Helping Educators Respond: Community-Based Justice Work to Prepare Educational Leaders — "Lifting as We Climb"

• In Event: Challenges and Hopes of University-Community Partnerships: Narratives of Community Engagement as Ethical Responsibilities

Abstract

1. Objectives
Promising work in teacher education engages pre-service educators with community leaders to become effective advocates for racial and educational justice. Here we report on pre-and in-service educators’ experiences in a community-engaged social justice leadership program.
2. Theoretical Framework

Research on “hybrid” university/community teacher education suggests these programs help educators understand community histories and work effectively across demographic divides (Lee, 2018; Norton-Meier & Drake, 2010; Zeichner, 2010). Earlier work on communities of practice highlights the efficacy of collaborative and practice-based learning, including in teacher education (Cox, 2005; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Holland et al., 1998; Hammerness et al., 2005).
3. Methods & Data Sources
We report on a quasi-experimental, mixed-methods study pairing groups of College of Education (COE) students with community partners to address pressing community issues. Our sample includes 35 pre- and in-service teachers, counselors, and educational leaders who met weekly over 20 weeks. Controls (n = 68) were non-participating COE students. Data were gathered via pre- and post-surveys and individual and group interviews. Modes of analysis included inductive coding based on emergent themes (Glaser & Straus, 1967) and deductive coding for orientations to social justice, leadership, and civic attitudes. Qualitative analyses were triangulated via interrater reliability checks and member checks (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). We also explored these themes in pre- and post-program surveys and surveys of participants and controls.
4. Results
In interviews, participants reported that the program:
1. Helped them connect their work to larger purposes. They wanted “to be around […] passionate individuals working towards something bigger” (JO), and to be with “likeminded individuals who have a passion for serving Chicago” (TE).
2. Helped them understand social justice advocacy as an orientation to professional practice: [It] “made me look at education as more than just learning math, science, social studies. It’s learning social justice, learning community interaction and civic responsibilities” (MK).
3. Provided an opportunity to apply university learning to work in communities: “Most of the programs in all levels of university are theory, there’s a lot of reading and a lot of writing on a paper of ‘what would you do if?’ This [program] requires action” (KB).
4. Changed their understandings of leadership, telling us, for example, that they came to understand leadership as less hierarchical and more about listening, bridging differences between groups, and relationship building (MS; BG), and that these approaches to leadership left them less tired, less pressured, and less burned out (MS).
Results from survey analyses were largely inconclusive. We noted modest positive impacts, including 81.6% of respondents indicated in pre-program surveys that they plan to participate in a community action program while 90.5% did so after participation (Lift 1 & 2 pre- vs. post-).
5. Significance
This work is significant given demographic divides separating educators and communities they serve. It holds promise for developing educators’ cultural competence and preparing them to collaborate with communities to confront systemic racial and educational injustice.

Authors

• Joby Gardner, DePaul University

• Rebecca Michel, DePaul University

• Thomas Noel, DePaul University

• Shanita Bigelow

• Qianhui Tian, DePaul University

• Monica Estrada