Voices of Aspiring Teachers of Color: Unraveling the Double Bind in Teacher Education

Abstract

This article centers and investigates the voices of teacher candidates of color to examine how double binds influence their teaching and learning experiences in teacher education programs. Interview and focus group data from teacher candidates of color at two teacher education programs are analyzed to unpack the types of personal and systemic ties they experience as well as the strategies they utilize to escape them. Implications for eliminating the double bind in teacher education programs through the tailoring of transformative and critical preparation experiences for teacher candidates of color are explored.

Keywords

teachers of color double binds culturally responsive pedgogy urban education teacher education

Teachers of color make difficult choices concerning their commitments to the profession, communities of color, and students. Recently, I read an op-ed by a Latina teacher describing the tension between choosing to commit to the teaching profession to fight for educational equity on behalf of communities of color, and having to deal with school and district policies (e.g., lower salaries in low-income school districts, standardized curriculum that ignores diversity) that created a strain on her commitment to teach (Machado, 2013). Similar struggles are highlighted in Achinstein’s and Ogawa’s (2011) study that explores how contemporary teachers of color are often placed in a stifling double bind, which is described as a tension between two different ties: (a) personal ties that spark a desire in teachers of color to teach for educational justice and (b) systemic ties in schools that devalue the critical pedagogical and culturally responsive instructional approaches that entice teachers of color to the profession in the first place. According to the study, the troubling consequences of this type of bind were that teachers of color internalized systemic contradictions (i.e., dissonance between their pedagogical mission and the policies and practices implemented by the school system) that resulted in their shifting cultural identifications, issues of cultural match with students, and discomfort grappling with how to prepare students of color for college in culturally responsive ways.

Given the role schools of education play in the professionalization of teachers of color, the ways in which teacher candidates of color are prepared to unravel the double binds they will likely experience in K-12 schools is a particularly important area of research. I argue that the learning experiences of teachers of color in teacher education programs are often not linked to pedagogies that address the type of challenges and obstacles that may impede their success as teachers in the K-12 classroom. Yet, if the voices of teacher candidates of color are closely examined in light of the challenges they may likely face as novice teachers, their experiences can be instructive for enabling teacher educators and teacher education programs to better prepare them for the sociopolitical context of K-12 schools.

Therefore, this article investigates the voices of teacher candidates of color to analyze how, if at all, teacher candidates of color evidence interactions with personal and systemic ties in teacher education programs, and contemplate the overlaps and discontinuities with the double bind teachers of color may experience when they enter the profession. Based on the findings, implications for addressing the double bind phenomenon in teacher education programs are explored to consider ways to refine the teaching and learning experiences of future teachers of color.

Review of the Literature

Preparing Teacher Candidates of Color

The strengths of teachers of color have been well documented in the literature (Epstein & Gist, 2015; Sleeter & Thao, 2007). Villegas and Irvine (2010) identify effective instructional practices exhibited by teachers of color who improve the academic outcomes and school experiences of students, such as (a) serving as advocates and cultural brokers, (b) confronting issues of racism through teaching, (c) developing caring and trusting relationships with students, (d) using culturally relevant teaching, and (e) having high expectations for students. Given the increasing concern about educational outcomes for all students, but in particular culturally and linguistically diverse students, the practices of teachers of color are critical to any credible school reform effort. Studies on ethnic-racial matching have also noted significant impact of teachers of color on the academic achievement of students of color (Easton-Brooks, 2014; Eddy & Easton-Brooks, 2011; Egalite, Kisida, & Winters, 2015), in addition to an impact on non-academic measures (e.g., absenteeism, referrals to special education; Dee, 2004). Still, the value teachers of color bring to innovative educational change initiatives is complicated by their small representation (Milner & Hoy, 2003). Sleeter (2001) penned a seminal article on the “overwhelming whiteness” in teacher education describing issues with the small culturally and linguistically diverse teacher pool. Since then, the number of teachers of color has increased, but turnover rates have also been on the rise (Ingersoll & May, 2011).

Teachers of color accounted for only 17% of the public school teaching force during the 2011-2012 school year (Goldring, Gray, & Bitterman, 2013). Across the teacher development pipeline scholars have researched approaches to recruit, prepare, retain, and induct teachers of color (Sleeter & Milner, 2011). Although recent studies have focused on the induction experiences of teachers of color (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011), and a majority of past scholarship has addressed recruitment efforts for teachers of color (Villegas & Clewell, 1998), less attention is being paid to investigating the preparation experiences of teachers of color (Villegas & Davis, 2008). Unfortunately, empirical studies investigating features of quality teacher preparation for teachers of color are limited (Gist, Flores, & Claeys, 2014; Rogers-Ard, Knaus, Epstein, & Mayfield, 2013; Sleeter, Neal, & Kumashiro, 2014). Also, though many studies have made important contributions to our understandings of impactful pedagogy for teacher candidates of color, they often describe single cases either of an individual class or program, and do not explore cross-program comparisons, or consider within group racial diversity among teacher candidates of color.

Despite these gaps in the literature, it is evident that teachers of color can face ideological and curricular challenges in teacher education programs. Philip (2010) argues that a progressive ideology in teacher education programs can work to misrepresent and devalue the pedagogical strengths of teachers of color in the program. Milner (2008) explains how the interests of traditional teacher education programs often do not converge with issues that prioritize responsively preparing teachers of color. Specifically, traditional curriculum, assessment, and pedagogical practices in teacher education classrooms may overlook alternative approaches or perspectives (e.g., bicultural and bilingual experiences, critical views of learning, the value of affinity groups) to advance common dominant interests (e.g., one-size-fits-all curriculum, homogeneous views of teacher learning, ignoring of cultural and linguistic difference in the classroom) in the preparation of teachers. The need for teacher educators who value teacher candidates’ cultural and linguistic diversity and understand how to draw on and develop their multicultural capital is vital. O’Hara and Pritchard (2008), in a finding from a professional development study on diversity, note, “A critical component of any successful teacher preparation program is faculty regularly modeling best practices with respect to instructional strategies for working with diverse student populations” (p. 45). Gomez (2010) argues that we need “. . . teacher educators who can situate all prospective teachers as critical inquirers in to their own identities” (p. 97). Her commitment as a teacher educator to learn from and understand the teachers of color in her program yielded insights into their epistemological interpretations of their commitments to teach. Given the importance of modeling best practices in teacher education programs, the ongoing professional development of teacher educators should also include addressing culturally and linguistically diverse teacher candidate populations in their classrooms.

Gist (2014a) applies a culturally responsive pedagogy framework to conceptualize the culturally responsive teacher educator as a theoretical construct to develop suppositions about who this teacher educator is and how he or she can enhance the learning experiences of teacher candidates of color in programs. The culturally responsive teacher educator is described as critically conscious and committed to equipping and supporting teachers of color to overcome academic and professional barriers to successfully teach in the K-12 classroom. In this sense, the work of the culturally responsive teacher educator is not limited to the teacher education classroom, but encompasses envisioning the challenges for teachers of color in schools, and in doing so, actively engages in preparing them to confront possible obstacles. The literature suggests that teacher candidates of color describe learning experiences with these types of teacher educators as particularly valuable for the following reasons: They benefit from addressing ethnic/racial identity in classroom discussions, have opportunities to experience responsively tailored cultural assignments (e.g., develop cultural biographies), have space to discuss and reflect on racialized program experiences, and see intentional modeling of multicultural and critical pedagogies in the teacher education classroom (Clark & Flores, 2001; Dillard, 1994; Kohli, 2012; Salinas & Castro, 2010; Tellez, 1999; Wong et al., 2007). The barriers teacher education programs and teacher educators erect that prevent teachers of color access to these types of learning experiences may be identified and challenged by examining the role of double binds in teacher education.

Double Bind: Personal and Systemic Ties in Teacher Education

For the purposes of this article, I define the double bind, drawing from Achinstein and Ogawa’s (2011) use, as a teacher’s need to reconcile oppositional tensions between personal ties (i.e., cultural, linguistic, familial affiliations and connections that play a critical role in shaping an individual’s thinking, and thus choices) and systemic ties (i.e., written, spoken, hidden, and/or invisible institutional policies, features, and practices that have direct power and influence over individuals and groups) that they have difficulty escaping. Specifically, systemic ties in teacher education programs can involve institutional structures and supports (i.e., concrete programs and policies that frame the program vision), organizational features (i.e., nature of social relations as it relates to faculty and teacher candidates of color), and program practices (i.e., teaching and learning opportunities, curriculum, and institutional approaches). Originally, Bateson, Jackson, Haley, and Weakland (1956) coined the term double bind in relationship with schizophrenia to explain the contextual power dynamic that occurs in relationships between subjects and authoritative figures or situations when injunctions are placed or conflicting messages are given to the subject in a manner that he or she is unable to fulfill or reconcile. However, the phenomenon of the double bind has been viewed as valuable beyond its initial use by Bateson and his colleagues, and has also been utilized in the field of communications and as a way to illuminate an understanding of interactions between groups and institutions.

Other disciplines, such as the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) field, have noted a type of double bind experience (i.e., the ways in which race and gender function simultaneously to produce distinctly different higher education experiences for woman of color in STEM) in the recruitment and preparation of diverse students in institutions of higher education. Malcom and Malcom (2011) note the likelihood of policy and political constraints, institutional type (e.g., public, private, elite, predominately White), and a lack of institutional response that reduces the chance that STEM women of color will go on to complete their degrees. Espinosa (2011) found in a qualitative study of 1,250 women of color in STEM attending 135 institutions nationwide that they were more likely to persist despite the double bind experience if they frequently engaged with peers to discuss course content, had altruistic ambitions, or had access to academic capital (e.g., received private education, participation in a research program). Ong, Wright, Espinosa, and Orfield (2011) discovered that personal interest was not the reason why women of color did not pursue STEM careers, but it was the social and structural impediments in higher education institutions that failed to develop talent.

Although we must be careful not to essentialize (i.e., uncritically assume common characteristics and experiences based on group identification) the experiences of teachers of color, examining group standpoints are useful for better understanding phenomenon, in particular with groups associated with sociopolitical histories of inequality (e.g., see Noguera’s [2014] work on Black males). Many teacher candidates of color may have experiences negotiating the paradox of the double bind between personal and systemic ties prior to entering the teacher education program or during the teacher education program. The historical legacy of teachers of color evidences a cadre of educators who viewed education as a vehicle for creating a more just society (Gist, 2014b). Furthermore, the research literature indicates that teachers of color choose to teach for numerous reasons, some of which include familial experience (Gordon, 2000); interest in serving communities of color and desires to combat injustice (Machado, 2013); to enhance positive events encountered in their schooling experiences (Foster, 1997); and based on impactful interactions with professors and activists committed to the education profession (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011). In many ways, these reasons are representative of the personal ties teacher candidates of color bring to the teacher education classroom. Teacher candidates of color are linking their lived sociopolitical realities, which involves a myriad of individual and social/cultural positionalities, to a professional commitment to teach. Furthermore, the experiences many teacher candidates of color have with systemic ties (i.e., written, spoken, hidden, and/or invisible institutional policies, features, and practices that have direct power and influence over individuals and groups) occur before they enter the teacher education classroom even though they may or may not possess a critical aptitude to read and address systems of inequality in various forms.

For example, teacher candidates of color may evidence challenges with previous systemic ties because they often enter teacher education programs having attended lower status schools in which they were more likely placed in segregated schooling contexts, have less access to challenging academic courses, and as a consequence, are not as competitive in scholarship applications as peers who attended better schools (Dilworth & Coleman, 2014; Villegas, Strom, & Lucas, 2012). Therefore, in comparison with their White counterparts, teachers of color need more financial aid for college, require additional coursework, and experience individual and social isolation in higher education classrooms (Flores, Clark, Claeys, & Villarreal, 2007; White, Bedonie, de Groat, Lockard, & Honani, 2007). This is why calling attention to systemic binds in teacher education is vital because the value teachers of color add to the profession is clear—it is the residue of institutional racism and systemic policies and practices that creates different opportunities for different groups of teachers that often go unchecked in colorblind discourses in teacher education (Milner, 2012; Scott & Rodriguez, 2014).

Given this sociopolitical context, the extent to which teacher education programs offer resources, support, and/or programs to combat the residual effects of systemic ties can work to assist teachers of color to successfully graduate their programs and enter the teaching profession and shed the troubling legacy of systemic challenges of racism. In other words, although personal ties may attract teacher candidates of color to the profession (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011), the potential residual effects of adverse systemic ties prior to entering the program must be squarely addressed by the teacher education program not to develop and enact policies and practices that create another set of systemic obstacles for future teachers of color. Therefore, if the experiences of teacher candidates of color are overlooked or ignored by administrative leaders and teacher educators when they develop program policies, practices, and curriculum, then it can be the case that teacher candidates of color experience a type of double bind in their teacher education programs that can work to perpetuate the cycle of systemic challenges to their educational aspirations. In light of this concern, this article aims to investigate the learning experiences of teacher candidates of color to explore possible personal and systemic ties, and ruminate on the dynamic and iterative nature of a type of double bind that can manifest in teacher education programs.

Research Design

This study is part of a larger comparative case study investigation that examines teacher educator pedagogy for teacher candidates of color across two teacher education programs with commitments to culturally responsive pedagogy (Gist, 2014c). The broader study explores the experiences of teacher candidates of color, the administrative leadership of teacher education programs, and the social and cultural norms of the institutions. However, for the purposes of this article, the primary unit of analysis is teacher candidates of color, and their articulation of program and pedagogical experiences in interviews and focus groups.

Participant Selection

A sample of nine teacher candidates of color is utilized to convey key themes that emerged from their learning experiences across two teacher education programs (see Table 1). These nine teacher candidates of color were selected from a larger group of 17 teacher candidates of color because they explicitly indicated challenges in their teacher education programs related to pedagogy and program context, and/or incorporated their cultural and linguistic background to explain how they made meaning of learning experiences in their program, both of which are related to an investigation of the double bind experience. Among the nine teacher candidates of color, there are two levels of participants because the broader comparative case study I conducted involved three participant sets (i.e., teacher educators, teacher candidates of color, and administrative leadership) that required various levels of engagement (i.e., classroom observations, interviews, focus groups, student/faculty logs) over a 6-month period.

Table 1.

Participant Profiles.

Name	Level and program	Self-identified race/ethnicity, gender	Affiliation	Participation level
Esther	Undergraduate, elementary teacher education	Chilean, female	MTEP	2
Malba	Undergraduate, bilingual-bicultural	Latina, female	STEP	1
Flo	Graduate, literacy education	Black, female	STEP	2
Veronica	Undergraduate, bilingual-bicultural	Latina, female	STEP	1
Gloria	Undergraduate, bilingual-bicultural	Latina, female	STEP	1
Darcia	Undergraduate, bilingual-bicultural	Mexican, female	STEP	1
Marisa	Graduate, literacy teacher education	Latina, female	STEP	2
Jamal	Undergraduate, elementary teacher education	Black, male	MTEP	1
Christopher	Undergraduate, elementary teacher education	Laotian, male	MTEP	1

Note. MTEP = Mountain Range Teacher Education Program; STEP = Sunnyside Teacher Education Program.

For this study, I only examine the interview and focus group data across the nine teacher candidates of color to maintain consistency across the instruments used and data sources examined. The participants engaged in one of two levels of investigation for this study: Level 1, a single interview and/or a focus group, and Level 2, two to three interviews and a focus group. Level 2 teacher candidates of color who participated in a more in-depth portion of the study were recruited from individual teacher educators’ classrooms who participated in the broader study over the course of the semester. In contrast, Level 1 teacher candidates of color were recruited from a program listserv for one interview and/or a focus group to get a sense of teacher candidates of color experiences outside of the individual classrooms I was observing in the broader research study. Although recruitment strategies and instruments utilized across both sites are similar, there was a difference in program size between Sunnyside Teacher Education Program (STEP) and Mountain Range Teacher Education Program (MTEP), which is reflected in there being higher numbers of STEP teacher candidates of color in the participant pool. Despite this difference, useful observations can still be gleaned across participant groups. Pseudonyms are used in the description of teacher candidates and teacher education programs to protect the confidentiality of participants.

Research Site

Across the two institutions, several differences are relevant to understanding the institutional context in which the study took place. The STEP is housed in a large emerging research one institution, with 40% faculty of color and 62% students of color in the program, which is reflective of the urban city’s predominately Latino population. The MTEP is housed in a small liberal arts college of predominately White faculty (85%) and students (85%) located in a moderately sized suburban-urban city. Therefore, at MTEP, teacher candidates of color were more likely to be a racial minority in their classrooms, whereas at STEP this was less likely to be the case. Despite these differences, both teacher education programs were selected for participation due to their commitments to culturally responsive pedagogy, which was evidenced in the program mission and curriculum design.

MTEP had a mission to prepare skilled professionals who inspire excellence and create transformative change in the schools and communities in which they serve. The program curriculum had a specific focus on culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy, which was evidenced through a special culturally and linguistically responsive certificate program and an annual culturally and linguistically responsive conference that offered professional development opportunities for faculty, students, and the local and statewide school communities. There was also a commitment at MTEP to increase faculty diversity, which was evidenced through faculty recruitment policies indicating that the final shortlist of candidates must include at least one person of color.

The mission of STEP was described as a commitment to prepare teacher leaders who are knowledgeable and creative thinkers, are pedagogically competent, value diversity, are reflective decision makers, and are committed to working for a just and equitable world for all children. There was evidence that there was a particular commitment to teacher diversity through funding and recruitment initiatives that were specifically focused on increasing the number of teachers of color in the program, and departments within the program that had a target focus on bicultural and bilingual experiences in education.

Data Sources and Analysis

For the purposes of this article, only interview and focus group data sources are examined to ensure a consistent data set across the nine participants. The teacher candidate interviews comprised open-ended or closed-ended questions to ask them to reflect on their experiences in STEP and MTEP, respectively. For the Level 2 participants, pre- and post-course interviews (approximately 30 min long) were conducted for a total of six interviews (i.e., two interviews per Level 2 participant). Single interviews (approximately 45 min to 1 hr) were conducted with the Level 1 participants for a total of two interviews (i.e., an individual interview was conducted with two participants at MTEP). Some sample interview questions were the following: “Why did you decide to teach?” “What have your experiences with curriculum and instruction been in teacher education program?” “What professor have you enjoyed the most in the program? Why? What instructional tools were most helpful for you?” “How does the university address issues of diversity as it relates to student body, faculty, and pedagogical practices?” “How would you describe your experiences with faculty members in the School of Education? Are their faculty members that you’ve been able to establish relationships with? If so, how were you able to establish the relationship?” “What role, if any, do you think culture, ethnicity, and race play in your learning experiences at the university?”

Focus groups also provided another type of evidence for this study. Focus groups were utilized with Level 1 participants because they offered a structured and efficient way to meet with students who were not enrolled in the in-depth portion of the study. A total of two focus groups were conducted with Level 1 participants (i.e., one focus group at each program). The focus group query structure, similar to the interview questions, incorporated topics about teacher candidates of color experiences with faculty members, classroom interactions with students, and overall support of diversity within the program.

A cyclical, iterative coding process was used to analyze interview and focus group transcripts from the larger embedded comparative case study (Yin, 2008). Five components of culturally responsive pedagogy—sociopolitical/cultural consciousness, affirming attitudes toward diversity, acting as a change agent, implementing constructivist approaches, and learning about students and communities (Villegas & Lucas, 2002)—were initially used in the analysis of teacher candidates’ learning experiences in interview and focus group data to identify relevant themes. The use of two data sources, the initial coding of data sources utilizing a pre-existing culturally responsive pedagogy framework, and the cross-examination of data sources by culturally responsive pedagogy experts supported the triangulation of the study’s key findings.

Methodological Rationale

For the purpose of this article, the findings are presented as a portrait narrative of teacher candidates of color voices across the two teacher education programs. Yosso and Solórzano (2002) describe critical race methodology as a tool to counter dominant research methods, and identify different types of counter-narrative research that critical research studies can apply such as writing other people’s narratives, composite narratives, and personal narratives to report findings. Similarly, the methodology of portraiture also allows the researcher to document a search for goodness amid a sea of deficit perspectives by presenting findings in a rich and illuminating manner (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2005). Portraiture utilizes, more than other qualitative approaches, the researcher’s perspectives in the investigative process to further the reader’s understanding of and experiences with the portrait findings. Both methodological approaches were helpful in guiding the writing of this study’s findings in that they had synergistic compatibility based on their commitments to non-dominant methodologies in educational research (Chapman, 2005). Therefore, reflecting a grounding in and integration of literature on critical race and portraiture methodology, the article features the non-dominant method of portrait narrative (i.e., a written narrative account of findings that display the interaction between the researcher, research context, research participants, and data sources as an integrated and dynamic process) to explain the ways in which teacher candidates of color may grapple with personal and systemic ties in teacher education programs. The portrait narrative is non-dominant because it challenges a prioritization of quantitative metrics in favor of qualitative approaches that center a multiplicity of stories that highlight complexity and difference opposed to falsely shedding the appearance (and reality) of subjectivities in research. The narrative is told from the perspective of the researcher to narrate interactions between participants, key themes, and the researcher’s interpretations using double bind as a theoretical construct. It is called portrait narrative because it does not strictly adhere to counter-narrative or portraiture methodologies, but rather, it represents a simultaneous effort to apply a method that attends to the erasure and deficit issues the aforementioned methodologies are designed to tackle and also attempts to ensure a solid match of method with the data instruments of focus group and interview data in this study. For example, implementing portraiture with fidelity would require more extensive ethnographic study over a longer period of time and involve more data sources. This portrait narrative is also not applied solely as a counter-narrative in that, in addition to disrupting silence about the experiences of teachers of color and acknowledging the endemic nature of race through a focus on teachers of color, the study also wrestles with key themes related to theoretical constructs of double bind to help the research community better understand the roadblocks to preparing and retaining teachers of color.

Findings

Two main findings are described in the portrait narrative: (a) Themes of personal pride and struggle indicate possible ways in which teacher candidates’ of color personal ties may appear in teacher education programs, and (b) teacher candidates’ of color experiences coping with, resisting, and overcoming challenges in the learning context may point to systemic ties.

Personal Ties: Sociocultural Evidence of Pride and Struggle

Some voices speak of pride. There is a rhythm of meaningfulness in the cultural and linguistic ways of knowing that express themselves over the course of interviews. Malba, a Latina student at STEP who agreed to participate in the focus group, explained, “Faculty have so much pride and want to hold on to their native language. They talk about their experiences being a bilingual teacher and give us support. They make you believe in bilingual education.” She is passionate and her voice is not alone. She is speaking up over a small group of students organized as a focus group for my study. Veronica, a Latina student at STEP, talked about her life growing up in a bordertown where she was exposed to greater language diversity and knew firsthand the plights of English language learners. This gave her appreciation for the bilingual-bicultural program because her neighborhood culture and community was not designated as a site of inferiority, but rather a place of belonging mixed with a rich linguistic heritage and pride. These were voices that yoked cultural and linguistic identities with experiences of validation and respect.

And these expressions of pride were not just limited to teacher candidates of color who participated in affinity groups. Flo, a Black teacher in the Literacy Graduate Program at STEP, talked pride when she shared her admiration of an African American professor who presented statistics on African Americans’ professional success in prestigious professions. She felt a pride when the professor spoke but she did not always carry the same pride with her on a regular basis. Flo desired to think more positively about her cultural background but she needed evidence to cite because she did not have many examples in her personal life. Gloria, a Latina teacher candidate in her final year of the program at STEP, discussed her experiences not being taught English when she was very young and the loss of her first language, which had been, until her recent involvement in the bilingual-bicultural program, a source of shame among the members of her family. She wanted to be an active participant in her culture’s meaning-making process and had experienced pain of the linguistic fracture in her family. Joining the bilingual-bicultural program and being required to learn and speak Spanish for her degree allowed her to heal and gave her a sense of pride she could claim. However, Esther, a Chilean teacher candidate at MTEP, described at times feeling her peers did not understand diversity in a critical way. She explained, “I’m very much a minority but it doesn’t faze me. They don’t have the experiences I have.” She knew her identity, as a Chilean, was a source of strength. The alignment of several teacher candidates of color voices toward pride is intriguing because the participants were not directly asked about their identities as cultural and linguistic beings; yet, pride readily accompanied their retellings of how they saw themselves situated in their teacher education programs.

Moreover, due to some of the teacher candidates of color experiences with faculty, they saw themselves as bilingual and bicultural, and therefore, identified from a place of resistance and affirmation. And although love of culture and language evoked pride, it also required struggle and critique. The voice of Darcia, a Mexican teacher candidate at STEP, explained, “I’m not Latino or Hispanic. I’m Mexican and I have to get out of my shell. I always try to tell my family to talk Spanish and about the struggle it involves.” In these three sentences, pride and struggle hold hands and attempt to resist their positionality in the broader White middle-class social structure. Pride and struggle also initiate talks of family structure and shame in Darcia’s voice:

I’m divided because I try to push ahead and you have family members that don’t understand why you are not married yet. I don’t want to be a statistic. You know what you don’t want to be but you know that is a part of you as well. You become a coconut because you want to move up and want a better future whenever we have kids. You come over here and did well for yourself, but with them being illiterate I feel ashamed sometimes when I see other Latinos. It is a love-hate relationship.

Darcia’s description of self as a coconut reflects the tensions between her racial/ethnic and cultural pride, which is metaphorically her outer coconut shell, and the internal struggle to racially/ethnically and culturally distance herself to attain better professional opportunities for her future. Persistence moved these candidates forward in an ongoing quest to attain personal goals as their standpoint in the world continues to shift when encountering new experiences and challenges. Whether contemplating clipping personal ties to family, or resisting negative evaluations of cultural and linguistic affiliations, the teacher candidates of color fought to stay on track in attaining their professional goals. Self-identifying as a Latina in the literacy graduate program, Marisa affirms this observation reflecting:

I look like a White girl and people make assumptions. I did have one professor ask me how many kids I have. See my last name is Rios and they expect me to speak Spanish. I’m a first generation graduate and I’m very proud of that. For the most part I am able to express myself and get along with professors. I want to fight against what research says about Hispanic women. I want to fight against perceptions about what Hispanic women should be able to do. My dad always told me that I need to be at home but my mom was very supportive of college so my life is very different.

Despite personal ties to family and culture that presented difficulties and slights in her educational experiences, Marisa had the personal resolve to persist. Re-reading transcripts of the interviews and focus groups over and over, the teachers of color appear to be having conversations across the pages. They were sharing more than textbook evidence of sociocultural consciousness. In the context of the teacher education programs, they bring with them personal ties of pride that expresses a persistent commitment to grow as learners and future teachers.

Systemic Ties: Coping With, Resisting, and Overcoming Challenges in the Learning Context

A few teacher candidates of color expressed the belief that more student and faculty diversity would have resulted in richer classroom discussions. This seemed particularly relevant for students at MTEP as it is a predominately White institution. Both Jamal, a Black male teacher candidate at MTEP, and Christopher, a Laotian teacher candidate at MTEP, talked about feelings of isolation due to a lack of faculty and student diversity. From their view, the presence of cultural and linguistic diversity would have enabled them to talk more freely in class because they would not have to work so hard to explain themselves. Esther’s experience at MTEP also evidenced this point of isolation in the learning context:

I always feel out of place because English as my second language does not come as easily. I sometimes feel it is hard to relate to other classmates. I do wish I would open up more because I have a lot to offer many of these teachers. When I can share I try to say as much as I can. I have a lot to bring to the table and I feel it’s important because a lot of these student teachers do not have any experiences with culturally diverse classrooms.

In a follow-up interview, Esther described her experiences via a student log she wrote in one class noting:

Nothing today made me feel close to another classmate if anything I felt very different and further away from people. I felt a bit looked down on today because I had enjoyed the seminar on Friday, and often White students felt attacked. Finally it gave them a spin on feeling the minority! I loved being able to share growing up as a minority and how much more difficult my life was compared to “privileged” friends! No one in class truly understands what it’s like to grow up as an ESL student. (It was very difficult)! I felt very much by myself in this session.

Similarly, the generalist courses (courses outside of the bilingual-bicultural program) at STEP were also at times a site of discomfort for teacher candidates of color. The generalist courses were open to teacher candidates across both interdisciplinary studies and bilingual-bicultural departments. There were some teacher candidates of color who described feeling as though they “stood out” in the generalist courses, or that the other White teacher candidates did not want to associate with them. The affirmation and pride that they spoke of was not readily accessible in these classroom instances. Even though MTEP is a predominately White institution and STEP is a Hispanic-serving institution, across both sites, the classroom was described as a socially and politically contested space where students can simultaneously experience the symbolic violence of privileging dominant ways of knowing, being, and reasoning in the context of learning experiences, and at other times feel their cultural and linguistic differences make them strong and enable them to make a contribution to the teaching profession that would otherwise be ignored or missed.

Closely reading the voices across the transcripts, it became apparent that the teacher candidates of color were using a series of coping mechanisms and resistance strategies to deal with feelings of isolation and frustration with coursework and program experiences. Jamal, for example, shared his experience attending the diversity workshop that aimed to heighten teacher candidates’ awareness of diversity and the ways injustice creates different life chances for different cultural and social groups. Although he was only one of a small handful of Black males in the program, the workshop caused him to realize he often tried not to be singled out and he frequently remained silent, hoping to be invisible. This struck me as ironic, especially in the predominately White and female context he described, which perhaps made his presence one of the most visible in the room. Although racial and cultural differences subconsciously affected Jamal, he was more accustomed to coping with or adapting to these situations by silencing himself rather than being critical about his learning experience. As our interview continued, he realized, reflecting on his decisions, that he needed to speak up and assert himself more in classroom discussion, even if it was difficult. He referenced an interaction with the only Black teacher educator in the program as particularly motivating, stating, “She did not want you in the classroom instructing kids if you do not know what you are doing. She’d say you will not fail because we cannot afford to do that to our kids.”

Whereas Jamal chose to individually adapt and change his perspective, Christopher combated his feelings of isolation by joining the Southeast Asian Student Organization (SASO), in which he had served as president for the last 2 years. He expressed two main advantages of the organization: It provided a safe space among peers who understood each other’s experiences and it offered an opportunity to make one’s voice heard among peers, faculty, and administration. He also served as a student representative on the Teacher Education Advisory Board at the college. There was a parallel between Christopher’s choice to seek community at MTEP and the sense of community the bicultural and bilingual students experienced at STEP. This community of cultural affirmation seemed to serve as a buffer against the taken for granted isolation and cultural denial that may routinely take place in the context of the teacher education classroom.

Social and cultural barriers of isolation and cultural indifference were very real for these teacher candidates of color, and these barriers had the potential to limit their ability to successfully complete the teacher education program. However, the teacher candidates of color interpretation of the cause of barriers, as well as the solutions for overcoming the barriers, differed within and across programs. Some teacher candidates of color interpreted their struggles in the program as a problem in themselves that needed to be fixed by them. They did not expect faculty to express sociocultural consciousness or the teacher education program to act as an agent of change on their behalf. Flo, a black teacher candidate at STEP, was uncomfortable with faculty who overemphasized culture, language, and/or race ethnicity. She explained, “I would feel uncomfortable if a professor said, ‘African-Americans are a certain way’ because it can be very offensive. I’d rather be talked to in an academic manner. It is useful if you are role playing and using examples but not with everyday instruction.” Marisa, a Latina teacher candidate at STEP, felt that culturally specific communication styles in graduate school were not appropriate, although she did think they were appropriate when working with children in schools: “I see myself using different vocabulary words that are connected to a piece I am using so my students may be hooked.” Marisa and Flo saw culturally specific communication, and culturally responsive pedagogy in general, as unnecessary in the teacher education classroom. They appeared to be creating distance between their racial/cultural identities and the reality of cultural and linguistic diversity among their peers in the college classroom.

However, voices of several teacher candidates in the bicultural-bilingual program at STEP described beliefs that the professor’s ability to cultivate cultural and linguistic affirmation is vital. Perhaps these teacher candidates of color could articulate this because they had firsthand experience with faculty who taught in culturally responsive ways. These types of faculty caused the teacher candidates of color to feel as though they were part of a family that wanted them to succeed. They talked about faculty being people they could count on, even if they were not assigned to a particular course or section with them. For these teacher candidates of color, it felt like a home away from home, and this was a distinctly different feeling from what they encountered in their generalist courses.

Given that the contextual experiences of Esther, Jamal, and Christopher, all at MTEP, were different, they viewed the program as being responsible for increasing faculty and student diversity. In their minds, the recruitment and retention of faculty, who could function as an obstacle to their academic and professional success, was the responsibility of the teacher education program. They seemed to suggest that faculty can play a key role in creating a responsive classroom environment where learning is fostered in safe, rigorous, and productive ways for all teacher candidates of color. But the teacher education program is pivotal in making this happen.

Discussion: Unraveling the Double Bind

The voices of teacher candidates of color in this study evidence complex personal ties through experiences of pride, shame, and struggle, and systemic ties connected to the institutional role teacher education programs play in ensuring access to a diverse student and faculty pool, which affects the overall quality of their learning experiences. In the face of this double bind (i.e., the oppositional tensions between the personal and systemic ties), evidence from the portrait narrative suggests that teacher candidates of color attempted to reconcile this tension in the teacher education programs in at least two ways—through individual and/or collective efforts. One individual approach to address the systemic tie that created limited faculty and student diversity (or failed to create a culturally and linguistically responsive learning context) that has been noted in the research literature (Gay, 2005) is the choice to be silent and withdraw from participation. This was illustrated in the choices of Jamal and Esther to choose silence when experiencing discomfort or isolation in the context of the teacher education classroom. Ongoing individual self-reflection in an effort to personally develop and grow appeared to be another approach, which was expressed by Darcia and Esther. They sought to grow despite oppositional experiences. However, there was also the individual choice to deny/overlook the significance of cultural and linguistic differences, which was in part evident in Marisa’s and Flo’s reflections. They chose to focus on utilitarian reasons for being in the program, that is, to successfully graduate and become a teacher. Therefore, they seemed to have an indifference to the absence of student or faculty diversity, and perhaps viewed pondering the consequences of these absences as distractions from achieving their goal of program graduation. In terms of the collective efforts taken by teacher candidates of color, affinity groups or cultural/linguistic programming appeared to be a viable way to navigate the systemic tie that limited access to diverse faculty or multicultural learning experiences. At both teacher education programs affinity groups were mentioned as a source of resistance and support for teacher candidates or color. These spaces functioned as a type of buffer against cultural/linguistic denial, or isolating learning experiences, which helped teacher candidates of color to successfully navigate their learning experiences.

Taken as a whole, the type of double bind experience that emerged in the teacher education program for teacher candidates of color was multifaceted. Personal ties did not simply appear as reasons why teacher candidates of color chose the teaching profession, but as values that inspired them toward growth and development. Many of the teacher candidates of color talked of being challenged, wrestled with commitments, and had to expand their thinking and perspective concerning their cultural and linguistic ties. Still, some of the teacher candidates of color did not retreat or abandon their personal ties. Rather, they seemed to acknowledge that personal ties involve challenges, and as a result, struggle. In many ways, these personal ties affirm the rich literature highlighting the importance of language and identity that has been documented in the Latino community in particular, and teacher education learning experiences in general (Anzaldua, 1987; Bustos-Flores, Keehn, & Perez, 2002; Darder, 1991).

However, the primary systemic tie that emerged is the unspoken and invisible institutional policies and pedagogical practices related to student and faculty diversity in the program and classroom experiences of teacher candidates of color. This systemic tie had an influence on the types of positive or adverse social and cultural norms teacher candidates of color had to navigate in their teacher education programs. For some teacher candidates of color in the respective programs, they grappled with how to reconcile the dissonance between their personal and systemic ties, and were bound in ways that at times limited the types of transgressing and empowering learning afforded to culturally and linguistically dominant peers in their classrooms. In an effort to free themselves from the double bind, some teacher candidates of color appeared to be indifferent (Flo and Marisa), resistant (Darcia), or engage in some form of internalizing negative cues from the social and cultural norms of the teacher education programs (Jamal and Esther). Still others (Christopher) were able to identify the teacher education program and faculty as responsible for the barriers as well as the successes in their preparation experiences. In sum, some evidence from the interview and focus group data suggests that teacher candidates of color navigated the adverse effects of the double bind by either internalizing the problem, remaining indifferent, or resisting through interactions with faculty and peers.

Implications for Teacher Education Programs

This article began by discussing the difficult choices teachers of color must face as they contemplate a teaching career, and sought to trace the footprints of the double bind back in the teacher education classroom. After exploring the personal and systemic ties that may foster a type of double bind experience for teacher candidates of color, it is telling that even if programs evidence a curricular commitment to social justice issues, ineffective diversity policies embedded in the teacher education programs and invisible practices of faculty that deny or ignore cultural and linguistic differences among teacher candidates may offset the culturally responsive program design efforts (i.e., a programmatic series of courses that prepares teacher candidates to be culturally responsive teachers in schools).

Chapman (2011) utilizes critical race theory to express various components of systemic ties that create subtractive experiences for teacher candidates of color, including financial burdens, lack of color-conscious ideologies among teacher educators, marginalization of multicultural curriculum, and normalization of effective teaching practices at the expense of a diversity of instructional approaches. In this sense, teacher candidates of color can experience a type of double bind in which their personal ties encounter a program structure that mitigates or devalues cultural and linguistic affiliations and connections through a lack of faculty and student diversity.

Philip (2013) spotlights the experiences of teacher candidates of color who entered teacher education programs with a commitment to act as civic agents but faced ideological obstacles in their preparation experiences that presented challenges for engaging in critical pedagogy in a teacher education program that was not necessarily supportive of this practice. Clearly, the discontinuity between the personal and systemic ties can create a problematic tension that affects their learning experiences as was apparent with some teachers in this story.

In an effort to move beyond a narrative of problems without considering possible solutions, I posit that the type of double bind tension evidenced in this study presents a unique opportunity for teacher candidates of color to name, question, and/or unravel the double bind. This claim is also aligned with Bateson et al.’s (1956) argument that one of the ways in which subjects work to break free of the double bind is through metacognitive questioning. In other words, if the teacher candidates of color are experiencing a type of double bind, then the program, if truly committed to a social justice mission and culturally responsive efforts, can be a fertile training ground to question and critique the double bind teachers of color may likely experience in their academic and professional lives as teachers in the field of education. Considering the ways in which teacher candidates of color can unravel the double bind is important for ensuring their retention and effectiveness as future teachers.

For example, the portrait narrative indicates that some teacher candidates of color chose individual efforts to navigate the double bind in teacher education programs, which may mean they would make individual efforts (i.e., personally internalize, ignore, or resist) in their future schools, but perhaps may become continually overwhelmed by the institutional policies and practices, and as a result, be likely to internalize institutional values, beliefs, and practices that are contradictory to their personal ties. This possible outcome is worth serious consideration because it is consistent with Achinstein and Ogawa (2011) who found that the commitments of many of the teachers of color became absorbed in the system through a process in which they internalized institutional values. It is important to note that all teachers of color are not automatically absorbed by difficult school contexts. In fact, Milner and Hoy (2003) describe an individual case study of an African American teacher who, despite being racially isolated in her school building and highly susceptible to stereotype threat, was able to persist and thrive in the same school district for 11 years. Yet still, her personal resilience the study also indicated that she experienced a strain of battle, the burden of responsibility, and required constant self-motivation in a context that required her to often combat racial stereotypes. Although the practice of this teacher is admirable, this type of resilience may not necessarily be sustainable or feasible for a majority of teachers of color. In constrast, for the teacher candidates of color in the portrait narrative who chose collective actions in the context of the teacher education program, this raises the question of whether they will be less likely to become overwhelmed by the system because they are inclined to seek collective approaches and choices that create a buffer between themselves and the systemic ties in schools.

Therefore, it seems that culturally responsive teacher education programs (i.e., programs that intentionally prepare culturally and linguistically diverse teacher candidates for the academic and professional challenges to facilitate their success in the profession) would not simply require programs to address and refine policies and practices that embody a commitment to cultural and linguistic diversity, but develop a more concise articulation of what critical and just preparation for teacher candidates of color entails. Findings from this study suggest, in part, this means explicitly teaching teacher candidates of color strategies to unravel a plethora of double binds they may experience during their professional journeys.

Apple (2008), in a critique of deliberative democratic models that foster little change, argues that democratic teacher education spaces can be fostered through a critical commitment to foster the following dispositions, habits, or mindsets on the part critical teacher educators: (a) illuminating the ways educational policy and practice are connected to the relations of exploitation and domination in the larger society; (b) examining current realities with a conceptual framework that emphasizes the spaces in which “counter-hegemonic” actions can be or are now going on; (c) engaging in a redefinition of what counts as research to document and/or act as secretaries on behalf of people, organizations, and communities engaged in critical work; (d) engaging in the task of keeping traditions of critical progressive work alive; and (e) assisting in the building of critical communities, supporting social movements and mobilizations, and engaging with them and learning from them so that we can all move forward. Furthermore, Giroux (2009) argues that teacher education programs can potentially act as democratic public spheres that prepare teachers as transformative intellectuals who “treat students as critical agents, question how knowledge is produced and distributed, and make knowledge meaningful, critical, and ultimately emancipatory” (p. 439). He suggests that prioritizing student experiences, student voice, and the public sphere are possible pedagogical and content foci that comprise transformative intellectual work in teacher education classrooms.

Creating space for new visions and perspectives that seek to eliminate the double bind would also require having opportunities to wrestle with challenges to the implementation of critical approaches, and work to master the difficulties opposed to being overcome by them or resigning to the impossibility. Based on Harding’s (1999) work, Malcom and Malcom (2011) argue in their double bind research on the learning experiences of women of color pursuing degrees in STEM that “Cultivating a supportive, reciprocal relationship with a mentor, who recognizes the value brought by the student, can do more to level the playing field than any other single intervention” (p. 169). This highlights that the role of mentorship is not a trivial point or inconsequential factor, but vital for the academic and critical identity development of students of color. Moreover, an important theme that emerged from Ong et al.’s (2011) synthesis of 116 articles of the postsecondary double bind experiences of women of color in STEM was “findings that support the need to address STEM pedagogy and curriculum for diverse populations as well as research on the relationship between pedagogical changes and cognitive outcomes for women of color” (p. 198). Even though this double bind research focuses specifically on women of color in the STEM field who are bound simultaneously by social constructs of race and gender, the research highlights the importance of exploring the development and implementation of culturally responsive advising and pedagogical practices for teacher candidates of color as an important area for future research (Gist, 2014a). In the absence of these types of pedagogies or mentors, teacher candidates of color may have limited supports, resources, or opportunities to clip the ties that bind them in teacher education programs.

Finally, the double bind phenomenon raises questions regarding the design of teacher education programs—should teacher candidates of color be prepared to cut the double bind in their future K-12 classrooms in their preparation experiences through a series of critically focused coursework? Or, should experiences that prepare teacher candidates of color to navigate the double bind occur in a separate cohort group or support program? What is the best way to ensure that teacher candidates of color receive pedagogies that are responsive to their needs (Ladson-Billings, 2011)? What types of mentorship should (must) be available to teacher candidates of color who are in institutional context with limited dynamic diversity (i.e., contextual, cross-racial, interdependent, participatory; Garces & Jayakumar, 2014)? Furthermore, what are the implications for the types of culturally and linguistically responsive induction supports that can be offered to teachers of color in school contexts that are hostile to their personal commitments? These are important questions because research on the double bind experience in STEM programs found that woman of color were lost at key transition points in their educational and professional aspirations (i.e., from undergraduate to graduate to doctoral to tenure-track position; Ong et al., 2011). The same can be said for future teachers of color transitioning from high school, to college, to K-12 schools as teachers, and eventually to leadership positions in the field of education.

Finally, as it relates to the organizational features and program practices of teacher education programs, a careful and committed examination of the ways in which certain ways of knowing, being, and reasoning are codified in invisible and hidden ways in the curriculum and instructional approaches of the majority of teacher educators in the program would be a helpful line of inquiry. This may be particularly helpful for programs that already have faculty diversity policies and a commitment to diversity in the mission statement, but the experiences of teacher candidates of color still evidence cultural denial and isolating learning opportunities. Moreover, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Standard 3—candidate quality, recruitment, and selectivity—requires that programs demonstrate a plan for recruitment of diverse candidates, and CAEP Standard 5—provider quality assurance and continuous improvement—emphasizes quality and strategic evaluation (CAEP, 2013 Accreditation Standards). Both of these standards can be used as a way to create and facilitate faculty buy-in related to the double bind teacher candidates of color experience, and assess and evaluate programmatic experiences of teacher candidates of color. Specifically, an intentional commitment to hearing and centering the voices of teacher candidates of color, in particular in programs where they are a racial/ethnic minority, by evaluating their program experiences incrementally over the course of preparation could reveal more specifics about how responsive pedagogical approaches can be developed to help teacher candidates of color to not only succeed but also become highly effective teachers who transgress systemic ties. Opportunities for diverse teacher candidate representation in program or departmental advisory committees may also be another way to strategically center the voices of teacher candidates of color.

Limitations

Several limitations are important to note for this study. This study involves a small sample size, and does not claim to be representative of the eclectic diversity of teachers of color in teacher education programs across the country. An exploration of a larger sample size of teacher candidates of color, and more expansive data sets for analysis (such as survey data examining particular psychological and institutional constructs related to the double bind), would likely yield a richer and more nuanced data on the preparation experiences of teachers of color. Furthermore, the study examines the voices of teacher candidates of color in a particular type of teacher program with commitments to culturally responsive pedagogy. A larger set of analysis across a range of teacher education programs with and without commitments to culturally responsive pedagogy (including alternative certification programs), paired with an examination of the practices of teacher educators, would offer a more complex understanding of the types of binds teacher candidates of color may be experiencing in teacher education programs (Ladson-Billings, 2011). Moreover, a close document analysis of policies and practices of the teacher education programs was not available in this study, but would be useful for future studies that intend to engage in a more robust systemic tie analysis than what is afforded in this article. Research studies that link and trace teacher candidates’ of color double bind experiences from the teacher education classroom to their experiences as teachers would also allow for a more sophisticated understanding of how they can be prepared to transgress in oppressive school settings.

Conclusion: Teachers of Color and Urban Education in the 21st Century

Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study’s focus on the double bind is a pressing issue for urban education in the 21st century. Milner and Lomotey (2014) outline an urban education research agenda that addresses the expansive nature of urban education (i.e., psychology, health, and human development; sociopolitical perspectives; families and communities; teacher education and special education; leadership, administration, and leaders; curriculum and instruction; and policy and reform) in an effort “to name and construct their [critical race scholars and scholars of color] own reality in order to shape, discourse, knowledge, and practice” (p. xv). A recent report by the Albert Shanker Institute (2015) on teacher diversity in three of America’s largest urban school districts indicates that critical researchers will need to make good on such aims. Framing teacher diversity as an educational civil rights issue, the report highlights modest gains in the Latino teacher pool, the troubling decline of Black teachers across all the major cities in the study, and high attrition rates across all groups of teachers of color as particular concerns in need of attention (The Albert Shanker Institute, 2015). Also, the report notes the most commonly cited reasons for leaving by teachers of color are the school climate and lack of voice. These findings are consistent with the concerns of teacher candidates of color in this article’s comparative study in that there is a common theme of teachers of color confronting systemic ties (i.e., in this case, institutional policies and practices that support and/or restrict the learning and pedagogical experiences of teachers of color) and making decisions (i.e., in this case, individual efforts—leaving the profession—in response to policies and practices) to reconcile their personal ties (i.e., in this case, personal and pedagogical commitments in discord with school climate). In part, the presence of systemic ties that create difficulties for teachers of color can be understood as an outgrowth of policies for urban school communities that were erected with little to no teacher and community voices, along with institutional and political practices steeped in a history of ignoring local, indigenous, and community-based knowledge sources (Heilig, Khalifa, & Tillman, 2014). If we view the development and support of teachers of color on a continuum, the work of teacher education programs must more strategically center the voices of teachers of color and focus on the types of institutional policies, pedagogical practices, and overall preparation experiences that will equip and sustain teachers of color for the challenges ahead. For example, curriculum designers Wiggins and McTighe (2011) emphasize the importance of beginning with the end in mind by preparing for the game with continuous practice in ways that allow you to win when you play. Clearly the lives of urban school children and teachers are not trivial and inconsequential as a game, but the metaphor does illustrate the point that we cannot wait until teachers of color are in various school contexts to offer support. That work must be frontend loaded and addressed in the beginning in teacher education programs so that teachers of color receive the practice and preparation to transgress despite the challenges they will face in K-12 settings.

Finally, in light of the findings on the types of double binds teachers of color may experience in teacher education programs, and likely in their future schools, several questions related to a research agenda in urban education are pertinent to consider: What types of practices and structural supports need to be in place to support the psycho-socio-emotional and human development of teachers of color in the face of systemic challenges? How can these supports combat individualized attempts by teachers of color that may result in internationalization of issues or being absorbed by the system? From a sociological perspective, what types of group or collective efforts on the part of communities, families, and allies can combat these challenges? How should teacher education assume a stronger role in building a foundation for these types of supports? What types of structural incentives can encourage and assist administrators and educational leaders to anticipate and develop plans to addresses these issues? What are the implications for professional development and policies that support teacher autonomy and more freedom in the types of curriculum and instruction teachers of color can teach? Most importantly, if teacher diversity is seriously taken up as an educational civil right that is currently being denied to U.S. school children, what types of massive reform efforts could work to rapidly increase the retention of teachers of color?

Given the important difference teachers of color stand to make in the lives of all children, and urban school students in particular, we must know that teacher diversity is not a people of color problem (Lee, 2015), but a double binding American problem “That We All Live With” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 434). And it is one that we must unravel, despite the complexity, if our nation is to realize its best democratic, equitable self.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Conra D. Gist is an assistant professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Arkansas and she received her doctorate from the City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center. Her primary research interests focus on teacher diversity, culturally responsive pedagogy, and teacher learning. She is the author of several books, including the award-winning Preparing Teachers of Color to Teach: Culturally Responsive Teacher Education in Theory and Practice, and the co-author of Rethinking Emilie Francis Davis: Lesson Plans for Teaching her Civil War Pocket Diaries.

References

Achinstein

Ogawa

R. T.

(2011). Change(d) agents: New teachers of color in urban schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

The Albert Shanker Institute. (2015). The state of teacher diversity in American education. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/The%20State%20Teacher%20Diversity%20Exec%20Summary_0.pdf

Anzaldua

(1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute Books.

Apple

M. W.

(2008). Is deliberative democracy enough in teacher education? In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

John McIntyre

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing context (3rd ed., pp. 105-110). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bateson

Jackson

D. D.

Haley

Weakland

(1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251-264.

Bustos-Flores

Keehn

Perez

(2002). Critical need for bilingual education teachers: The potential of normalistas and paraprofessional. Bilingual Research Journal, 26, 501-524.

CAEP (Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation). (2013). Accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/

Chapman

T. K.

(2005). Expressions of “voice” in portraiture. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 27-51.

Chapman

T. K.

(2011). A critical race theory analysis of past and present institutional processes and policies in teacher education. In Ball

A. F.

Tyson

C. A.

(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 237-256). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

10.

Clark

E. R.

Flores

B. B.

(2001). Who am I? The social construction of ethnic identity and self-perception in Latino preservice teachers. Urban Review, 33, 69-86.

11.

Darder

(1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for bicultural education. New York, NY: Bergin & Germany.

12.

Dee

(2004). Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 195-210.

13.

Dillard

C. B.

(1994). Beyond supply and demand: Critical pedagogy, ethnicity, and empowerment in recruiting teachers of color. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 9-17.

14.

Dilworth

M. E.

Coleman

M. J.

(2014). Time for a change: Diversity in teaching revisited. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Time_for_a_Change_Diversity_in_Teaching_Revisited_%28web%29.pdf

15.

Easton-Brooks

(2014). Ethnic-matching in urban schools. In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 97-113). New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Eddy

C. M.

Easton-Brooks

(2011). Ethnic matching, school placement, and mathematics achievement of African American students from kindergarten through fifth grade. Urban Education, 46, 1280-1299.

17.

Egalite

A. J.

Kisida

Winters

M. A.

(2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44-45.

18.

Epstein

Gist

C. D.

(2015). Teaching racial literacy in secondary humanities classrooms: Challenging adolescents’ of color concepts of race and racism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(1), 40-60.

19.

Espinosa

L. L.

(2011). Pipelines and pathways: Women of color in undergraduate STEM majors and the college experiences that contribute to persistence. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 209-241.

20.

Flores

Clark

Claeys

Villarreal

(2007). Academy for teacher excellence: Recruiting, preparing, and retaining Latino teachers through learning communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 53-69.

21.

Foster

(1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York, NY: The New Press.

22.

Garces

L. M.

Jayakumar

U. M.

(2014). Dynamic diversity: Toward a contextual understanding of critical mass. Educational Researcher, 43, 115-124.

23.

Gay

(2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 221-228.

24.

Giroux

H. A.

(2009). Teacher education and democratic schooling. In Darder

Baltodano

M. P.

Torres

R. D.

(2nd ed., pp. 438-459), The critical pedagogy reader. New York, NY: Routledge.

25.

Gist

C. D.

(2014a). The culturally responsive teacher educator. The Teacher Educator, 49, 265-283.

26.

Gist

C. D.

(2014b). Interrogating critical pedagogy: Teachers of color and the unfinished project of justice. In Orelus

Brock

(Eds.), Interrogating critical pedagogy: The voices of educators of color in the movement (pp. 46-59). New York, NY: Routledge.

27.

Gist

C. D.

(2014c). Preparing teachers of color to teach: Culturally responsive pedagogy in theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

28.

Gist

C. D.

Flores

B. B.

Claeys

(2014). Competing theories of change: Critical teacher development. In Sleeter

Neal

Kumashiro

(Eds.), Addressing the demographic imperative: Recruiting, preparing, and retaining a diverse and highly effective teaching force (pp. 19-31). New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Goldring

Gray

Bitterman

(2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011-2012 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2013-314). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2013314

30.

Gomez

M. L.

(2010). Talking about ourselves, talking about our mothers: Latina prospective teachers narrate their life experiences. Urban Review, 42, 81-101.

31.

Gordon

(2000). The color of teaching. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

32.

Harding

M. J.

(1999). The case for a conceptual base for minority mentoring programs. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(2), 5-14.

33.

Heilig

J. V.

Khalifa

Tillman

L. C.

(2014). High-stake reforms and urban education. In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 523-537). New York, NY: Routledge.

34.

Ingersoll

R. M.

May

(2011). The minority teacher shortage: Fact or fable. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 62-66.

35.

Kohli

(2012). Racial pedagogy of the oppressed: Critical interracial dialogue for teachers of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45, 181-196.

36.

Ladson-Billings

(2011). Asking the right questions: A research agenda for studying diversity in teacher education. In Ball

A. F.

Tyson

C. A.

(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 385-398). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

37.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Race, research, and urban education. In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 443-450). New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Lawrence-Lightfoot

(2005). Reflections on portraiture: A dialogue between art and science. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 3-15.

39.

Lee

C. D.

(2015, September). Random acts of revolution in action. Invited keynote presentation at The Symposium on Multiculturalism and Social Justice. Little Rock. AR.

40.

Machado

(2013, December 23). Why teachers of color quit: Low pay and high stress drive black and Latino teachers to leave the profession at higher rates than their white peers. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/why-teachers-of-color-quit/282007/

41.

Malcom

L. E.

Malcom

S. M.

(2011). The double bind: The next generation. Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 162-171.

42.

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.

43.

Milner

H. R.

(2012). Losing the color-blind mind in the urban classroom. Urban Education, 47, 868-875.

44.

Milner

H. R.

Hoy

A. W.

(2003). A case study of an African American teacher’s self- efficacy, stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 263-276.

45.

Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(2014). Handbook of urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

46.

Noguera

P. A.

(2014). Urban schools and the black male “challenge.” In Milner

H. R.

Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 114-128). New York, NY: Routledge.

47.

O’Hara

Pritchard

R. H.

(2008). Meeting the challenge of diversity: Professional development for teacher educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 43-61.

48.

Ong

Wright

Espinosa

L. L.

Orfield

(2011). Inside the double bind: A synthesis of empirical research on undergraduate and graduate women of color in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Harvard Educational Review, 81, 172-208.

49.

Philip

T. M.

(2010). Moving beyond our progressive lenses: Recognizing and building on the strengths of teachers of color. Journal of Teacher Education, 62, 356-366.

50.

Philip

T. M.

(2013). Experience as college student activists: A strength and a liability for prospective teachers of color in urban schools. Urban Education, 48, 44-68.

51.

Rogers-Ard

Knaus

C. B.

Epstein

K. K.

Mayfield

(2013). Racial diversity sounds nice; systems transformation? Not so much: Developing urban teachers of color. Urban Education, 48, 451-479.

52.

Salinas

Castro

(2010). Disrupting the official curriculum: Cultural biography and the curriculum decision making of Latino preservice teachers. Theory & Research in Social Studies Education, 38, 428-463.

53.

Scott

S. V.

Rodriguez

L. F.

(2014). “A fly in the ointment”: African American male preservice teachers’ experiences with stereotype threat in teacher education. Urban Education, 50(6), 689-717.

54.

Sleeter

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

55.

Sleeter

Milner

(2011). Researching successful efforts in teacher education to diversify teachers. In Ball

A. F.

Tyson

C. A.

(Eds.), Studying diversity in teacher education (pp. 81-104). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

56.

Sleeter

Neal

L. I.

Kumashiro

K. K.

(2014). Diversifying the teacher workforce: Preparing and retaining highly effective teachers. New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Sleeter

Thao

(2007). Guest editors’ introduction: Diversifying the teaching force. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 3-8.

58.

Tellez

(1999). Mexican-American pre-service teachers and the intransigency of the elementary school curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 555-570.

59.

Villegas

A. M.

Clewell

(1998). Increasing teacher diversity by tapping the paraprofessional pool. Theory Into Practice, 37, 121-130.

60.

Villegas

A. M.

Davis

(2008). Preparing teachers of color to confront racial/ethnic disparities in educational outcomes. In Cochran-Smith

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

D. J.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 583-605). New York, NY: Routledge.

61.

Villegas

A. M.

Irvine

J. J.

(2010). Diversifying the teaching force: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review, 42, 175-192.

62.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers. New York: State University of New York.

63.

Villegas

A. M.

Strom

Lucas

(2012). Closing the racial/ethnic gap between students of color and their teachers: An elusive goal. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45, 283-301.

64.

White

Bedonie

de Groat

Lockard

Honani

(2007). A bridge for our children: Tribal/university partnerships to prepare indigenous teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 71-86.

65.

Wiggins

McTighe

(2011). The understanding by design guide to creating high-quality units. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

66.

Wong

P. L.

Murai

Berta-Avila

William-White

Baker

Arellano

Echandia

(2007). The m/m center: Meeting the demand for multicultural, multilingual teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(4), 9-25.

67.

Yin

(2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

68.

Yosso

T. J.

Solórzano

D. G.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 23-44.