Abstract
This article contributes a deeper understanding of teachers’ experiences with and beliefs about teaching mathematics for social justice in urban schools. In-depth, phenomenological interviews were conducted with a national sample of 15 secondary mathematics teachers from eight cities across the United States. Findings identify five overarching commitments of social justice mathematics teachers, the barriers they face, and what they envision for the future of urban mathematics education. Drawing on critical pedagogical theory, this study uncovers how social justice mathematics teachers have on-the-ground experiences and perspectives that can help us build upon Freire’s notion of education for liberation.
Introduction
“For every $20,000 more a family makes, the average student’s SAT math score is higher by 14 points,” my ninth-grade Algebra 1 student, Jazmin (a pseudonym), observed as she studied a graph 1 of the linear relationship between family income and student SAT scores. Later that class period, Jazmin’s eyes turned to the bookshelf in our classroom. “The math textbooks don’t have graphs like the one we’re analyzing.” I asked Jazmin why she thought this was the case. “Maybe they don’t care if we know . . . But I want to know what’s not right, not fair in the world. Math is important for that!”
I was a founding teacher of a public, pilot high school in a working class, Latinx neighborhood—a school fought for and created by youth, families, community organizations, and teachers. Joining a growing number of educators across the nation, I strived to create a social justice mathematics class to support my students to empower themselves to “read and write the world with mathematics” (Gutstein, 2006, p. 4). Teaching mathematics for social justice (TMSJ) seeks to engage students in critical quantitative thinking and action around issues of social (in)justice that are relevant to their lives. As I taught, I wondered about the experiences and beliefs of other teachers. How do various school and district contexts, as well as larger social and political contexts, intersect for teachers at different urban schools as they strive to teach mathematics for social justice?
In the last decade, scholars have advanced our understandings of what TMSJ can embody (Bacon, 2012; Bartell, 2013; Brantlinger, 2013; González, 2009; Gregson, 2013; Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2013; Stinson et al., 2012; Wager & Stinson, 2012). Scholarship that centers the voices of full-time teachers from across the nation is essential for deepening our understandings of opportunities, challenges, and new directions for TMSJ in urban schools. The research questions guiding this investigation are as follows:
Conceptual Framework
Urban Mathematics Education Research
The subfield urban mathematics education (Martin & Larnell, 2013; Tate, 2008), along with social and sociopolitical turns in mathematics education research (Stinson & Bullock, 2012), bring increasing attention to issues of (in)equity and (in)justice in K-12 mathematics education. Urban mathematics education research aims to both understand and offer possibilities for transforming mathematics education for greater equity (Gutstein et al., 2005; Martin & Larnell, 2013). Conducting urban mathematics education research does not solely imply focusing on mathematics teaching and learning in city schools or with Students of Color and economically marginalized students, but on critical perspectives of the gate-keeping role of mathematics (Martin, Gholson, & Leonard, 2010); opportunity gaps as opposed to achievement gaps (Gutiérrez, 2010); asset as opposed to deficit perspectives of young people, particularly Students of Color (Gutiérrez, 2002), and their teachers (Gutiérrez, 2013); and resistance to inequity in mathematics education by developing, understanding, and expanding emancipatory pedagogies (Matthews, 2008). Urban mathematics education research includes investigations of innovative and mathematically rigorous instructional practice in urban schools, such as the Algebra Project (Moses & Cobb, 2001); students’ funds of knowledge (González, Andrade, Civil, & Moll, 2001); culturally relevant mathematics (Tate, 1995); and critical mathematics, also referred to as TMSJ. Martin and Larnell (2013) identify TMSJ as a critical, emancipatory approach to teaching mathematics, but how TMSJ comes alive in various urban mathematics classroom contexts is understudied.
Teaching for Social Justice
Drawing on Katsarou, Picower, and Stovall’s (2010) working definition, social justice education embodies “the day-to-day processes and actions utilized in classrooms and communities centered in critical analysis, action, and reflection (praxis) amongst all educational stakeholders . . . with the goal of creating tangible change” (p. 139). To teach for social justice is to work in solidarity with students and communities to challenge oppression and work toward equity, liberation, and humanization for all people (Kumashiro, 2001; Sleeter, 2015). This involves supporting students to develop conscientização, or critical sociopolitical consciousness connected to one’s identities in relation to historical and present-day oppressions and struggles for liberation (to “read the world”) and positioning students as change agents (to “write the world”), and requires teachers themselves to engage in continuous cycles of praxis, or “reflection and action upon the world in order to transform it” (Freire, 2007, p. 51). Teachers and students alike develop “as ‘permanent re-creators’ of their own knowledge and reality” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, citing Freire, 1970, p. 69). Although the role of critical pedagogy in educating for a more just world has been explored over time and across settings (e.g., Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2003; Kincheloe, 2005), mathematics education remains fertile ground as a space to understand and transform the world.
In a joint position statement the National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics & TODOS: Mathematics for ALL (2016) argue that “a social justice stance interrogates and challenges the roles power, privilege, and oppression play in the current unjust system of mathematics education - and society as a whole” (p. 1). A critical approach to mathematics provides space for students to make connections between mathematics and social-historical-political understandings of their lives and the world (Gutiérrez, 2010; Gutstein, 2007; Powell, 2012; Skovsmose, 1994). Frankenstein (1983) argues that mathematics is important for gaining power in society—for control over economic, political, and social structures. Tate’s (1995) call for a culturally relevant approach to mathematics education includes students using mathematics to investigate and challenge inequities. Analyzing real-world data from a social-historical-political lens seeks to foreground “humanity behind the numbers” (Gutiérrez, 2010, p. 5). To define TMSJ for this study, I turn to Wager and Stinson (2012) citing Wager (2008):
Teaching math about social justice refers to the context of lessons that explore critical (and oftentimes controversial) social issues using mathematics. Teaching math with social justice refers to the pedagogical practices that encourage a co-created classroom and provides a classroom culture that encourages opportunities for equal participation and status. And teaching mathematics for social justice is the underlying belief that mathematics can and should be taught in a way that supports students in using math to challenge injustices of the status quo as they learn to read and rewrite their world. (p. 6, emphasis in original)
This framework validates social issue–related lessons and equitable pedagogical practices as essential to TMSJ.
Rethinking Mathematics (Gutstein & Peterson, 2013), a text in which mathematics educators share and reflect on curricula they designed and implemented (e.g., a project on the inequitable distributions of parks and community centers across neighborhoods in a city, a probability investigation looking at racial profiling by police, and an algebraic analysis of the minimum wage) and the national biennial Creating Balance in an Unjust World Conference on Math Education and Social Justice have expanded notions of what is possible when mathematics curricula is re-imagined with a social issue-focused lens.
Despite this growing reach, a small number of studies have examined TMSJ from the perspectives of students and teachers. Gutstein (2003), a university professor, documents a 2-year case study with Latino middle school students in an honors-track mathematics classroom in which he implemented 17 real-world social justice units, integrating National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards-based teaching. Brantlinger (2013) also examines his own teaching of critical mathematics in a 9-week night school course to low-income students of color. While Gutstein found that “students began to read the world (understand complex issues involving justice and equity) using mathematics, to develop mathematical power, and to change their orientation toward mathematics” (p. 37), Brantlinger concluded there are “serious barriers” to engaging students in critical mathematics in a secondary geometry class and that the time and effort it takes to create social issue–related mathematics lessons may be unrealistic for teachers.
Full-time teachers may take up TMSJ differently than university professors (Gregson, 2013). Gutiérrez (2013) identifies four areas that urban mathematics teachers committed to equity must take on:
(a) negotiate their practice with colleagues, students, parents, administrators, colleges, and members of for-profit organizations who may not agree with their definitions of “mathematics,” “education,” or “learning”; (b) work with fewer material and human resources than teachers in more wealthy school districts; (c) support their students to compete on an unfair playing field that constantly changes; and (d) buffer themselves from images of students as unmotivated, not having the proper amount of “grit,” lacking role models in their community, and having cultural and linguistic obstacles to overcome, as well as images of urban teachers as slackers, saviors, or people who simply could not obtain work elsewhere. (p. 7)
Considering these challenges, “mathematics educators and researchers should consider the difficulty of teaching for social justice under real-world conditions and spend more time seeking sites where social justice mathematics teaching is developing organically” (Gregson, 2013, p. 31). Furthermore, teachers can speak to what Gutstein and Peterson (2013) claim are misconceptions about TMSJ (e.g., that social issue–related lessons do not contain rigorous mathematics).
Recent studies focus on initial teacher learning about TMSJ. Bartell (2013) utilizes Darling-Hammond’s (2002) framework of equity pedagogy, which calls on teachers to develop knowledge of self, society, students, and schools, as she looks at teachers’ experiences learning about TMSJ and designing and implementing a social justice mathematics lesson. The eight teacher participants were White, had degrees in mathematics or science, and were teaching in schools with White racial majorities with growing populations of Students of Color. Bartell found it was difficult for teachers to navigate social justice and mathematical goals and that some teachers’ focus for the lesson was about student awareness as opposed to understanding and challenging injustice. Some teachers resisted designing lessons on “controversial” topics such as racism. Teachers expressed challenges of TMSJ to be developing or gaining knowledge of sociopolitical issues, pedagogy, and students’ experiences and interests. González (2009) engages seven mathematics teachers—six were Teachers of Color, all with 1 to 4 years experience—at an urban high school in a “community of practice” to explore social justice mathematics. Teachers’ commitment to challenge institutional oppression combined with a love for teaching mathematics motivated them to participate. They identified why mathematics is important for social awareness and empowerment and committed themselves to TMSJ as a worthwhile endeavor, despite challenges of rigid pacing plans and standardized tests.
Bacon (2012), in a practitioner research study, and Gregson (2013), in a single case study, each conduct an in-depth examination of a teacher’s attempt to enact social justice mathematics despite high-stakes testing culture. Bacon had to prepare students for benchmark tests and felt pressured to cover material before each test, thus presenting a challenge of teaching lessons about social issues, which can take longer than lessons devoid of social context. However, he argues project-based learning can open space for social justice curriculum, and it can be possible to prepare for exams while studying social contexts. Gregson (2013) studies one mathematics teacher’s conception of TMSJ and how the teacher experiences and negotiates challenges. She found that teaching “dominant mathematics” was both a necessity and an obstacle for TMSJ. All of the aforementioned studies suggest that teachers do not view their teacher learning as ever being done but rather as continuous cycles of praxis. Furthermore, they reveal that TMSJ extends beyond teaching certain lessons and that navigating challenges of TMSJ is complex.
Apple (1992) argues that learning about “what [critical mathematics educators] do, how they deal with the crisis in resources and time, how they build a different kind of coalition that aims at progressive ends” (p. 429) is essential for advancing progressive, community-based approaches to education. Learning from mathematics teachers in the field, striving to engage in critical pedagogy for the long haul, can offer a window into their grounded experiences of critical praxis, extending TMSJ theory. Although scholars have paved theoretical and curricular foundations of TMSJ, “we need reports from teachers who theorize their practice as they try to create conditions for students to read and write the world with math” (Gutstein, 2006, p. 209).
Study Design
Teachers have powerful stories to tell about their journeys becoming teachers, how they seek to enact equitable and democratic teaching, and what keeps them going (Michie, 2005; Nieto, 2003). The positioned subject approach (Conrad, Haworth, & Millar, 2001) asserts that people in particular positions offer unique, specific insights into their experiences. Bringing this approach to social justice mathematics teachers allows for their critical reflections to “shape discourse about urban mathematics education” (Bullock, 2014, p. 7), highlighting voices “from the trenches” (Gregson, 2013).
To address the research questions, I draw on critical, qualitative methodologies (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2002; Steinberg & Cannella, 2012). In 2014, I conducted in-depth, phenomenological interviews with a select national sample of 15 mathematics teachers working at urban schools in eight cities in six states, geographically dispersed on the West coast, Pacific northwest, East coast, and Midwest. See Table 1 for summary demographic information on participating teachers. To recruit participants, I utilized purposive sampling by networking one-on-one with teachers who attended or presented at a national conference dedicated to mathematics and social justice, contacting teacher-authors of TMSJ publications, and reaching out to teachers I met years earlier. Finally, I utilized snowball sampling as some teachers pointed me to colleagues at other schools, sometimes in other states. Participants for this investigation self-identified as striving to teach mathematics about, with, and, for social justice (Wager, 2008). I do not assert that teachers outside of this criterion are not advancing social justice in mathematics education, nor do I make claims about the study participants’ classroom practices; this investigation captures how teachers from a particular pool think about their work. I intentionally recruited teachers from diverse backgrounds, at various school types, teaching various mathematics classes, including one special education mathematics teacher because the voices of special education teachers must be centered in understanding possibilities and challenges of teaching for social justice.
Summary Demographic Information on Participating Teachers.
Note. Names are pseudonyms; racial/ethnic and sex/gender identifications are self-identified. AP = advanced placement.
Seidman’s (2013) three-part approach to interviewing informed the interview design: focused life history, details of experience with the phenomenon under study, and reflection on the meaning of those experiences. Due to feasibility issues, I addressed all parts in one sitting and conducted most interviews over videoconference. I modified Seidman’s approach to allow for focused questions that gave participants an opportunity to make connections so that I would not make inferences for them. See Table 2 for sample interview questions.
Sample Interview Questions.
Each interview was audio-recorded and was between 48 and 105 min. I followed my semi-structured interview protocol, sometimes deviating in order and asking additional follow-up questions. To enhance validity, participants were provided an opportunity to review and modify transcriptions from their interviews (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The data analysis process involved a constant comparative method (Bogdan & Biklen, 1982) of looking for patterns throughout the data collection process and sharpening and building on themes, looking for confirming and disconfirming evidence (Erickson, 1986). As I conducted interviews, I drafted analytic memos with vignettes that embodied salient points the participants spoke to and took note of emerging themes. I began to notice saturation of themes (Padgett, 2008) after 10 interviews, but interviewed five more teachers to ensure representation of diverse teachers from different types of schools. I developed a coding scheme, utilizing descriptive, In vivo, and values coding (Saldaña, 2013), to build ideas and facilitate posing questions from my data (Bazeley, 2013). For example, one teacher used the phrase, “math as a way of living and thinking,” which I coded using In vivo coding. I constructed a codebook and organized the data into eight themes; data that did not fit a theme were noted as such. To preserve the voices of teachers, my analytic process often used their verbatim language; throughout the reporting of study findings, I include many direct quotes from teachers.
Becoming Teachers of Mathematics for Social Justice
Although I posed life history questions at the end of the interviews, I noticed that throughout them the teachers discussed their social location and personal trajectories of coming to teach mathematics for social justice in relation to their evolving critical praxis.
The participating teachers’ experiences with and motivation to challenge institutional oppression brought them to teaching. In line with Duncan-Andrade and Morrell’s (2008) description of critical urban educators, teachers discussed their own identities in relation to recognizing inequalities in society as their “starting point and motivator” (p. 10) and discussed their belief in schools as “sites for critical praxis, given their central role in the socialization of citizens and their function as economic and social gatekeepers” (p. 97). Ryan, who is a Genderqueer female, explained,
Especially as a young LGBT teen, I had many teachers who stood up for me and made school a safe space for me, which you realize how teachers can give kids the nurturing they need to be strong adults. Being LGBT gives me a lens to, you know, institutional oppression and makes me sympathetic to how disempowering it is and I definitely think my role as an educator is to undo that as best I can no matter what I was teaching.
Sarah, Jaya, and Rosa emphasized giving back to their communities. They spoke to seeing their parents struggle growing up, for Sarah and Jaya outside of the U.S. Teachers of Color and White teachers alike discussed a desire to engage in the “critical care praxis” Rolón-Dow (2005) describes (and Bartell, 2011, brings to mathematics teaching), which understands care as centering students’ identities and histories.
As Freire identifies is central to developing conscientização, almost all teacher participants named particular experiences growing up, whether in their childhoods and/or during college, that politicized them. Ryan explained, “My parents were very liberal and they grew up in DC where politics is our sport team. My parents worked for the government, so I think [gaining social and political consciousness] started early.” Several teachers discussed having inspirational mentors when they were younger. Brenda discussed how her (non-mathematics) teachers critiqued the education system and spoke to social justice, igniting her curiosity and passion.
They also discussed their own mathematical identities. Teachers expressed that their dissatisfaction with how mathematics is traditionally taught began when they were students themselves and contributed to them now striving to be social justice mathematics teachers. Some teachers expressed that procedural mathematics instruction removed from relevant contexts did not serve them well as students. Alejandro shared, “I was that student who was disempowered in math. I didn’t understand traditional instruction.” Other teachers expressed becoming dissatisfied with the way mathematics is often taught because of seeing others they care about struggle with mathematics. For example, Elizabeth spoke about tutoring her younger sister and, as a young person herself, feeling like there should be more interesting ways to learn mathematics. Cindy was an anomaly in that she attended middle school with Algebra Project curriculum. She explained, “It was natural for me to become a social justice math teacher.”
Most teachers have social science backgrounds, either as their primary undergraduate degree or as a double major with mathematics. Three teachers of 15 majored in only mathematics. Other majors/minors include African American Studies; ethics, politics, and economics; history; mathematics education; sociology; Spanish; and studio art. Lillian, who majored in mathematics, observed there were mostly males in her classes and “sometimes had that feeling like you don’t belong or people are making assumptions about your capability because of gender,” inspiring her to teach. This resonated with me, as my experiences as a woman in college mathematics and statistics classes were similar. James, a mathematics major, wrote his thesis on mathematics teaching in the U.S. because he wanted to understand “why it’s suffering,” bringing a sociopolitical lens to mathematics. Lena, who studied sociology and had an inspiring professor in Raza Studies, explained,
I think having the background of social science, I wanted to teach the social justice component and apply that to math. I thought, “there must be a way this subject can be taught.” So I researched and found all this stuff and I was like, “yes, this is totally doable!”
Several teachers discussed living internationally as inspiring their activism. Elizabeth lived in Panama, Guatemala, and Spain, sharing, “I was involved in lots of social and environmental struggles.” Her teaching philosophy is, “the more we do outside of our classroom, the more we do in the classroom.”
Teachers discussed various degrees of influence from their teacher education programs. Juana, Brenda, Jaya, and Lillian each discussed having one teacher educator who influenced their perspectives on TMSJ, culturally relevant mathematics, and/or ethnomathematics. The majority of teachers discussed not having equity and justice-oriented mathematics support from their teacher education. Lena shared that she read Moses and Cobb’s Radical Equations (2001), not because it was assigned, but on her own. When I asked her about her teacher education, she said, “I felt like a lot of the times I was like, ‘wait, I came here to be engaged with socially just minds. Why am I the only person talking about white privilege right now?’” Elizabeth said she had one class related to “multicultural education,” but the instructor did not discuss connections to mathematics.
Positionality Statement
As a former teacher who taught mathematics in an urban school and connected mathematics to social (in)justice issues, it is essential to reflect on my teacher–researcher positionality. Like all educational research, mathematics education research is political (D’Ambrosio et al., 2013; Gutstein, 2003), which is reflected in my choice to be a part of social justice mathematics communities of educators. As a White, middle class, heterosexual woman, I designed this study keeping in mind that too often “researchers privilege the experiences, needs, and interests of White teachers, and teachers of color are often ignored” (Milner, 2007, p. 394). I sought to interview teachers from diverse backgrounds, particularly mathematics Teachers of Color, and sought to pose questions in such a way that would allow participants to speak to and make sense of their own beliefs, stories, perspectives, opportunities, and challenges.
In some aspects, I am an “insider” to understanding how social justice mathematics teachers experience creating lessons, building relationships with students and colleagues, and being involved in challenging the status quo within and outside of the classroom. During interviews, I experienced this as a methodological advantage for building rapport with teachers and posing questions. There were instances when teachers made comments such as, “You know how it is.” Even though the majority of interviews were conducted over videoconference due to living states apart, the interviews transcended the “distant” virtual connection, as it was not uncommon for tears of love for the work (from the teacher participants) and tears of inspiration (on my end) to fall during the interviews.
Findings
Commitments of Teachers Striving to Teach Mathematics for Social Justice
Every teacher expressed unwavering love of teaching, specifically in urban schools and teaching mathematics, a subject that is commonly students’ least favorite. Mathematics Teachers of Color in particular spoke to their own identities and experiences contributing to why they strive to teach mathematics for social justice to students who they see themselves in. Rosa and Maria brought up wanting to give their students a socially conscious and equitable education they themselves did not receive. James explained, “I want to help raise boys and girls like me. This is my life, and this is what I do.” Sarah linked her love of mathematics with her love of teaching and her own identity as she said,
I feel alive, at home. I feel right. I love curiosity, and I love seeing the light bulb go off. I love math, so I love teaching it . . . I just can’t not do it. You’re forming people’s lives. I’d like to be one of the compassionate people who teaches them to love something they’re taught to hate. And I want to be a brown female math teacher.
Ryan, wiping away tears, said,
I try really hard to bring in contexts that engage students who are not traditionally seen as likely to excel in mathematics . . . the social justice is what is keeping me going. If I didn’t feel incredibly called to do this work, if I didn’t feel that it’s my duty to continue working in high need schools, teaching something that is socially acceptable for people to say they’re bad at—there’s no way I could do it, it’s too hard. And I’d be lying if I didn’t say that there are many days that I wonder how long I can do it. I don’t know what else I would do. I’ve been doing this for 10 years. It is who I am . . . Yeah, anyway, you hit something there.
Their responses exemplify the love, energy, and passion teachers bring to TMSJ.
To address my first research question, I identified five commitments of teachers striving to teach mathematics for social justice.
Empowering urban youth as mathematics students and social change agents
Cindy proudly described her students as “incredible people who will change the world.” Similar to Duncan-Andrade’s (2007) finding from a study on effective teachers in urban schools, these mathematics teachers spoke of their students as social change agents. Bringing in relevant social issues to their mathematics classrooms is central for teachers as they seek to provide space for students to empower themselves in mathematics and life. They believe students should be able to use mathematics as a lens to critically analyze the world, make judgments, and question the status quo so that they can develop agency and participate in social change. Elizabeth explained,
People make decisions for them all the time. In class, we look at a graph and recognize that someone made choices to make sure that graph told a story . . . It’s my job to make sure my kids can think about that.
Ryan called this concept “critically speaking back to data.”
Social justice mathematics teachers seek to create equitable, empowering classrooms for Students of Color and from economically marginalized backgrounds, striving to develop “practices that disrupt dehumanization” (Camangian, 2015, p. 3). Cindy, a White Jewish teacher, said that her Black students are viewed negatively and criminalized in society as “those kids” and discussed wanting to challenge such deficit perspectives as connected to her striving to be in solidarity with the struggle for racial justice. Brenda, who teaches transitional age youth, explained,
For my students who have dropped out, math and school in general has been a negative place and told them that they’re “less than” or they weren’t capable of making big changes in the world, they weren’t academic, math isn’t their thing. The idea that you can use math as tool to say things about the world, reflect on injustices, and then take that information and do something is so powerful. Students say, “I can do this.”
Brenda spoke to the belief that TMSJ positions urban youth as capable of making change and capable of doing mathematics. Lena, who teaches Algebra 1 to students in special education, wants to support students to “break the stereotype” that students with disabilities cannot do mathematics. Teachers shared that their students feel more capable mathematically when the mathematics they study is related to critiquing the world, because they bring personal expertise to that exploration.
Teaching mathematics conceptually with relevance to students’ lives
Lena said, “I would really like to see us thinking about math as way of living and thinking, as opposed to just a skill.” Instead of giving students formulas or providing them with routine procedures to solve problems devoid of context, the social justice mathematics teachers expressed a commitment to reform mathematics (Boaler, 2002), as Gregson (2013) finds in her case study of one social justice mathematics teacher. At the center of teachers’ beliefs about teaching mathematics is the importance of engaging students in critical, creative thinking and wrestling with problems that do not have one right answer. Brian was exposed to research on why traditional mathematics teaching methods were not effective, and this led to him shifting his beliefs.
Social justice mathematics teachers identified a natural connection between teaching mathematics conceptually and the mathematics in social issues. Ryan explained,
I think there needs to be a shift away from learning skills and processes of math that are applied in these predictable ways, and it needs to move into the idea of math as a tool or a lens for thinking about the world, which I think using a social justice math context just lends itself to more automatically.
James, a Black male, and Elizabeth, a White female, who both teach at schools with explicit racial justice missions, noted that students are more likely to recall mathematics concepts they discussed long ago when those concepts were taught within real-world contexts. Teachers spoke of critical pedagogy involving students asking and answering their own questions, what Freire (2007) describes as problem-posing pedagogy.
In addition to conceptual teaching lending itself to an exploration of social contexts, it brings relevance to mathematics classrooms, or, in Jaya’s words, “highlights the meaning and use of mathematics.” Teachers argue that mathematics students should not have to ask, “Why does this apply to my life?” but instead be offered opportunities to ask questions such as, “Is there injustice here?” Ryan expressed that it is not enough to give students any kind of context to achieve relevance: “You need to understand the magnitude of your responsibility and don’t just give them a project where they’re drawing their bedrooms . . . you need to do something that means something.”
Teachers strive to have the “grasp of community” Gutstein (2007) identifies as essential to TMSJ. For example, when Cindy moved from one metropolitan area to another, she took time to revise a unit she created on racial profiling to relate to the new city where she teaches. This exemplifies teachers’ careful attention to designing localized, historicized curriculum.
Building mathematically rigorous social justice lessons over time through critical praxis
None of the participating teachers designed an entire course of social issue–related units. As Elizabeth explained, “We’re going in and out of moments that are connecting to [social justice].” Teachers spoke to teaching conceptually throughout the school year and prioritizing teaching “dominant mathematics” (Gutiérrez, 2002) that students need to be successful on standardized tests and to advance to higher education and access STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields. Teachers challenged assumptions that social justice lessons cannot be mathematically rigorous. Lena shared she believes social justice lessons can be “even more rigorous because you’re using critical thinking skills to analyze the context in society and why things are the way they are.”
Aminah and James spoke to beginning project-based learning units with entry documents related to a social issue, then turning to mathematics needed to analyze the issue, and returning to the issue to apply mathematics. Maria, a private Catholic school teacher, said she created community projects as summative assessment in which students demonstrated dominant mathematics knowledge.
Teachers spoke to challenging themselves to build and improve rigorous, project-based learning social justice units over time, through critical praxis, “where ideas are tested and experienced in the real world, followed by reflection, revision and reapplication of those ideas” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 77). Several teachers expressed having self-patience as pedagogues, building one new social issue–related unit each year. Sarah said,
I do some projects that are really cool, but it’s not what I do on a daily basis. It’s what I aspire to do. I’ve given myself a ten-year timeline to figure out how to do these types of things.
Brenda shared that it is important to “bite off manageable pieces.”
Cindy explained she does not want social issue–related units to feel “contrived”; she wants to authentically integrate mathematics, a desire Bartell (2013) highlights of teachers in initial stages of implementing social justice mathematics. Ryan explained,
When I do teach social justice, I try and make sure that I am infusing academic skills to help my students. I advocate for them as critical thinkers and outspoken people, and if I can do that in the context of social justice, great, but I can also teach skills sometimes within a slightly less heavy unit.
The other “less heavy” units she referred to still connect mathematics to real-world subjects, such as architecture.
Teachers explained that the positive orientation to mathematics that social issue–related units build carries over to their classrooms when they are not teaching such units. Elizabeth noted that when she is not teaching a social issue–related unit, she feels students trust that mathematics matters because they know mathematics connects to their lives.
Developing an interdisciplinary approach to teaching
TMSJ is instrumental for teachers to connect mathematics to other subjects. Some teachers have interdisciplinary teaching teams at their schools so that social justice units transcend mathematics class. Aminah co-teaches geometry with a design teacher; in a community asset mapping unit, they supported students to display data on the community by creating infographics and drawing on their knowledge of circles. James explained at his school, which centers Freire’s philosophy of education, teachers begin units with a social issue. He addresses historical issues and connects them to current community issues. Ryan designed a unit on examining the way a news station presented data (e.g., truncating the y axis of a graph). Juana and Brenda, who teach students who dropped out of traditional schools, find that thematic units across disciplines engage students. Elizabeth, who teaches middle grades at a P-8 school, coordinates a schoolwide, weeklong social justice data fair: “Sometimes science and history teachers connect data to their curriculum during the time of the data fair. My colleagues who don’t even teach math thought, ‘How can I have more conversations around data and justice in my classroom?’” With most teachers having social science backgrounds, a yearning for interdisciplinary teaching and learning was not uncommon.
Learning from and building with others in solidarity
When I asked teachers about advice they would give to teachers interested in TMSJ, they stressed doing this work in solidarity. They emphasized collaboration because they believe it improves curriculum and practice and also because they understand TMSJ as solidarity work.
Supporting Picower’s (2012) findings of teacher activists, the social justice mathematics teachers discussed learning from and building with others at three levels: (a) Drawing on the work of and creating curriculum with other critical mathematics teachers—within and outside their schools, (b) Working with others to shift their schools for greater social justice, and (c) Joining educational justice community organizations. For the first level, Rosa, a Latina teacher who left college to work and support her family and then returned to college to become a mathematics teacher, explained,
You have to look for a support system, have to find groups, join a professional learning team, find other teachers interested in teaching math for social justice. It’s not going to be perfect, sometimes it won’t work; but the more people you have to support you, the more likely you’ll be successful. Those people can be in school or online. Look at blogs. Look for different networks. Find people you know in your heart have the same goals as you do. You’re not alone, you just have to find those people.
Teachers noted how challenging it is to do background research, such as finding data and articles on social issues that will translate into units, so they suggest dividing up this work. Brenda noted that collaborating with “other people who are thinking about math as a cultural construct and broadening the definition of math” is “refreshing,” sustaining her in this work.
Even teachers who expressed feeling isolated within their schools talked about building with other educators. Most teachers collaborate with teachers at other schools. They have: attended conferences dedicated to teaching for social justice, read texts such as Rethinking Mathematics and reached out to authors, joined university professors’ working curriculum groups, started teacher inquiry groups, and taken on student teachers.
At the second level, teachers’ social justice commitments carryover from their classrooms to their schools, as they strive to collaborate in shifting their schools to be more equitable and just. Cindy said, “Your ally could be the teacher next door.” The ways in which teachers seek to create change within their schools varies depending on school context. Elizabeth explained that her independent school administration constantly asks her, “What are your dreams, and how can we support you?’ so she took on a Math Special Events Coordinator position. Brian makes shifts by sharing about critical mathematics with his colleagues to “get them on board.”
Other teachers have more challenging experiences shifting their schools. Jaya shared that she attempted to make shifts similar to Brian’s but that other teachers did not feel they could change their curriculum because of being bound to standardized test preparation. Lillian’s school shifts were related to encouraging faculty to talk about race and understand “it is impossible to not see color.” Rosa’s recent efforts were related to convincing her charter school administration to let teachers seat students in groups as opposed to rows. She shared,
I had my ideas about what a good teacher was, and my school had other ideas. My kids say to me, “You’re teaching everybody! You’re teaching the teachers! Cause now they do the stuff you do.” It’s cool I’ve been able to have that influence at my little school. I try, fail, and try again.
At the third level, several teachers spoke to their involvement in community organizing in the urban cities in which they teach, or, as Picower (2011) describes “willingness to join broader movements of social justice to combat the ways in which education is used as a tool to maintain inequality” (p. 1108). Gregson (2013) discovered that the social justice mathematics teacher she studied saw her work as an extension of her community organizing/activism; this study supports that finding. Ryan explained the impact of building alliances over time:
You are more confident, you know the system—good or bad—and how to work around it, and you build alliances with other teachers and parents that allow you to do the kind of work that you set out to do as a teacher.
Challenges of Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice in Urban Schools
I identified three ways teachers reported barriers to TMSJ.
High-stakes reform: Increasing testing, decreasing teaching and curricular autonomy
Picower (2011) argues, “Current educational policies such as high-stakes testing and mandated curriculum create schooling environments hostile to social justice education” (p. 1105). According to these study participants, social justice mathematics is no exception. The teachers shared deep disappointment with test-driven pressures in schools and felt this direction does not foster an environment for students to explore mathematics conceptually or to connect mathematics to the world. Ryan’s instant response to my question about the biggest deterrent to developing her praxis was, “Obviously high-stakes testing. I teach at a Title 1 school shackled by AYP. You know how it is. I feel I’m coming up for air in between testing.” Cindy made a clear distinction between her social justice values and test-driven mandates: “You have a set of values, and then you also have another set of things you’re responsible for.” When I asked her about the strongest deterrents she faces in TMSJ, with little hesitation, she shared, “I think the climate of fear in schools is probably the biggest one, and the fact that everyone feels, all the time, this pressure around test scores.” Some teachers said that their freedom to address social justice issues in mathematics feels conditional on proving to administration that test scores are adequate.
No teacher argued that addressing social justice issues in mathematics is incompatible with preparing students to learn about mathematics tested on high-stakes exams, but they brought up how the exams often do not capture students’ mathematical thinking. For example, several teachers brought up that box-and-whisker plots (data representations that put a “box” around the middle half of a data set and have “whiskers” that extend out of the “box” to the data set’s minimum and maximum) have a large presence on state tests. Even though Elizabeth’s students learn a multitude of data representations and computer programs to create them during the social justice data fair, she expressed their test scores may not reflect this because of how heavily particular procedures of box-and-whisker plots are represented on tests.
School, district, and/or charter contexts create a range of experiences for teachers with high-stakes reform. Cindy, a teacher at a large urban public high school, shared,
The thing that’s frustrating is that the conversation is not about what are our values, what do we care about, what do we think is important—it’s about how we’re being evaluated . . . it’s about “Are kids gonna do well on the tests?” So that’s the context!
Sarah, a charter school teacher, described teaching within similar pressures:
I have to get x, y, and z in before the test . . . our school will close if we don’t have significant improvement on our API. You could easily teach solving [equations] in four days, but not if you want it to be more fun, interactive, and relevant.
At a project-based learning public school, Aminah also feels pressure to cover material before the state test; an administrator told her she takes too much time addressing the “social part” of social justice mathematics. Rosa shared that she is restricted from implementing the social justice mathematics units she designed because of her charter administration’s focus on test scores and their frequent monitoring of her classroom. Although Lillian’s school supports portfolio-based assessments, she finds it challenging to discuss social justice education in general, so social justice mathematics is a reach to advocate for. Even Maria who teaches in a private school not bound to state tests said she feels evaluated by student SAT scores. Lena, who does not give traditional state exams as a special day mathematics teacher, said her charter organization has frequent evaluations related to teaching to the standards. Brenda said, “I have to spend a lot of time teaching to the GED test, and I wish I could spend that time having a richer curriculum.”
When Ryan spoke to the impact of “the testing world,” she shared how challenging it is to try to teach with equity and justice in mind at this time but said, tears in her eyes, “I gotta believe that things are going to get better. It’s the only way.” Brenda exclaimed, “The system has failed students and we are testing them on how they were failed!” And Lillian said her students are “incredibly burned by increasing demands.” Across the board, teachers said students have negative experiences with testing, to the extent of crying during high-stakes standardized tests, but that doing units in their classrooms that connect to students’ lives helps students “build confidence and more positive identities,” as Juana put it.
Several teachers brought up that their school, district, and/or charter often bring in new mathematics books and programs, with hope they will improve test scores, but that none of these create systemic change. This “barrage of new things,” as one teacher put it, makes it challenging to create, reflect on, and refine their critical pedagogies.
To resist high-stakes reform, mathematics teachers push back using “creative insubordination” (Gutiérrez, 2010). One fascinating example was from Lena: “I have legally binding documents, the students’ IEPs. I can write in the IEP: ‘Joseph will learn how to solve equations and be able to apply the logic of solving equations to three real-world problems.’” In this way, Lena is writing social justice mathematics into the law. Another example is when Rosa realized her administrators were demanding practices in opposition with research on cooperative learning (e.g., requiring 30 min of class to be silent, individual work), she invited a mathematics education professor to come to her classroom. She explained this move was “definitely protection,” as she could share the professor’s evaluations with her school. A final example is from Elizabeth’s earlier years teaching at a public school. When writing a field trip grant to her school board for an environmental justice unit, she framed her mathematics project as “service learning” rather than “social justice activism,” because she felt that would be “less threatening.” Teachers are persistent and creative as they strive to implement social justice mathematics.
The community that organizing teachers are involved in is often related to challenging the injustice of high-stakes reform. They resist test-centered teaching in their own practice and outside of their classrooms. Jaya explained, “It takes time, but over time, the changes will compound.” Michie (2012) finds, and this study supports the finding: “Even in the face of attacks on teachers’ dignity and policies that hinder their work, they keep taking steps, they walk on.”
A lack of curricular examples, resources, and time
“I’m waiting for the critical mass moment, when it starts entering more mainstream schools, and I think it’ll happen, on a more grassroots level,” Brenda explained. Many teachers said it would be easier to develop critical mathematics pedagogy if there were more existing resources to draw from and if it were more normalized in schools. Rethinking Mathematics, radicalmath.org, and the Creating Balance in an Unjust World conference offer curricular examples and entry points for teachers, but every teacher expressed a desire for critical mathematics to grow and for more spaces for teachers to collaborate. Elizabeth started an inquiry-to-action group for social justice mathematics teachers from different schools in her city, but with four members, it did not take them long to share the ideas they already developed.
It is challenging for teachers to develop units “from scratch,” as Brenda said. Gregson (2013) found this to be true for the social justice mathematics teacher in her case study. Brenda explained that social justice mathematics units are “almost entirely generated by me, or things I’ve gotten from other work or been inspired by at a conference. I can’t just make these copies and here’s my lesson.” Teachers spoke of getting ideas from articles or books unrelated to math, doing intensive research on the social/political/economic issue, and spending time looking at how mathematics concepts in their courses connect to those issues—sometimes for students to analyze existing data and sometimes to gather it themselves. Juana admitted that she would do much more with social justice in mathematics if more curricula existed, and Ryan shared she believed having more resources would make it easier to bring her coworkers into social justice mathematics.
Teachers do not want ready-made, easy-to-implement units; but they feel with a wealth of examples it will be much easier for them to generate ideas. They do not want to give up on being social justice curriculum creators; they want environments that make it easier to create curriculum. James explained that when thinking about lessons, he takes time to think, “How does math help us create a situation where this injustice will fade out?” Ryan asks, “How do we work on skills they’ll need for a lifetime and make sure they master the content for a standardized exam? I want to find a way to do both.” These are heavy charges, which require time.
Beyond mathematics, beyond education: Poverty, racism, and intersectional systemic inequity affecting urban youth
Many social justice mathematics teachers spoke to systemic barriers affecting students’ lives. As Milner (2015) argues teachers must, Lillian firmly asserted that we need to have more conversations about how students are “disenfranchised by the school system before we keep being surprised about outcomes.” Across the board, teachers argued that we cannot focus on furthering critical pedagogy without simultaneously addressing larger barriers that affect students’ education, as Noguera (2011) and Anyon (2005) argue. Ryan explained, “[In education] we always have a new quick fix to poverty, but really it’s poverty which is the problem. It’s really jarring for students, which interferes with any kind of learning, social justice learning included.” As Cindy put it, “students should not have to be worried about their own basic survival needs.”
When I asked Maria what she would want to say to education reformers, she did not narrow in on mathematics education: “We need to change healthcare, immigration, economic development. You can change all the standards you want, but injustices will still be there. The kids in low-income neighborhoods have other things in mind than passing your tests.” She addressed intersectional inequities and challenged the focus on testing when the education system and other systems are starkly inequitable, echoing Ladson-Billings’s (2006) and Gutiérrez’s (2010) arguments about how we should focus more on opportunity gaps as opposed to achievement gaps.
Although systemic barriers make TMSJ challenging, stark systemic inequity makes TMSJ all the more necessary.
Social Justice Mathematics Teachers’ Visions for Urban Mathematics Education
I structured interviews to provide opportunities for teachers to share perspectives on what they envision for the future of urban mathematics education, as teachers should be treated as “professionals and intellectuals” with on-the-ground expertise (Nieto, Gordon, & Yearwood, 2010, p. 352).
It is important to note that most teachers, at some point during the interviews, discussed how no one asks them for their ideas about social justice mathematics or, more broadly, on urban mathematics education—that the critical praxis they strive to engage in is not valued institutionally. After I posed interview questions, teachers often proclaimed, “No one ever asks me this!” and proceeded to excitedly share. Central to what teachers envision for the future of urban mathematics education is having their voices, as well as student and family voices, included in the directions of it. In response to my question about what message teachers would like to send to education reformers, Cindy said,
I would tell them to listen a bit more, ask more questions. Listen to students, teachers, parents. Maybe you have great ideas and expertise, but people know what they need for themselves . . . It’s frustrating to be told a lot how things should be done; and I feel like nobody ever asks, or if they do ask it is in a really superficial way.
We cannot further social justice educational research and transformation when the very people committed to this work in schools feel silenced.
One hope that teachers have for urban mathematics education is that teachers across grades levels will be supported to teach mathematics conceptually and within interdisciplinary units that connect to the real world. They feel it is immensely important that critical, culturally relevant teaching in mathematics starts early. Ryan is interested in working alongside elementary teachers to (re)imagine social justice mathematics in K-12.
Social justice mathematics teachers hope for alternate ways of understanding and assessing the mathematics students know. They believe the purpose of assessment should be to inform future instruction and support students to improve and become well rounded. They feel that mathematics standardized tests miss important gains their students make participating in social justice mathematics, such as their growing self-confidence in mathematics, the mathematical connections they make to social issues, and their empowerment as change agents. Teachers proposed that mathematics assessments should include portfolios and culminating activities of project-based learning units. Teachers feel that lifting pressure from standardized assessments will also help in the process of mobilizing other urban mathematics teachers who they think would be interested in TMSJ but feel too restricted by tests to try. Teachers no longer want to be made to feel that TMSJ is a distraction from test-centered learning, as they feel it is the tests that are the distraction. Ryan explained, “I’m hoping in another ten years there might be more opportunity for everything: joy, thinking, art, project-based learning, music; that would really, really help social justice education.”
Social justice mathematics teachers see the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) as offering promise for social justice mathematics, but also express concern. Teachers feel that, as a set of mathematical standards, the CCSS implies that mathematics should be taught conceptually and that the kinds of exercises suggested by the CCSS align with social justice mathematics. Teachers’ concerns are in two areas: (a) they will not be supported to implement the CCSS, and (b) the assessments connected to CCSS will be “more of the same” high-stakes testing. Elizabeth explained,
The way that the [Common Core State] Standards have been implemented through testing have really undermined the good aspects of the standards. I don’t think standards are bad, but what do we do with them? Memorize every little tiny part for the test, or are they a guiding force with big questions?
Teachers argued that we need smaller classes, more time to build curriculum, and peer-to-peer professional development. Cindy concluded, “I don’t hate the Common Core, but I think there’s a lot of attention paid to it as if it’s gonna fix everything.”
Discussion
This investigation highlights mathematics teachers’ experiences TMSJ and their perspectives on how urban mathematics education should change for greater equity. This study demonstrates that urban mathematics teachers have on-the-ground experiences that can help us build upon Freire’s (2007) notion of education for liberation, including mathematics as a space where social transformation can be studied and fought for. Critical pedagogy is a demanding, political endeavor for educators; the work of teachers is particularly challenging when they do not have necessary support and resources (Nieto et al., 2010), making it “a necessary theoretical precondition for teachers to organize effectively and establish a collective voice in the current debate” (Giroux, 1988, p. 122). Mathematics education scholarship can support teachers in bringing social justice pedagogy “from the fringes to the center of math education” (Leonard, Brooks, Barnes-Johnson, & Berry, 2010, p. 268).
The findings of this study reveal that teachers who engage in TMSJ have powerful stories yet feel their beliefs and experiences are not often centered in mathematics education practice and policy. Positioning teachers’ voices as central to investigating social justice education allows us to understand how their commitments and challenges collide and vary within school, district, or charter contexts and larger social and political contexts. The more we understand these intersections for teachers, the better we can prepare and support teachers to teach for social justice.
Social justice mathematics teachers view TMSJ in urban schools as part of a larger project to alleviate the “education debt” (Ladson-Billings, 2006) for Students of Color and economically marginalized students. They seek to create rigorous mathematics classes where social issue units can be incorporated. They report persisting as they gradually, over the years, build critical curricula; for these teachers, “critical praxis subsumes academic competencies, navigational strategies, critical sensibilities, and collaborative action toward social change” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, p. 104). Picower’s (2012) finding in her study of teacher activists holds true for these mathematics teachers:
They are willing to continue the fight even in the face of loss, because they are committed to realizing their vision for justice. They recognize that their vision may not be realized in their lifetime, but they commit to pushing back against the forces of oppression. (pp. 572-573)
Although the focus of this investigation is on mathematics teachers, there are transferable lessons for teachers and researchers in other content areas. As Freire describes of the critical educator, “she never accepts that the teaching of any discipline whatsoever could take place divorced from a critical analysis of how society works” (Freire, 2016, p. 20). The mathematics teacher study participants call for critical pedagogy that spans across disciplines and grade levels and name how their commitments and challenges extend beyond (but also explicitly relate to) mathematics education. Pre-service teachers, as well as practicing teachers, especially those seeking greater collaborative potential for social justice, can learn from teachers across the country—who, in various geographic regions and at different types of schools, wrestle with similar commitments and challenges and strive to do their work in solidarity.
This study has implications for policy makers and reformers, teacher educators, current teachers, and future teachers. For the purpose of this article, I focus on teacher education. Teacher education can contribute to the promise of greater equity and democracy in schools, politics, and society (Giroux & McLaren, 1986) and can support teachers to bridge theory and practice of teaching for social justice.
If teacher educators understand the commitments of urban mathematics teachers striving to teach mathematics for social justice, they can better support future urban school teachers to wrestle with ideas about and enact social justice mathematics. Mathematics teachers need content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, racial and cultural knowledge (Howard & Milner, 2014), and knowledge of social movements and sociopolitical forces that affect their students (Gutiérrez, 2013; Gutstein, 2006). The participants of this study call for each of these areas to be addressed to greater extents in mathematics teacher education. Future teachers can benefit from learning about the commitments and challenges of teachers in various classrooms striving to teach mathematics for social justice to envision how critical mathematics pedagogy may come alive in their own classroom contexts over time. As TMSJ does not occur in a critical classroom vacuum, teachers need support to interpret practice in more nuanced ways than looking at the curricular examples of TMSJ (Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and Teaching, 2007). In Theoharis’s (2007) study of social justice principals, he argues: “It is irresponsible to prepare leaders to take on enormous challenges and face significant resistance without understandings of how to weather the storms that will result” (p. 250).
The teachers in this study argue that there should be more spaces for collaboration, both within their schools and in coalitions of critical mathematics teachers, to “develop working networks with other educators who share their emancipatory visions” (Gutiérrez, 2010, p. 26). They need time to develop their work, and build, reflect, and expand on it. These spaces can begin in teacher education, and teachers can learn about building such spaces.
The CCSS present a unique opportunity for teacher education programs to further how TMSJ can be actualized. The standards include statements such as “Mathematically proficient students can apply the mathematics they know to solve problems arising in everyday life, society, and the workplace” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), opening up spaces for teachers to address real-world problems in mathematics that connect to (in)justice issues.
An advantage of this study is the inclusion of a cross section of teachers from across the country; to continue to build theory and understand praxis of TMSJ in urban schools, future research must further investigate classroom practice and student learning, expanding on the assets, engagement, successes, critical pedagogies, and resistance of mathematics students and their families and teachers. Urban mathematics education is deserving of further attention to build toward praxis in urban schools that is relevant, equitable, and liberating for marginalized students in mathematics (Martin & Larnell, 2013).
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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the University of California, Los Angeles Graduate Division.