ABSTRACT
Most research on effective urban schools approaches the issue by documenting the characteristics that seem to distinguish them from their low-achieving counterparts. Many of these studies note that the special challenges of urban schools are student poverty, hunger, health problems, large enrollment, limited resources, inadequate equipment and facilities, high faculty turnover, low teacher expectations, low morale, less experienced teachers than in suburban schools, and low parent involvement (Anyon, 1997; Earth, 1990; Kozol, 1991; Lareau, 1989; Levine & Lezotte, 1990; Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). Within urban schools literature we also find characterizations of teaching that are believed to contribute to poor student learning and low achievement. Listed among characteristics of this “pedagogy of poverty” are frequent interruptions, giving information (rather then engaging students in acquiring it), reviewing assignments and tests in class (rather than focusing on new material to be learned), and settling disputes and punishing noncompliance during instructional time (Haberman, 1991). According to Haberman, these teaching acts constitute
the core functions of urban teaching and contribute greatly to the low student achievement demonstrated in these schools.
