No Child Left Behind? A Promise Made is a Debt Unpaid—The Promise needs a Major Change

Dec 24, 2011 by

by Martin Haberman

On September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia claimed the lives of over 3,000 people. This national tragedy is forever etched in our minds. Similarly, every day of the school year, on average, 7,000 students drop out of high school and very few take notice. America’s greatest crisis is a silent one. While a majority of these youngsters are white, African Americanand Latino students are conspicuously over-represented. By the end of the school year as many as two million plus tenth to twelfth graders have “disappeared” (Wingspread, 2002).

Martin Haberman


The likelihood that these youngsters will ever have a job that pays enough to secure adequate health care or an apartment in a safe neighborhood is significantly diminished. In most cases their lives are limited to dead end jobs, or wasted away in street violence or prison. The estimate is that this horrendous statistic is matched by an equal number of those who never appear in any drop-out data because they have never made it to high school. They are the victims of failed middle schools using high stakes testing as an admission barrier into failing high schools. We are creating a city the size of Chicago every year and one half filled with people Jesse Jackson has labeled “no hopers”. Further, we now know that state planners look at the literacy rate of their 3rd graders to determine how many prisons to build.

According to Paul Loeb1 families in the top 25% in income send 86% of their children to college while families in the bottom 20% send 4% of their children to college. But there are other gaps that must be addressed as well: racial, language, early childhood experience, health, parent education, and school and class size gaps, all of which contribute to the achievement gap. While the majority of the 14 million children in poverty are white, there are disproportionately high numbers of African American and Latino children represented. The diverse children in urban poverty represent about half of these 15 million.

Leaving no child behind is essentially an issue of equity and justice; it is a moral imperative. Before diverse students in poverty schools can achieve as much as advantaged ones, they need to be part of a society that does not believe giving them access to equal treatments and resources will hurt their own children or raise their taxes.

Leaving no child behind is not a question of generating more fruitful hypotheses. There is already a solid knowledge base explaining why there are successful individual schools serving diverse children in poverty operating in the midst of failing districts. Teacher educators are witnesses, sometimes insightful ones, to life in schools. But understanding that teacher education, like the public schools, reflects rather than shapes American society is basic to any discussion of removing the achievement gap.

Distributing Scarce Resources

The recognition that selected constituencies derive more benefits than others is not new or strange in American society. Our basic assumption is that in a free society some will inevitably fare better than others. We live with the unequal distribution of goods and services every day of our lives. Inevitably the goods that are most desired and the services that are most vital are a scarce resource. There is never enough of what is most wanted or needed to go around. We solve this problem of “Who gets what?” by raising costs. If, for example, the scarce resource to be distributed is a limited number of downtown parking spaces then the parking fees on lots and in garages increase until only those who can pay for the limited spaces are able to park. We satisfy our sense of fairness by providing the public equal access to a limited number of metered spaces on a first come first serve basis but these spaces are less conveniently located, metered by the hour and ticketed for overtime lapses. We have mollified both the god of individual initiative by providing those with the means to have access to highly desirable, limited parking and the god of equity and access by providing the public with the opportunity to compete for public parking. We have learned to accept this dual process as the best way to distribute a scarce resource. Our commonly held value is that those who are paying a great deal should be able to park.

As we mature we become cognizant of more than how material goods are distributed. The distribution of many services affecting our day-to-day existence and futures are recognized as vital. Access to health care, legal services, insurance coverage, police and fire protection, transportation, housing and educational services come to the foreground of our consciousness. Various levels of government take responsibility for providing these services and everyone is deemed to be entitled to these basic services. Frequently, we go even further and espouse the goal that everyone is entitled to “high quality” services in these and other vital areas. As politicians spend their careers reiterating such lofty promises it becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile reality and rhetoric. Our stated values of equity and access for all don’t match the actual availability and distribution of services declared to be entitlements for all at a level of “high quality”. For example, in health care high quality refers to having the most qualified doctors in the best hospitals utilizing the latest treatments on a personal and thorough basis. This definition of high quality makes it clear that health care is a scarce resource since there is a limited number of the best doctors, treatments and services available. As in the more simple parking example, the problem of how to distribute top quality health care is solved by enabling those who can pay the highest, escalating costs to secure the service. Those who can pay less receive basic but something less than the highest quality care. The 43 million plus without health insurance have equal access to compete for the health services provided by emergency rooms and other public services. As a matter of life and death, health care is infinitely more important than parking so there is more political activity and public discourse about its availability. But when the talk about everyone being entitled to high quality or even basic health care has subsided, the actual distribution of scarce health care services is determined on the basis of who can pay for them. In spite of the fact that some health care professionals contribute pro bono services, the government provides subsidies and the private sector makes substantial contributions, the correlation between ability to pay and access to high quality service is high and not due to chance: the more one can pay the greater the likelihood that one’s health care will increase in quality. Many typically pay more than half of their total assets in their last year of life just to secure even basic health services.

The fact that there is always a finite amount of the highest quality of any service is what makes it a scarce resource. Access to scarce high quality resources is controlled by three factors: 1) awareness that the service or opportunity exists, 2) knowledge of the method (set of steps, procedures, hurdles) for securing the service and 3) sufficient resources for buying the service. Nowhere is this three step process for distributing high quality service more assiduously followed than in deciding who has access to high quality education.

Education as a Personal Good

The achievement gap is not an aberration of American society nor is it an unintended consequence. Quite the contrary. It reflects the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe that education is a personal not a common good and that the highest quality education is a scarce resource. Schooling is the means we use to produce winners and losers. Who gets into the prestigious colleges is the critical question at the top achievers’ level. Who goes to the other colleges or to post secondary institutions reflects the competition at the next levels down. Who gets training for a decent job or any job at all is the next level and so on. When we get to the poor and diverse children in urban schools the lofty mission of advanced knowledge, citizenship and self-actualization we want for our children has been narrowed down to get a job and stay out of jail. At this lowest level of the bottom half there is no longer any competition for a future of any substantial value. This level is miseducation and the future “opportunities” it leads to are far from a scarce resource.

School systems state goals as universals but their actual work is sorting students not equalizing their opportunities to learn. Failing public schools in urban districts function in ways that ensure that diverse children in poverty will be kept in the bottom half on standardized tests of school achievement. They function as custodial institutions rather than as places where learning is the primary activity. The “pedagogy” offered is these “schools” is a set of cultural rituals that bears no resemblance whatever to the knowledge base in teaching and learning (Haberman,1991b). As in other exploitative situations, most of the parents of the 15 million diverse children in poverty in the 120 largest school districts and in poor rural areas honestly believe that their schools are treating their children fairly. In my own city we tolerate a high school which had 18 percent graduate last year in a district that has an overall 36 percent high school graduation rate for African Americans –and this is a higher rate than in other urban districts.

Maintaining and supporting failure in our urban school districts over decades cannot be attributed to chance. Typically, scholars writing in this field assume that the people who are accountable for who is in the bottom half are well intentioned; they just don’t have sufficient knowledge and understanding (Sarason,1990). Even the most scholarly analysis of why school reform has failed stops short of attributing motive and assumes that we just need to know more and that once we do we will then act more wisely (Fullan & Miles,1992). But reasonable analysts must conclude otherwise. The long-term institutionalization of failure for diverse children in poverty can only be the result of systematic design and purposeful, committed resistance to change. For over half a century failed urban school districts and teacher education efforts directed at improving urban teaching have spent billions of dollars from federal and private sources specifically directed at equalizing the quality of the schooling offered diverse children in urban poverty. While accepting the funds, urban school districts have effectively withstood these change efforts. The result is that urban schools continue to worsen and the achievement gap has become solidified and predictable.

My short answer to the question posed in this title is “No.” I have seen little to suggest that teacher education seeks to or can contravene society’s intentions and close an achievement gap that is purposeful and rooted in American culture. For me the question raises two others: Can teacher education become a sufficiently powerful force to affect urban schools at all? Can school districts organized to function as a sorting mechanism for maintaining a bottom half be transformed into instrumentalities for achieving greater social justice and equity? My answer to the first question is “yes” and to the second an equally certain “no”.

A few very vital points of the history of teacher education are relevant to the current analysis and need to be kept in mind in order to more clearly understand why traditional programs of teacher education do not prepare enough teachers for diverse children in urban poverty.

*Teacher training institutions were purposely and systematically located across rural America ( where their state college descendants remain today), because their clients were white, unmarried farm girls who needed employment.

*A great number of such normal schools were needed to ensure that female teachers would not work further than fifty miles from home, could easily return home for holidays and summer work, and that the teachers being trained would be likely to be of the same religious and ethnic background as the children they would be training in morality and the abc’s.

*The notion that schoolteaching is the appropriate work of young, single women has been imbedded in American culture for more than 150 years. The perception that even married women are less appropriate than single women has been reinforced during periods of economic depression when married women in many urban districts were laid off.

*There were very few public normal schools started in urban areas. A few exceptions existed in St. Louis and Detroit but these closed or were subsequently included in larger multipurpose institutions. New York City, with the largest population of children in the country, never had a single publicly supported normal school but the State of New York opened twelve in rural areas. *There can be no question that teacher training in America was developed as a rural phenomenon for the children of Europeans of primarily Protestant background. Catholics tended to cluster in the cities and attend parochial schools where teachers were from religious orders and were not normal school graduates. Beginning in the 20th century however large numbers of Catholic women became urban teachers in public schools and still constitute the majority of teachers in many Eastern and Midwestern public urban school systems even today.

*The need for teachers who could be effective with African Americans, other children of color, children in urban poverty and non-European populations was never a consideration in the development of the knowledge base in American teacher education. *The knowledge base purporting to explain normal child development, how normal children learn and what constitutes normal behavior that is offered in traditional programs of teacher education is derived in greatest measure from psychology where the unit of study and analysis is the individual. Other ways of understanding and explaining human behavior that reflect cultural constructs are still very minimal additions to state requirements for approving university based teacher education programs, e.g a course in Multicultural Education.

What is the import of these trends? Understanding even a few of the basic facts surrounding the development of teacher training in America it is extremely naïve to raise questions such as why teacher education is not relevant to diverse children in urban poverty, or why teacher education does not provide more teachers who will be effective in teaching all children, or why teachers who complete traditional programs of teacher education do not seem to be able to relate to all children. It was never the intention of teacher education in America to prepare teachers to teach all the children. And since the current output of teachers seek to avoid teaching where they are needed most and will not stay longer than a brief period if they do accept positions in poverty schools, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the historical and cultural truths regarding teacher training in America still explain and predict the functioning of university based teacher education today.

For 50 plus years I have been directly involved with developing and offering teacher education programs for diverse children in poverty schools. In recent years colleagues and I have taken effective elements from various teacher education programs and combined them into demonstration models. In reconstituted schools in Houston and Buffalo colleagues have demonstrated that if we can select a faculty of beginning and veteran teachers the achievement gap can be closed. We have turned individual failing schools into effective ones but have not, thus far, been able to use teacher education to close the gap in an entire school district. These teacher education elements include:

  1. recruiting mature college graduates from all fields;
  2. using structured interviews to select candidates whose responses are comparable to those of effective urban teachers;
  3. directly observing candidates actually relating and connecting to diverse children in poverty before admitting them into a program of preparation;
  4. placing candidates as paid, teachers of record in urban classrooms;
  5. providing skilled mentors as coaches who were themselves recent and effective classroom teachers in urban schools;
  6. providing technological support that connects the candidates to resources and to mentors for round the clock advice;
  7. providing professional studies which
    1. offer candidates problem solving for specific classroom problems
    2. show the candidates how to teach the curricula required in their district using the methods the district requires
    3. ensure that all advice offered candidates is realistically aligned with the conditions under which they work including union contracts,
  8. providing part time assessors who make regular, formal evaluations and feed them back to candidates and mentors;
  9. making certain that candidates who are failing to connect with students are dropped from the program prior to the end of October so that children can stillhave a successful year; (If procedures #I,#2 and #3 are followed these will be fewer than five per cent).

10. recommending candidates for licensure on criteria that include evaluations of their students’ learning.

The teacher shortage undergirds the achievement gap since diverse children in urban poverty will not catch up through independent study or being schooled at home. The Department of Education estimates that 3 million plus teachers will be needed in the next decade. This demand increased sharply because of the “Leave no child behind” legislation which requires a highly qualified teacher in every classroom by 2006. The main reasons for the shortage is the churn of teachers who quit or fail and simply pass through urban schools on their way to other careers. Nationally half of the beginners in urban districts are gone in five years. In my own city this turnover occurs in three years.. But there are other reasons why the shortage grows. In many states such as my own, as many as 71% of those prepared in traditional programs of teacher education in a given year do not take jobs serving diverse children in poverty (Schug & Western.1998). Half of those who deign to take positions serving children in poverty leave in five years or less creating a constant teacher churn. And since a career in teaching is now approximately only 11 years long in states serving the majority of America’s low-income students, the shortage is here to stay. In my own city of 7,000 plus teachers we hire 7,000 new ones every seven years. That’s the bad news. The good news is that we have closed the gap in specific schools by providing them with effective principals and teachers land that raises the hope we can change others in the same urban district as well. To explore what I believe can be done, I’ve selected three questions out of a dozen or more critical ones that are key if teacher education in America is to impact the gap. They are: Who should teach? What must they be prepared to do? How can we evaluate success?

Who Should Teach?

The work I have pursued convinces me that in preparing teachers for diverse children in poverty, selection is more important than training. If I were to put a relative weight on it I would estimate that for urban schools selection is 80% of the matter. This does not mean that college courses, student teaching and inservice workshops are a waste of time or cannot help participants learn new concepts and behaviors. If offered to the right people these traditional formats can be beneficial: how beneficial depends mainly on those selected and somewhat on the knowledge and teaching know-how of the instructors. Given inappropriate students, interns or beginning teachers, however, traditional teacher education modalities will teach little to and change less about the participants. Indeed, selecting the wrong candidates, then using the traditional instructional modalities will make participants worse by deepening their prejudices and providing them with a database of direct experiences on which they can more firmly build and strengthen their stereotypes and misconceptions(Haberman,1991a). This is also true for inservice teachers (Sleeter,1992).

The most efficient ways of recruiting and selecting the wrong people at the initial teacher preparation level i.e., those who will never take positions teaching diverse children in poverty, or who will quit or fail if they deign to try—are the criteria most commonly used: a composition on “Why I want to teach”, G.P.A., letters of reference, a basic skills test, etc. These irrelevant criteria are frequently used in traditional and as well as in alternative certification programs. Actually, undergraduate GPA does predict. If it is extremely high in courses outside of education it predicts failing and quitting. The majority of early leavers are individuals with higher G.P.A.’s and standardized test scores than those who stay; more have also had academic majors (DarlingHammond&Sclan,1996). Teachers who see teaching as primarily an intellectual activity are eight times more likely to leave the classroom (Quartz,2001).

The explanation for the power of selection is certainly not new and not limited to teacher education. In 1890 William James explained how we take in and make sense of the world by a process of selective perception (James,1892). This construct explains much about the lifelong strengthening of belief systems which account for and predict behavior. Selective perception is always hard at work feeding our belief systems and predisposing us to act in particular ways The various disciplines dealing with human behavior that have burgeoned over the last century have produced a variety of theories that seek to explain the sources and development of the pre-dispositions which control the ways in which we take in our world. In their own ways they all support the concept of selective perception. Further, the differences in the ways individuals selectively perceive schools, children and learning are supported by their ideologies and belief systems. These belief systems are extremely resistant to change by the trivial treatments used in teacher education programs and for effective teachers, even resistant to the powerful influences of the negative working conditions in poverty schools. These belief systems not only describe but predict teacher behavior.

In The Haberman Star Teacher Selection Interview we use to identify who will succeed, candidates’ responses are evaluated in terms of the degree to which their pre-dispositions to act resemble those of stars or quitters/failers (Haberman,1995). Quitter/failers can be quite articulate in explaining why they cannot continue to work with children who are physically and emotionally not ready to learn, in unsafe and nonconducive school climates, required to teach irrelevant curriculum unaligned to achievements tests, supervised by irrational principals, burdened by large classes, with inadequate materials and equipment, and buried in paper-work from chaotic central offices. But effective teachers working in the same district, in the same building and with the very same children, are willing to assume responsibility and be accountable for their children’s learning even though they have no control over their working conditions, or the parents, or the students’ out-of-school lives. Effective teachers see ensuring success in school as a matter of life and death for children who may well be unaware and unappreciative of their services. Such teachers are internally motivated and persist in spite of few external rewards. These belief systems and the perceptions they shape cannot be taught in programs of teacher preparation. They represent a realm of cognitive and affective knowledge that already exists in many mature adults and must be selected for rather than trained.

What Must Teachers Be Prepared To Do?

The content of what teachers need to know and do has been a source of continuing debate for 175 years between those who emphasize knowledge of subject matter and those who also support professional content. Subject matter advocates focus on the prospective teacher’s knowledge of math, English, science, etc. and assume this to be the basic knowledge base of teachers. Professional educators focus on the future teachers’ knowledge of child development, the nature of learning and teaching methods as the essential knowledge base. For teachers of diverse children in poverty both realms are necessary but not sufficient conditions. There is a third realm dealing with the teacher’s ability to relate to and connect with children, which determines whether subject matter and professional knowledge can be used. Without this ability to connect with children how much the teacher knows about math or the seven parts of direct instruction becomes moot. Quitters and failers do not leave teaching in poverty schools because they can’t divide fractions or do not know the characteristics of 13-year-olds. They leave because they don’t want to be with those children in those schools and the children make it equally clear they don’t want them to be their teachers.

While some teacher educators appreciate that the ability to connect with diverse children in urban poverty represents a valid realm of knowledge and skills, their tacit assumption seems to be that candidates who complete a program of teacher education will somehow pick up relationship skills as some sort of ancillary by-product. Nothing could be further from the truth.

An example of how pre-dispositions interact with selective perceptions, beliefs and then actions can be seen in how quitter/failure teachers explain success of teachers and children in school. They explain success in terms of ability. This ability paradigm then controls the way in which they perceive and explain life and learning in their classrooms and schools. On the other hand, effective teachers believe in and use effort to explain success. They behave as if generating effort all day, everyday from everyone is the essence of the teacher’s job. These different belief systems shape and control how each group of teachers connects with and teaches their students. Quitter/failers define their work as planning and offering appropriate lessons. Effective teachers spend their planning time identifying interest grabbing activities and materials and their teaching time trying to engage and activate diverse learners.

This third realm of knowledge–the ability to establish connectedness and maintain relationships— undergirds the selective perception of successful urban teachers. They assume and cope with the fact that they and the children will have to operate in bureaucracies with irrational policies and insensitive people. They act as grease between the machinery of a mindless system and the needs of their children. They warmly accept inclusion students with disabilities as a reasonable expectation of their job. They believe parents/caregivers are resources not merely homework helpers. They work with health and human service workers involved with their children and families. They understand student development in terms of cultural and ethnic knowledge. They know how to prevent and de-escalate violence. They demonstrate respect and caring for students who may commit despicable acts. These and many other demonstrated behaviors are not part of preparation programs because they cannot be transmitted as subject matter in a college class or workshop. But taken together these perceptions and the behaviors they lead to represent what I have come to see is a body of knowledge prerequisite to learning the content and methods for teaching effectively in diverse poverty schools.

How Can We Evaluate Success?

In 1963 my Milwaukee Intern Program was adopted as the model for the National Teacher Corps. In the ten subsequent years of the corps’ existence (1962-73) we trained over 100,000 college graduates from all fields as urban teachers. Eighty universities cooperated in offering these programs. This remains the largest demonstration-research project ever conducted in American teacher education. Based on its size and the number of institutions involved it was generally regarded as a success. Little mention was made of the fact that when the federal funding stopped every institution dropped its program. Fewer than 5% of the teachers prepared remained in urban classrooms for longer than three years. Very few of the programs collected any student achievement data regarding the interns’ effect on children’s learning. Using the criterion of what difference this monumental effort had on urban schools and teacher education, the corps might well be described as a failure. While we learned a great deal regarding which program elements would change teacher behaviors (cited above), we also learned that colleges and universities did not know how to recruit, select and prepare teachers who could turn urban schools around and further, that they would not assume the responsibility and accountability for doing so. The National Teacher Corps clearly missed its stated objective of serving as a change agent for improving urban schools by training better teachers(Corwin.1973).

In the programs which I have participated in developing and continue to work in we avoid the process criteria typically used to evaluate programs of traditional teacher education. We use children’s learning as the criterion for passing or failing candidates and recommending that they be licensed. We also account for the issue of the program’s relevance to the urban schools by accepting only candidates for our teacher education programs after they have passed the school districts’ screening criteria. In effect, if the district is willing to guarantee them a contract we agree to train them. When we fail a student (we call them Resident Teachers because they are teachers of record in poverty schools) it is because the children in their classrooms are not learning. It is important to note that by learning we do no refer to only test scores but rely heavily on students’ work samples in determining whether learning is taking place. In our vision of who we serve we do not regard the Residents in training as our clients. The diverse children in poverty whom they teach are our clients. Typically, failures cannot produce a series of work samples which convinces us that the children in their classrooms are achieving at a reasonable rate. Once we observe Residents who are disconnected from the children we can predict with great reliability that the children will not be producing meaningful work; work which demonstrates progress over time. We inform the Residents that we can help them with lesson planning, organization skills, management systems and even subject matter gaps but we cannot teach them the relationship skills they lack.

The reverse of this situation also pertains. When we see teachers connecting with and relating to children in positive ways we see the beginning of professional development for the Resident and genuine learning opportunities for children. There is no limit to how much and how quickly Residents with relationship skills can learn about the nature of their students and the nature of teaching and learning. In extreme cases we have a few Residents whose abilities to connect are so highly developed that everything (anything) they do “works.” It becomes a challenge to their mentors to help them understand that their students will do even better once they learn how to teach.

Recommending Residents for a state license on the basis of student learning rather than because they have completed program requirements demands that colleges and universities that claim they are preparing urban teachers must also be willing to become accountable and responsible to the public for the quality of the teaching in their local urban schools. If the universities are not providing the teachers needed they cannotbe deemed satisfactory since they are irrelevant. If the teachers they do provide are noteffecting children’s learning, the teacher education institutions must be held equallyaccountable with the failing urban districts for the achievement gap. .

A Final Note

I believe the responsibility of teacher educators to produce effective teachers for failed urban districts cannot be dodged by whining that the schools must change the conditions of work before they can prepare effective teachers. Extrapolating the trends of the last half-century it is quite likely that teaching conditions in urban schools will continue to worsen not improve. Private foundations have essentially withdrawn from supporting teacher education and urban school initiatives after half a century of supporting programs which have been unable to close the achievement gap or make traditional programs of teacher education prepare the teachers needed for the real world (Clark Foundation,01). Since we know how to prepare carefully selected teachers to be successful in the worst school conditions we should seek to disseminate and implement that knowledge. We also know how to turn an individual school around by 1)grouping effective teachers into the same school, 2) building on these teachers’ positive predispositions and relationship skills, 3)mentoring them on the job and 4) assessing their teaching on the basis of children’s learning. What we lack is the experience of using a teacher education model to transform an entire urban district. The fact that we cannot scale upward from creating successful individual urban schools to transforming an entire urban district should not be surprising. If we were successful on this larger scale then substantial numbers of those presently in the bottom half would be replacing those now benefiting from an unjust system. Clearly, such a shift would threaten some very basic values in the American culture. Our society can tolerate some youngsters escaping the bottom half; too many escapees however would topple the current distribution of scarce, lifelong educational benefits. Those currently deriving undeserved economic and social advantages need take no overt action to remain in the top half. Their benefits derive from a system of schooling that has been thoroughly institutionalized by custom, law and the mechanisms in place for financing public education.

. The notion that American society will somehow reorder its system of distributing access to educational and social benefits once experts implement more powerful change strategies, or after there are more urgent appeals to the public’s sense of justice are incredibly naïve. All our schools and especially those “serving” diverse children in urban poverty, reflect the values and intentions of our society. Rarely noted is the fact that teacher education also reflects society’s intentions and values regarding the appropriateschooling for diverse children in poverty.
















Corwin, R.G.(1973)Organizational reform and organizational survival: The Teacher Corps as an Instrument of educational change. New York: Wiley

Darling-Hammond, L.& Sclan, E.M.(1996)Who teaches and why: Dilemma of building a profession for 21st century schools. In J.Sikula (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (Second Edition) NewYork :Macmillan, pp68-104

Edna Clark Foundation(2001) Clark Foundations Shifts Focus, Pulls Out of Education. Education Week. Feb.14,

2001. p.6

Fullan, M.G.& Miles, B.(1992)Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Kappan .June,1992.pp.745-752

Loeb, P.R.(1999).Soul of a Citizen. St. Martin’s Griffin Press. New York: pp.88-89

Haberman M.(1991a)Can cultural awareness be taught in teacher education programs? Teacher Education. 4:1Fall,1991

Haberman, M.(1991b) The pedagogy of poverty vs. good teaching. Kappan. Dec.,1991


Haberman, M.(1995) Selecting star teachers for children and youth in urban poverty. Kappan. June, 1995.pp.777-781

James,W.(1892) Psychology of the Mind. Holt and Co. New York: 217

Quartz, K.H.(2001) Urban Teacher Retention: (Phase One:1998-2001) Technical Report of the center X/TEP Research Group. #1001-UTEC-6-01. UCLA: Institute for Democracy, Education and Access

Sarason, S.B.(1990) The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. Jossey Bass, San Francisco: p.2

Schug, M. & Western,R.(1998) Deregulating teacher training in Wisconsin. Wisconsin School News June,1998


Sleeter, C.E.(1992) Keepers of the American Dream: A Study of Staff Development and Multicultural Education London: The Falmer Press

Wingspread Coalition(2001) Where Will We Find the Leaders and What Will We Ask Them To Do? Forum For the American School Superintendent. Seattle: p.5







1 (Soul of a Citizen, 1999, p 87-88)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts


Share This

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.