006) based on what I saw as connections across line-by-line codes that represented larger themes. For example, the initial codes mentioned above were put together under the theme of “community.” Each piece of data within the focused codes were read through again and then re-catogorized based on similarities and were subdivided into themes such as “camaraderie,” “like-minded community,” “professional network” and “diversity of community.” These piles were checked for consistency and put into envelopes, each titled with a label that described the phenomenon within.

During the next phase of data analysis, axial coding, I put the data together

in new ways. This is achieved by utilizing a “coding paradigm,” that is, a system of coding that seeks to identify causal relationships between categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). As I arranged these labels and thought about the relationship among them, my conceptual framework of how participants experienced the ItAGs emerged as the story these labels told together (Foss & Waters, 2007). These data come from reoccurring themes that repeated across years and across participants. In other words, this process of axial coding looked for relationships across the piles of data to uncover themes such as causal relationships, strategies, consequences, conditions, etc. The axial coding took the literal answers and connected them to a larger schema. In this study, the data suggested a progression from the literal statements of emotional and intellectual benefits to a more critical stance. The schema of progress was constructed using the literature, knowledge of the problem, and the larger data set. The researcher used relevant literature to corroborate and validate the existing schema. This is what allowed these relationships to develop within the analysis of the data.

After an initial draft was written, I engaged in member checking by sharing

it with the leadership of NYCoRE and requesting feedback and commentary on the draft. The draft was also provided in the registration packet for all of the registrants in the 2014 ItAG cycle. Three members of the NYCoRE leadership sent back feedback. The overall feedback was very positive; there were no disagreements with the findings, and commentary provided was in the form of helpful suggestions (e.g., one member suggested including the topics of some of the ItAGs, which I then implemented).

Findings

The qualitative findings of this analysis indicate that by taking part in the ItAGs, participants co-created a sense of camaraderie within a professional

 

  12  

community in which their beliefs and goals for SJE were shared among diverse stakeholders with similar values. Within this community, they were able to receive support, engage in meaningful discussions and had time to reflect on their own practice and positionality as educators. The participants felt they benefited in three distinct ways by participating. Emotionally, they reinvigorated their motivation and recommitted to teach from a social justice stance. Intellectually, they gained knowledge in specific content areas based on the topic of the ItAG they chose to participate in. Professionally, they took away concrete tangibles in terms of readings, activities, lesson plans and skills that they could immediately use in their classrooms and school communities. By growing in these three areas, they sharpened their critical stance and gained motivation to take action. They became more aware of their own power as educators, which developed their ability to enact their role as social justice educators both inside and outside of the classroom. Diverse Yet Like-minded Community The Inquiry to Action groups represented a very specific community. One attendee described the community as “a comprehensive sense of the educational community in NYC, one that included people working in a variety of different jobs (teachers, teaching artists, administrators, people working in CBOs) that partner with schools and across the diversity in jobs, the community was based on political beliefs, which is rare among educators sometimes, that’s the base of the community.” While TPD brings people together to learn a particular skill, the intentional community of the ItAGs represented people unified by a political vision. “It gave me a feeling of community that I don’t really feel among my co-workers regarding our perspective on teaching, common hopes for education and views of our relationships with students. It helped me to feel more free in re-connecting with some of the ideals I had before becoming a teacher about education that I was starting to feel were not possible at all.” This aspect of the ItAGs addressed the issue of isolation that many social justice educators face (Carlson, 1987). By finding a like-minded community, the participants were better positioned to hold on to their vision of education and to take collective social action.

While the participants were unified around a similar political and ideological stance, they varied in role. Most TPD is attended exclusively by classroom teachers and typically by teachers at the same grade or subject area. In contrast, while the ItAG attendees were mainly classroom teachers, also in attendance were former teachers, pre-service teachers, administrators, teaching

 

  13  

artists, community organizers, and occasionally high school students. Participants valued the diversity of roles, stating that they appreciated “learning about different perspectives from teachers of different grades and teaching artists,” and that the group “bridged the gap between new and experienced teachers.” Just as a touchstone of SJE is valuing multiple perspectives, the participants felt they benefitted from what they learned from people who cared about the same issue but approached it from different vantage points.

The participants named that they appreciated this like-minded yet diversified community for two main reasons: it provided a sense of camaraderie as well as a professional community. In terms of camaraderie — participants expressed a sense of excitement about “lasting bonds,” “smiles and laughter,” “new friends,” and “cool people.” However, this bonding was not solely a social experience. While the friendship building and camaraderie was positive, it happened within a group of professionals with a shared purpose. Participants appreciated having such a network where they were able to contact with other educators in a way that built their professional network. Within the context of this collegial yet professional network, the participants had the opportunity to engage in three activities that furthered their development as social justice educators. The ItAGs provided the opportunity for the participants to support each other, to engage each other in discussions they would not otherwise be able to have, and to have the time to reflect on their educational philosophy and practice. The participants experienced a sense of support because they were able to receive critical feedback and to vent with other people who shared their views and understood the professional settings that they navigated. This sense of support provided a safe space in which the participants could engage in critical discussions about the content area of the ItAG, about their classroom practice, and their school communities. The kinds of discussions that took place in ItAGs were not the kinds of discussions teachers had the opportunity to have in TPD sessions. As a participant in the anti-Islamaphobia ItAG stated, “I was able to engage in valuable discussion around the taboo talk of politics and religion.” The opportunity to have “taboo” discussions with people who shared both their profession and political stance allowed the participants to reflect on their practice in ways that TPD does not make room for. Participants pointed out that they had “space to consider the role of action in our educating,” and another stated s/he had the opportunity to “reflect on my actions and strategies and work as an educator and an antiracist activist.” Having the space to support each other, engage in

 

  14  

philosophical and taboo discussions, and reflect on action for social change is needed in the support and development of social justice educators, and these elements are often unaddressed in traditional school and program based PD. Benefit: Emotional, Intellectual and Professional Growth By providing each other with support, time for reflection, and deep discussions on topics they self-selected and cared passionately about, participants felt they benefitted in three ways — emotionally, intellectually and professionally. Emotionally, they gained renewed motivation, energy and confidence. Intellectually, they gained content knowledge based on the topic of their individual ItAG (e.g., needs of queer students, history of organizing in their local area). Professionally, they gained tangible resources and skills to support their practice such as readings, lesson plans, and contacts. Emotionally, the ItAG participants felt inspired, revitalized about teaching and more confident to try new things. Meeting other educators and hearing about their experiences and work in the classroom was incredibly inspiring to participants. As one person said, “I was inspired by people doing teaching (real teaching) well.” In this statement, one senses how this participant distinguished real teaching from what often passes for teaching. Another person stated that s/he felt “affirmation that the work we do is hard, but incredibly valuable and that we are in this struggle for the long haul, so gear up and stay strong!” By participating in a process that allowed them to learn from each other and reflect on their work as social justice teachers, the participants bolstered their ability to continue their work in the struggle. As the descriptive data indicated, the ItAGs had a strong effect on how the participants thought about education and their teaching practice, and some of this came from this emotional sense of inspiration that revitalized them about the work that they were doing. The participants were able to think about their role as teachers and why they were doing what they were doing. Responses to the question of what they got out of participating included, “clarified my own values as a teacher,” “a new way of looking at teaching itself,” and “a new found love for teaching.” They felt enthusiastic about learning and they stated that they had “a restoration of energy” and felt “energized to keep learning.” By participating in ItAGs on critical content they felt passionate about, it is clear the participants were provided with the resurgence of the excitement about teaching that they had been losing in the field.

 

  15  

These emotions of inspiration and revitalization lead to a sense of confidence to try new things. One participant shared, “honestly, the best thing about the ItAG was how empowered it made me feel.” Another added, “I have more confidence to just try things out. I am always afraid of doing things wrong, and I learned that it is okay to tackle tough topics in the classroom.” Discussing critical issues, or “tough topics” in the classroom is a key part of being a social justice educator. Opportunities to workshop how to thoughtfully introduce and facilitate such critical content is not on the agenda in district or corporate seminars, so in this way the ItAGs helped empower educators to do this, thus filling the gap between in-services provided by TPD and the needs and desires of social justice educators. Intellectually, the participants were able to engage in readings and deep discussions about the specific critical issues they cared about based on the topic they signed up for. The participants were consistent in naming the content of their ItAG as one of the things they gained from participating — often citing the specific topic, and more general things like “new knowledge,” “information,” “facts” and “great readings.” By having a space to delve deeply into this critical content through readings and discussions, participants gained content-specific knowledge and pedagogical skills to either integrate social justice issues into their curriculum, change their teaching style, engage in activism, or work to transform their school community. For instance, participants in an ItAG on Restorative Justice stated s/he gained, “a better understanding of the interrelatedness of many issues connecting schools (policies, practices, staffing, budgets) to criminalization of youth.” In keeping with the goals of the ItAGs, these “understandings” often lead to action. Another participant in the Restorative Justice ItAG stated s/he learned about “models of schools that are implementing restorative justice programs and fairness committees,” and gained “the support in designing and planning a PD for my school on core values and fairness committees for a school-wide pilot next year.” By engaging in intellectual readings and discussions, or a process of inquiry, about the topics of the ItAGs, the participants gained the ability to start to take action and create change within their individual school communities. In addition to benefiting emotionally and intellectually, the participants gained tangible professional skills and resources through their participation in the ItAGs. These tangibles included: facilitation skills, resources and concrete lesson plans and activities to take back to the classroom.

 

  16  

The ItAG process is structured in such a way that the facilitators create only a loose schedule, but the bulk of the experience is co-constructed by the participants. Within this model, many ItAGs rotate facilitators, and different participants sign up to facilitate different weeks. Many of the participants named that this active process helped them learn professional facilitation skills. They stated they gained skills such as “practice in facilitating academic discussions,” “stronger understanding of group dynamics while learning and growing among adults,” and “experience with action research facilitation.” This component of CPD allowed for the teachers to be positioned as “experts” in their own development and helped them learn leadership skills that they can use back at their school sites. TPD has been cited as positioning teachers as passive recipients, or objects, of PD, while the ItAGs have the opposite effect because the teachers are the drivers of the content and process. Most ItAGs culminate with participants presenting on their topic at the annual NYCoRE conference. As one member said, “the team work was great in presenting at the conference — brainstorming, coming to decisions etc.” While much TPD frames teachers as those in need of more knowledge or skills, this act of presenting at the conference positioned the teachers as leaders and experts in their area of inquiry. The participants also appreciated the concrete resources that they learned about through their participation. They cited things like, “lots of new resources and sources of information,” “related articles to read,” and “a resource list/wiki that I can continue using even after the ItAG is over.” As this last participant pointed out, these resources provided a sense that the participants would continue to inquire into their topic even after the ItAG concluded. The most widely cited thing that the participants gained professionally were concrete critical activities and lesson plans to bring back to their classroom. Repeatedly, participants cited things like, “unit plans, new activities,” “a new project to implement in my classroom,” “thoughtful ideas about classroom projects,” “exciting pedagogical ideas,” and “teaching and curriculum ideas.” As one participant explained, “I took something into my class every week after participating in the ItAG. Specifically, awareness, classroom activities, ways of thinking out issues that developed in my classroom, and ways to think about teaching content.” Like this teacher, many others stated specific ways of how the ideas discussed in the ItAG would find their way back to the classroom. The ways in which the teachers wrote about this were not characterized by a sense of compliance that is often associated with market-based or programmatic TPDs in which teachers are trained on a specific skill that they will then be held accountable for implementing. In contrast, the teachers were excited and self-

 

  17  

motivated to bring these tools into their classrooms because they saw the benefit to their students as exemplified in this quote, “I’m now armed with more resources and therefore can present more opportunities to my students.” Benefit: Providing The Critical Stance Needed For Teacher Activism The emotional, intellectual, and professional support gained in the ItAGs enabled the participants to reflect critically about their practice in ways that positioned them to feel ready to take action both inside and outside of their classrooms as teacher activists. Social justice educators must be critically conscious reflectors who take the time to think deeply about their philosophy, practice, and positionality – and the ItAGs provided the space to do such things. The participants reflected on their educational philosophy and how the ItAGs challenged or reinforced their beliefs. As one teacher who had participated in an ItAG on “Theater of the Oppressed” reflected, “I already held the view that teaching is inherently political, that it is a deep practice, based on love (and rage) in many ways, delicate and important. Friere and Boal’s ideas as well as discussion with my ItAG colleagues reinforced some of my own assumptions and challenged me to explore and push those assumptions further.” While this teacher already had a critical stance, participating in the ItAG gave her a community in which to push her ideas further. Participating in the ItAGs also helped the teachers question their practice, particularly their practice that they already saw as being social justice oriented. Teachers reflected, “it made me question certain practices I do and seek to change, it made me more critical of my own ‘social justice’ teaching.” For some teachers, it opened up room for debate. “I’m checking how I set up my classes for whether I’m pursuing dialogue with my students or whether I’m using a banking format…I am continuing to have this debate with myself and I’m questioning my own teaching practice within this framework often.” Having the space to ask and discuss these questions allowed the participants to deepen their social justice practice in ways that would go unaddressed in traditional professional development. As one educator stated, “in the two ItAGs I have participated in, both grounded me as an educator/activist. It’s hard to remember why you’re doing this with test prep and covering curriculum in the background every day.” TPD focuses more on the test prep and covering curriculum, leaving unaddressed the support social justice educators need to keep them grounded in their approach. The ItAGs also allowed the teachers to reflect upon their positionality and the power dynamics outside and inside their classrooms. One educator stated,

 

  18  

“this ItAG helped to push my ideas about what it means to be a white educator in urban settings, particularly when attempting to level the playing field when it comes to discussions that implicate race.” This thinking about race and positionality also found its way into thinking about students. Another participant reflected, “I was able to relate to my students better. I started listening to them more. This has always been my goal, but it is hard to do. The ItAG helped.” Another noted, “The ItAG made me more critical about teaching and owning that power/gatekeeper role, but at the same time trying minimize my voice and increase my students’ voices.” By attending to key issues of SJE such as race and power, the educators were positioned to enact teacher activism both inside and outside of their classrooms. Benefit: Positioned For Teacher Activism By participating in the ItAGs, the teachers reframed their role within the classroom in several strategic ways. While planning curriculum, they kept critical questions in mind and thought strategically about who their students were. They repositioned themselves as facilitators rather than “bankers” and thought about new ways to engage with students, using tools that they picked up in the ItAGs to change classroom dynamics. This change in both their pedagogy and student relationships was done with the goal of supporting students to think critically and to take action. Social justice educators think not just about state and local standards when planning curriculum, but also about students’ lived experiences, what their interests are and how to better engage them. The ItAGs provided the space for teachers to think about such issues in connection to their pedagogy. One participant, in reflecting on how the ItAG will impact their classroom practice, stated, “my work with curriculum design and planning will be further complicated by my refreshed perspective on cultural relevancy.” Several participants mentioned thinking more deeply about making connections to students’ experiences in their curriculum as well as “making sure my practice is reflective of my students [Sic] needs, desires and interests.” Several participants from ItAGs that focused on certain populations of students applied what they learned to their own classrooms; “I think it will impact my classroom practice in that I will be more aware of immigration issues, and thus my actions will be more informed and sensitive.” The CPD model of the ItAGs provided the space for teachers to focus not just on content, curriculum or instruction but how those things connect to the very real life experiences of the actual young people in their classrooms. Participants inquired into larger political issues around homophobia,

 

  19  

Islamaphobia or immigration, and in a community of praxis they thought about how these issues manifested themselves in the lives of their students and in how teachers engaged, or did not engage, the issues through their pedagogy. In addition to incorporating whom their students were into their curriculum planning, the participants also reframed their approach to teaching. Many responses used the word “facilitator” when describing how the ItAG impacted their idea about the role of teachers or teaching. “I think it helped broaden my understanding of the role that teachers can have as facilitators. I have a better sense of how I can reach out to my students by building community.” “It reinforced more than ever that we are facilitators of self discovery, not just teachers.” This shift from teacher as “guide on the side” rather than “sage on the stage” is in keeping with tenets of social justice education (Friere, 1970; Picower, 2012a). In addition to providing teachers the theoretical understandings that they should incorporate students’ lives into the curriculum and should play a facilitative role, the ItAGs also provided concrete pedagogical tools to support the teachers in doing this. Many teachers mentioned specific activities and tools that they took from the ItAGs and implemented in their classrooms. “The concrete discussion protocols we used were really effective in the classes where I teach.” Another added, “I have been looking for more creative ways to engage them in breaking down issues of power, so basically the ItAG meetings on Tuesday nights gave me lesson plans for Wednesday afternoons. The games and activities we did together translated perfectly into my class and the content that we’ve been working on.” By making the often theoretical ideas of SJE concrete for participants, students benefited directly from their teachers participation in the ItAGs. While the ItAGs directly benefited the teachers in their day-to-day work in the classroom, it additionally supported them as potential teacher activists who saw their social justice work as also taking place outside of the classroom. The respondents reported that they now looked for ways to share the ideas discussed in the ItAGs with other colleagues at their school, and they looked for ways to collaborate with parents and their broader school communities. A key component of teacher activism that distinguishes it from social justice teaching is that teacher activists believe that “the struggle for justice does not end when the school bell rings” (NYCoRE, 2014). Participating in the ItAGs supported teachers to think about their role in this way. “I have begun to think

 

  20  

more about what the role of teachers is in the classroom versus outside of the classroom…how can we work together to improve public school education across the city? How can teachers across schools collaborate to tackle challenging social issues?” Another participant added: “It helps me to see that teachers are vital not just for good teaching in the classroom, but also for advancing the field of education on the larger scale like shaping good education policies.” Even progressive professional development that may focus on SJE strategies such as culturally relevant pedagogy often leaves unaddressed the role of teachers outside of their normal instructional responsibilities. Working explicitly on issues of educational justice is another way in which teacher activists move beyond their classroom door to increase educational opportunities for their students (Chubbuck, 2010; Cochran-Smith et al, 2009; Kapustka, Howell, Clayton, & Thomas, 2009; Westheimer & Kahne, 2007). The primary way that the respondents discussed taking this on as a result of their ItAG participation focused on sharing the knowledge they learned with others—be it their colleagues, peers or parent/school community. As one teacher described, “Each week I would bring back to my school sections of our readings from my ItAG. By sharing with my colleagues, I have found a new network in my school that I would not have found otherwise.” S/he continued, “Now there are a group of about 5 teachers in my school that want to participate in future ItAGs and that now are meeting to discuss our own practice.” While this teacher’s ItAG participation helped her reach out to create a like-minded community within her own school, another respondent discussed taking this to the next level. “I see from other ItAG participants how much teachers can begin to influence the culture of the school…I used to simply plan and work with like-minded colleagues - but this isn’t enough…” S/he went on to say, “This ItAG is helping me realize the potential role of teachers in organizing to help redefine and shape our communities with families and students…I am continually learning how to best negotiate and blend my roles as both educator and an activist.” Through their ItAG participation, the educators also began to see their community as larger than just their classrooms and colleagues. Because many ItAGs focused on broader social issues, such as the school-to-prison pipeline or mayoral control, the participants thought about their role in reinforcing or interrupting the injustice inherent in these issues. Many responded that they want to build stronger relationships and to partner with parents and community members on such issues. For example, a participant in the school-to-prison-pipeline ItAG responded, “it helped me form pictures of teachers as advocates for students facing injustice within the school system, and at times, collective action

 

  21  

against policies of the system they find themselves in. It also stretched me to see parents and community members as important allies in such movements.” By “stretching” their idea of who their allies were, the ItAGs supported participants to be stronger members of movements of social and educational justice.

Conclusion

In a time in which market-based reform and TPD are the norm, teachers committed to SJE need other avenues to develop the ideological stances and pedagogical skills associated with social justice. CPD such as NYCoRE’s ItAGs fill this void because, as the findings indicate, they provide teachers with the space and time to reflect and develop stances and skills that are often left unaddressed by traditional professional development content or process. In contrast to TPD, CPD does not diminish the importance of the role of the teacher, and the framing of this role is not separated from larger systemic forces that shape the structure of our society. In fact, CPD resists the mainstream tendency to have an either-or debate about poverty and teachers, and instead focuses on supporting educators to understand broader societal forces so that teachers can leverage this knowledge to struggle for justice both inside the classroom and out in the streets (Picower, 2012b).

Unlike some of the critiques of TPD that claim they are too individualistic

in nature (Anyon, 1981; Cochran-Smith, 2004; Zeichner, 1993), one of the main benefits of the ItAGs is that the process creates community, and it is within the teacher-led, explicitly critical, community space, that learning and growth happens. In addition from positioning teachers as experts, this community space supports the participants to feel part of something larger. Given that one of the largest effects in the descriptive data was the participants’ sense that the ItAGs impacted their future participation with the sponsoring teacher activist group, it is clear that they now feel part of a larger community or movement.

There is still a place for traditional professional development as teachers

will always need to learn new programs, strategies, and techniques; and lectures, workshops, and seminars can be effective ways to teach such skills. However, when it comes to supporting the social justice ideology and pedagogy of teachers, the findings indicate that the ItAGs are a strategy that provide community, reflective space, intellectual discussions, pedagogical skills and professional resources while growing a movement for social justice.

 

  22  

Understanding the impact of CPD can support others who are looking to fill the gaps left by TPD in their pursuit of social justice. In fact, since their inception in 2005, ItAGs have been started by teacher activist groups in Chicago, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and St. Louis. The spread of the ItAGs has served the purpose of both supporting the development of social justice educators across the country while strengthening the community of those committed to equity and excellence — both critical components for intensifying the larger movement of educational justice.

Endnotes

1. Frequently asked question and descriptions of past ItAGs can be found at http://www.nycore.org/projects/itags/ A “how-to” guide for creating ItAG’s is available at http://www.edliberation.org/resources/how-did-they-do-that/inquiry-to-action-group-itag-1/inquiry-to-action-group-itag. 2.  Beyond Tolerance Resource Guide. (n.d.). New York Collective of Radical Educators. Retrieved from http://www.nycore.org/2010/11/beyond-tolerance-resource-guide/

References

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-40.

Ayers, W.C., Quinn, T. & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of social justice in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Banks, J.A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Boyle, B., Lamprianou, I., & Boyle, T. (2005). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professional development effective? Report of the second year of the study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(1), 1-27.

Camangian, P. (2010). Starting with self: Teaching autoethnography to foster critically caring literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 45(2), 179-204.

Carlson, D. (1987). Teachers as political actors: From reproductive theory to the crisis of schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 57(3), 283-307.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 

  23  

Christensen, L. (2009). Teaching for joy and justice. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.

Chubbuck, S. M. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 197-210.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1991). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance. Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D., Barnatt, J., & Mcquillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 347-377.

Cohen-Vogel, L. & Herrington, C.D. (2005). Introduction: Teacher and leadership preparation and development: No strangers to politics. Educational Policy, 19(1), 5-17.

Cammarota, J. & Romero, A. F. (2008). The social justice education project: A critically compassionate intellectualism for Chicana/o sudents. In W. C Ayers,, T. Quinn, ,& D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 465-476). New York, NY: Routledge.

Corcoran, T. (1995). Transforming conceptions of professional learning. In M. McLaughlin, & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 185-201). New York: Teachers College Press.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: a blueprint for creating schools that work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C. B. (1997). Teaching/learning anti-racism: A developmental approach. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2004). Toward teacher development for the urban in urban teaching. Teaching Education (Columbia, S.C.), 15(4), 339-350.

Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Croft, A., Coggshall, J., Dolan, M., Powers, E., & Killion, J. (2010). Job-embedded professional development: What it is, who is responsible, and how to get it done well (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.tqsource.org/publications/JEPD%20Issue%20Brief .pdf

Foss, S. K., & Waters, W. J. C. (2007). Destination dissertation: A traveler’s

 

  24  

guide to a done dissertation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters for those who dare to

teach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder. Glaser, B. G. (2011). Getting out of the data: Grounded theory conceptualization.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Glattenhorn, A. (1987). Cooperative professional development: Peer centered

options for teacher growth. Educational Leadership, (3)45, 31-35. Groundwater-Smith, S., & Mockler, N. (2009). Teaching professional learning in

an age of compliance. New York/Philadelphia: Springer Science & Business Media LLC

Hirsh, S., & Hord, S. M. (2010). Building hope, giving affirmation: Learning communities that address social justice issues bring equity to the classroom. Journal Of Staff Development, 31(4), 10-12.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge.

Howard, G. R. (1999). We can't teach what we don't know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kapustka, K., Howell, P., Clayton, C., & Thomas, S. (2009). Social justice in teacher education: A qualitative content analysis of NCATE conceptual frameworks. Equity & Excellence in Education, 42(4), 489-505.

Katsarou, E., Picower, B., Stovall, D. (2010). Acts of Solidarity: Developing urban social justice educators in the struggle for quality public education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3). 137-154.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Critical pedagogy. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kohli, R., Picower, B., Martinez, A. & Ortiz, N. (2014) Critical professional

development as a pedagogy of liberation: Centering the social justice needs of teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2008). The seduction of common sense: How the right has framed the debate on America’s schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Laguardia, A., Grisham, D., Peck, C., Brink, B., & Wheeler, M. (2002). From agents to objects: The lived experience of school reform. Child Study Journal, 32(1), 1-18.

Lambert, R., C. Leuz, & R. Verrecchia. (2007). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45, 385–420.

 

  25  

Lieberman, A., & Pointer Mace, D. H. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 226.234.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Little, J. (1989). District policy choices and teachers' professional development opportunities. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11(2), 165-179.

Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

Lytle, S. L. (2006). “Becoming Practitioner-Scholars: The Role of Practice-Based Inquiry in the Development of Educational Leaders.” Proposal for 2007 AERA Meetings.

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Montano, T., Lopez-Torres, L., DeLissovoy, N., Pacheco, M., & Stillman, J. (2002) Teachers as activists: Teacher development and alternate sites of learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(3), 265–75.

National Staff Development Council (2007). Professional development. Retrieved from http://www.NSDC.org/connect/about/index.cfm

New York Collective of Radical Educators [NYCoRE]. (n.d.). Mission. Retrieved August 22, 2013, from http://nycore.org/

New York Collective of Radical Educators [NYCoRE]. (2014). Points of unity. Retrieved from http://www.nycore.org/nycore-info/points-of-unity

Oakes, J., Rogers, J., & Lipton, M. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Picower, B. (2007). Supporting New Educators to Teach for Social Justice: The Critical Inquiry Project Model. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 5(1).

Picower, B. (2011a). Learning to Teach and Teaching to Learn: Supporting the development of new social justice educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 7-24.

Picower, B. (2011b). Resisting Compliance: Learning to teach for social justice in a neoliberal context. Teachers College Record, 113(5). pp. 1105–1134.

Picower, B. (2012a) Teacher activism: Enacting a vision for social justice. Equity and Excellence in Education, 45(4), 561-574.

Picower, B. (2012b). Practice what you teach: Social justice education in the classroom and the streets. : New York: Routledge.

Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Desimone, L. M., & Birman, B. F. (2003). Providing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower program. Science Educator, 12(1), 23-40.

 

  26  

Quartz, K. H. (2003). “Too angry to leave” Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(2), 99-111.

Quick, H. E., Holtzman, D. J., & Chaney, K. R. (2009). Professional development and instructional practice: Conceptions and evidence of effectiveness. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 45-71.

Ravitch, S. M. (2014). Transformative power of taking an inquiry stance on practice: Practitioner research as narrative and counter-narrative. Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(1), 5-10.

Schultz, B. D. (2008). Spectacular things happen along the way: Lessons from an urban classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Tan, L. (2008). The 5 E’s of emancipatory pedagogy: A rehumanizing approach to teaching and learning with inner city youth. In W. C. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 485-496). New York: Routledge.

Thomas, A. (2007). Supporting new visions for social justice teaching: The potential for professional development networks. Penn GSE Perspectives On Urban Education, 5(1), 1-18.

WeBreestheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2007). Service learning and democracy: Responding to the issues. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 97-100.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.

Zeichner, K. (1993). Connecting genuine teacher development to the struggle for social justice. Journal of Education for Teaching, 19(1), 5–20.

© Radical Pedagogy