comments

Editorial

Journal of Teacher Education 61(3) 191 –196 © 2010 American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022487109359762 http://jte.sagepub.com

Social Justice and Teacher Education: A Hammer, a Bell, and a Song

Elizabeth Spalding1, Cari L. Klecka1, Emily Lin1, Sandra J. Odell1, and Jian Wang1

The Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) has a long, distin- guished record of publishing articles focusing on multiple aspects of “learning to teach for social justice, social change, and social responsibility” (Cochran-Smith, 2001, p. 3). Since the most recent themed issue on the topic, “Culture, Diversity, and Transformation,” appeared in 2004, the time seemed right for an update. Furthermore, the current issue devoted to the topic of social justice and teacher education emerged from the field, as we assumed editorship of JTE and noticed that we were receiving a number of quality manuscripts connected by this theme. With this editorial and themed issue, we bring together and highlight current research and scholarship that focus on various practices and conceptions of learning to teach for social justice. We use social justice as an umbrella term to cover projects that differ in their focus (e.g., culturally relevant pedagogy, antiracist pedagogy, intercultural teaching) but share the common aim of preparing teachers to recognize, name, and combat inequity in schools and society.

In fall 2009, as we were immersed in the process of work- ing with authors, editing manuscripts, and conceptualizing the editorial for this issue, Mary Travers, the passionate, female vocalist of the folk trio Peter, Paul, and Mary, passed away. Her death saddened members of our editorial team, as it undoubtedly saddened many teacher educators of a certain age both in this country and beyond its borders, who grew up to the music of Peter, Paul, and Mary and developed their social consciousness to the tunes that became anthems of the civil rights and antiwar movements.1 Memories of those songs sparked the idea for organizing this piece. The lyrics of “If I Had a Hammer,” written by Pete Seeger and Lee Hays but spread “all over this land” by Peter, Paul, and Mary, seemed both appropriate and timely for framing an editorial on the status of social justice in teacher education as represented by the articles in this issue.2

Seeger and Hays wrote “If I Had a Hammer” in 1949 with the labor rights movement in mind, using three sym- bols associated with the workplace of the time: the hammer, the bell, and the song. The lyrics reminded workers that they already had in their hands the means to bring about equality. The hammer, the characteristic tool of the laborer, could be transformed into the hammer of justice. The bell that marked the beginning and ending of the workday could become the bell of freedom. The songs that men, women, and children have historically sung to ease the drudgery of hard labor could become songs about love and caring for

one another. In this editorial, we apply the metaphorical tools of hammer, bell, and song to the topic of learning to teach for social justice. We interpret the hammer as the tools (theories, ideologies, epistemologies, and practices) we have for learning and teaching about social justice. We see the bell as the means of sending a clear and persuasive mes- sage to educators and teacher educators about the relevance of teaching for social justice. We understand the song as the means to unite those who may agree on the goals of teaching for social justice but may disagree on how to go about achieving them, as well as to convince those who may not support those goals that we must work together to create a just, democratic society. We argue that the hammer, the bell, and the song must be used in concert and in balance if we are to advance an agenda for learning to teach for social justice.

The Hammer of Justice A hammer is a hand tool used to deliver a blow or make an impact. While most often used to build or construct, it can also be used to break down, deconstruct, or destroy. In teaching and teacher education, the hammer represents the theories, ideolo- gies, epistemologies, and practices used to fight against social injustice. Teacher educators have a number of hammers at their disposal. For example, critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), Whiteness studies (Leonardo, 2009), anti-oppres- sive education (Kumashiro, 2000), culturally res ponsive teaching (Gay, 2002), culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson- Billings, 1992), and lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender (LGBT) education (Sears, 2005) are all powerful tools for striking blows against racism, ableism, sexism, and the other ideologies that marginalize students in schools. Such inequitable treat- ment of students is compounded by social class, a factor that receives too little critical scrutiny (Anyon, 1981; Oakes, 1985) and poverty, which Hodginkson (2002) has called the “univer- sally handicapping condition” (p. 103). Nevertheless, as the variety of articles in this issue attest, the overzealous use of

1University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, USA

Corresponding Author: Elizabeth Spalding, University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 Maryland Pkwy Box 453005, Las Vegas, NV, 89154-3005 Email: [email protected]

192 Journal of Teacher Education 61(3)

hammers can create resistance, frustration, and confusion among the very individuals they are intended to help.

For instance, Evelyn Young’s article in this issue demon- strates how complicated learning to teach for social justice can be in school settings. She describes the workings of a school-based teacher inquiry group committed to understand- ing and implementing culturally relevant pedagogy. Young’s study highlights the dissonance between a theory as it is out- lined in the literature and as it is applied in the classroom. She notes that culturally relevant pedagogy is theorized as a tool to empower students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically; however, she found underdeveloped under- standing, confusion, and frustration at the district, school, and classroom levels as teachers attempted to use it.

Methodological tools are also needed to examine how teacher educators and teachers learn to teach for social jus- tice. In their review of teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education, Grant and Agosto (2008) noted a deficit of studies that carefully document how “dialogue shapes the development of communities and serves as an indication of learning, reflection, and social consciousness” (p. 193). Young (2010) is but one of several authors in this issue who have begun to address this empirical deficiency. The action research approach she adopted using teacher inquiry groups shows the potential of this methodological tool to construct, support, refine, and sustain teachers’ practice for social justice. Seonaigh MacPherson’s (this issue) study uses Web-based communi- cation to capture conversations about critical intercultural incidents among a variety of participants. The work of Sally Galman, Cinzia Pica, and Cynthia Rosenberger (this issue) provides a strong example of how self-study can be used to document learning about teaching for social justice.

The studies in this issue highlight the need for an analysis of learning to teach for social justice that can be translated into teachable practices. For example, Rachel Oppenheim, Ruchi Agarwal, Shiri Epstein, Celia Oyler, and Debbie Sonu followed recent graduates of an elementary preservice teacher education program into their beginning teaching placements and examined the ways in which they enacted social justice curricula. The authors described the three novice teachers’ attempts to put conceptions of social justice into practice as an “uncertain journey.” As D. L. Ball, Sleep, Boerst, and Bass (2009) have suggested, teachers need access to practices that can be rehearsed and developed in the field and subsequently assessed and refined over time. Just as in the practice of teaching a subject such as mathematics, learning to teach for social justice needs to become part of “a reliable system of preparing many ordinary people for expert practice” (D. L. Ball, 2008, p. 43). This would entail theorizing learning to teach for social justice grounded in beliefs and backgrounds while making operational strategies to be practiced and imp- leme nted in the field. Said otherwise, in order to make the hammer of social justice an accessible tool for teachers to use in classroom practice, teacher educators should treat

learning theories of social justice and the development of the practice of teaching for social justice as concomitant activities.

The Bell of Freedom Throughout the empirical articles in this issue runs the common thread of preservice and inservice teachers who want to teach in socially just ways but who are at a loss as to how to do that. Indeed, there has been a lack of clarity in teacher education about the meaning of teaching for social justice (McDonald & Zeichner, 2009). For example, in their contribution to this issue, Mica Pollock, Sherry Deckman, Meredith Mira, and Carla Shalaby describe preservice teachers who wonder whether simply teaching their subjects well is adequate antiracist work, whether everyday acts really do combat racism, and whether the problem of racism is so big that nothing can be done. The bell, in our view, must send a clear and persuasive message to educators: In order to teach well, you must know yourself, your students, and their community. The portraits of practice in this issue ring out this message. Once the message is heard and taken to heart, teachers and teacher educators will seek out conceptual tools that will enable them to go beyond lip service to actual teaching for social justice (Grant & Agosto, 2008).

In this issue, Sharon Chubbuck provides a framework that teacher educators can use to help preservice teachers understand, adopt, and implement socially just teaching. She demonstrates how teachers can use both an individual and a structural orientation to analyze students’ academic difficul- ties. Likewise, Pollock and her colleagues (2010) show how teacher educators can pose a single question with three dif- ferent inflections (What can I do? What can I do? What can I do?) in order to use productively the tensions inherent in antiracist teaching and to launch teachers into ongoing inquiry into their practice. Jacqueline Leonard, Wanda Brooks, Robert Berry, and Joy Barnes-Johnson writing in this issue remind us of the necessity of providing preservice and inservice teach- ers with subject-specific examples that clarify what socially just teaching looks like, particularly in subjects such as mathematics where achievement gaps persist. Without such articulation of the definition, aims, and vision of social jus- tice work, the teacher education profession risks social justice becoming a clichéd phrase that lacks real meaning in practice (Cochran-Smith, Barnatt, Lahann, Shakman, & Terrell, 2009). This, most regrettably, would serve to minimize the impact of any social justice hammer teacher educators might wield.

Self-study can help us teach about social justice and learn about teaching for social justice (Loughran, 2006). Galman et al. (2010) demonstrate how to combine self-study with other methods of inquiry to clarify the role of teacher educa- tors and teacher education programs in both maintaining and combating the status quo of White privilege. They discovered that despite their good intentions for transforming preservice

Spalding et al. 193

teachers’ beliefs through antiracist pedagogy, they inadvertently created dissent, confusion, and discord due to their different developmental levels as teacher educators. Their findings highlight that even when a teacher education program pub- licly affirms its commitment to teaching for social justice (see Milner, 2008, on need for systemic commitment), indi- vidual teacher educators grapple with the enactment of it. Before teacher educators can expect others to teach about social justice, they must begin with frank conversations among themselves and critical reflection upon their practice.

Some scholars have characterized social justice teaching as being undertheorized and have pointed out the need for empirical studies that examine the classroom practices of teachers who claim to teach for social justice. For example, Zeichner (2006) has written that it is difficult to find any teacher education programs across the country that do not claim to be doing social justice teacher education. The prob- lem is whether or not they actually are doing social justice teacher education. The research in this issue helps to move the field forward by providing empirical evidence of the work of preservice and inservice teachers, as well as teacher educa- tors, engaged in socially just teaching.

Even when preservice and inservice teachers are persuaded by the clear and consistent message of the bell, the dissonance between the message of learning to teach for social justice and the perceived reality of schools contributes to a lack of clarity in teachers’ responses to it. Teaching “against the grain” has never been easy, but teaching against the “(new) grain of standardized practices that treat teachers as interchangeable parts and—worse—reinscribe societal inequities” (Cochran- Smith, 2001, p. 4) may be more difficult than ever before. It does not take long for the contexts of the school, community, and the culture at large to destabilize even a robust commit- ment to social justice. This problem is exemplified by Oppenheim and colleagues (2010), who show how contextual constraints, such as standardized testing, mandated curriculum, and inflexible schedules, interfered with beginning teachers’ personal commitments to create inclusive and critically aware classroom environments and to teach in socially just ways.

Teacher educators need to explicate both theories that are more personally persuasive to teachers and teacher educa- tion students and practices that will help them act on their beliefs so that beliefs about and practices of teaching for social justice are developed concurrently. In other words, the hammer and bell should be interrelated and should mutually reinforce teacher learning for social justice.

The Song About Love for One Another In a review of the literature on teacher preparation, social justice, and equity, Wiedeman (2002) identified seven key themes that contribute to conceptions of learning to teach for social justice. One of these is care theory. As Noddings (1988) has defined it, an ethic of caring is built upon interpersonal relationships, and a school system founded upon an ethic of

caring would look very different from the existing system. But Noddings’s description of caring has been critiqued for overlooking the role race, class, and gender play in systems of oppression (Wiedeman, 2002). Perhaps as a result of such critiques, discussion of caring is not in the forefront of the contemporary discourse on learning to teach for social justice.

We find this unfortunate because we believe that caring— the song about love for one another—is precisely what is needed to make the hammer and bell of socially just teaching effective. In those unfortunate instances where teacher edu- cators guilt students and teachers into confessing that they are part of the problem of social injustice (a message that may not be personally persuasive to them), any affective motivation the students and teachers have to change social injustice in the world may be diminished. The song that pro- motes love and caring for one another needs to be heard and acted upon in order to unify and motivate teacher educators, teachers, and students to combat the forces of oppression that, in all likelihood, they truly detest.

Caring is critical to effective teaching:

Students need and want teachers to care for them as persons and to convey this care through listening and responding to their expressions of concern. . . . It mat- ters to students whether or not they like and are liked by their teachers. (Noddings, 2003, p. 244)

Caring teaching is multidimensional. It includes pedagogical, moral, and cultural caring that necessitates understanding students who are, more often than not, culturally different from their teachers (Isenbarger & Zembylas, 2006). This requires teachers to display respect and responsiveness to students’ needs and capabilities, encourage discussion and self-reflection, and engage students in meaningful learning situations (Rogers & Webb, 1991).

People enter teaching because they care: Altruism remains the most frequently identified characteristic that motivates individuals to enter teaching (Brookhart & Freeman, 1992; Nieto, 2005; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). A predisposition to care may serve as a foundation for building a commitment to teaching for social justice. Yet, as teacher educators hammer away in their quest to break through, change, and otherwise deconstruct and reconstruct preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs, they may unintentionally knock this foundation down. Chubbuck’s (2010) conceptual analysis in this issue stresses the basic role of care in helping preservice teachers analyze students’ learning difficulties. The theme of caring runs through MacPherson’s (2010) case study that describes how participants worked collaboratively using Web-based communication to address intercultural education in a Cana- dian province with a fast-growing immigrant population and sizeable indigenous communities. University researchers, inservice teacher mentors, and preservice teachers conversed online about critical intercultural incidents they witnessed. MacPherson (2010) classified participants’ decision making

194 Journal of Teacher Education 61(3)

about the incidents into categories of “minding” and “responding,” both extensions of caring.

Yet, having argued that caring lays a crucial foundation for social justice teaching, we also assert that it is not suffi- cient for it. Rather, teachers need to care about students enough to focus on and hold high expectations for their learning. Otherwise teacher educators fall victim to the critics who characterize teaching for social justice as focused on “kids feeling good and teachers being politically correct, while nobody pays attention to learning” (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009, p. 625). As Irvine (2003) has pointed out, care can be conceptualized very differently in communities with large populations of people of color. Care is not always seen as a soft, fuzzy concept; rather, care is sometimes about teachers being tough on students because they know the students’ capabilities. The hammer of justice, the bell of freedom, and the song about love are interdependent and emergent. No single one is maximally effective in teaching for social jus- tice without the other two, and the effectiveness of the three used together is much greater than the effects of each used alone.

Challenges to Repurposing the Hammer, Bell, and Song Whiteness remains an “overwhelming presence” in teacher education (Sleeter, 2001, p. 102) and one of the challenges to learning to teach for social justice. Preparing predominantly White teacher candidates to teach an increasingly diverse student population involves more than simply equipping them with neutral pedagogical knowledge and skills. And despite strenuous efforts to recruit and retain teachers and teacher educators who reflect more closely the demograph- ics of school populations, their numbers have not increased significantly. This is true, at least in part, because while K-12 students have no choice but to attend school, their teachers elect to be there.

The disincentives to enter and stay in the profession con- tinue to mount as its substantive rewards continue to dwindle in comparison to other professions. The situation is exacer- bated because evidence suggests that prospective teachers of color may be even more motivated by altruism than by a desire for money or prestige (Nieto, 2005). Yet, the current constraints of schooling—pacing guides, scrimmage tests, real tests, adequate yearly progress (AYP), scripted curricula— work against teachers’ needs to establish caring relationships with their students and limit their creativity, responsiveness, and intellectual curiosity.

The increasing rigidity of schooling and a narrow defini- tion of accountability do not make teaching an attractive career choice for idealists committed to social change. This is ironic in light of the fact that many would claim that the standards and accountability movement was established pre- cisely to bring about social justice. We are not nostalgic for some “good old days” of teaching that never were: There

have always been competent and incompetent teachers and educational environments that are more and less restrictive. Nevertheless, it seems to us that economic, political, social, and demographic factors are converging to turn teachers into what S. J. Ball (1999) has called “pedagogic technicians” (p. 14).

What’s worse, the longevity of the standards and account- ability movement has practically guaranteed that the educational experiences of the majority of individuals entering teaching today have been driven by externally imposed criteria. Today’s apprenticeship of observation (Lortie, 1975) includes an unhealthy dose of test preparation and test taking, with the goal of meeting a state’s minimum performance standards. The gap between how teacher educators for social justice define learning and preservice teachers’ beliefs and disposi- tions about teaching may be widening.

One of the greatest challenges for preparing teachers to teach effectively for social justice is broadcasting a song that the general public will find personally persuasive. Songs like “If I Had a Hammer” helped bring the civil rights movement to the attention of the public at large, and as a consequence, the movement grew. Currently, however, when teacher educators are successful in preparing teachers to teach for social justice, their efforts at social activism may get them into trouble. Here in Las Vegas, for instance, some members of the community of a high school that is nationally recognized for excellence attempted to block the school’s production of the award-winning plays Rent and The Laramie Project because they require students to play gay characters. This is but one local example of the discon- nect between the profession’s and the public’s visions for education. How can teacher educators respect community values as they work toward social justice and contribute to the inclusion rather than the alienation of the public at large? Is there a song about justice, freedom, and love that we can all sing together?

Well, We Got a Hammer The hammer represents the theoretical tools and practices teacher educators have at their disposal, such as culturally responsive pedagogy, Whiteness studies, and critical race theory. Teacher educators need to make sure that they use these tools not just to break down walls of prejudice, racism, and intolerance but to construct new intellectual and affec- tive scaffolds that will enable teachers and teacher educators to be activists and advocates for social justice in their class- rooms, their schools, and society. In order for this to happen, teacher educators must use the bell of freedom to send out a clear, consistent, and persuasive message that social justice is a foundational goal of American education, not an add-on to be addressed after academic standards are met. Without clarity about the goals, objectives, and practices of socially just teaching, well-intentioned pedagogy can become com- promised. But even taken together, the hammer and bell

Spalding et al. 195

alone cannot accomplish the aims of teaching for social jus- tice. The work must be done to the beat of the song of love. The song is sung through the caring dispositions that teach- ers and their educators almost universally bring to the classroom and that teacher educators may fail to acknowl- edge as they labor to change beliefs and attitudes that do not align with socially just aims. While teacher educators should not abandon the work of changing beliefs and attitudes, they should consider beginning with the foundation of caring that is already in place among teachers who enter the profession with good intentions. Good intentions, however, are not enough. In addition the work of changing beliefs and atti- tudes must be carried out in concert with creating a socially just practice.

To some readers this may sound like the sentimental hog- wash of typical White, middle-class, female teacher educators. In reality, we are an editorial team diverse in gender, age, and ethnicity. Our roots extend from Appalachia to the People’s Republic of China. Our diverse identities and experiences inform how we use our voices. As we reflect on the impact of the voice of one White, middle-class, female folksinger—Mary Travers—we become more firmly convinced that it is only with a hammer, a bell, and a song that the teaching profession will prevail in the struggle for justice in schools and society.

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank Drs. Jesus Garcia and H. Richard Milner IV for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this editorial.

Notes

1. Peter Yarrow, Paul (Noel) Stookey, and Mary Travers formed the folk group known as Peter, Paul, and Mary. In the 1960s, their songs garnered a mass audience for folk music and for the politi- cal messages of songs like “Blowin’ In the Wind,” “If I Had a Hammer,” “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?,” and “The Times They Are a-Changin’.” Please visit YouTube at http://www.you tube.com/watch?v=_UKvpONl3No to view a video recording of Peter, Paul, and Mary performing “If I Had a Hammer.”

2. For an in-depth discussion of the history and definition of social justice together with a review and critique of recent liter- ature, we refer readers to Grant and Agosto (2008). In addition, Cochran-Smith, Shakman, Jong, Terrell, Barnatt, and McQuil- lan (2009) have provided a concise review of the case for and against what they call “good and just teaching.”

References

Agarwal, R., Epstein, S., Oppenheim, R., Oyler, C., & Sonu, D. (2010). From ideal to practice and back again: Beginning teach- ers teaching for social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 237-247.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social class and school knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-42.

Ball, D. L. (2008, February). The work of teaching and the chal- lenge for teacher education. Charles W. Hunt Lecture at the

annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. New Orleans, LA.

Ball, D. L., Sleep, L., Boerst, T. A., & Bass, H. (2009). Combining the development of practice and the practices of development in teacher education. Elementary School Journal, 109, 458-474.

Ball, S. J. (1999, September). Global trends in educational reform and the struggle for the soul of the teacher. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Confer- ence, University of Sussex at Brighton.

Brookhart, S. M., & Freeman, D. J. (1992). Characteristics of enter- ing teacher candidates. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 37-60.

Chubbuck, S. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in soci- ally just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and col- laborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 197-210.

Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Learning to teach against the (new) grain. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 3-4.

Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Ter- rell, D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing the critiques. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625-639). London: Taylor & Francis.

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

Galman, S., Pica, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2010). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 225-236.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Jour- nal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.

Grant, C., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 175-200). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Hodginkson, H. (2002). Demographics and teacher education: An overview. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 102-105.

Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.

Isenbarger, L., & Zembylas, M. (2006). The emotional labour of car- ing in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 120-134.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive edu- cation. Review of Educational Research, 70, 25-53.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Culturally relevant teaching: The key to making multicultural education work. In C. A. Grant (Ed.), Research and multicultural education (pp. 106-121). London: Falmer Press.

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47-68.

Leonard, J., Brooks, W., Berry, R., & Barnes-Johnson, J. (2010). The nuances and complexities of teaching mathematics for cul- tural relevance and social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 261-270.

196 Journal of Teacher Education 61(3)

Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, Whiteness, and education. New York: Routledge.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. New York: Routledge.

MacPherson, S. (2010). Teachers’ collaborative conversations about culture: Negotiating decision-making in intercultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 271-286.

McDonald, M., & Zeichner, K. (2009). Social justice teacher edu- cation. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The hand- book of social justice in education (pp. 595-610). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

Milner, H. R. (2008). Critical race theory and interest convergence as analytic tools in teacher education policies and practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 332-346.

Nieto, S. (Ed.). (2005). Why we teach. New York: Teacher College Press.

Noddings, N. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education, 96, 215-230.

Noddings, N. (2003). Is teaching a practice? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37, 241-251.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pollock, M., Deckman, S., Mira, M., & Shalaby, C. (2010). “But what can I do?” Three necessary tensions in teaching teachers about race. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 211-224.

Rogers, D., & Webb, J. (1991). The ethics of caring in teacher edu- cation. Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 173-181.

Sears, J. T. (2005). Youth, education, and sexualities: An interna- tional encyclopedia. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of White- ness. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 94-106.

Wiedeman, C. R. (2002). Teacher preparation, social justice, equity: A review of the literature. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35, 200-211.

Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualiz- ing culturally relevant pedagogy: How viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 248-260.

Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college- and university- based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 326-340.

Zumwalt, K., & Craig, E. (2005). Teachers’ characteristics: Research on the indicators of quality. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (pp. 157-260). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.