Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Race is a marker hiding more complex narratives. Children identify the social cues that continue to segregate based on race, yet too often teachers fail to provide support for making sense of these worlds. Current critical scholarship highlights the importance of addressing issues of race, culture, and social justice with future teachers. The timing of this work is urgent as health, social and civil unrest due to systemic racism in the U.S. raise critiques and also open possibilities to reimagine early childhood education. Classroom teachers feel pressure to standardize pedagogy and outcomes yet meet myriad student needs and talents in complex settings. This study builds on the current literature as it uses one case study to explore institutional messages and student perceptions in a future teacher education program that centers race, culture, identity, and social justice. Teaching as a caring profession is explored to illuminate the impact authentic, aesthetic, and rhetorical care may have in classrooms. Using key tenets of Critical Race Theory as an analytical tool enhanced the case study process by focusing the inquiry on identity within a racist society. Four themes are highlighted related to institutional values, rigorous coursework, white privilege, and connecting individual racial and cultural understanding with classroom practice. With consideration of ethical relationality, teacher education programs begin to address the impact of racist histories. This work calls for individualized critical inquiry regarding future teacher understanding of “self” in new contexts as well as an investigation of how teacher education programs fit into larger institutional philosophies.

Keywords

Critical Race Theory early childhood teacher education identity pedagogies of care

Introduction

I think we are all equal, really. I don’t treat anyone differently just because of the color of their skin. I mean if anything I have to work harder (as a white student teacher) because now they (students of color) have an unfair advantage because of affirmative action. (Betsy, Teacher Prep University¹, the beginning of the Cultural and Racial Identity seminar, 2011)

In the United States (U.S.), many dominant (white) culture members employ the idea that racism no longer exists. Yet race, as one marker of identity, hides more complex narratives. Young children recognize racial and social worlds and are aware of social cues that continue to segregate based on race (Connolly, 1998; Van Ausdale and Feagin, 2001). Too often, teachers fail to provide support and tools for children to make sense of a racialized world. Young children recognize inequitable social systems, and our education systems reinforce incomplete histories that fail to explicitly acknowledge the power dynamics attached to race. With consideration of teaching as a “caring” profession, an examination of multiple modes of care, from authentic care to problematic forms of rhetorical and aesthetic caring, illuminates the tendency for teachers to connect on the issue of race as saviors for children (Noddings, 2005; Rolon-Dow, 2005; Toshalis, 2012). The data in this project support the need for preservice teachers to revisit conceptions of race and privilege as these connect to equity and just practices for all children and families.

Impetus

At this political intersection with increased focus on the COVID-19 pandemic, economic uncertainty and social and civil unrest due to systemic racism, centering anti-racist education is imperative. Racially, ethnically, and linguistically diverse student populations fill early childhood classrooms in the U.S. (Kids Count: Data Center, 2018). The continued trend, based on academic achievement, suggests that students of color are not achieving their potential in school (Gay, 2010; Horsford, 2011). This creates, at a minimum, a demographic requirement to acknowledge the impact of race on teaching to meet the diverse needs of varied and vibrant students. There is a need for a critical “socio-cultural consciousness” as teachers are influenced by identity group experiences (racial, ethnic, linguistic, ability, etc.) particularly as this aspect of self has access to power (Darling-Hammond, 2005; Johnson and Heimer, 2016). Placing preservice teachers in “diverse” settings may be enough to meet this need; however, if the call to address the pervasive inequity toward achievement is to be taken seriously, teacher educators must consider specific and global changes in curricular and pedagogical approaches (Heimer et al., 2019; Nxumalo and Cedillo, 2017). In this article, the role of a colonizing history as it relates to preservice teachers’ understanding of self in relation to their student population is considered. Critical reflection and discussion of salvation narratives highlight the tricky nature of the ethics of care. Considering teachers as caregivers requires examination of multiple modes of care from authentic care, that minimizes inequity and emphasizes relationship, to problematic forms of rhetorical and aesthetic caring, that potentially employ salvation narratives and inflict symbolic violence (Toshalis, 2012).

Significance

Those who care for and teach young children in the U.S. have been historically undervalued. Across the PreK-12 development levels of education, early childhood educators are the most racially diverse (Whitebook et al., 2018). There is an opportunity to build on this strength. This research, offers one way to recognize the continued systemic racial stratification through future teacher education programs and explore the impact of racism with preservice teachers who will work with our youngest children (Doucet et al., 2013). Fueled by the need to address student outcomes, a crisis of care, where authentic social bonding is illusive, is examined as it connects to preservice teachers’ tendency to employ salvation narratives when working with populations of students who have been historically marginalized (Dadvand and Cuervo, 2020; Fraser, 2016). To further unpack categories of care as authentic or rhetorical applying principles of decolonization and Critical Race Theory was instrumental.

Decolonization

In the U.S. a legacy of forced assimilation through boarding schools, slavery and immigration shape both ethnic and racial understanding of self. Curriculum and pedagogy employ Euro-western approaches that center dominant perspectives. To address the historical legacy of racism, critical decentering of western epistemologies across education systems is needed through a “radical reconstitution of the values underwriting canon, rationality, and ways of being” (De Lissovoy, 2019: 1). This is a monumental undertaking, yet evidence exists that shifts are happening. Indigenous scholars, among others, consider the impact of Indigenous epistemology in research and pedagogy that address “social, political, and environmental complications created by coloniality” (Sumida Huaman et al., 2019: 1). Donald (2009) suggests ethical relationality that focuses on particular historical, cultural and social contexts that forefront our interaction, and thus highlights difference. Specifically, “Ethical relationality is an ecological understanding of human relationality that does not deny difference, but rather seeks to more deeply understand how our different histories and experiences position us in relation to each other” (Donald, 2009: 6). Decentering dominant voice is multi-layered and permeates all levels of interaction by addressing a false dichotomy of self and other, exploring connection through difference, and honoring shifts to recognize diverse ways of being as powerful. This case study builds on the current literature to explore institutional messages seeking to honor equity in education, and explores preservice teachers’ perceptions in one early childhood education teaching program that centers race, culture, identity and social justice.

Critical Race Theory

Within the last 20 years, critical scholarship has emerged that highlights the importance of addressing issues of race, culture and social justice in our classrooms with future teachers (Gay and Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 2005; Love, 2019; Marx and Pennington, 2003; Nieto, 2010). Studies have also considered the use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in teacher education, offering specific suggestions for activities with future teachers such as integration of storytelling and reflective practices (Marx and Pennington, 2003; Solorzano and Yosso, 2001).

CRT requires the study of privilege and oppression explicitly as these connect to our racial experiences. Specifically, as suggested in the vignette with Betsy, the topic of white privilege is a part of this dialogue (Rothenberg, 2002). Marx and Pennington (2003), propose the study of “whiteness” suggesting that it “has been avoided in teacher preparation programs owing to the perceptions that it is either ‘immaterial or dangerous’” (p. 106). Howard (2010) also stresses that students of color build a critical consciousness of their racial and cultural identity in order to authentically connect with all children. Because the topic of race can be sensitive and varied, faculty must carefully consider appropriate pedagogical approaches. In the work of Gay and Kirkland (2003), the use of reflection and dialogue address issues of racial “consciousness.” Reflection connects to CRT in the form of storytelling and narrative to recount experiences with a focus on the non-dominant “raced” voices.

Using Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a tool to analyze the college mission and standards, as well as a correlating interview question for six focal preservice teachers, this research supports existing literature outlining the need for culturally relevant practice both in early childhood classrooms and in pre-service teacher education (Gay, 2010; Genishi and Haas Dyson, 2009; Ladson-Billings, 1995). In addition, using Critical Race Theory (CRT) deepens insight of educational practice to illuminate larger political and social movements at work (Delgado and Stefancic, 2000; Gillborn, 2006). Stand-alone diversity courses are not enough, practicum experiences in diverse settings are not enough, rather a thread that connects teacher education curriculum with continued exploration of group membership and power in a pluralistic society is needed.

Critical inquiry is used to explore early childhood future teacher understanding of “self” in new contexts as well as investigate how teacher education programs fit into a larger institutional philosophy. The connection among core values as an institution, education standards at Langley College, and one required course focusing on racial and cultural identities are explored. This work is timely as classroom teachers feel pressure to standardize pedagogy and outcomes yet meet myriad student needs and talents, thus creating a “crisis of care” (Fraser, 2016).

Methodology

Context

A small liberal arts college on the East Coast of the U.S., Langley College prepares future teachers, social workers and child life professionals for service to children and families. Through an interdisciplinary approach, Langley faculty members teach professionals who are knowledgeable, critical thinkers, and who promote social justice in their daily practice (Adapted from the Langley College website, April 2011). The college serves approximately 752 undergraduate students identifying as 93% Female, 7% Male, 20% ALANA (African, Latino, Asian, or Native American), and 91% of the undergraduates are on financial aid, many are first generation college students (Adapted from the Langley College website, April 2011).

Framework

Critical Race Theory (CRT) was chosen as an analytical tool as it explicitly requires consideration of the experience of particular lives. CRT provides a way to “name” and highlight how racism is perpetuated through “colorblind” practices. Born in reaction to Critical Legal Studies (Ladson-Billings, 1998), CRT focuses on inequity. More recently this work has been connected to research in education (Dixson and Rousseau, 2005; Howard, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1998) as well as work with future teachers (Brown, 2014; Marx and Pennington, 2003). Three key tenets of CRT facilitate the analysis of this research. First, the CRT notion that the context we live in is culturally constructed to build a particular (racist) reality is salient (Delgado and Stefancic, 2000). At Langley, this tenet connects to the Cultural and Racial Identity (CRI) course with topics that consider privilege and oppression particularly as they relate to the historical legacy in the U.S. and “Americanization.” Second, the use of story (and counter story) telling is a useful tool in creating connections to lived experiences to build a foundation of understanding toward advocacy for justice. Finally, the notion of “interest convergence” illuminates the systemic and political shifts that, while superficially inclusive, only continue when they serve the interests of the dominant white culture (Bell, 1987). The idea of interest convergence is most apparent in conversations that consider institutional racism and the accumulated impact of racism. Using these key principles from CRT four themes emerged including 1) the impact of institutional values, 2) rigorous coursework, 3) white privilege and 4) the connection of individual racial and cultural understanding with classroom practice.

Data collection and analysis

The data for this case study were collected from the college literature including the college mission, vision, education standards and course syllabi and from interviews conducted with six focal preservice teachers at Langley College (Stake, 1995). The interviews originated from a larger study of interdisciplinary curriculum (Heimer and Winokur, 2015). This paper specifically considers how six preservice teachers applied concepts learned in their Cultural and Racial Identities (CRI) course to their final student teaching experiences. The thirty-six participants for the original study self-identified as: 85% White including one male student, the remaining 15% identified as African American, or “bi-racial.” From this pool, the first six volunteers were interviewed. The six focal preservice teachers were white women responding to the question “How did the cultural and racial identities class impact or influence your teaching?” There were multiple sections of the course, one was taught by a teacher identifying as a white woman and the other identified as an African American man. Participants did not indicate their instructor and responses were audio-taped and transcribed.

Using three tenets of CRT (we live in a racial and racist society, the instrumental use of story telling, and interest convergence) as analytical tools, enhanced the case study process by focusing the inquiry on identity within a racist society. Using the tenets as external codes, data were coded across sources (literature, syllabi, and interviews). Using these codes, memos were created to compile the coded data (Graue and Walsh, 1998). Four themes emerged related to institutional values, rigorous coursework, white privilege and connecting individual racial and cultural understanding with classroom practice (Huberman and Miles, 1998; Strauss and Corbin, 2014). This research is a pilot study for future work with pre-service teachers to consider the impact of explicit coursework focusing on racial and cultural critical consciousness and the impact of that experience on pedagogical practice in early education programs. Institutional approval was granted by Langley College for any data referenced in the paper.

Findings

Institutional values

Mission and standards

While the mission: “To improve the lives of children and families.” is broad, the focus on children and families continues in the vision.

As a private college with a public mission. . . we contribute to the vitality of families, communities, and societies by: educating students who are well prepared academically and as practitioners with real-world experience -ready to be leaders and advocates, confident in their abilities, and sought after in a wide range of careers; advocating for programs, policies, and laws that enhance the quality of life for children and families. (Langley College website, April 2011)

At Langley there is a set of seven standards applied throughout all education classes. These standards included faculty input across the college.

Standard 1 Advocacy for Social Justice

Standard 2 Understanding All Children in their Many Dimensions

Standard 3 Knowledge of Content and Integrated Curriculum

Standard 4 Use of educational practices that foster learning, development, and achievement for all the nation’s children

Standard 5 Assessment in a Multi-Racial, Multicultural Democracy

Standard 6 Reflective Practice

Standard 7 Family, Community, and Professional Partnerships in a Diverse Society

The standards provide the framework for all programs and are explicitly referenced in syllabi, class sessions and assignments. As the bolded key terms suggest, the teacher education program at Langley College is seeking to support students in better understanding their newly forming identity as a teacher and member of a diverse context and given this, how they will teach in diverse settings. In addition, students are expected to understand the complexity and importance of collaboration and communication with families and colleagues from diverse settings and backgrounds. Finally, reflective practice (Standard 6) is a tool used as part of the pedagogy of the school to understand self (as a cultural being and a teacher) in society. The mission, vision and specific standards provide a supportive context to explore the topic of race as it relates to “social justice” and a “multi-racial democracy.” Given this ambitious agenda, the focus for this paper explores Standard 1.

Education Standard 1: Advocacy for Social Justice

Educators who embrace a social justice perspective are attentive to inequalities associated with race, social class, gender, language, and other social categories. They consciously look for alternatives to established educational practices that support the learning, development, and academic achievement of all children whose backgrounds place them outside of the dominant culture. They employ multicultural, anti-racist, anti-bias educational practices that foster deep engagement in learning and high academic achievement among all of the nation’s children.

Using the CRT lens, this standard supports the notion that there is a dominant discourse at play that excludes particular children in our classrooms. This standard is one of action to “employ multicultural, anti-racist, anti-bias educational practices. . . .” There is a need for future teachers to understand and internalize key concepts such a culture, race, ethnicity, privilege and oppression before enacting such a key standard. Therefore, the standards function only as an assessment of practice for students or a benchmark rather than a method to employ. Pragmatically, the placement of the standards is significant. Throughout the education courses these standards are tied to assignments, therefore students read them regularly and usually in numerical order to determine how they apply to their learning. This placement as first standard, puts notions of “social justice” front and center in the curriculum of the school.

The cultural and racial identities course

This course is distinctly different from the offerings of other schools because its focus is on the self rather than the other. It requires participants to consider their own social identity in terms of race, ethnicity, social class, gender, citizenship; and to think about how their identity will influence and inform their work with students and their families (course description from on-line course catalog, 2010).

The description reinforces a notion of self and other, yet also suggests the self-reflection may represent a form of ethical relationality through consideration of self as part of a broader context (Donald, 2009). Historically, the Cultural and Racial Identities course had been a two-credit course representing a “half” course. A full course was considered to be four credits. The readings and theoretical approaches are complex thus institutional support for the full class was warranted. The bibliography highlights the existence of racism in the U.S. and also provides socio-cultural and psychological models for understanding the role of the individual in perpetuating racist ideology (Ferdman and Gallegos, 2001; Johnson, 2006; Mukhopadhyay and Henze, 2004; Rothenberg, 2002; Tatum, 2003). While the readings were rigorous, the assignments provided in class discussion, reflective essays, and presentations allowed preservice teachers to “work with” the material in many formats. Formats included readings, a self-interview, reflective essays, in-class activities, guest speakers and small and large group sharing. The required participatory and introspective aspects of this course may be unfamiliar to some students.

Many early education preservice teachers get into education to “help those less privileged” or work with “at risk” students. Preservice teachers frequently cite the lack of family involvement as creating a greater need for “caring” teachers. This salvation narrative within a deficit model is dangerous and harmful for children and families as it fails to acknowledge the funds of knowledge that children bring to class (Delpit, 1995; Gonzalez et al., 2005; Popkewitz, 1998). This form of aesthetic care, or the idea that those cared for are in need of help, carries the potential for teachers to exert symbolic violence in the relationship (Rolon-Dow, 2005). This power dynamic perpetuates inequities across categories of being and depletes the capacity for social bonding across race and class (Fraser, 2016).

Following the curriculum, issues of race and racism were raised and de-constructed illuminating complex ideas such as interest convergence (Delgado and Stefancic, 2000). Preservice teachers start with a reflection of “lived experience” and a structured self-interview, specifically geared toward race. Assignments and readings are shifted from a focus on self to a broader look at society. Subsequently, preservice teachers shift their narrative from a colorblind focus (beginning quote) to acknowledging continued inequities based on social categories such as race (focal interviews). Employing ethical relationality to study historical movements such as Indian boarding schools and slavery, and using resources including the PBS series “Race the Power of an Illusion” decentered the dominant discourse (Donald, 2009). Through naming the systemic perpetuation of racism, preservice teachers were faced with the reality that racism is not a thing of the past. In essence, once they saw race as a social construct and worked with examples of prejudice, oppression and systemic racism, it was hard to return to the safety of being “colorblind.”

Work for social justice is evident on all levels at Langley College. Questioning and reflecting on teacher identity within a pluralistic society is valued; however, it may occur to different degrees as each preservice teacher experiences the program. Addressing issues of racism is named as a priority in line with tenets of CRT to consider oneself in a racial and cultural context. Langley College has created the space to teach and talk about issues clearly related to identity as it is socially constructed. This is explicitly explored in the CRI college classroom. In addition, the mission and standards for the school create a foundation that suggests a need to understand not only a “diverse” society but a “multi-racial” democracy, thus naming the social institutions that shape and are shaped by children’s lives. Additional themes illuminated in the data include the rigorous academic workload, discomfort with white privilege and making connections in the early childhood classroom.

Rigorous coursework

While the college offers consistency across contexts in terms of social justice, the mandatory Cultural and Racial Identity Course (CRI) requires preservice teachers to explore and reflect on complex concepts such as identity, race, privilege, oppression and historical legacies. The CRI course has been taught for over three decades and has built a reputation as being rigorous and tough to pass. As illustrated in the following quotes, preservice teachers struggled with the breadth of material.

I really hated my life when I took CRI because it’s so much work and so much reading . . .I feel like I gained a lot but I also missed a lot because I am rushing to read everything because I am the kid that’s going to read everything because I want to know everything but I think that I also felt a sense of trying to rush it which was stressful and then I’m losing things because I am overwhelming myself (Karen, interview spring 2010)

While it may be common for preservice teachers to complain about the depth and volume of work expectations in college, the notion of “hating life” is troubling. This idea of an insurmountable workload was found throughout the interviews.

Because that was the first time in college where I had a lot of work, I wasn’t really enjoying it, I had to do it. (Bonnie, interview spring 2010).

The reading load was heavier than most classes and explored content not directly tied to the curriculum of early childhood classrooms (Johnson, 2006). In other words, this class wasn’t about translating or facilitating learning in academic content areas for young children, it was about learning about oneself in a broader racial and cultural context. Was the “hate,” as quoted by Karen earlier, about grappling with dense texts, grappling with emotionally charged content or both?

Data is insufficient to suggest that the rigor and content created the feelings of frustration; however, the content, format and load in combination were new to preservice teachers and, therefore, became the line of first response when interviewed. In addition, articulating discomfort with workload versus the content itself may feel more familiar than suggesting discomfort with issues of caring that center race and cultural difference.

Discomfort with white privilege

To move beyond a neoliberal pedagogy of productivity, preservice teachers must “unpack their own beliefs, values and assumptions” (Dadvand and Cuervo, 2020: 147). Topics for class sessions included: identity, culture, group membership and identity, American identity, historical legacy, racism, oppression, power and privilege, race, culture & classroom practice. The preservice teachers who volunteered for interviews were all white women.

I felt very attacked by that class in a way. . . the way that my class was run was very, like, whites are bad. And that was like kind of one of the things I got out with: like, oh, I feel horrible. . .I feel bad about myself. (Bonnie, interview spring 2010)

I left confused and I left with all these different emotions like one day I’ll be mad, . . .but there were things that I just completely did not realize and people’s culture’s, people’s lifestyles, all of that I think was so helpful because I’d never come in contact with that . . .so really to kind of have it thrown in your face just like that, it’s hard but I think its necessary because the schools that we teach in definitely are not like anything that I grew up in. . .(Karen, interview spring 2010)

Preservice teachers raise strong feelings as they recount their experiences, even though the interview took place three semesters after the course ended. Traditionally this course had been taught with two co-teachers. This format was intentional to provide a mixed racial and/or gendered team to model inclusivity and represent a broader perspective. The co-teaching model had been dismantled due to budget issues and, therefore, the interviewees did not benefit from varied racial leadership. The pool of instructors over time had included representation from a variety of racial, cultural, gendered and linguistic perspectives. The explicit presentation of topics of whiteness, privilege, and power, while one of many topics in the course, was most applicable, and perhaps shocking, to these preservice teachers. Using CRT, highlights the problematic nature of being “colorblind” as preservice teachers enter classrooms of children without the level of racial self- awareness needed to connect with students and families who are Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC). Without a better understanding of their racial identities in relation to power and privilege there is a danger that students enter classrooms ready to “save children” reinforcing aesthetic versus authentic care. (Davis, 2009; Rolon-Dow, 2005). This, perhaps, “rude” awakening to a racial identity was indeed part of the course.

But it happens with a lot more in your face and you know this is really what’s happening and also this is how you can be part of a change. This is how you can advocate for these things (equality/social justice). That you know you believe(in) and that you value. (Leila, interview spring 2010)

Leila’s quote above continues to suggest the confrontational nature of the material and yet there’s also a tone of curiosity and gratitude with the realization that different “cultures and experiences” exist. Also, it is helpful to consider the pedagogical approach and required readings when considering the idea of “attack.” While Tatum (2003) methodically walks students through racial identity development stages using either Cross’ or Helm’s stage theories, Joel Spring’s (2006) text outlined historical dominance in great detail. Indeed, understanding a shared historical legacy is needed to situate the self within a particular national identity (Donald, 2009; Koppelman, 2011). These qualitative data suggest that the message of “blame” was received either through content or pedagogy. Providing safe options for preservice teachers to question and grapple with information that may be new or surprising to them is worth consideration. The potential impact of confrontation is shared in the quote below:

And I don’t feel like I got a huge amount out of it, or I don’t feel like I got out of it what they want us to get out of it, which I’m not exactly sure what that is. Which is unfortunate. (Bonnie, interview spring 2010)

This preservice teacher suggests there was a right and wrong way to learn the material and she felt she failed at “getting it.” Too often when it comes to issues of inequality we eloquently share the history, the science, the social and political aspects but fail to connect it to the personal. When employing CRT as a tool, preservice teachers are better able to see the way power and privilege relate to oppression in order to illuminate the tricky nature of interest convergence. Preservice teachers began the process of grappling with the concepts but were unable to “make sense” of the material to connect it to advocacy for equity. Leila comes close when she shares about “knowing what you believe in” but fails to name the “things” she is advocating for. In this course, preservice teachers were required to complete an audio-recorded “self-interview” and listen to it again at the end of the semester. This is one form of “storytelling” or narrative for preservice teachers to better understand their personal history and experience as it connects to the broader content of the course. The interview was not shared publicly but rather preservice teachers were asked to write a reflective narrative of the process and insights gleaned in relation to the key concepts of the course. This allowed preservice teachers to reflect on their denial of the existence of racism early on and grapple with new understanding of justice and equality through audio and written sharing. Throughout the course, counter narratives were presented from multiple racial, cultural, classed and gendered experiences to help preservice teachers understand the complexity of myriad perspectives in a critical social context.

As this pilot study is limited to feedback from white preservice teachers it may overly focus on the struggle with “whiteness.” Studying “whiteness” is new to many white preservice teachers as it explicitly names the privilege and responsibility attached to being white, which if unacknowledged reinforces racist behavior (Johnson Lachuk and Mosely, 2012; Love, 2019). Without a better understanding of their own racial identities in relation to power and privilege there is a danger that preservice teachers enter classrooms holding assumptions of the “other,” and engaging only when it continues to serve their needs. Generally, these assumptions follow a deficit model and do not take into account the strengths children bring as diverse learners, creating fertile ground for the damaging impact of rhetorical care (Toshalis, 2012; Zygmunt et al., 2018).

Connection to the early childhood classroom

Based on the data in this pilot study, preservice teachers were applying what they had learned in the course in their practicum classrooms, at least superficially:

Because when you come into the classroom, you bring that (culture) with you, whether you discuss it or not. It’s part of your identity. It’s part of your personality as a teacher. That’s not just, like, separate from your teaching life or from your influence on the children, but that comes with it. And so just to be cognizant of that and knowing who you are, and what you are believing, and what other people might be believing about you, because of certain things (categories) that you fall into. . .how important it is to be – to understand biases and prejudices, that everybody has them, and just to acknowledge that and then to move on, and how you can really accept what that’s like, and then. . . it’s being . . . reflective of who you are and where your background is and what your culture and ethnicity and whatever your identity is, and just being aware of that. . .as a teacher. (Bonnie, interview spring 2010)

Bonnie, earlier suggested she didn’t learn what she was “supposed to get out of it (class)” and yet she is able to articulate the importance of a “cultural identity” as it “influences” the children. Through scaffolded reflective practice Bonnie and Karen begin to decenter the dominant discourse and more fully explore difference through ethical relationality (Donald, 2009). She suggests that prejudice and bias exist, however, she fails to mention “race.” Although able to acknowledge the influence of socialization on lived experiences, and therefore her teaching, she does not explicitly suggest race as having a central role in her work.

. . .every single one of them (young students) English was their second language and had I not taken CRI I would have walked in there and been like, what do you mean English is this kid’s second language, like, I wouldn’t even have thought about that and to be able to think to myself, okay, well if I use this language when I’m talking to this child, are they going to understand that or do I need to talk to them on a different level, figuring what they know, what their families know, where they’re coming from is so important and if I wouldn’t have taken CRI, I mean I think I’m an understanding person but I think that brought my understanding to a completely new level. . .but then you see how much people’s lives are affected by it (history) and with immigration and everything, you’re learning these immigration laws. . .(Karen, interview spring 2010)

Karen is beginning to connect individual experience with the constraints and shaping that come with policy. She is beginning to connect the idea that a child’s language links to a broader context regarding immigration law in a way that impacts the child’s access to learning. In the state where the research was conducted, teachers were once legally bound to only teach in English. Through these connections, Karen can articulate how various laws and policy impact the experience of children and families in her world. This represents a seedling of understanding that highlights notions of “interest convergence.” The needs of the dominant “linguistic” community continue to be met at the expense of the child. For example, it is unclear when Karen says “talking with them (ELLs) on a different level” whether she is suggesting a need to simplify the material or whether she is recognizing the complex strengths of a child with dual language.

I at the time hated CRI but now, I always tell people it’s like the best class that I’ve ever taken at Langley and it has really helped me to like understand all different kinds of children all races all, all ethnicities . . . but it was really a beneficial class to have and I just think diversity is so important and teaching the kids to love diversity is like something that I really advocate for. . .we always do the colors of us in self portraits. (Lori, spring 2010)

In this quote, there is heightened racial and cultural awareness, and yet the idea that Lori will “teach kids to love diversity” highlights a lack of knowledge of the content. While well intentioned and complimentary of CRI, she is still working through key concepts such as diversity and advocacy. This illustrates “aesthetic care” which appears as emotional and caring but lacks the authentic function of care (Toshalis, 2012). Acknowledging that the skin color variation of young children can be a fruitful activity, the statement that “we always do the colors” suggests it is a rote activity that may have lost value in addressing the key ideas attached to skin color, the social construction of race, and access to power.

Van Ausdale and Feagin (2001) suggest that young children are capable of understanding and enacting racism. Therefore, teachers must acknowledge their influence on children’s understanding of race. Using the lens of ethical relationality, a multi-step process includes having critical consciousness of our own racial and cultural experiences and perspectives. The next step builds awareness that “racism” exists. Finally, knowing racism exists is not enough, action is required beyond advocacy to co-conspiracy to shift the Eurocentric white dominant focus to re-center the margins (Donald, 2009; Love, 2019). These excerpts and study of the college’s context, highlight the interwoven nature of self, institution and larger social contexts as they relate to the ethics of care in early childhood education.

As preservice teachers begin to connect their experience in the cultural and racial identities class to their practicum settings, the anger softens to acceptance. The idea of self in relation to others shifts to inquiry, “who am I, and who am I in relation to my work in a classroom of young children?”

I think when Genevieve (supervising practitioner) and I had our (evaluation) and she pretty much said it the best. She was like ‘I gave her one of the highest ratings for this (equity) because diversity was more accepted. And it was neither ignored or (sic) put off . . .(Leila, spring 2010)

Leila shares that her cooperating teacher who identifies as Haitian American, has affirmed her ability to connect with the racially and linguistically diverse children in her classroom. Rarely do preservice teachers mention the evaluation process and if they do it is usually in relation to a rigorous curriculum unit they have written. Leila’s awareness of the importance of equity provides an interesting bridge for her experiences in the CRI course and her Kindergarten classroom. This bridge is a metaphor connecting novice teacher identity by working as an apprentice to their future teacher identity, centering identity as it acknowledges different lived experiences and creates authentic social bonding through care (Zygmunt et al., 2018).

Implications

The data and voices in this research provide support for advocates in higher education to explore more complex pedagogies to meet the needs of increasingly diverse student populations at the college level and subsequently in early childhood classrooms. In doing so, the nature of settler colonialism and systemic racism to erase lived history and ways of being is revealed (Avalos, 2020). Using CRT as a tool uncovered preservice teachers’ lack of awareness of the impact of racism by acknowledging membership in the dominant culture and gaining insight to a global society. Uncovering the problematic nature of aesthetic care and perpetuating a need to care as a salvation narrative reinforces racist approaches (Rolon-Dow, 2005). Through the lens of social reproduction, the value and maintenance of social bonds, and the power attached to the care relationship, offers perspective. A historical overview of capitalism lays the foundation to understand how the balance of social reproduction has shifted from “separate spheres,” to a “family wage” model, to the current model of globalized financial capitalism promoting the “two-earner family” (Fraser, 2016: 104). In this context, with the requirement for paid work, this “crisis of care” elevates the need for production at the cost of authentic social bonding. Extending this model requires that we consider who holds the roles of caregiver and recipient of care. Framing education as one form of care, it is important to explore the demographics of our caregivers. College student populations continue to grow in racial, cultural and ethnic diversity to represent U.S. demographics. Yet, similar to the participants in this study, the majority of pre-service teachers in the U.S. are white, mono—lingual women with 78% of early childhood teachers identifying as white (Austin et al., 2019; Saluja et al., 2002). However, 44.3% of the U.S. school-age population are Black, Indigenous, People Of Color (BIPOC) (Sensoy and DiAngelo, 2012). There is a need to support future teachers and children in the classroom to connect in relevant ways. Creating pathways in higher education for historically underrepresented students offers the possibility for young students to attend classes with teachers and leaders whose racial and cultural stories resonate with their own, creating the possibility for deeper connection and success for our youngest children (Brown, 2014; Villegas and Davis, 2008). Shifting the demographics of the model of care provides the potential for authentic connection through representation and shared lived experiences.

Institutional insights

College and university mission and vision statements supporting social justice, forums for increased faculty communication, course creation and funding for courses that decenter dominant discourses, decolonizing the curriculum and placing preservice teachers in diverse settings offer a foundation for equity in education. The model at Langley College weaves an institutional thread modeling racial and cultural exploration towards action and justice for children and families. Building on the mission and vision of the college, faculty engage in debate and discussion around issues of privilege and oppression. This illustrates an institutional commitment to support work with preservice teachers regarding issues of race and equity and an approach to teaching about systemic racism that goes beyond the curriculum (Nelson Laird, 2014). The mission and standards of the institution are reflected in tangible support (full course credit).

Universities and schools are predicated on these colonial frontier logics and have both served to enforce epistemological and social conformity to Euro-western standards. Unquestioned, these idealized standards become part of official curriculum documents and find expression in the form of outcomes, goals, and objectives. (Donald, 2009: 4)

Institutions may divide equity curriculum across many courses, suggesting a natural integration of the ideas versus a separate course. However, based on data in this research, preservice teachers also need explicit support and validation legitimizing introspective and reflective work. In addition, a diverse team to facilitate the course addresses concerns raised in the paper regarding confrontation. In early stages of racial identity processing, affinity group affiliation is common (Tatum, 2003). The use of multiple instructors teaching the course addresses assumptions that can be raised about individual bias and motivation for teaching the course. These actions represent initial attempts to address Euro-western standards within the academy.

Finally, placing preservice teachers in racially, linguistically, culturally and economically diverse settings is a priority. The early childhood classroom is the space where preservice teachers begin to “make sense” of the course content. In this study, preservice teachers grappled with clearly understanding the extent of oppression in the U.S., yet, they were able to acknowledge a heightened awareness of why “difference” mattered and were beginning to question racial inequity during their student teaching. A formal system of tracking placements supports a cross-context experience. This system prioritizes an emphasis on experiencing contexts that may be new to them, as well as requires the preservice teachers to engage with all children and families in ways that illustrate a complex understanding of self in a variety of contexts. Similarly, through community partnerships there is potential to foster relationships that build from community knowledge to mentor preservice teachers (Zygmunt et al., 2018). Providing mentoring and support for future teachers as they continue to reflect on, name and claim racist behaviors allows for decentering western influence to explore a more inclusive history.

To educate as the practice of freedom is a way of teaching that anyone can learn. . . .To teach in a manner that respects and cares for the souls of our students is essential if we are to provide the necessary conditions where learning can most deeply and intimately begin (Hooks, 1994: 13).

This article started with the notion that young children recognize the power attached to categories of race. How are we preparing future teachers to engage with these questions? How are we applying theory and praxis? The “‘crisis of care’ is best interpreted as a more or less acute expression of the social-reproductive contradictions of financialized capitalism” (Fraser, 2016: 99). Authentic care as described by hooks, is undermined by the commodification of care, or teaching to achieve quantifiable student outcomes, and through unchecked care for “other peoples’” children (Delpit, 1995). Therefore, social reproduction (the care and maintenance of social bonds) is undermined. Fraser (2016) cautions that financial (neo-liberal) capitalism is consuming our capacity to bond, creating “care deficits.” Investigating intention and integrity of care as it relates to race has been centered in this research as preservice teachers shifted their focus from one of salvation to inquiry.

Personal connections

As I’m going through our nighttime routine at home, Greta age seven shares the story of Ruby Bridges. The story illustrates the racial divide in the U.S. in 1961. Ruby is the first Black child integrated into a Mississippi school. Greta is learning about ‘people who make a difference’. Greta quotes (in her own words) the prayer Ruby says as she walks through an angry crowd of white people, ‘forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing’. I ask her ‘what did this story mean to you’, she says ‘whites used to treat Blacks badly but there were some whites who were nice to Black people and other whites didn’t like them’. I asked her what she thought of that and she said she thought that was ‘too bad because if it was like that now (explaining to her 5 y.o. sister) we would have a hard time having friends like Jeffrey and Addy’. Jeffrey and Addy are the girls’ best friends since toddler and preschool days, they are African American and Greta is white. I asked her if she understood that whites had been mean and unfair to Blacks in our country and she said ‘yes’ and put her head down and said ‘but I know Ruby made a difference and I’m glad because now all kids can go to good schools and have nice things’. At this time, I decided not to get into the fact that not all kids have ‘nice’ schools as it’s getting late, but I asked if I could share her story with my students and she beamed. She seemed very proud to learn and connect the material of our history to her world today, as humbling as that was. (Excerpt from the author’s lecture notes for Cultural and Racial Identities, class 2011)

Coverage and processing of historical content has potential to provide spaces for deeper understanding of historical legacy and the trauma carried in racist structures. The vignette suggests the need to allow our work to get “personal.” Greta re-telling Ruby Bridges, touched me emotionally as I had experienced “otherness” at age nine having moved as a white girl to a predominantly Black neighborhood and school. Greta’s retelling of the Ruby Bridges story was authentic and I didn’t want it to end with me, rather I saw it as a way to tell my story to college students through a more powerful historical occurrence as understood by my seven-year old daughter. This moment in teaching was perhaps my most powerful as it brought personal history and current personal understanding together in an authentic way to provide a poignant example of perspective taking. This form of “storytelling” opens the discussion around racial knowing and being (Dixson and Rousseau, 2005). Dahlberg and Moss (2005) propose that early education has an “ethical” element. One suggesting “not a universal ethics or part of the curriculum teaching right and wrong but an ethics that ‘foregrounds a relationship to the Other’” (p. 13). Centering the need for reciprocity in education, Freire (1978) suggests that through a praxis that honors reciprocal benefit for the “helped and helping” offers the possibility to address domination by the helper. The “foregrounding of relationship,” makes sense for our work with future teachers (Doucet et al., 2013). This approach requires acknowledgement of our histories as they inform our differences. As educators, consideration of lived history and how it has shaped conceptions of race is required to connect with future teachers and young children.

Engaging future teachers in their cultural stories in meaningful and messy ways illustrates voice and storytelling using CRT tools (Dixson and Rousseau, 2005). Our identity and understanding of socio-cultural contexts influence our pedagogy that indeed is “praxis.” In turn, this praxis influences young student’s understanding of socio-cultural influences. The U.S. is becoming a nation of “hybrid identities”; therefore, stories become more complex (Nieto and Bode, 2008). There is danger in assuming that future teachers “get race” as they have spent decades in our racist systems unlearning their acceptance and willingness to explore difference. The ethics of care require we explore this further.

Re-connecting preservice teachers to an understanding of self in context is a first step to acknowledging their role in either perpetuating a racist society or working to support all young children in classrooms to embody new ways of knowing “the other.” This connects to Dahlberg and Moss’ suggestion to connect “in a way that is respectful of alterity and does not grasp the Other to make the Other into the Same.” (p. 13). As Donald (2009) suggests, it is through ethical relationality that educators can begin to decenter dominant discourses. By naming a denial of racism and acknowledging the “norm of difference” preservice teachers move forward. Through courses that study a racial and cultural self in context, as well as the use of tools that allow preservice teachers to narrate their experiences and provide counter narratives, a space is created to build a relationship with difference that transcends “saving” and allows for the possibility of inquiry and action.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Lucinda Grace Heimer

Notes

Author biography

Lucinda Grace Heimer is an associate professor in Early Childhood Education at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. She has published on early childhood policy using critical theory and ethnography to illuminate perspectives of identity, race, and social justice centering equity. She has taught university courses, supervised students, and worked as an early childhood teacher and center director.

References

Austin

Edwards

Chavez

, et al. (2019) Racial wage gaps in early education employment. Center for the Study of Child Development. Available at: https://cscce.berkeley.edu/racial-wage-gaps-in-early-education-employment/ (accessed 19 September 2020).

Avalos

(2020) Land-based ethics and settler solidarity in a time of corona and revolution. The Arrow: A Journal of Wakeful Society, Culture and Politics. Available at: https://arrow-journal.org/land-based-ethics-and-settler-solidarity-in-a-time-of-corona-and-revolution/ (accessed 26 September 2020).

Bell

(1987) And we will not be saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brown

(2014). Teaching in color: A critical race theory in education analysis of the literature on preservice teachers of color and teacher education in the US. Race, Ethnicity, and Education 17(3): 326–345. DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2013.832921.

Connolly

(1998) Racism, gender identities and young children. London: Routledge.

Dadvand

Cuervo

(2020) Pedagogies of care in performative schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of education 41(1): 139–152. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2018.1486806.

Dahlberg

Moss

(2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Darling-Hammond

(2005) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Davis

(2009) (Un) masking cultural identities: Challenges for white early childhood educators. In: MacNaughton

Davis

(eds) “Race” and Early Childhood Education: An International Approach to Identity, Politics, and Pedagogy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

De Lissovoy

(2019) Decoloniality as inversion: Decentering the west in emancipatory theory and pedagogy. Globalisation, Societies and Education 17(4): 419–431. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2019.1577719.

11.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2000) Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

12.

Delpit

(1995) Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press.

13.

Dixson

Rousseau

2005 And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race, Ethnicity and Education 8(1): 7–27.

14.

Donald

(2009) Forts, curriculum, and Indigenous metissage: Imagining decolonization of Aboriginal-Canadian relations in educational contexts. First Nations Perspectives 2(1): 1–24.

15.

Doucet

Grayman-Simpson

Shapses Wertheim

(2013) Steps along the journey: Documenting undergraduate white women’s transformative processes in a diversity course. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 6(4): 276–291. DOI: 10.1037/a0034334.

16.

Ferdman

Gallegos

(2001) Racial identity development and Latinos in the United States. In: Wijeyesinghe

Jackson

BW, III

(eds) New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A Theoretical and Practical Anthology. New York: University Press, pp.32–62.

17.

Fraser

(2016) Contradictions of capital and care. New Left Review 100: 99–116.

18.

Freire

(1978) Pedagogy in Process: The Letters to Guinea-Bissau. New York: Seabury Press.

19.

Gay

(2010) Culturally Responsive Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

20.

Gay

Kirkland

(2003) Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflections in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice 42(3): 181–187.

21.

Genishi

Haas Dyson

(2009) Children, Language and Literacy: Diverse Learners in Diverse Times. New York: Teachers College Press.

22.

Gillborn

(2006) Critical race theory and education: Racism and anti-racism in educational theory and praxis. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 27(1): 11–32.

23.

Gonzalez

Moll

Amanti

(eds.) (2005) Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

24.

Graue

Walsh

(1998) Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods and Ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Heimer

Winokur

(2015) Preparing teachers of young children: How an interdisciplinary curriculum approach is understood, supported and enacted among students and faculty. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 36(4): 289–308. DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2015.1100144.

26.

Heimer

Caya

Lancaster

, et al. (2019) Nations within a nation: Cross-cultural insights in an Anishinaabe context. Global Education Review 6(3): 65–83. Available at: https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/518

27.

Hooks

(1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.

28.

Horsford

(2011) Learning in a Burning House: Educational Inequality, Ideology, and (Dis) Integration. New York: Teachers College Press.

29.

Howard

(2010) Why Race and Culture Matter in Schools: Closing the Achievement Gap in America’s Classrooms. New York: Teacher College Press.

30.

Huberman

Miles

(1998) Data management and analysis methods. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.179–210.

31.

Johnson

(2006) Privilege, Power and Difference. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

32.

Johnson

Heimer

(2016) Race and racism: Preservice teachers’ perspectives and reflections. In: Hubbard

(ed.) But I Don’t See Color: The Perils, Practices, and Potentials of Anti-Racist Education. Boston: Sense Publishers.

33.

Johnson Lachuk

Mosely

(2012) Us & Them? Entering a three-dimensional narrative inquiry space with white pre-service teachers to explore race, racism, and anti-racism. Race, Ethnicity and Education 15(3): 311–330.

34.

Kids Count: Data Center (2018) Annie B. Casey foundation. Available at: https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false/37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/423,424 (accessed 19 September 2020).

35.

Koppelman

(2011) The Great Diversity Debate: Embracing Pluralism in School and Society. New York: Teachers College Press.

36.

Ladson-Billings

(1995) But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice 34(3): 159–165.

37.

Ladson-Billings

(1998) Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? Qualitative Studies in Education 11(1): 7–24.

38.

Ladson-Billings

(2005) Is the team all right? Diversity and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 56(2): 229–234.

39.

Love

(2019) How schools are ‘spirit murdering’ black and brown students: It’s time to acknowledge racism in systemic American schools. Education Week 38(35): 18–19. Available at: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/05/24/how-teachers-are-spirit-murdering-black-and.html?fbclid=IwAR1sGRObroYAPWpksNGdb0I0DBNH_ylQ5405H8smELGSZp0wiBHhNo8Z1g0&print=1

40.

Marx

Pennington

(2003) Pedagogies of critical race theory: Experimentations with white preservice teachers. Qualitative Studies in Education 16(1): 91–110.

41.

Mukhopadhyay

Henze

(2004) How real is race? In: Schultz

(ed.) Multicultural Editions 04/05. Boston: McGraw Hill.

42.

Nelson Laird

(2014) Reconsidering the inclusion of diversity in the curriculum. Diversity and Democracy 27(4): 12–14.

43.

Nieto

(2010) The Light in their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

44.

Nieto

Bode

(2008) Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. Boston: Pearson.

45.

Noddings

(2005) The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

46.

Nxumalo

Cedillo

(2017) Decolonizing place in early childhood studies: Thinking with Indigenous onto-epistemologies and Black feminist geographies. Global Studies of Childhood 7(2): 99–112. DOI: 10.1177/2043610617703831.

47.

Popkewitz

(1998) Struggling for the Soul: The Politics of Schooling and the Construction of the Teacher. New York: Teachers College Press.

48.

Rolon-Dow

(2005) Critical care: A color(full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal 42(1): 77–111.

49.

Rothenberg

(2002) White Privilege: Essential Readings On the Other Side of Racism. New York: Worth Publishers.

50.

Saluja

Early

Clifford

(2002) Demographic characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research & Practice 4(1): n1.

51.

Sensoy

DiAngelo

(2012) Is Everyone Really Equal? An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

52.

Solorzano

Yosso

(2001) From racial stereotyping and deficit discourse toward a critical race theory in teacher education. Multicultural Education 9(1): 2–8.

53.

Spring

(2006) Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality: A Brief History of the Education of Dominated Cultures in the United States. Boston: McGraw-Hill

54.

Stake

(1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

55.

Strauss

Corbin

(2014) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

56.

Sumida Huaman

Chiu

Billy

(2019) Indigenous internationalization: Indigenous worldviews, higher education, and tribal colleges and universities. Education Policy Analysis Archives 27(101): 1–29. DOI: 10.14507/epaa.27.4366.

57.

Tatum

(2003) Why are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations about Race. New York: Basic Books.

58.

Toshalis

(2012) The rhetoric of care: Preservice teacher discourses that depoliticize, deflect and deceive. The Urban Review 44: 1–35.

59.

Van Ausdale

Feagin

(2001) The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

60.

Villegas

Davis

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

Feiman-Nemser

McIntyre

, et al. (eds) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.583–605.

61.

Whitebook

McLean

Austin

LJE

, et al. (2018) Early Childhood Workforce Index - 2018 Wisconsin. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Available at: https://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2018/06/2018-Index-Wisconsin.pdf and http://cscce.berkeley.edu/topic/early-childhood-work-force-index/2018/

62.

Zygmunt

Cipollone

Tancock

, et al. (2018) Loving out loud: Community mentors, teacher candidates, and transformational learning through a pedagogy of care and connection. Journal of Teacher Education 69(2): 127–139.

From salvation to inquiry: Preservice teachers’ conceptions of race

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Impetus

Significance

Decolonization

Critical Race Theory

Methodology

Context

Framework

Data collection and analysis

Findings

Institutional values

Mission and standards

The cultural and racial identities course

Rigorous coursework

Discomfort with white privilege

Connection to the early childhood classroom

Implications

Institutional insights

Personal connections

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Notes

Author biography

References