Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Urban Schools

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Urban Schools

Bonita Hampton Æ Long Peng Æ Jean Ann

Published online: 13 February 2008

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Abstract This study investigates pre-service teachers’ perceptions of urban

schools. We asked 41 pre-service teachers, mostly white and female, to report their

perceptions of four aspects of urban schools (appearance and atmosphere, resources,

students, and teachers) and identify the sources of their perceptions. We analyze the

data qualitatively to understand how they perceive urban schools and quantitatively

to determine group trends in their perceptions. Findings reveal that their perceptions

of urban schools are complex, with negative and positive impressions of selected

aspects of urban schools. Implications of these findings for teacher education, in

particular, urban field placements and curriculum, are explored.

Keywords Urban education � Pre-service teachers’ perceptions �Urban school perceptions

Introduction

The challenges facing American urban schools are well known. One of these

challenges involves teacher preparation, recruitment and retention. According to

B. Hampton

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, State University of New York at Oswego,

108 Wilber Hall, Oswego, NY 13126, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

L. Peng




J. Ann (&)




123

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

DOI 10.1007/s11256-008-0081-2

Fuhrman (2002), there are nearly 16,000 school districts in the United States. Yet

close to one third of all students attend schools in 1.5% of these school districts,

with 31% of elementary and secondary students concentrated in 226 large urban

school districts. Due partially to this fact, urban schools face a host of staffing-

related problems. For instance, with poor financial and other critical resources,

urban schools are hampered in their ability to offer higher salaries or better working

conditions to attract qualified teachers. As a result, they are often forced to hire

uncertified teachers. Furthermore, rates of teacher burnout and turnover are high in

urban schools, further exacerbating the shortage (Kincheloe 2004).

These problems can be addressed partly by increasing the resources for urban

schools and improving the working conditions. But these measures are not

sufficient. To address the staffing shortage, we must increase the number of

qualified people passionately interested in and committed to pursuing an urban

teaching career. For this reason, it is vital to understand how urban schools are

perceived1 and how these perceptions shape the interests and choices of those

planning to enter the teaching force. Female middle-class students from suburban or

rural backgrounds make up the majority of those planning a teaching career.

Understanding their perceptions is critical to understanding the choices they make.

This study is qualitative in nature, focusing on how pre-service teachers view

urban schools. We report on how they perceive and describe urban schools. In

addition, to provide a view of the larger patterns, we analyze the data quantitatively,

presenting a frequency count of views of preservice teachers as a group. This article

is organized as follows. In the section ‘‘Literature review’’, we review the literature

related to perceptions of urban schools. The section ‘‘Methodology’’ describes the

research methodology. In the section ‘‘Findings’’, we report on what subjects say

about various aspects of urban schooling. We discuss the findings and explore their

implications in the section ‘‘Discussions and implications’’.

Literature Review

There is a growing body of scholarship addressing urban education issues. This

literature investigates a wide range of issues from education policy studies to

analyses of their impacts on urban schooling (Armour-Thomas 2004; Hill 2004),

from accounts of deplorable working conditions to analyses of their effects on

students, teachers and administrative staff in urban schools (Kozol 1992), from

1 We agree with the anonymous reviewer, who suggests that it is important to define what we mean by

‘‘urban school’’. For the record, we follow Steinberg and Kincheloe (2004) in defining urban schools as

those that possess most of the following characteristics: (a) located in areas with high density population

(cities of 40,000 or more), (b) high levels of poverty (usually 50% or more in the schools), (c) high

percentages of people of color (usually 40% or more), (d) high levels of immigrants and of people whose

first language is not English. For instance, in selecting urban schools for field placements and student

teaching in our university, we use these and other criteria in determining the appropriateness of schools.

However, it is critical to understand that this research is not about the researchers’ perceptions of urban

schools. Rather, it is concerned with the participants’ perceptions of urban schools, whatever they take

urban schools to be. It is partially their perceptions that determine their willingness to consider applying

for and working in urban schools.

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 269

123

descriptions of urban school students to investigations into relations between

student characteristics and teacher recruitment and preparation (Fine 1991;

Goldstein 2004; Kharem 2004; Rubinson 2004), from studies of media represen-

tations of teachers to analyses of the knowledge base critical to working in an urban

setting (Pasch et al. 1993; Grant 2002; Kincheloe 2002; Beyerbach 2005; Trier

2005). Steinberg and Kincheloe’s (2004) volume titled 19 Urban Questions:Teaching in the City provides an idea of the scope of scholarship concerned with

urban education issues.

This literature has also addressed directly or indirectly the perceptions of some

aspects of urban schools by preservice teachers. The literature related to urban school

perceptions is concerned with three themes: (a) pre-service teachers’ views towards

teaching in urban schools; (b) urban placements and their effects on attitudes towards

teaching in urban schools; and (c) media representations of schools and their effects on

perceptions. Though the research in the three areas focuses on perceptions of teaching in

urban schools, it has yielded insights into perceptions of selected aspects of urban

schools. Take for instance the studies on pre-service teachers’ views towards teaching in

urban schools in (a). This line of scholarship reveals insights into attitudes towards

teaching African American students (Bondy and Ross 1998; Groulx 2001; Bakari 2003),

Latino students (Groulx 2001) or attitudes towards teaching urban school students in

general (Hynes and Socoski 1991; Easter et al. 1999). Groulx (2001) reports that pre-

service teachers are less comfortable with teaching African American and Hispanic

students, assigning a mean comfort score of 2.61 out of 5 for African Americans and 2.16

for Hispanics. They are less interested in teaching African Americans and Hispanics, to

whom they assign interest scores of 2.67 and 2.38, respectively. These scores are half or

close to half for students in suburban and private schools: 4.50 and 4.38 for comfort and

4.38 and 4.28 for interest. According to Hynes and Socoski (1991, p. 11–12), pre-service

teachers see urban students as ‘‘less motivated’’, ‘‘having fewer academic skills’’,

‘‘needing more discipline’’ and believe their parents to be ‘‘less supportive’’.2 Easter

et al. (1999) and Schultz et al. (1996) came to similar conclusions. In addition, Proctor

et al. (2001) found that urban teachers are viewed rather poorly. Yet, Hynes and Socoski

(1991, p. 20) find that pre-service teachers’ views about non-urban schools are ‘‘highly

idealized’’ and ‘‘almost rose colored’’. This research shows that most pre-service teacher

candidates are not favorably disposed either towards students of minority descent and

towards teaching in urban schools.

The research concerned with urban placements and their effects on attitudes

towards teaching in urban schools in (b) has also provided insights into pre-service

teachers’ perceptions of urban schools. One central finding of this line of research is

that views of urban schools held by pre-service teachers prior to urban placements

2 Hynes and Socoski (1991, p. 18) did not specifically ask what their subjects mean by ‘‘urban students’’.

For this reason, we cannot ascertain from their survey what their subjects equate with ‘‘urban students’’ in

terms of race. However, it seems reasonable to assume that their subjects had African-American and

Hispanic students in mind in taking the survey. We base this assumption on two reasons. First, when

asked about urban school students in terms of race in this study, African-American and Latino students

are the two most frequently mentioned groups (See Table 5 in section ‘‘Urban school students’’). Second,

in studies that do specifically ask pre-service teachers about African-American and Hispanic students

such as Groulx (2001), their perceptions tend to be negative.

270 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

are mostly negative. For instance, Proctor et al. (2001, p. 5) report that perceptions

of urban students (referring in particular to African-American and Hispanic

students) by teacher candidates include: they are likely to be ‘‘dirty’’, ‘‘unruly’’,

‘‘a little lower in knowledge’’, or ‘‘challenging because of the diverse family

backgrounds’’ and they do ‘‘not want to learn’’.3 Another finding of this research

concerns the effect of urban placements on perceptions of urban schools, with some

studies questioning its impact and a growing list of studies suggesting that urban

placements can result in shifts towards more realistic perceptions of urban schools.

Consider first the studies questioning the effect of field placements. In a survey of

students after 120 h of field experience in urban schools, Haberman (1991) finds

that urban field placements can selectively reinforce pre-service teachers’ negative

perceptions about urban schools such as the lack of parental support for them.

Weiner (1990) and Wiggins and Follo (1999) also report that most students were

discouraged from pursuing an urban teaching career after urban field placements.

In contrast with these findings, there is increasing evidence demonstrating that

urban placements can change the participants’ attitudes towards urban schools for the

better (Pagano et al. 1995; Wolffe 1996; Mason 1997; Olmedo 1997; Groulx 2001;

Proctor et al. 2001). The urban placements analyzed in these studies range from 1 to

2 weeks of intense and supervised immersion in an urban school (i.e. Banks and Stave

1996 or Marxen and Rudney 1999) to extended multi-week or multi-month exposure

(i.e. Mason 1997; Proctor et al. 2001). For instance, Mason (1997) compares the

perceptions of preservice teachers placed in urban and suburban schools and finds that

55% of the subjects with an urban placement are inclined to pursue inner-city

teaching versus 20% of those placed in suburban settings. He also finds that the

participants placed in urban schools report learning more about students of different

cultural backgrounds than those receiving suburban placements and that urban school

experience does not diminish their inclinations towards urban schools and leads to

improved perceptions in such areas as student motivation, discipline, parental support

and language ability. Even though this second conclusion is not unanimous, the

growing list of studies showing the positive impact seems to suggest that urban school

exposure can result in more balanced views of urban schools.

The conflicting findings may be explained by factors such as the duration of field

placement, supervision, and structure. According to Mason (1999), those field

placements that result in improved perceptions generally have the following

components: (a) the participants receive extended exposure to urban schools; (b)

they are supervised, providing them with opportunities to share, discuss and reflect on

the placement experience; and (c) the field placement experience is not a standalone

requirement, but structured around key education courses, providing them with the

preparation needed to succeed in urban contexts (see also Groulx 2001; Foster 2004).

3 Though the initial perceptions of urban schools by the majority of pre-service teachers tend to be

negative, the reviewer is correct in pointing out that these negative views are not necessarily held by all

pre-service teachers. The reviewer singles out the pre-service teachers in teacher education programs that

prepare them for urban settings as one group that may have positive or balanced views of urban schools.

In addition, we should add preservice teachers whose own K-12 urban school experiences are mostly

positive and those with positive urban school field experiences as suggested by the research on the impact

of urban school field placements.

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 271

123

In addition, there is a third line of research concerned with the media

representations of schools and schooling and their impact on perceptions of urban

schools (see Beyerbach 2005 for a recent review of this line of research). This line of

research has yielded insights into the sources of urban school perceptions by pre-

service teachers and into ways to challenge the media representations of schools and

schooling. A number of findings have emerged from this line of research. First, media

representations of schools and schooling tend to be oversimplified and biased. For

instance, teaching is often portrayed as teachers passing out right answers to questions

asked by students. Constructivist teaching is missing from these representations

(Grant 2002). Urban schools are susceptible to gangs, violence, and drugs than their

suburban counterparts (Wells and Serman 1998). Individual teachers are represented

as saviors or heroes at the expense of a hostile administration, unsupportive parents or

unmotivated students (Farber and Holm 1994; Grant 2002). Second, media

representations of schools should be critically analyzed. Critical analyses of such

representations can be useful in helping pre-service teachers to gain a balanced

understanding of urban schools, including their accomplishments and the problems

they face (Grant 2002; Beyerbach 2005; Trier 2005). Trier (2005, p. 185), for

instance, quotes his subject, a white female student, as follows:

I said I expected to feel intimidated by my students… Just as in the films we

watched, I expected some fights to break out, and I expected a lot of resistant

behavior in class and in the halls. I suppose I expected to experience a

Dangerous Minds sort of thing… I realized in watching the films that I shared

the versions of the same sort of ‘sordid fantasies’ about inner-city schools.

Maybe not to the extent in the films, but I did in fact have perceptions not

based on actual experiences with African-American students.

As a result of discussions and reflections, she came to realize ‘‘how I had to resist

my own preconceptions if I was going to be a good teacher’’.

Clearly, all three lines of research have yielded significant insights into pre-service

teachers’ attitudes towards teaching in urban schools and the sources of their

perceptions. This study continues this line of inquiry into pre-service teachers’

perceptions of urban schools, focusing directly on their perceptions of four key

aspects of urban schools: (a) appearance and atmosphere; (b) resources; (c) students

and (d) teachers. We choose this focus for three reasons. First, we observe that

research in this area is concerned more with teacher candidates’ willingness to teach

in urban schools, since it asks questions such as, ‘‘Before your first student teaching or

practicum experience, what did you think it would be like teaching in an urban school

with students of diverse ethnic and socio-cultural backgrounds?’’ (Proctor et al. 2001,

p. 5). It is less directly concerned with perceptions of urban schools. Second, the

findings on urban school perceptions are limited due to this focus. For instance, few

studies include pre-service teachers’ perceptions of urban school resources or teacher

salary. Yet these aspects of urban schools emerge as some of the most salient areas of

their perceptions as our findings suggest. Lastly, we do not know of any study that

attempts to assess the weight of various perceptions of urban schools. Though we

cannot directly address this question either because of the qualitative focus, we do

attempt to provide a view of the relative salience of the various perceptions of urban

272 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

schools, giving us an indirect picture of the importance of various perceptions. We

hope that by shifting the research lens from urban school teaching to urban schools,

we can gain further insights into pre-service teachers’ views of urban schools and

ultimately the factors responsible for their career decisions.

Methodology

Research Questions

Forty-one pre-service teachers participated in this study. They were presented two

open-ended questions concerning urban schools: (a) what their perceptions are of

urban schools in relation to four aspects of urban schooling (i.e. appearance and

atmosphere, resources, teachers, and students) and (b) where they think their

perceptions come from. We choose open-ended questions rather than questions with

pre-established choices of answers for two reasons. First, we are interested in what

these pre-service teachers say about urban schools and how they describe their

perceptions. Second, we want to learn which aspects of their perceptions are most

salient. Open-ended questions serve these objectives better.

These questions to education majors (mostly students in their junior year of

college study) taking their first group of education courses. They were asked to

address the questions in writing. They were told that these questions were developed

to collect data regarding their urban school perceptions and that their participation

was voluntary and would not be tied to their grades. It was stressed that we did not

have pre-conceived ideas about what their answers should be; we wanted only to

learn what they thought about urban schools. The findings reported here are based

on analyses of their written responses to the two questions.

The Research Team

The research team consists of the three authors, all of whom teach in the Department

of Curriculum and Instruction. Data were collected at the beginning of two sections

of EDU 301, a foundation of education course and one of the first four education

courses education majors must take. Both sections were taught by the first author—

an African American. The other two authors, an Asian American and a European

American, respectively, had no contact with the respondents. Two steps were taken

to minimize the effect of the first author’s race on responses given by the mostly

white participants. First, we indicated that all responses were anonymous, that there

were no right or wrong answers, and that there was no time limit. Second, the

questionnaire was distributed in the second week of class, before substantial

relationships developed between the students and their professor and before any

discussion of urban schools occurred.

Subjects

There were 41 participants; of these 31 are female and 10 are male. Thirty-one

participants are white, with the remaining seven made up of five blacks, one Native

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 273

123

American, and one Asian American. They majored in Childhood Education,

Adolescence Education or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. Apart

from three subjects who had attended an urban school, the rest came from suburban

and rural communities and received their K-12 education in non-urban schools.

Given their background, most of these participants did not initially plan to teach in

urban schools.

The teacher education program from which our respondents come is situated in a

rural, mostly white college whose School of Education emphasizes teaching for

social justice and gears its teacher education programs towards preparing students to

teach in all settings including urban schools. Though our students do not have an

understanding of this program emphasis and its implications before choosing their

majors, issues related to urban education were raised at two stages in the program

before respondents answered our questionnaire. First, in their freshman year,

prospective education majors are encouraged to acquire reliable transportation,

since almost all of them will have an urban school experience, usually in Syracuse,

NY, approximately 1 hour away from the college. Second, before entering their first

semester of education classes (usually junior year); some issues related to urban

education are addressed when students examine our School of Education’s

conceptual framework. Despite this, and despite heavy emphasis on teaching for

social justice and urban education in some required courses, the majority of our

students do not teach in urban schools after graduation (Fairbrother et al. 2007). We

conduct this research to try to understand their concerns related to urban schools.

Data Analysis

We performed qualitative and quantitative analyses of the participants’ responses to

the two questions. In conducting the qualitative analysis, we each started by reading

the responses independently and developed a preliminary list of coding categories

on the basis of this initial reading. We then compared the preliminary categories we

developed, eliminating some overlapping categories and subsuming some categories

under larger categories. On the basis of discussion, we came up with a final list of

coding categories, which we used to re-read and re-code the responses. Once the

coding was completed, we re-convened to compare the results and resolve the

discrepancies. The results reported here are based on two readings and two rounds

of coding by each member of the research team.

The participants’ responses were coded according to the four main categories and

4–6 sub-categories under the main categories in Table 1. Since our question asked

the subjects to describe their perceptions in relation to four aspects of urban schools,

their responses to the first question, not surprisingly, tended to cluster around these

four categories: i.e. appearances and atmosphere, resources, students, and teachers.

But to gain a more detailed understanding of these aspects of their perceptions, we

classified the subjects’ responses into subcategories. For instance, regarding the

category of appearance and atmosphere, we divided subjects’ statements into four

sub-categories: (a) statements about the internal appearance and arrangement of

urban schools; (b) statements concerning the external appearance of urban schools

274 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

including their perceptions of surrounding communities; (c) statements concerning

the atmosphere of urban schools such as crowding, crime and gang-related

activities, security and their sense of safety, etc. We reserved the ‘‘General’’ sub-

category for those statements that could not be assigned to the other sub-categories.

To gain an understanding of urban school perceptions by our subjects as a group,

we subjected their responses to a quantitative analysis. In performing the

quantitative analysis, we first assigned the subjects’ statements concerning each

subcategory (except for the race and socio-economic status of students) in Table 2

into one of five types, which are: (a) negative; (b) positive; (c) neutral; (d) don’t

know; and (e) not mentioned. We selected the first three types for two reasons. First,

most of our subjects’ responses clearly imply a ‘‘value judgment’’. It is important

that the analysis reflect this. More importantly, there is no doubt that the perceived

‘‘values’’ they assign to different types of schools play a role in determining the

choices of their career locations. Since this line of research is interested in how these

perceptions affect individuals’ career choices, it is vital to ask what values education

majors as a group attach to each of these sub-categories. We want to underscore that

the categories ‘‘negative’’, ‘‘positive’’ and ‘‘neutral’’ are used only to classify how

the respondents view the four aspects of urban schools, specifically, the statements

they make and what values these statements imply about urban schools. They are

not intended to categorize what values the researchers assign to what the

respondents say about urban schools. We understand that a participant’s awareness

of, say, the lack of resources in urban schools, may be a positive thing. But it would

be hard to argue that the scarcity of resources is good for students and staff in urban

schools and is what motivates most applicants to consider working in urban schools.

Table 1 Main and sub-categories of analysis

Main categories Sub-categories for each main category

Appearance &

atmosphere

Inside Outside Atmosphere General

Resources Computer/

internet

Physical

education

Text-books Funding General Library

Students Race Socio-

economic

Motivation Ability/

intelligence

Preparation Parental

support

Teachers Pay Ability Degree/

certification

Care/courage General

Table 2 Comparison of participants in this study with the pre-K to 12 teacher composition in gender

and race

Gender (%) Race (%)

Female Male White Black Hispanic Other

This study 76 24 83 12 0 4

Pre-K-12

teachers

77 23 86 9 4 0.4

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 275

123

The latter is what we mean when assigning a particular statement to one of the three

categories.

Clearly, to determine how subjects’ statements should be classified according to

these five types requires judgment on the part of researchers. To ensure validity and

reliability, we conducted the quantitative analysis in two stages. In the first stage,

the second author developed a set of criteria for each of the five types and a coding

form for the quantitative analysis on the basis of these criteria. We then met to

discuss the classification criteria. This discussion led to some revisions of the

criteria, which we used to analyze subjects’ responses independently. For instance,

take the subcategory of funding under urban school resources. We assign to the

negative category those statements that mention the lack of funding. Assigned to the

positive category are those statements to the effect that there is adequate funding for

urban schools. Neutral responses are those that reflect a balanced view of urban

schools with their pluses and minuses. Some subjects indicated that they did not

know; while others did not mention specific aspects of their perceptions. These

responses are assigned to the ‘‘Don’t Know’’ and ‘‘Not Mentioned’’ categories,

respectively. During the second stage, the research team met to compare the coding

done independently and to resolve the discrepancies. Once the coding was

completed, we tallied up the frequencies for each of the five types for each of the

subcategories in Table 2. The quantitative results we report here are based on a third

reading and the team’s consensus regarding how participants’ statements should be

classified.

A note of caution is in order here. This study draws its subjects from a

convenience—rather than random—sample. As a result, it is not clear whether these

statistical results can be generalized to the population of students interested in

pursuing K-12 teaching. Mentioned earlier, this study is intended as a qualitative

description of the participants’ urban school perceptions. We conducted the

quantitative analysis to obtain a sense of how the participants as a group perceive

various aspects of urban schools. Nevertheless, two points should be emphasized.

First, though this study is based on convenience sampling, this sample approximates

the composition of the pre-K to 12 teaching force (Snyder 1995, p. 8) in so far as the

racial and gender makeup are concerned.

Second, most of the findings reported here are not surprising. There are clear

similarities to previous studies, suggesting that our findings are not isolated, but part

of a larger trend.

Findings

We report here the findings on the perceptions of urban schools, that is, the

responses to the first question. We will report the findings regarding the source of

their perceptions in section ‘‘Discussion and implications’’. This section is divided

into five sub-sections, with each of the first four concerned with one of the four

aspects of urban schools. To provide a view of group trends, we start each

subsection by presenting the quantitative results, followed by a description of what

is said about that aspect of urban schools. These tables—that is, Tables 3, 4, 6 and

276 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

7—include the number and percentage of statements for each of the five types,

arranged in this order: (a) negative, (b) positive, (c) neutral, (d) don’t know, and (e)

not mentioned. We place the negative category first because the group trend tends to

be negative. The sub-categories under each main category are arranged in

descending order of percentages of statements belonging to the negative type. As

we show, the perceptions of urban schools tend to be negative for the group, though

there are pockets of mostly neutral or positive perceptions. To capture the

participants’ perceptions qualitatively, we use selected and representative quotations

taken from their responses, which are quoted verbatim (including errors) so as to

maintain the authenticity of their voices. The section ‘‘Summary’’ highlights the

sub-categories that are most salient for the group and provides an explanation of the

findings reported here.

Urban School Appearance and Atmosphere

We summarize in Table 3 the statistical results concerning their perceptions of

urban school appearance and atmosphere. As this table shows, the participants’

responses are concentrated in three areas: (a) negative, (b) not mentioned, and (c)

neutral. The two remaining categories (i.e. positive and don’t know) each receive at

most one (or 2%) mention.

This table reveals two patterns. First, the responses for the top three sub-

categories are predominantly negative, ranging from a high 44% (Inside) to a low

41% for (Outside and Atmosphere). This result contrasts with the percentages for

the neutral or positive categories, which varies from a high 18% to a low 2%.

Second, the percentage of participants who did not directly address the various

aspects of urban school appearance and atmosphere ranges from 34 to 52%.

Therefore, the percentage of participants who did mention some aspects of urban

schools ranged from 66 to 48%. Considering that the questions are open-ended and

the participants were not required to address any particular aspect of their urban

school perceptions, these percentages are quite significant.

Now that we have a sense of the group trends, consider in detail how the

participants describe their perceptions of urban school appearance and atmosphere.

Examination of the subjects’ responses reveals three recurrent themes. First, the

subjects tend to use the expressions such as ‘‘run-down’’ to describe the internal and

external appearance of urban schools (cf. Trier 2005, p. 175). This perception results

Table 3 Perceptions of urban school appearance and atmosphere

Sub-categories Negative Positive Neutral Don’t know Not mentioned

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Inside 18 44 1 2 7 18 1 2 14 34

Outside 17 41 1 2 4 10 0 0 19 47

Atmosphere 17 41 1 2 2 5 0 0 21 52

General 2 5 0 0 4 10 0 0 35 85

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 277

123

from ‘‘neglect’’, ‘‘lack of maintenance’’, and perceptions of urban schools as having

poor equipment such as chairs, desks, and computers, which are ‘‘old’’, ‘‘out of

date’’, ‘‘broken’’, and ‘‘in disrepair.’’ Subject 33 captures this view of urban schools

with this statement:

My perceptions about the physical appearance of urban schools are that they

are neglected. I envision the schools to be run-down both on the outside and

inside of the buildings. The walls are not freshly painted. The mainence are

not up-kept. The tables and chairs are old and semi-broken.

We see a similar view echoed in the next quote:

When I think or hear about an urban school, I think of it’s physical appearance

as not being so nice. The outside may appear very old and almost jail like.

While many things inside and outside the school are new or nice, I still feel

and would expect to see some things run down. (Subject 34)

In addition, some subjects comment on the orderliness and cleanliness of urban

schools, using expressions such as ‘‘chaotic’’, ‘‘dirty’’, ‘‘not clean’’ or the presence

of graffiti and spray paint to describe urban schools.

Another theme concerns the subjects’ sense of security. Mentioned frequently in

their responses are issues such as crime, drug use and gang-related activities. These

perceptions have led to remarks about measures taken to guard against such

activities, measures such as the presence of metal detectors, fences around schools,

bars on windows, and security guards at school entrances. These measures result in

the perception of urban schools as ‘‘jail like’’.

I’ve never experienced urban schools directly, but my expectations or thoughts

of the physical appearance, is that it has bars on the window, graffiti on the

walls. Students gathered in big groups outside talking & smoking. Inside the

halls are loud, crowded and vandalized. (Subject 38)

Coming from suburban community on Long Island, I find myself a bit

apprehensive on entering an urban school. All you hear about is the violence,

metal detectors, gangs, and security personnel of the urban school. Coming from

a learning environment where we did not even have actual security guards until

my senior year in high school, I am worried about what to expect. (Subject 30)

Underlying these descriptions are concerns with school violence and personal

safety. This result confirms that of Groulx (2001) and Marxen and Rudney (1999).

Groulx (2001, p. 70) finds that out of the 14 school characteristics most essential

according to her subjects, ‘‘physical safety of building and neighborhood’’ ranks

second, topped only by the concern with parental support. Marxen and Rudney

(1999, p. 68) reports that ‘‘the most prevalent theme about the general school

environment’’ for their preservice teachers was ‘‘the participants’ sense of welcome

and safety at their schools’’.

A third theme concerns the lack of physical space in urban schools. This concern

stems from the perception that urban schools tend to have large student populations

and limited resources to construct larger facilities, which result in ‘‘crowding’’, an

278 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

expression used repeatedly by the participants, as evidenced by the earlier quote

from Subject 38 and this quote from Subject 26.

I feel that urban schools are crowded within a classroom and that they need

more money to construct bigger classrooms… I feel hallways in an urban

school needs to be bigger and wider so that students have enough room to go

to class and be on time. Lockers are to close together so it is aggravating to the

student to even get his or her books in the hallways.

To summarize, the perception tends to be negative for those who did comment on

urban school appearance and atmosphere. Their responses reveal repeated

references to urban schools as looking run-down, experiencing safety issues and

being overcrowded. These findings are not surprising in light of earlier studies such

as Easter et al. (1999), who report that their subjects describe the urban environment

repeatedly as ‘‘crowded’’, ‘‘life-threatening’’, and ‘‘tense/stressful’’ (p. 215). Even

though some of our subjects acknowledge that these perceptions may be more hype

than real (Subject 30 states flatly that ‘‘it is all hype’’), they hold on to them because

they perceive no other alternatives.

Urban School Resources

In Table 4 we present the results of the perceptions about the kinds of resources

available in urban schools. As this table reveals, the higher percentages of

statements are focused on two areas: (a) negative and (b) not mentioned. There are

at most three respondents whose statements are classified as belonging to one of the

three remaining types: i.e. positive, neutral and don’t know.

This table reveals two trends for the group. First, of the six resource-related sub-

categories, the two sub-categories mentioned most frequently are: (a) computer &

internet and (b) physical education facility. Second, negative perceptions dominate

their impressions of resources available to urban schools. Negative perceptions

range from a low 17% (Library Facility) to a high 63% (Computer & Internet). In

sharp contrast, positive and neutral perceptions have a combined total of 12%

(Computer & Internet), the highest of any subcategory.

Table 4 Perceptions of urban school resources


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Computer & internet 26 63 2 5 3 7 1 2 9 22

Physical education facility 18 44 1 2 2 5 0 0 20 49

Textbooks 12 29 0 0 1 2 0 0 28 69

Funding 11 26 2 5 0 0 0 0 28 69

General 10 24 1 2 3 7 1 2 26 65

Library facility 7 17 1 2 3 7 0 0 30 74

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 279

123

Two themes emerge from the subjects’ perceptions of urban school resources.

First, there is a general perception that urban schools are limited in their resources.

This limitation is reflected in a number of areas: (a) fewer computers; (b) limited

access to internet; (c) ‘‘older’’, ‘‘used’’ and ‘‘out of date’’ textbooks; (d) no or

‘‘outdated’’ physical education facilities; (e) ‘‘minimal library’’, etc. This perception

is exemplified by the following quotes.

I believe that their textbooks, if they have any, are very old and out of date.

I’m pretty sure that all schools have access to the Internet but the number of

computers in the classroom might be lower than that of suburban. You never

really see a ‘‘playground’’ maybe a basketball court. I don’t know many city

schools w/swimming pools either. (Subject 42)

Urban schools I believe are lacking in resources. They probably only have a

few computers with Internet access. Textbooks are probably older and used.

Library and gyms are most likely outdated with older and possibly minimal

resources. (Subject 25)

Second, our subjects see funding as the cause of limited resources available to urban

schools. This view of the relation between funding and other resources is evidenced

by statements such as ‘‘We all know that urban school funding is always being cut

here and there’’ from Subject 42 and from Subject 29 below:

I would expect these schools to have less funding, therefore limited access to

computers, the Internet and other technologies. The library might be minimal or

not exist at all, and I expect the playgrounds to be in various stages of neglect.

This view is reflected in those responses that discuss resources in generic and

general terms as well. These responses did not mention specific types of resource

except for funding, suggesting that they perceive funding to be wedded to those

resources, a perception we find to be savvy on their part.

To summarize, when we consider the quantitative results together with what is

said about urban school resources, we see that their negative perceptions stem from

the perception that resources are either more scarce or ‘‘out of date’’ and that limited

funding is responsible for this state of affairs.

Urban School Students

We present the perceptions of urban school students in two parts. The first part

concerns their perceptions of race and social-economic status. Their perceptions in

these areas are not easily assignable to the ‘‘negative’’ and ‘‘positive’’ types. Hence,

we present only the number and percentage of responses that directly discuss race

and socio-economic status. The second part concerns their perceptions of the

intrinsic qualities of urban school students—motivation, intelligence and prepara-

tion as well as their perceptions of parental support. We see shortly that motivation

and intelligence are the two areas where positive and neutral perceptions outweigh

the negative perceptions.

280 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

In Table 5 we report the subjects’ perceptions of urban school students as they

relate to race and socio-economic status. As this table shows, 90% of the responses

mention student race in their responses, while a lower percentage—76%—of

responses mention the socio-economic background of urban school students. This

difference may reflect the observation that, often, race is more noticeable than

socio-economic class (Mantsios 1998). But in comparison with other sub-categories,

these numbers are high, suggesting that the race and socio-economic status of urban

school students are both salient.

According to Table 5, three most often mentioned racial or ethnic groups are

African Americans (32%) and Latinos (20%) and Whites (17%). Far less mentioned

are Asians (5%) and Jews (2%). In classifying the socio-economic status of urban

school students as perceived by our subjects, we use their own designations because

they do not always use the standard classifications and it is not always easy to

determine what they mean. As this table reveals, 41% of the students suggest that

urban school students come from families that are poor (see also Easter et al. 1999).

In addition, 10% of the respondents mention that urban school students come from the

mid-low socio-economic backgrounds, while 2% suggests that urban school students

come from a working class background. Putting these numbers together, 53% of our

subjects believe that there are significant numbers of students from poor, mid-low or

working class backgrounds. This finding contrasts with the 20% for the ‘‘Mixed’’ sub-

category under ‘‘Socio-economic Status’’, which represents responses that suggest

that urban school students come from a variety of socio-economic backgrounds and

2% of respondents who say that wealthy children attend urban schools.

Let’s consider what they say about the race and socio-economic status of urban

school students. With regard to race, they are aware that students attending urban

schools are racially and ethnically more diverse. Moreover, they know that the

majority-to-minority ratio true of American society as a whole may not hold for

urban schools and that urban schools may enroll more minority students. They

understand that this may stem from factors such as the location of school in relation

to where students live. This quote from Subject 11 is typical of the subjects’

discussions of race in relation to urban school students.

I would assume, based on the demographics, the population of students is

more black and hispanic than white. My understanding is that the students

attend the school closest to their home… and therefore minority students

would be the majority. (Subject 11)

Table 5 Perceptions of urban school students’ race and socio-economic status

Race No. % Socio-eco status No. %

Mention race 37 90 Mention socio-eco status 31 76

African American 13 32 Poor 17 41

Latino 8 20 Mixed 8 20

White 7 17 Mid-low 4 10

Asian 2 5 Working class 1 2

Jew 1 2 Wealthy 1 2

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 281

123

Regarding the socio-economic status, they are aware that a higher percentage of

students from poor or working class families are concentrated in urban schools. As

Subject 25 states directly, ‘‘Most students come from a lower class’’. According to

them, this higher concentration of students from the ‘‘lower’’ class is due to reasons

such as the availability of private schools for rich students as this quote indicates:

The kinds of students that would probably attend would be middle class to

lower class. I feel that most upper class children attend private schools.

(Subject 13)

To summarize, these responses reveal an awareness of the diversity of urban

students in relation to race and socio-economic status and some of the causes for the

diversity.

Apart from race and socio-economic status, some participants describe their

perceptions of urban school students in relation to their motivation, intelligence/

ability to learn, and academic preparation. Because our participants link parental

support with motivation, intelligence and preparation in their description, we

decided to include the result for parental support here. Examination of Table 6

shows that a lower percentage of responses addresses urban school students’

motivation, intelligence, and preparation and parental support. Out of the four sub-

categories, intelligence and motivation are mentioned most frequently, with 66 and

54% respectively. Only 13–15% of the responses mention academic readiness and

parental support. This statistical difference between intelligence and motivation on

the one hand and preparation and parental support on the other may make sense if

we consider the subjects’ own experiences as members of a culture that in many

ways persistently espouses a view of individuals as masters of their own fates. It

appears that our subjects are more apt to think about things from a psychological

perspective (individuals are responsible for their own fates) than a sociological one

(societies create individuals). Motivation and intelligence are qualities almost

always ascribed to individuals, while preparation and parental support are external

and something larger than the child alone, that is, things that are done to individuals

either by schooling or parenting.

With respect to motivation and intelligence, 34 and 59% are either neutral or

positive as opposed to 20 and 7% of negative responses. This result contradicts the

finding by Schultz et al. (1996), who find that 80% of pre-service teachers believe

that urban students are lower in learning ability. These are the two areas where

Table 6 Perceptions of urban school students’ motivation, parental support, intelligence/ability and

preparation


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Motivation 8 20 4 10 10 24 0 0 19 46

Parental support 6 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 85

Intel/Ability 3 7 1 2 23 57 0 0 14 34

Preparation 3 7 4 10 0 0 0 0 34 83

282 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

negative perceptions are outnumbered by positive or neutral perceptions. Our

subjects are roughly evenly divided with respect to the academic preparation of

urban school students, with 3 (or 7%) of negative perceptions and 4 (or 10%) of

positive perceptions. The perceptions of the six subjects who discussed parental

support are all negative.

Two themes emerge from the subjects’ descriptions of these four aspects of urban

schools. First, they perceive intelligence and ability as qualities individuals are born

with; consequently they are not subject to influence from the external world. These

two quotes are typical of this belief:

I think all children have the opportunity and ability to be intelligent. It doesn’t

really matter what schooling your receiving. (Subject 13)

I think the students who attend urban schools have the same intelligence and

academic ability as students in other types of schools. Their preparation and

motivation to learn is hindered by the thought that they do not really need

school because they’ll never be able to go to college. (Subject 7)

As a result of this view, they believe that students attending urban schools are no

different from students attending suburban or rural schools, as evidenced by this

quote from Subject 31:

I would say kids are kids. I don’t think rural or urban societies change the way

that kids act.

Second, they see motivation and preparation as attributes of individuals that are

subject to external influence. This influence may originate from a number of

external sources such as the lack of a goal (Subject 7 above), the home environment

(Subject 22), violence and drugs (Subject 20), lack of materials or time (Subject 14)

or the socio-economic status (Subject 29):

The kind of students in an urban school setting will not be motivated to learn I

don’t believe it has anything to do with their intelligence or academic abilities,

by may be the situation at home. Some of the children are neglected and only

received attention and assistance at school. (Subject 22)

…urban schools usually have inner city kids therefore I think they are subject

to more violence and drug. (Subject 20)

I don’t think children would have less intelligence or academic abilities but I

do think this could be affected by lack of materials. I would there there would

be less motivation on the students part, not necessarily due to laziness, but a

lot of kids could have jobs after school which leave them with little time and

energy to do homework and study. (Subject 14)

I feel that the lower the economic status of the school’s neighborhood, the less

preparation the students would have, but this doesn’t reflect on the student’s

motivation to learn or their academic abilities (Subject 29)

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 283

123

In short, most subjects believed that although all children start out the same way

(some smart, some not so smart), their motivation and preparation to learn and

succeed in schools can be mitigated by external circumstances, circumstances such

as parental support at home, lack of resources, etc. It is important to note that

missing from this list is the impact of teaching and schooling on students’

motivation to learn. We will return to this point later in our discussions.

Urban School Teachers

Reported in Table 7 are the perceptions about urban school teachers. As this table

reveals, the subjects seem, in general, to be less concerned with urban school

teachers than about other aspects of urban schools. Out of the five sub-categories

concerning urban school teachers, teacher pay is mentioned most frequently.

However, it is mentioned by less than half (or 46%) of the respondents.

With respect to teacher pay, negative perceptions (32%) are over twice that of

positive and neutral perceptions combined (14%). In contrast, the perceptions of

urban teachers in relation to their ability, degree/certification status, and care/

courage, tend to be positive or neutral, even though the number of participants

mentioning these areas is small.

We turn now to what subjects say about urban school teachers. First, with respect

to teacher pay, the majority of respondents that commented on this issue perceived

that teacher pay was low, using expressions such as ‘‘low’’, ‘‘lower’’, ‘‘underpaid’’,

etc.4 In addition, our participants were aware of the impact of low teacher pay on

urban schools, as this quote from Subject 21 attests:

I’m expecting, as far as the teachers, to have low salaries and be fairly young. In

my experience, city schools always have openings, but once a ‘‘better’’ school

district (higher pay, better area) comes along, the teachers leave. (Subject 21)

This perception of low pay stems from their perception of resources available to

urban schools, in relation to funding problems that they hear beset urban schools. As

Table 7 Perceptions of urban school teachers


No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Pay 13 32 3 7 3 7 0 0 22 54

Ability 1 2 3 7 8 20 1 2 28 69

Degree/certificate 1 2 3 7 6 15 2 5 29 71

Care/courage 0 0 5 11 1 2 0 0 38 93

General 0 0 1 2 2 5 1 2 37 91

4 Some compared it with suburban and rural schools claiming that it was lower than both. According to

Anderson and Summerfield (2004, p. 32), while suburban school teachers make more than urban school

teachers on the average, teacher pay in rural schools is lower than that for urban school teachers.

284 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

Subject 25 states, teachers ‘‘are probably not paid a lot due to the schools budget.’’

In contrast, a few respondents reason that teacher pay must be good in urban schools

due to demand or the problems they have to deal with as Subject 10 states, teachers

‘‘get paid more because the demand for teachers in urban schools is greater’’.

In contrast with the mostly negative perceptions of teacher pay, perceptions of

teacher ability and qualification are either neutral or positive. For some, urban

teachers are probably no different from their suburban counterparts; for others, they

might have been better prepared because of the complexity of problems they deal

with. This perception of teacher ability and qualification differs both from the

statistics showing that urban schools have the highest concentration of uncertified

teachers and from the media portrayal of urban teachers as the source of the

problems plaguing urban schools.

Most interesting are the perceptions regarding urban teachers’ attitudes towards

their work. As perceptions of urban schools are mostly negative with low pay, lack

of resources, etc., some think that those working in urban schools must be special in

that they are not there for the money but rather to ‘‘make a difference’’ in the lives of

kids.

Teachers who teach in urban settings where the pay isn’t usually all that great

are definitely in it for the kids. They may have grown up in a similar area and

know the problems faced by urban children. They want to make a difference in

the lives of kids who may really need someone to look up to. Their

abilities + education are probably the same as all teachers, though their

abilities may actually be more developed. (Subject 16)

I think the kinds of teachers who teaches in urban schools would either have

come from the same setting and wanting to make a difference or teachers who

come from higher settings, but still wanting that ‘‘making a difference’’.

(Subject 45)

I would think that the teachers working in the schools would have to be quite

motivated, prepared and patient because they are dealing with children who

might not want to learn, might have attitudes, absent often. (Subject 14)

This view of urban teachers is in fact quite common. Goldstein (2004, p. 42)

captures this view of those who work in urban settings through a recreation of

conversations she had with friends or families when they learned that she

volunteered for an internship in an urban school. A typical reaction is as follows:

But the crime! And the parents, they don’t care, and they aren’t involved. And

they are all so poor. It’s such a noble thing you do.

This perception of urban teachers as ‘‘noble saviors’’ is not surprising. It is a

perception reinforced by characters in Hollywood films such as that played by

Michele Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds (Farber and Holm 1994) and by the reasoning

that if pay is low and problems are abundant, teachers must be there to make a

difference. There is no denial that many urban teachers are highly dedicated and

caring, but the reasons for choosing to work in urban schools, just like the reasons

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 285

123

for working in any other setting, are far more complex. They cannot be reduced

simply to a desire to make a difference.

Two patterns emerge from this discussion: (a) teacher pay appears to dominate,

with negative impressions outnumbering the positive and neutral perceptions; and

(b) subjects’ perceptions are mostly neutral or positive with respect to other aspects

of urban teachers.

Summary

Two themes emerge from these findings. First, as a group, the participants are not

equally concerned with all four aspects of urban schools. Some aspects of urban

schools are more prominent in their perceptions. In Table 8, we present the ten

highest sub-categories in terms of the number and percentage. This table reveals

what is most salient.

Among the top 10 sub-categories, four are related to urban school students, three

are related to appearance and atmosphere, and two are related to resources while one

is concerned with pay. The race of urban school students is the most frequently

mentioned aspect of urban schools, a finding that is not surprising in light of the

American society’s continued focus on race and race-related issues.

Second, the subjects’ perceptions of urban schools are complex. In some areas

such as resources and appearance & atmosphere, their perceptions are negative. But

in some sub-categories such as student intelligence, positive and neutral perceptions

outnumber negative ones. Moreover, their perceptions reveal some degree of

savviness. For instance, some responses indicated that they do not completely trust

the media portrayals of urban schools, though they may not know how to think

about urban schools. These findings are not entirely consistent with some of the

earlier studies such as Hynes and Socoski (1991) that suggest that pre-service

teachers are negative in their perceptions of urban schools. There are two reasons

that might explain the more complex and somewhat positive perceptions of urban

Table 8 Top ten areas of participants’ urban school perceptions

Main categories concerning urban schools Sub-categories Mentioned Not mentioned

No. % No. %

Students Race 37 90 4 10

Resources Compu & Internet 32 78 9 22

Students Socio-eco status 31 76 10 24

Students Intel/Ability 27 66 14 34

Appearance & atmosphere Inside 27 66 14 34

Students Motivation 22 54 19 46

Appearance & atmosphere Outside 22 54 19 46

Resources Physical education facility 21 51 20 49

Appearance & atmosphere Atmosphere 20 48 21 52

Teacher Pay 19 44 22 54

286 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

schools. First, we mentioned earlier that prior to taking the survey, the participants

had been introduced to the prospect of field placement in urban schools. In addition,

they participated in discussions of our School’s Conceptual Framework, which

emphasize teaching for social justice and issues such as teacher shortage in urban

schools and the need for more teachers in urban schools. These discussions might

lead the participants to be more positively oriented towards teaching in urban

schools. Second, in contrast with previous studies that asked the subjects directly

whether they like to teach in urban schools, we deliberately refrained from asking

this question, focusing instead on their perceptions of urban schools. By asking the

subjects about the four aspects of urban schools, the question offered the

participants a chance to explore their perceptions of these aspects of urban schools

separately. Not surprisingly, the findings suggest that the participants do not think

uniformly about each and every aspect of urban schools. A more complex and

sometimes positive picture emerges from their urban school perceptions.

Discussions and Implications

We discuss the findings and their implications in this section. To do so, we consider

the sources of the subjects’ perceptions and their implications first. We then discuss

what the findings reveal in terms of the encouraging signs and limitations in the

perceptions of urban schools and explore the implications for teacher preparation.

Sources of Perceptions and their Implications

We asked the participants of this study who or what might have contributed to their

perceptions of urban schools. Their responses identify 17 distinct sources. In

Table 9, we present the top 10 sources, named by above 10% of the responses. Note

that ‘‘Media’’ refers to those respondents who discuss the media in generic terms

without naming specific media forms.

According to Table 9, the sources of the perceptions are of three main types: (a)

media; (b) schooling; and (c) people they are close to. Out of the three major

sources, media has the most impact on their perceptions. This is evidenced by the

fact that the top three sources—movie, television and news—are all part of the

media (see Trier 2005, p. 175 for similar findings). One subject had this to say:

Most of my perceptions about urban schools come from T.V. And movies and

how they portray urban schools, and it usually is not good. It always seems

more dangerous and underfunded. I remember seeing a movie about an urban

school and it had no windows because they were all broken and none of the

students ever listened to their teacher. Also, all the girls had babies and all the

males were drug dealers. (Subject 35)

In addition, schooling and exposure to urban schools impact the subjects’ urban

school perceptions. The people closest to the subjects—namely, family, friends and

teachers—exert some influence, as Table 9 shows. In addition to these 10 sources,

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 287

123

there are 7 other sources. Two—newspaper and books—are each named by 4 (or

10%) of the respondents; three—internet, relatives and classmates—are each

mentioned by 2 (4%) subjects, while two—administrator and magazine—are

suggested by 1 (2%) respondent.

These findings have implications for how to address these perceptions. We

mentioned in the section ‘‘Literature review’’ that the studies that analyze the impact

of urban school placements on subjects’ perceptions report mixed results, with some

reporting changes in participants’ perceptions, while others questioning their effects

(see Proctor et al. 2001 for a review). This result makes sense in light of the fact that

media plays a dominant role in shaping the subjects’ perceptions of urban schools. It

is not surprising that urban school placement by itself has limited impact in

changing the subjects’ perceptions. To influence pre-service teachers’ perceptions of

urban schools, we must address the representation of urban schools by the media

directly (Grant 2002; Beyerbach 2005; Trier 2005). We believe strongly that this

issue must be addressed simultaneously on two fronts.

First, the education community via organizations such as American Federation of

Teachers, National Education Association and United University Professions must

confront the media about its representation of urban schools. To make explicit the

media bias, we must undertake research to investigate the representation of urban

schools by movies, television and news programs, since these media forms exert

tremendous impact on the public’s perceptions. The findings of such research should

be shared with the media and the public so that both are informed about the true

state of urban schools.

Media portrayals too often focus on the negative and problematic aspects of

urban schools and communities. Efforts should be undertaken to highlight the

positive aspects of urban settings. For instance, urban communities offer ‘‘more

progressive ideas, more global awareness, higher concentration of universities, a

wider range of acceptable thinking and acting and proximity to rich cultural

opportunities’’. Furthermore, urban contexts often ‘‘serve as scaffolding upon which

to build our thinking about multicultural education, culturally relevant teaching,

teaching for social justice, education for people with disabilities and several civil

rights initiatives’’ (Fairbrother and Russo 2006, p. 4–5).

Table 9 Sources of

participants’ urban school

perceptions

Source of perception Number Percentage

Movie 20 47

Television 17 41

News 10 24

Schooling 10 24

Exposure to urban schools 9 22

Media 9 22

Family 9 22

Friends 8 20

Teachers 7 17

Peer 5 12

288 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

The education community should take an active role in sharing the stories of

success in urban schools. In selecting the stories, we must highlight the success of

urban schools as a whole (such as the collective role of urban school administrators,

teachers and students) rather than the role of individual actors in an urban setting.

Positive portrayals of urban schools in the media tend to focus on the role of

individuals such as teachers in shaping the learning environment of urban students

(Farber and Holm 1994; Beyerbach 2005). Though these portrayals of individual

teachers can be inspiring, the selective emphasis of individuals creates and

reinforces the misperception that individual teachers are responsible for the success

of urban students. This view ignores the role of policy makers, the community, the

school and family, making it easy to blame urban teachers when problems arise

(Cristensen 1995; Beyerbach 2005).

Second, the media representations of urban schools must be addressed in teacher

preparation courses. Such content can be infused into courses dealing with

education foundations, social studies and multicultural issues (Grant 2002;

Beyerbach 2005; Trier 2005). To address the issue of media representation, we

must develop pre-service teachers’ ability to critically analyze the various media

forms and their representation of urban schools. This ability involves an

understanding of three key issues.

The first issue concerns ‘‘conflict’’. Dramatic representations see ‘‘conflict’’ as an

essential ingredient in story telling. Such ‘‘conflicts’’ may pit motivated teachers

against misfit students (i.e. Dangerous Minds, 187, Freedom Writers), well-

intentioned staff against a hostile school administration, or urban schools against a

drug-infested and crime-ridden urban neighborhood (i.e. 187). Even when some of

these accounts are based on true events, media representations tend to exaggerate

the conflicts to make these stories compelling to watch. The reliance on ‘‘conflicts’’

frequently vilifies large groups (students, administration, and community) while

celebrating individual heroes such as teachers (Farber and Holm 1994; Beyerbach

2005).

The second issue concerns the emphasis on individuals in story-telling. Even

when the success is based on collective efforts, the media tends to focus on

individual actors in telling the story. This focus may be understandable because

such accounts personify the events and make it easy for the readers to connect with

the stories. But they tend to overemphasize the role of individuals and neglect the

collective efforts.

The third issue relates to the fact that the larger social, political, and economic

contexts in which urban schools operate are often missing or at best implied (Farber

and Holm 1994). For the pre-service teachers to understand the media represen-

tation, they must know the larger contexts in which urban schools operate. As

teacher educators, we must introduce into the discussions such issues as the socio-

political context of education (i.e. poverty, immigration, migration), educational

policies (i.e. funding, accountability, standardized testing, disability act), the

public’s perceptions and expectations of schools, the role of community (i.e.

community organizations, leaders and parents) and urban schools as an institution

(in particular, the policy and financial conditions they operate under). Unless these

larger forces that impact urban schools are understood, it is not hard to create the

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 289

123

perception that individuals—rather than institutions—are responsible for the success

and failure of urban schools. These perceptions can lead those considering a

teaching career either to develop an inflated sense of self and see urban teaching as a

‘‘noble’’ mission to ‘‘save’’ students (Groulx 2001, p. 61; Grant 2002, p. 85) or to

feel powerless and overwhelmed by the sheer prospect of teaching in an urban

setting.

To summarize, we advocate a two-pronged approach to address the media

representation of urban schools. First, we must confront the media about its

representation of urban schools. The constant and often negative portrayals of urban

schools have taken their toll on the public’s perceptions. Unless these represen-

tations become more balanced, we cannot change the image of urban schools as an

undesirable place to work. Second, we must develop pre-service teachers’ ability to

analyze the media critically, in particular, its representation of urban schools. In this

regard, we believe that the education community has a lot to learn from civil rights

groups such as those that champion gay rights, which are actively engaged both in

changing media representations while educating the public about the issues and

problems faced by members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gendered

communities.

Implications for Teacher Preparation

Apart from addressing the media representation, we must use teacher preparation

courses to develop the pre-service teachers’ understanding of urban schooling. This

involves using urban placements as a vehicle to broaden pre-service teachers’

exposure to urban schools. Research suggests that some exposure to urban schools

can help pre-service teachers to sort out their perceptions of urban schools. For

example, some subjects suggest that urban school teachers must be special or

‘‘noble’’ because they have to deal with more complex problems (see also Ross and

Smith 1992). This somewhat romantic view of urban school teachers may be

challenged by real teachers in urban settings. We believe that urban school

placements must emphasize exposure to high-quality model urban schools and

master teachers (Foster 2004), given the pre-dominantly negative perceptions of

pre-service teachers (Zeichner 1996; Proctor et al. 2001). More importantly, teacher

educators must help preservice teachers to make sense of their field experiences by

encouraging them to share and analyze their urban school experiences (Mason 1999;

Groulx 2001; Proctor et al. 2001; Foster 2004). This involves helping them

understand the context and nature of their urban school exposure.

Though the discussions of media representations and urban placements can create

more balanced perceptions of urban schools, it is important not to overemphasize

their effect for two reasons. First, they exert limited positive impact. Second, urban

placements and the instructional time for discussing media representations of urban

schools are limited. This is particularly true for those who attend education colleges

in rural or suburban communities, as is the case with our School of Education.

Geographic locales restrict access to urban schools. As such, we cannot rely only on

these two strategies.

290 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

The one avenue where we have to develop pre-service teachers’ understanding of

urban schools lies in the significant number of teacher preparation courses they take.

These courses, if carefully designed and implemented, can have the largest impact

on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of urban schools (Proctor et al. 2001). In this

regard, the findings reported earlier offer some insights. In what follows, we first

present what we consider to be the encouraging signs and limitations in the subjects’

urban school perceptions before discussing their implications for teacher

preparation.

We see clear, encouraging signs in the subjects’ perceptions of urban schools.

Four key encouraging aspects of what they expect from urban schools are: (a) urban

school student populations are likely to be more diverse; (b) urban school students

are not much different in terms of their potential to learn and succeed academically;

(c) urban school resources are limited and limited resources, combined with higher

student populations, can impact performance; and (d) urban schools may have to

contend with issues such as crime, drugs, and violence in ways more visible than

most suburban or rural schools.

There are limitations in their perceptions of urban schools as well. These

limitations lie in diversity in student population, the role of resources and other

physical aspects of schools, and factors affecting student learning. Regarding

diversity in student population, their perceptions are limited in two aspects. First,

most of our subjects mention only African and Latino Americans. Yet the minority

students enrolled by urban schools even in smaller urban communities are not

limited to these groups. Moreover, there exists diversity within each group as well.

For instance, Latino Americans include those born and raised in the United States as

well as those recent immigrants from Puerto Rico, Mexico, Cuba, etc. These groups

differ in terms of their education, English language proficiency, and cultural

upbringing.

Second, urban schools enroll a higher percentage of students with disabilities and

students with limited English proficiency (Kincheloe 2004, p. 5–8). These two

diversities may have a more direct impact on urban schools in areas such as staffing,

teacher expertise and the need for professional development, and resources. The

push for the inclusion of students with disabilities and the mixing of LEP students

with native English speaking students mean that more and more teachers need to

develop expertise in handling these two student populations. This problem is

exacerbated at the same time by a shortage of specialists in these two areas.

According to the letter sent to Presidents and Chief Executive Officers of Colleges

and Universities offering teacher preparation programs by New York State

Commissioner of Education Richard P. Mills on December 23, 2004, New York

State alone anticipates a shortage of 4305 teachers in special education and 828

TESOL teachers. With the push for inclusion and a teacher shortage, it increasingly

becomes every teacher’s responsibility to educate these students. The fact that few

of our respondents mention these diversities suggests that they do not anticipate

dealing with such students at a time when the opposite is true.

Resources figure prominently in the participants’ perceptions of urban schools.

Of the top ten salient sub-categories, technology and physical education facilities

come in at No. 2 and No. 8. In addition, perceptions about physical aspects of urban

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 291

123

schools are salient as well. This focus on physical and external aspects of urban

schools may not be surprising (see i.e. Marxen and Rudney 1999). Their prominence

may suggest the importance attached to these aspects of urban schools. Computer

technology, physical education facilities, sense of safety can play a role in

instruction and affect students’ motivation to learn. But their direct effect on student

learning and achievement is limited. This brings us to the third issue, what they see

as impacting student learning.

As far as factors affecting student learning are concerned, according to our

subjects, students in urban schools possess the same potential to learn as students in

suburban and rural schools. But they believe that this potential is more likely to be

curtailed by factors such as violence and crime, parental support, lack of time or the

absence of meaningful goals. We are encouraged by these perceptions of urban

school students. But missing from this list is the role of instruction (Hogan and

Rabinowitz 2003). There is no denial that parental support, time and other

constraints can impact student motivation and learning. But research has shown

repeatedly that of the factors affecting student achievement, instruction plays the

dominant role (Craig et al. 2005; Hall and Kennedy 2006). Moreover, this is the one

area that teachers have the most control over. Unless our subjects understand the

role quality instruction plays, we should not be surprised at their unwillingness to

choose urban teaching or their inability to last when they do. According to Greene

(1999) and Brunetti (2001), the key causes of job satisfaction are not pay, access to

technology or other physical aspects of a work place, but one’s sense of

accomplishment on the job. For teachers, instruction and its impact on students

are related most directly to this sense of accomplishment (Proctor et al. 2001).

These findings, we believe, have much to offer for teacher preparation, in

particular, curriculum planning and design. First, teacher preparation courses should

emphasize the extent of diversity in urban student population. Part of this instruction

should be aimed at developing pre-service teachers’ awareness of diversities not just

in race and class but in ability and English language proficiency. They need to

understand the implications of these differences for curriculum planning and design,

instructional strategies and teacher–student interactions. For instance, the inclusion

of students with disabilities, combined with the push-in of special education

specialists, means that teachers in charge of inclusion classes must consider the

needs of students with disabilities in lesson planning, learn to work with other

specialists, and incorporate learning activities and strategies that benefit not only

students without disabilities but also students with disabilities.

Second, we must help pre-service teachers to see these diversities not just as

problems but as assets (Fairbrother and Russo 2006). In recent years, a number of

teachers have published books about their experiences teaching in urban schools,

describing in details their attempts to capitalize on students’ social, cultural and

linguistic backgrounds in designing their instruction. In The Freedom Writers Diary:How a Teacher and 150 Teens Used Writing to Change Themselves and the WorldAround Them co-authored by Erin Gruwell and her mostly African and Latino

American students in Los Angeles, Gruwell (1999) describes how she uses students’

diaries and other accounts of their home life to select appropriate literature not only

to help them to develop their emerging literacy but also to help them to make sense of

292 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

the violence, drug and gang activities that surround them (see also Michie 1999 for

his account of teaching mostly Hispanic students in a Chicago school).

Third, pre-service teachers should develop a more accurate understanding of the

factors responsible for student motivation and learning, in particular, the role

effective instruction plays. One way to develop this understanding is to expose pre-

service teachers to high quality instruction by master teachers. Foster (2004)

describes one such professional development course in which students observed a

master teacher with more than 20 years of experience. They met for three hours each

time and three times a week. Each time, they spent two hours observing and one

hour discussing what they observed. Over the course of 24 weeks, they observed,

took notes and worked with students individually and in small and large groups. One

significant change, according to Foster (2004, p. 404), is that these urban teachers

gradually reframe classroom problems from ‘‘being student-based to being

instruction-based’’.

As the research shows, discussions of media representations and urban school

placements can change pre-service teachers’ perceptions of urban schools. We

believe that these strategies, when coupled with a carefully designed curriculum that

addresses urban school issues on a systematic and on-going basis, can transform

their perceptions of urban schools and make urban schools a desirable work place.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for discussion of important points

within this article: Bobbi Schnorr, Barb Beyerbach, Sharon Kane, Tania Ramalho, Pat Russo, Chris

Walsh, Mary Harrell, Pam Michel and anonymous reviewers for The Urban Review.

References

Anderson, P. M., & Summerfield, J. P. (2004). Why is urban education different from suburban and rural

education? In S. R. Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city(pp. 29–40). New York: Peter Lang.

Armour-Thomas, E. (2004). What is the nature of evaluation and assessment in an urban context? In S. R.

Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 109–118). New

York: Peter Lang.

Bakari, R. (2003). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward teaching African American students. UrbanEducation, 38(6), 640–654.

Banks, D. N., & Stave, A. M. (1996). Changes in preservice teacher attitudes concerning urban teaching:

A case study. Paper presented at the 48th annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges

for Teacher Education, Chicago, IL. ED 394 913.

Beyerbach, B. (2005). Themes in sixty years of teachers in film: Fast Times, Dangerous Minds, Stand on

Me. Educational Studies, 37(3), 267–285.

Bondy, E., & Ross, D. (1998). Confronting myths about teaching black children: A challenge for teacher

educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(4), 251–254.

Brunetti, G. J. (2001). Why do they teach? A study of long-term high school teachers. Teacher EducationQuarterly, 28(3), 49–74.

Craig, J., Butler, A., Cairo, L. III, Wood, C., Gilchrist, C., Holloway, J., Williams, S., & Moats, S. (2005).

A case study of six high-performing schools in Tennessee. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational

Laboratory. Available through ERIC: ED489122.

Cristensen, L. (1995). Dangerous minds: Decoding a classroom. Rethinking Schools (Fall), 22–26.

Easter, L. M., Shultz, E. L., Neyhart, T. K., & Reck, U. M. (1999). Weighty perceptions: A study of the

attitudes and beliefs of preservice teacher education students regarding diversity and urban

education. The Urban Review, 31(2), 205–220.

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 293

123

Fairbrother, A., Davis, R. D., London, A., MacEntee, V., Parsons, D., Peng, B. L., Russo, P., & Wells, S.

(2007). Enhancing the quality of pre-teachers’ experiences: Urban education from a non-urban

perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

Fairbrother, A., & Russo, P. (2006). Doing Urban Education: The role of a non-urban teacher preparation

program in supporting urban schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Farber, P., & Holm, G. (1994). A brotherhood of heroes: The charismatic educator in recent American

movies. In P. Farber, E. Provenzo, & G. Holm (Eds.), Schooling in the light of popular culture.

Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban public school. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.

Foster, M. (2004). An innovative professional development program for urban teachers. Phi DeltaKappan, January, 401–406.

Freedom Writers & Gruwell, E. 1999. The Freedom Writers diary: How a teacher and 150 teens usedwriting to change themselves and the world around them. Main Street Books.

Fuhrman, S. (2002). Urban education challenges: Is reform the answer? http://www.urbanedjournal.org/

archive/Issue%201/FeatureArticles/article0004.html.

Goldstein, R. A. (2004). Who are our urban students and what makes them so ‘‘different?’’ In S. R.

Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 41–52). New

York: Peter Lang.

Grant, P. A. (2002). Using popular films to challenge pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching in urban

schools. Urban Education, 37(1), 77–95.

Greene, K. (1999). Job satisfaction, intention to leave, and the quality of teachers’ interactions with

children. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 7(2), 7–18.

Groulx, J. G. (2001). Changing preservice teacher perceptions of minority schools. Urban Education,36(1), 60–92.

Haberman, M. (1991). Can cultural awareness be taught in teacher education? Teacher Education, 4(1),

25–31.

Hall, D., & Kennedy, S. (2006). Primary progress, secondary challenge: A state-by-state look at student

achievement patterns. Washington, DC: Education Trust. Available through ERIC: ED409942.

Hill, J. (2004). What is urban education in an age of standardization, scripted learning? In S. R. Steinberg

& J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.), 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 119–126). New York: Peter

Lang.

Hogan, T., & Rabinowitz, M. (2003). Representation in teaching: Inferences from research of expert and

novice Teachers. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 235–247.

Hynes, J. L., & Socoski, P. (1991). Undergraduates’ attitudes toward teaching in urban and non-urban

schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association,

Boston, MA. ED 362 498.

Kharem, H. (2004). What does it mean to be in a Gang? In S. R. Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.),

19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 99–108). New York: Peter Lang.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2002). The Sign of the Burger: McDonald’s and the Culture of Power. Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press.

Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). Why a book on urban education?. In S. R. Steinberg & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.),

19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 1–28). New York: Peter Lang.

Kozol, J. (1992). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York: Harper Perennial.

Mantsios, G. (1998). Class in America: Myths, realities. In P. Rothenberg, (Ed.), Race, class and genderin the United States: An integrated study, 4th edn. (pp. 202–214). New York: St. Martin’s

Publishers.

Marxen, C. E., & Rudney, G. L. (1999). An urban field experience for rural preservice teachers: ‘‘I am not

afraid – Should I be? Teacher Education Quarterly, 26(1), 61–73.

Mason, T. C. (1997). Urban field experiences and prospective teachers’ attitudes toward inner city

schools. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 29–40.

Mason, T. C. (1999). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward urban schools: Can they be changed?

Multicultural Education, 6(4), 9–13.

Michie, G. (1999). Holler if you hear me: The education of a teacher and his students. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

294 Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295

123

http://www.urbanedjournal.org/archive/Issue%201/FeatureArticles/article0004.html

http://www.urbanedjournal.org/archive/Issue%201/FeatureArticles/article0004.html

Olmedo, I. M. (1997). Challenging old assumptions: Preparing teachers for inner-city schools. Teachingand Teacher Education, 13(3), 245–258.

Pagano, A., Weiner, L., Obi, R., & Swearingen, J. (1995). How student teaching in an urban setting

affects teacher candidates’ career motivations. The Urban Review, 27(1), 51–76.

Pasch, S., Pasch, M., Johnson, R., Ilmer, S., Snyder, J., Stapleton, E., Hamilton, A., & Mooradian, P.

(1993). Reflections of urban education: A tale of three cities. In M. J. Ohair & S. J. Odell (Eds.),

Diversity and teaching: Teacher education yearbook I (pp. 9–30). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich College Publishers.

Proctor, T. J., Rentz, N. L., & Jackson, M. W. (2001). Preparing teachers for urban schools: The role of

field experiences. The Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(4), 219–232.

Ross, D. D., & Smith, W. (1992). Understanding preservice teachers’ perspectives on diversity. Journalof Teacher Education, 43(2), 94–103.

Rubinson, F. (2004). Urban dropouts: Why so many and what can be done?. In S. R. Steinberg & J. L.

Kincheloe (Eds.), 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city (pp. 53–68). New York: Peter Lang.

Schultz, E., Neyhart, T., & Reck, U. (1996). Swimming against the tide: A study of prospective teachers’

attitudes regarding cultural diversity and urban teaching. Western Journal of Black Studies, 20(1),

1–7.

Snyder, J. F. (1995). Teacher supply and demand: A 1995 MAASCUS research report. Published by

Association for School, College, and University Staffing, Madison, WI. Available through ERIC:

ED390866.

Steinberg, S. R., & Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). 19 Urban questions: Teaching in the city. New York: Peter

Lang.

Trier, J. (2005). ‘Sordid Fantasies’: Reading popular ‘inner-city’ school films as racialized texts with pre-

service teachers. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(2), 171–189.

Weiner, L. (1990). Preparing the brightest for urban schools. Urban Education, 25(3), 258–273.

Wells, A., & Serman, T. (1998). Education against all odds: What films teach us about schools. In G.

Maeroff (Ed.), Imaging education: The media and schools in America. New York: Columbia

University Press.

Wiggins, R. A., & Follo, E. J. (1999). Development of knowledge, attitudes and commitment to teach

diverse student populations. Journal of Teacher Education, 50(2), 94–105.

Wolffe, R. (1996). Reducing preservice teachers’ negative expectations of urban field experience.

Teacher Education Quarterly, 23(1), 99–106.

Zeichner, K. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. Gomez

(Eds.), Current reform in preservice education (pp. 133–175). New York: Teachers College Press.

Urban Rev (2008) 40:268–295 295

123

Documents

Pre-service Teachers’ Perceptions of Urban Schools