Many countries encompass places perceived to be dangerous and undesirable for living or learning. For example, in both the United States and the United Kingdom, “urban” is a frequent euphemism for deficit-based notions of place associated with communities of the poor and racially minoritized (cf. Hollingworth & Archer, 2010; Milner, 2012; Noguera, 2003; Watson, 2012). Likewise, terms such as urban, rural, or inner city are often inscribed with other phrases such as “at risk” or “high need,” further cementing implicit images of certain kinds of place—and the students inhabiting them—as inherently problematic, especially for teachers. Such perceptions/associations become barriers to teacher recruitment, as corroborated by analyses of equity across Europe (OECD, 2012), indicating that candidates are less likely to teach or stay in schools seen as difficult places to teach because they serve “disadvantaged” (i.e., difficult) students. However, the perceived difficulties of teaching in a particular place do not necessarily arise from inherent deficits located within that place; individuals who know a place may find that place desirable. For example, people who grew up in cities are more likely to seek teaching careers in urban school systems (Boyd, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2005). The apparently de facto connection between a place, such as “urban,” and “risk” is not universal, but does forward the importance of preparing teachers for specific contexts, an idea that is gaining traction internationally and in the U.S. (Matsko & Hammerness, 2014; OECD, 2012).  

In this study, we focus on teacher preparation for “urban” as place. Traditional conceptions of “urban” focus on race, socioeconomic status and language but neglect to consider the role of place in education. Urban education, like all education, takes place within unique bureaucratic, organizational, and contextual structures that teachers need to know how to navigate (Weiner, 2000). However, in the United States, the majority of teachers in urban schools are not from urban areas and, as a result, “are not familiar with the unique assets children in the city bring to the classroom” or the structural inequities that affect urban students and schools (Bales & Saffold, 2011). Many teacher educators who work in urban education programs do not have direct experience with city schools either (Obidah & Howard, 2005) and as a result, may not be comfortable helping pre-service urban teachers learn about the unique context of a particular city and about “working the system” (Donnell, 2007) for the benefit of their students. As a result, pre-service teachers who understand urban contexts bring particular funds of knowledge to urban teacher education programs that place-conscious teacher education programs can draw upon for the benefit of all.

We use radical pedagogy of place (RPP) (Ruitenberg, 2005) to examine the funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992) that seventeen pre-service teachers who identify as coming from a particular urban place in the U.S.--New York City (NYC)--bring to a teacher education program designed to prepare teachers to teach in that place. According to Ruitenberg (2005), RPP “is a pedagogy of ‘place’ under deconstruction, a pedagogy that understands experience as mediated, that understands the ‘local’ as producing and being produced by the trans-local, and that understands ‘community’ as community-to-come, as a call of hospitality” (p. 218). Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following questions:

1.     What funds of knowledge do inhabitants of New York City bring to a teacher education programmed designed specifically to prepare teachers to teach in NYC?

2.     How do participants articulate what it means to be from NYC?

3.     How do participants articulate ways in which they plan to draw upon the resources of NYC when they become teachers themselves?

Bales, B.L., & Saffold, F. (2011). A new era in the preparation of teachers for urban schools: Linking multiculturalism, disciplinary-based content, and pedagogy. Urban Education, 46(5), 953-974. Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research in education (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers' preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113-132. Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Cross, B.E. (2011). Research as an epistemological architect of marginalizing power. In K.A. Scott & W.J. Blanchett (Eds.), Donnell, K. (2007). Getting to we: Developing a transformative urban teaching practice. Urban Education, 42(3), 223-249. Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case. New York: Teachers College Press. Hollingworth, S., & Archer, L. (2010). Urban schools as urban places: School reputation, children’s identities and engagement with education in London. Urban Studies, 47(3), 584-603. Matsko, K. K., & Hammerness, K. (2014). Unpacking the “urban” in urban teacher education: Making a case for context-specific preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 128-144. Milner, H.R., IV. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556-561. Moll, L.C. (2015). Tapping into the “hidden” home and community resources of students. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 51(3), 114-117. Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream. NY: Teachers College Press. Obidah, J.E., & Howard, T.C. (2005). Preparing teachers for “Monday morning” in the urban school classroom: Reflecting on our pedagogies and practices as effective teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(3), 248-255. OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers. France: OECD Publications. OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: OECD Publications. doi: 10.1787/9789264177338-en. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Ruitenberg, C.W. (2005). Deconstructing the experience of the local: Toward a radical pedagogy of place. Philosophy of Education, 212-220. Watson, D. (2012). Norming suburban: How teachers talk about race without using race words. Urban Education, 47(5), 983-1004. Weiner, L. (2000). Research in the 90s: Implications for urban teacher preparation. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 369-406.