Learning to Teach Well in Urban Environments

Susan G.1 was an exemplary student and student teacher when she was a graduate student at Mills College. She was committed to creating her own classroom in a school that most needed excellent teachers, so she was excited to be hired in one of Oakland’s most famous schools. Elmwood2 elementary school was one of the largest in the district. For many years it operated on a year-round schedule, serving about 3000 children, in three different cycles. In addition, it had opted to become a “Comer” (Comer, 1988) school and to make itself a center of the community, offering a health clinic, a child development center, before-and afterschool care for elementary students, and a social services department office. The school had a large immigrant, English Language Learner, African-American, lowincome population, and the principal and faculty were famous for their enthusiasm and dedication. Teachers had pioneered exciting new literacy curriculum and written books and journal articles about that work (e.g., Samway & Whang, 1996; Samway, Whang, Cade, Gamii, Lubandina, & Phommachanh, 1991). They had taken leadership in supporting the children in their school to become capable students who could succeed in competition with their wealthier and Whiter peers. Susan was excited to become a member of that faculty. After five turbulent years, Susan left the school and teaching. She had tried her

best, but in those five years, the school had changed. Because of new federal legislation, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the school lost its funding for the Comer center, and the social services center and health clinic closed. Many members of the faculty transferred or left, including the principal. Teachers were now expected to use a mandated curriculum, which Susan deemed inappropriate for English Language Learners. If teachers did not teach “with fidelity” to the curriculum, they were reprimanded and letters of reprimand could be put in their employment files. Shortly after Susan left the school, it was disbanded and became several smaller schools. What happened to Susan? Why did such admittedly challenging circumstances

drive her out of the profession to which she had been so committed and for which she had demonstrated such dedication and enthusiasm? Susan was not ill-prepared. She had spent two years at Mills College earning a

multiple subjects credential and a Master’s Degree in Early Childhood, but she

for herself she was without resources to help her figure out how to meet the needs of the children she was teaching. She sought support from her school and her district. Unfortunately, the district’s methods for helping included professional development into the mandated literacy program instilling the importance of teaching the exact curriculum no matter where the students were academically. For English Language Learners and children who had fewer literary resources, this program was particularly challenging. Lacking the support she needed from the district, Susan turned back to the institution that had prepared her. During her third year, she mentored a student teacher from Mills in the hopes

that this experience would help her as well as the prospective teacher she was preparing. She was excited by this experience and felt hopeful about her setting and her possibilities. The next year, she eagerly requested another student teacher and agreed to participate with this student teacher in a study about learning to teach reading. I came to observe in Susan’s classroom, to watch my student (who was her student teacher) teach reading. It was a disturbing experience. I had supervised Susan herself when she was a student teacher, and I had trouble recognizing that student teacher in the teacher she had become. Susan seemed frantic and stressed; her classroom was messy and chaotic. She

spoke to me about her frustrations. She had been so pressured to teach the district mandated curriculum (Open Court) and so concerned that she was not giving the students appropriate instruction in reading, that she was attempting to teach both the district curriculum and her own curriculum. However, the district mandated a certain number of minutes be devoted to the Open Court reading curriculum, a number of minutes that took up most of the morning. Consequently, Susan decided to eliminate the half-hour of recess her children had each morning and the 15 minutes they had of recess in the afternoon, giving her an additional 45 minutes to teach “her” literacy curriculum. When she told me this, I expressed concern for the children’s needs and for her own needs. I had come to observe Catherine, a student teacher in our program. As I

observed the first grade classroom, I could see that she had a lively, eager group of students who were anxious to do well. Catherine had expressed some concerns about her placement, citing last-minute planning, arbitrary placement of students in instructional groups, concern about how children were treated with regard to discipline, and management of the curriculum and classroom. I saw some of these concerns reflected in my observations. Susan yelled at children she saw as misbehaving. Catherine was not given her teaching assignment until the hour in which she was to teach. She was managing a word-study center. The children were grouped homogenously; hence they presumably would have different activities. In fact, the single activity that Susan gave Catherine was appropriate for two of the four groups I observed. For one group it was much too difficult. On the spot, Catherine revised the activity to make it appropriate for those children. For the other group, it was much too easy. Catherine was left scrambling for another set

represented and she had prepared them only for two of the groups that Catherine was assigned to teach. The question this observation raised for me was whether Susan was trying to do too much in too little time, rather than looking into the mandated curriculum for ways to modify it appropriately for the different children. As things progressed, Susan’s frustration with the children resulted in several being given timeouts and in quite a bit of yelling. It was a sobering observation. Anyone can have a bad day-but this kind of bad day made me realize that

we had somehow failed Susan-although she would never have said that. We purport to be a teacher education program that prepares teachers to do well in urban schools. The context of an urban school district presents challenges. Children often come from a background different from the teacher’s; many children do not speak English; there are limited resources for teacher or student support. In addition, there is great pressure for children to do well on standardized tests to prove that the district education program is effective; many children in urban classrooms struggle to perform on the exams. Managing to teach with these challenges requires both idealism and compassion, for one’s students and for oneself. Susan had both idealism and compassion for her students, but she seemed unable to figure out how to help them in a way that would allow them (and herself) to flourish. However, Susan did not give up, yet. She spent another year trying to find ways to improve her situation and practice. She continued to seek ways to teach without compromising her principles or her students’ academic and emotional needs. But, after that year, she decided to leave her school and search for a different teaching position. Meanwhile, she started working in curriculum development. She had long been interested in environmental education for young children (she had written her master’s paper on this topic), and she found a position that allowed her to develop curriculum and try it out in different settings. While she did not leave teaching altogether, she left the classroom to use her talents elsewhere. What can Susan’s story teach us about how to help new, enthusiastic teachers

survive the rigors of urban teaching? There are several questions we need to investigate to understand the lessons of her experience. First, what is it about urban classrooms that makes them challenging for many new teachers? Second, what effect does educational public policy have on teachers and the students in the schools? And third, how can teacher preparation help new teachers to thrive in contexts with economic and political challenges?