Teachers are the key to educational and social change in the school environment, which they lead through classroom planning and management practices (Lalas, 2007). These practices are derived, among other things, from the ideological motives that led them to choose the teaching profession and the educational concepts that take shape over the course of their training. Teachers who chose the teaching profession as a second career constitute a particularly interesting group. Research in the 21st century indicates a tendency to choose teaching as a second career for altruistic motives and as the result of a desire to benefit children and adolescents in a multi-cultural social context (Theriot, 2007; Sinclair, 2008; Lee & Lamport, 2011; Wagner & Imanuel-Noy, 2014).
These findings are consistent with the education policy of many countries around the world to narrow the social gap, to promote the values of equality and fairness among children in the educational system. At the same time, the academic institutions for the training of teachers are explicitly engaged in building a vision that strives to build a more just society, and integrate in the training programs aspects of social change, both on the theoretical and clinical levels. Thus, in the framework of the strategies that map the level of involvement of teachers in planning processes on the continuum between passive and independent, student-teachers are given to perceive the role of teacher as active and autonomous, and see themselves less as "curriculum transmitters" and more as "curriculum developers" and “researchers” (Shawer, 2010) who deal with difficulties in complex situations and offer solutions and changes in the wake of reflective thinking (Salberg 2011).
The most activist view is presented by Giroux (1989), who refers to teachers as “critics of curricula for social justice.” According to this stream of critical theory, the education system is a factor that preserves an unequal political, social, economic, and cultural reality that works for the benefit of the established groups through institutional structures, curricula, and teaching (Kochan-Smith, 2008). According to Giroux (1988), teachers must therefore be "intellectual agents of change" who form a "curriculum justice" by "shaping the purposes and conditions of schooling” (p. 126). However, Agarwal, Epstein, et. al. (2010) argue that the term “social justice” has a wide range of meanings and interpretations. Therefore, the researchers suggested that teaching for social justice includes: (a) enacting curricula that integrate multiple perspectives (b) supporting students to develop a critical consciousness of the injustices that characterize our society; and (c) scaffolding opportunities for students to be active participants in a democracy, skilled in forms of civic engagement and deliberative discussion.
Whipp (2013) presented a cluster of teaching practices identified in a social justice-oriented teacher, including caring relationships, high academic expectations, skill/content instruction, "funds of knowledge" pedagogies, use of student interests, cultural heroes, holidays, build background knowledge, differentiation, high behavioral expectations, consistent structure/routines, "warm yet demanding" climate, student empowerment, connection with parents, use of community resources, consciousness-raising, promotion of student activism, and advocacy for change in school policies/practices.
The purpose of this study was to deepen the knowledge of the teaching practices of social justice, which focus on classroom curriculum planning and classroom management, implemented in the context of disadvantaged populations; to map these practices as a model that can be learned and applied. Therefore, the research questions are: How do student-teachers, in their second career, translate their educational perception into curricular decisions and classroom management practices? What areas and practices of social justice do they apply in the low socio-economic status schools where they teach?