Exploring Urban Commitment of Graduates from an Urban-Focused Teacher Education Program

Abstract

Teacher turnover is a significant problem for many urban schools. Teachers who are committed to urban schools may be more likely to remain in urban schools and may provide a higher quality education for the students they teach. This article explores the changing urban commitment reported by four cohorts of teacher candidates enrolled in a graduate-level teacher education program focused on preparing teachers for work in urban schools. Using survey data collected at several points during the 11 month teacher education program, we explore how individual candidates' commitment changed, how these changes varied across candidates' demographic and personal characteristics, and what factors predict candidates' urban commitment upon graduation from the program. We reflect on the implications of these findings for teacher preparation programs seeking to prepare future urban educators who begin and remain committed to work in urban schools.

Amanda Taylor is an advanced doctoral student at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Her research interests focus on how teachers understand the role of race in their pedagogy and practice, and how low-income communities of color organize for school reform.

Erica Frankenberg is the Research and Policy Director for the Initiative on School Integration at the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. Her research interests focus on racial integration and inequality in K-12 schools and the connections between school segregation and other metropolitan policies.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Conference. We thank Mara Tieken and Susan Kandel for their assistance with aspects of data collection and Katherine Merseth for her support. All conclusions are our own.

Notes

∗ p <.05,

∗∗ p <.01.

∗ p <.05; # includes cohorts II–IV only

∗ p <.05;

∗∗ p <.01;

∗∗∗ p <.001

∗ p <.05;

∗∗non-respondents are less than 5.

1. The word “urban” often has implications beyond the actual geographic location of a school and has come to be a euphemism for racial and socioeconomic diversity (Weiner, 2002).

2. This high school is located in a mid-sized city and has an academic year enrollment of approximately 2,000 students, with 65% of the population being students of color, including 22% African American, 20% Caribbean and African, 14% Asian, and 8% Hispanic/Latino students. About 25% of students are eligible for free- or reduced-fee lunch, 12% are enrolled in bilingual education classes, and about 20% of students receive special education services.

3. A notable exception was a suburban school, which was only a site for a few teaching interns in the first cohort and which had low percentages of low-income students and students of color.

4. The surveys were posted online and TEP candidates generally had one week to anonymously complete the survey.

5. We do not have data on candidates' academic performance among respondents or non-respondents, which may affect their survey responses.

6. After each quantitative rating, respondents were asked to explain their response. Analysis of these qualitative responses is beyond the scope of this article.

7. The response rate was 70.8%.

8. Among the four cohorts, the racial/ethnic composition of the teaching candidates of color varied: between 3–14% were African American; 8–18% were Asian American; 2–11% were Latino; and a few candidates identified as Native American, multi-ethnic, or other.

9. For cohorts II and III, the summer measure is constructed by taking the difference of two questions during the September administration: their current urban commitment and their commitment at the beginning of the program. Because this is a retrospective assessment of June commitment, the change during the summer for those cohorts should be interpreted with caution.

10. Although the program begins in June, September is when candidates' teaching placements and full course load begin, so we have chosen urban commitment in September as a predictor of early commitment. Additionally, we chose to use commitment in September to allow for analysis of all four cohorts because we do not have June commitment data for all cohorts. We fit models using urban commitment in June as a control variable for Cohorts II-IV. In these models, urban commitment in June is also a significant, positive predictor of urban commitment in May as is urban commitment in September for these three cohorts only.

11. Commitment to urban teaching, of course, is likely to be at least somewhat present for the candidates to have chosen to enroll in an urban-focused teacher education program but it is also likely that this may vary among TEP candidates, particularly since the university only recently adopted such a focus for its teacher-preparation program.

12. It is plausible that these variables are endogenous (e.g., those who report a stronger program effect might be due to the fact they have stronger urban commitments in May). The correlation of the two was moderately strong (R =.44). Notably, there was a negative correlation between program urban effect and urban commitment in June (R = –.30).

13. In general, the mid-sized city's placement site had fewer low-income students, more white students, and highly educated parents as compared to the demographics of the large city (where there were multiple placement sites).

14. Individuals who were assigned to the mid-sized city as their practicum placement did not differ significantly in their September commitment to urban teaching.

15. Urban experience includes experience as a student in K-12 school or college in urban areas, urban neighborhoods, teaching in an urban school, or other experiences in urban areas.

16. We also fit models separately for each cohort and for the first two cohorts, race/ethnicity was a significant predictor but it was not significant when examining all candidates together.