| dc.description.abstract | Urban education systems serve nearly 16 million students and employ almost one million teachers in the United States. The preparation of teachers for urban settings must attend to the unique and complex historical and sociocultural context of urban communities. This includes disrupting dominant stereotypes, particularly of urban communities of color, and recognizing urban communities as vibrant and culturally rich. In addition, they must also recognize larger systems of power that influence the way in which resources are unevenly distributed between urban communities and schools. Furthermore, urban special education teacher preparation requires a comprehensive understanding of structural inequity that addresses disability and its intersection with other marginalized identities. Critical inclusive education offers an overarching framework for preparing (special) educators to critically analyze the way in which dominant ideologies (e.g., ableism, racism, sexism, etc.) to construct normalcy. It also critiques the way these dominant norms are used to justify the exclusion of students deemed different from the dominant norm. Critical inclusive education expands the definition of inclusion beyond the physical placement of students in general education to one that includes: (1) a cultural historical dimension, (2) an understanding of community and participation, and (3) a transformative agenda. Scholars of critical inclusive teacher preparation have envisioned (special education) teachers as potential change agents in the social project of increased equity and inclusion. Yet, (special) educators face structural inequities themselves as they are socialized into communities of practice that are not conducive to critical inclusion. This study addresses the lack of literature around the process of post-graduate teacher identity (re)constitution in their practice contexts. Using critical ethnographic methods, I studied four graduates of a teacher preparation program with a commitment to critical inclusion and urban education. My conceptual framework for this study drew on history-in-person, communities of practice, and figured worlds to understand the ways in which participants navigated the inherent tensions between the inclusive messages of their preparation program and their practice contexts. Three themes emerged from the analysis: (1) Constructs that Endure, (2) Inclusion Gatekeepers, and (3) Teacher Identity as Advocate. In sum, participants simultaneously constructed identities as resistors and reifiers of dominant ideologies in schools. Implications for how critical inclusive teacher preparation programs can help support new teachers as they transition to practice contexts will be discussed. | |
