Maestros Novatos en Escuelas Pobres

685763
research-article2017
UEXXXX10.1177/0042085916685763Urban EducationBettini and Park
Article
Urban Education
2021, Vol. 56(1) 3–31
Novice Teachers’ © The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Experiences in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0042085916685763
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916685763
High-Poverty Schools: journals.sagepub.com/home/uex
An Integrative Literature
Review
Elizabeth Bettini1 and Yujeong Park2
Abstract
Retaining teachers in high-poverty schools is essential for ensuring students
who live in poverty have equitable educational opportunities. Understanding
novices’ experiences can help school leaders improve novices’ retention in
high-poverty schools throughout their careers. This integrative review of
studies investigates novices’ experiences teaching in high-poverty schools.
We identified common themes in extant studies, as well as several important
areas of research that are, to date, under-studied; most notably, more
research is needed to explore differences in novices’ experiences of their
working conditions in high- versus low-poverty schools, and the implications
of those differences for teacher development and retention.
Keywords
novice teachers, beginning teachers, new teacher socialization, induction,
high-poverty schools
Students of color and students who live in poverty are disproportionately

served by less experienced, less effective teachers than White students from
affluent backgrounds (Mason-Williams, 2015; Palardy, 2015). Improving the
1Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

2The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA
Corresponding Author:
Elizabeth Bettini, Boston University, 2 Silber Way, Office 222, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Email: lbettini@bu.edu
4 Urban Education 56(1)
effectiveness of teachers serving students from diverse racial and socio-eco-

nomic backgrounds has become an important priority (Darling-Hammond,
2013). However, it is first necessary to recruit highly skilled teachers, culti-
vate their effectiveness, and retain them (Darling-Hammond, 2013).
Keeping novice teachers is particularly challenging in schools that serve
predominantly students of color and students who live in poverty (Boyd,
Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2008; Xu, Ozek, & Corritore, 2012).
For instance, Boyd and colleagues found that first- and second-year teachers
were 6% more likely to leave schools serving the highest proportions of stu-
dents living in poverty than schools serving the lowest proportions of stu-
dents living in poverty, and they were 9% more likely to leave schools serving
predominantly Black and Hispanic students than schools serving predomi-
nantly White students. Similarly, Xu and colleagues found elementary teach-
ers in North Carolina were 7% more likely to move from schools serving
more students living in poverty to schools serving fewer students living in
poverty than to move in the opposite direction. The most effective teachers
who leave often choose to move from high- to low-poverty schools and from
high- to low-minority schools, thus exacerbating disparities in access to
effective teachers (Boyd et al., 2008).
These patterns of novice teacher attrition have led to concern that novice
teachers seem to be avoiding students of color and students living in poverty
(Borman & Dowling, 2008). However, DeAngelis and Pressley (2011) found
that attrition rates in high-poverty, high-minority schools vary greatly; some
such schools retained 50% of novices for 5 years while others retained as few
as 12.5%; they concluded demographics cannot fully account for the high
attrition common in high-poverty schools. Instead, novices may leave these
schools because of poor working conditions common in high-poverty schools
serving predominantly students of color (Schernoff, Mehta, Atkins, Torf, &
Spencer, 2011). For instance, Johnson, Kraft, and Papay (2012) found that,
after controlling for working conditions (e.g., administrative support, school
culture), the relationship between teachers’ attrition and student demograph-
ics was substantially reduced. Johnson and colleagues concluded, “The
apparent relationship between teacher turnover and student characteristics
may largely reflect differences in the work context” among schools serving
students from different backgrounds (p. 20). Other studies confirm working
conditions account for much of the variance in novice teacher attrition (Boyd
et al., 2011).
Given that working conditions predict teachers’ attrition from high-pov-
erty schools (Johnson et al., 2012), understanding the nature of novices’
experiences of their working conditions may help school leaders develop
conditions that retain novices in urban schools. We acknowledge the term
Bettini and Park 5
urban is often used to describe schools in which substantial proportion of

students are from traditionally marginalized groups (e.g., students of color,
students living in poverty), even when such schools are not located within
cities (Milner, 2012). Consistent with this usage, we conceptualize urban
schools as those predominantly serving students who experience structural
racial and socio-economic barriers to pursuing self-determined goals. We
conceptualize urban teaching as social justice work that requires teachers to
actively counteract their students’ and communities’ marginalization, through
culturally responsive teaching.
Prior research has documented that urban schools may often present teach-
ers with more difficult working conditions for a number of reasons. Despite
efforts to ensure equitable school funding through Title 1, urban schools are
often underfunded and, thus, struggle to obtain resources (e.g., instructional
materials, qualified personnel) teachers depend on (Mosenkis, 2014;
Ushomirsky & Williams, 2015); as a result, teachers in urban schools may be
assigned overwhelming workloads without resources necessary to fulfill their
responsibilities (Fall & Billingsley, 2011; Schernoff et al., 2011). Furthermore,
urban schools serve students who are often stigmatized and disenfranchised
by dominant culture (King, Akua, & Russell, 2015); this stigma can nega-
tively influence the way urban schools and teachers are perceived and sup-
ported (Early & Shagoury, 2010). For instance, urban schools may be subject
to more rigid, hierarchical controls than schools whose students are not
viewed from a deficit orientation (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; King et al.,
2015). Because novices in urban schools experience different working condi-
tions than novices in schools serving predominantly White and affluent stu-
dents (Fall & Billingsley, 2011), examining their experiences separately from
other novice teachers is essential for understanding novices’ attrition from
urban schools. Therefore, we examine the nature of novices’ experiences in
high-poverty, public, urban schools, investigating the following research
question:
Research Question: What is the nature of novice teachers’ experiences in

high-poverty, urban public schools?
Conceptual Framework
We conceptualize schools as “fundamentally social organizations character-
ized by social psychological processes” (Youngs, Frank, Thum, & Low,
2012, p. 249) and situate this review within the intersection of role theory
(Biddle, 1986) and social capital theory (Kikuchi & Coleman, 2012). Role
theory posits that one’s experiences in and responses to an environment are
shaped by an interaction among personal factors (e.g., identity, knowledge),

social context (e.g., cultural norms, relationships, social capital), and physi-
cal/temporal features of that environment (e.g., schedules, material
resources; Biddle, 1986). These factors interact with one another. For
instance, one’s knowledge may influence how colleagues interact with him
or her, while social interactions may provide support for developing stronger
knowledge (Bettini, Park, Benedict, Kimerling, & Leite, 2016; Kraft &
Papay, 2014), and physical/temporal resources may shape knowledge and
social interactions among colleagues by, for instance, providing materials,
schedules, and spaces conducive to collaboration (Scruggs, Mastropieri, &
McDuffie, 2007).
We intersect role theory (Biddle, 1986) with social capital theory’s focus
on the resources inherent in social networks (Coleman, 1988; Kikuchi &
Coleman, 2012). Social capital is the “resources that exist in social relations
between individuals” (Curry & Holter, 2015, p. 9), and social capital theory
posits that the “structure of relations” between and among individuals is a
resource that contributes to how individuals and organizations pursue indi-
vidual and collective aims (Coleman, 1988, p. 98). Social capital consists of
bonds of trust, formal and informal obligations to others, and normative cul-
tural expectations and assumptions about how members of a community
should act and interact. As a resource, social capital can provide individuals
with information, opportunities, and power to effect change (Kikuchi &
Coleman,, 2012). Importantly for a study of urban schools, both role theory
and social capital theory acknowledge how relationships between and among
individuals and organizations are situated within specific historical, cultural,
and political contexts (Biddle, 1986; Kikuchi & Coleman, 2012); for instance,
social capital theory has often been used to highlight how the social capital of
communities of color and communities living in poverty has often been mar-
ginalized in ways that perpetuate opportunity gaps (e.g., Devine, 2008;
Dixon-Romàn, 2012; Lareau & Calarco, 2012; Monkman, Ronald, &
Thèramène, 2005). Consistent with role theory and social capital theory, we
conceptualize novices as teachers who are “making sense” (Youngs, Jones, &
Low, 2011, p. 1520) of their roles, through interactions among their personal
characteristics and their social, and physical contexts, while they are building
social capital with their students, students’ families, colleagues, and adminis-
trators, to achieve their aims.
Literature Search Method

The literature search was conducted in Education Full Text. The terms new
teacher, novice teacher, beginning teacher, and early career teacher were
Bettini and Park 7
paired with poverty, urban, and divers*. Dates were limited to 2002-2016, as
teachers’ experiences have changed since No Child Left Behind (Valli &
Buese, 2007). Results were limited to peer-reviewed studies in public K-12
U.S. schools. Studies of charter and private schools were excluded, as work-
ing conditions and teacher attrition rates in these schools can be quite differ-
ent from in public schools (e.g., Goldhaber, Destler, & Player, 2010).
To be included, studies had to examine teachers’ experiences during their
first 5 years teaching in high-poverty schools. Five years is a common cutoff
for determining when teachers cease to be a novice (e.g., Billingsley, Carlson,
& Klein, 2004). This cutoff is consistent with evidence that teachers’ capacity
to elicit growth in student achievement increases much more rapidly during
the first 5 years teaching (Henry, Bastian, & Fortner, 2011; Xu, Ozek, &
Hansen, 2013), which demonstrates that these years in a teacher’s career are
substantively different from other periods, typically involving significant
professional growth.
Studies evaluating effects of researcher-designed induction programs
were not included; however, studies of novices’ experiences in districts’ nor-
mal induction were included. Studies describing novices’ beliefs and actions,
without delving into their experiences of working conditions, were excluded.
Participants had to be in their first through fifth year teaching, unless data for
other years (e.g., pre-service experiences) were disaggregated. Participants
also had to be providing academic instruction (e.g., math, language arts, sci-
ence, social studies, special education).
Participants also needed to be teaching in high-poverty schools, or data for
teachers in high-poverty schools needed to be disaggregated. We did not
apply criteria to delimit how studies could define “high-poverty”; if authors
stated the study was conducted in high-poverty schools, we accepted that
assertion at face value. This was necessary, as many studies provided ambig-
uous descriptions of their contexts, but it is a limitation, as schools with high
concentrations of students living in poverty likely provide novices with sub-
stantially different experiences than schools with moderate proportions of
students living in poverty. The only time we did not accept the authors’ asser-
tion was when demographic data belied authors’ claims to have focused on
high-poverty schools; studies including schools with fewer than 20% of stu-
dents living in poverty that did not disaggregate data for high- and low-pov-
erty schools were excluded.
We analyzed studies using inductive thematic analysis (Corbin & Strauss,
2015). We carefully read each study, creating a table of methods and findings.
We then looked across studies to identify themes. We created integrative
summaries of major findings within each theme and how those findings were
supported. We then re-read all studies, seeking findings that elaborated,
complicated, or extended our understanding of each theme; thematic sum-

maries were revised accordingly.
Literature Review Results

Sixteen studies examined novices’ experiences during their first 5 years in
high-poverty schools. Consistent with role theory and social capital theory,
novices’ experiences were shaped by their efforts to navigate their schools’
micro- and macro-social contexts, including (a) novices’ interactions with
students, (b) school cultures, (c) collegial interactions, (d) formal induction
and mentoring, and (e) the larger social context of urban schools. Also con-
sistent with role theory, novices’ experiences were shaped by schools’ physi-
cal resources, especially instructional curricula.
Interactions With Students

Prior research has documented two trends in novices’ experiences of interac-
tions with students. First, “practice shock” is when novices are confronted
with the discrepancy between idealistic visions of teaching and reality; nov-
ices experiencing practice shock sometimes abandon ideal teaching practices
in favor of traditional practices (Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). The
second trend is a cultural mismatch between novices and students, which
may lead novices to lower expectations and adopt a deficit orientation
(Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010). Six studies examined novices’
experiences of interactions with students. Many novices’ experiences were
consistent with these trends, but most novices interpreted and responded to
these experiences in positive ways.
Rodriguez (2015) studied a novice teacher, Gary, as he transitioned from
a pre-service preparation program through 2 years teaching in a predomi-
nantly Latino/a, high-poverty high school. During pre-service preparation,
Gary’s coursework emphasized socio-transformative constructivist (sTc; a
constructivist approach to critical, multi-cultural education) science educa-
tion. Gary’s supervising teacher also received training in sTc, his induction
focused on sTc, and Gary expressed commitment to sTc. Rodriguez con-
ducted two interviews per year, observed Gary weekly, recorded field notes,
and collected data about students’ achievement. Consistent with practice
shock, Gary reported struggling to address students’ poor attendance and
disinterest in science. However, consistent with sTc principles, Gary
addressed these issues by connecting science to students’ home lives, plac-
ing students in authentic scientific roles, and creating extra-curricular
activities to engage students and families. These efforts were rewarded;
Bettini and Park 9
attendance rates and enrollment increased in his class, and more students
elected to join his club.
Achinstein and Barrett (2004) studied 15 mentor–mentee dyads from 12
elementary schools. They recorded mentoring sessions, conducted inter-
views, observed novices, and collected relevant documents. The authors
found that novices and mentors used three frames to discuss novices’ interac-
tions with students: (a) a managerial frame, focused on control; (b) a human
relations frame, focused on relationships; and (c) a political frame, focused
on social justice. Three cases illustrated how frames were used in mentor–
mentee interactions. In the first case, Carmen came to teaching with strong
motivation to teach for social justice but, consistent with “practice shock,”
found she was becoming punitive and controlling in response to student
behavior. Her mentor helped her to reframe behavioral challenges as human
relations problems; for instance, she helped Carmen understand the pressure
that might lead a student to cheat and to approach cheating with empathy. In
the second case, Maggie was assigned to teach the “low” reading group (p.
733); consistent with cultural mismatch, she felt unsure of students’ capaci-
ties given their linguistic differences and, consequently, provided so much
support that students had few opportunities to develop independent skills.
Her mentor used a political frame to focus her on providing students equita-
ble opportunities to become independent readers, despite their label. Finally,
Tina was focused on “problem students” and classroom management (p.
736). Her mentor did not reframe these problems, and she remained focused
on management and control.
In another study, Sara also experienced cultural mismatch (Chubbuck &
Zembylas, 2008). Chubbuck and Zembylas observed Sara for 80 min per day
for 9 weeks, interviewed her 6 times, and collected her reflective journal.
Sara’s vision of socially just language arts instruction involved teaching stu-
dents texts from dominant and marginalized cultures, relating texts to real
problems in students’ lives, and empowering students to promote change.
Sara reported feeling a paralyzing anxiety about lesson planning, as she spent
extensive time and energy trying to understand how students might respond
to lessons. When Sara was unable to fulfill her vision of socially just teach-
ing, she felt deep guilt, worrying that she was perpetuating injustice. Contrary
to trends in which novices who experience a cultural mismatch frame diver-
sity as a problem (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004), Sara held herself accountable
for all problems; however, the pressure that Sara put on herself became so
heavy that she began having panic attacks and losing weight. She sought
counseling for her anxiety; in addition, she reported informal interactions
with students in an extra-curricular club helped her to “[get] over myself” and
interact with students more authentically (p. 302). She shared that a student
expressed annoyance that Sara was striving to be like “that White lady from
Dangerous Minds” (p. 302) and explained that this interaction helped her
invest more energy in forming relationships with students. Subsequently, she
reported being able to relax and connect with students on a personal, as well
as political, level.
Interestingly, Strom (2015) found that a first-year high school science
teacher’s interactions with students influenced his instructional practices dif-
ferently in two different courses. Strom conducted interviews with and obser-
vations of Mauro over one semester. In an 11th-grade earth science course,
Mauro enacted constructivist practices he had learned in pre-service course-
work; in contrast, in a ninth-grade environmental science class, he reverted to
teacher-led direct instructional practices. This difference was partially influ-
enced by his interactions with students. Mauro was able to build positive
relationships with 11th-grade students, who he felt had maturity and motiva-
tion to engage in student-led activities; in addition, these were smaller classes,
providing him more time to interact with individual students. He struggled to
develop relationships with ninth-grade students in his larger environmental
science courses, and thus, consistent with practice shock, reverted to more
traditional management practices.
Achinstein and Aguirre (2008) conducted interviews, focus groups, and
observations with 15 secondary teachers who were Latino/a, Asian American,
Biracial, and African American, during their last year of pre-service prepara-
tion and their first 2 years teaching in high-poverty urban schools. Data were
analyzed using iterative coding, followed by a cross-case analysis. The
authors found that, despite shared racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socio-eco-
nomic backgrounds, students perceived a cultural mismatch between them-
selves and teachers, and often challenged novices’ claims to share their
backgrounds. They questioned whether teachers were “Brown enough” or
“too Black” (p. 1515). Some students challenged teachers’ knowledge of
Spanish, use of academic language, and ownership of objects (e.g., cars) that
signified middle-class status. Novices had to respond to these challenges to
build social capital with their students. Most novices had personal experience
negotiating their cultural identity and understood that students who chal-
lenged them were attempting to understand their own cultural identities.
Rather than framing diversity as a problem, most novices responded by using
challenges as “teachable moments” (p. 1521); some novices problematized
students’ beliefs that their cultural identity was incompatible with intellectual
pursuits, while others explained how, when, and why they code switch.
Early and Shagoury (2010) conducted the only study in which novices did
not experience practice shock or cultural mismatch. They qualitatively exam-
ined how novices framed and understood their experiences in high-poverty,
Bettini and Park 11
urban schools. The authors purposively selected novices who had been rated
as excellent by their administrators or mentors and who were in their first 1
to 4 years teaching language arts in high-poverty (i.e., minimum of 60% of
students receiving free and reduced price lunches), diverse schools that had
failed to make adequate yearly progress. Novices participated in interviews
structured to elicit stories. Novices did not experience practice shock or cul-
tural mismatch; rather, they reported feeling most satisfied when they were
interacting with students, especially when students were taking ownership of
learning. Novices reported teacher preparation helped them have positive
experiences, by preparing them to build community, design social justice–
oriented lessons, and value students’ diverse assets.
Conclusion about novices’ interactions with students. The reviewed studies docu-
mented that many novices’ experiences interacting with students were con-
sistent with practice shock and cultural mismatch (Achinstein & Aguirre,
2008; Achinstein & Barrett, 2004; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez,
2015; Strom, 2015). However, most novices used these experiences to
become more skilled teachers. Novices’ positive responses to their experi-
ences were supported by pre-service preparation (Early & Shagoury, 2010;
Rodriguez, 2015; Strom, 2015), mentors (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004), stu-
dents (Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Strom, 2015), smaller class sizes
(Strom, 2015), and their cultural and linguistic backgrounds (Achinstein &
Aguirre, 2008). However, not all teachers were able to interpret experiences
in positive ways; one teacher in Achinstein and Barrett’s study responded by
adopting a control orientation, while a few teachers in Achinstein and Agu-
irre’s study responded by framing diversity as a problem.
School Culture
When novices begin teaching, they join a complex social organization, with
established cultural norms, values, and assumptions about how members of
the school community should act and interact (Youngs et al., 2012). Novices’
experiences are shaped by their school’s culture and the types of interactions
fostered within that culture (Youngs et al., 2012). Seven studies qualitatively
examined novices’ experiences of the degree to which their school cultures
were aligned with their beliefs and values.
Bergeron (2008) collected field notes of a first-year teacher’s (Christina)
instruction, journals of her experiences, her emails to the author, and docu-
mentary evidence of her instruction. Bergeron found Christina’s instructional
beliefs were congruent with her principal’s value for culturally responsive
instruction. This congruence provided her freedom to take instructional risks,
deviating from policies that diverged from her values. She also had a strong
relationship with the teacher in the classroom next door. She and this col-
league co-planned lessons and supported one another.
Achinstein and Ogawa (2011) investigated how cultural, human, and
social capital of novice Latina/o teachers’ schools influenced their efforts to
act as role models, culturally responsive teachers, and change agents within
high-poverty schools serving predominantly Latina/o students. Two partici-
pants were purposefully sampled because their experiences reflected patterns
evident among a larger sample of 11 Latina/o teachers. Researchers con-
ducted interviews with novices and administrators, observed novices’ instruc-
tion, and conducted focus groups during the last year of participants’
pre-service preparation and their first 3 years teaching. Both teachers reported
school social contexts influenced their efforts to act as culturally and linguis-
tically responsive (CLR) teachers. One teacher, Inez, was one of few Spanish-
speaking teachers in her school; consequently, she was quickly assigned
multiple roles as a translator, coordinator of the English as a second language
(ESL) program, and senior teacher in her department, leaving her little time
to form relationships with students. She also had few opportunities to connect
with veteran teachers who shared her values, and no formal mentorship for
learning to teach. Her school’s culture was “hostile” to the ESL department
(in which she worked), discouraged meaningful interactions with parents,
and was oriented toward controlling students (p. 2528). This culture limited
her abilities to empower her students, as she herself was not empowered to
make consequential decisions. In contrast, Alejandra worked in a school with
extensive supports for teachers to bond with students and families. She had
ongoing opportunities to collaborate with other teachers around CLR teach-
ing practices, and the school culture was committed to CLR education. She
worked with senior colleagues, her mentor, and university faculty to develop
curricula that would resonate with students while empowering them to act as
change agents.
Most other novices’ experiences aligned with Inez’s (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2011; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez, 2015). For instance,
Achinstein and Aguirre’s (2008) investigation found most novices engaged in
complex conversations with students about race, class, and privilege, without
support from colleagues or administrators. Their school social contexts pro-
vided little support for understanding how to help students understand these
issues (Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008).
Some novices reported their school’s culture was in direct opposition to
their values (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; de
Oliveira & Athanases, 2007; Rodriguez, 2015). For instance, Gary (Rodriguez,
2015) reported struggling with his school’s pervasive culture of low
Bettini and Park 13
expectations. He felt he had to actively work against these expectations to

avoid adopting them (Rodriguez, 2015). Similarly, Sara (Chubbuck &
Zembylas, 2008) felt her struggles to develop lessons that promoted social
justice were exacerbated by her school’s social climate, because she had to
resist the pressure of a normative control orientation.
Teachers were aware of how working against dominant school cultures
could be costly (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007).
de Oliveira and Athanases examined focus groups in which 38 novice teach-
ers from the same teacher-preparation program discussed experiences advo-
cating for students. Consistent with their preparation program’s focus on
equity, novices felt responsible for advocating for equitable educational prac-
tices. However, advocacy often involved confrontation with others. With lim-
ited social capital in their new schools, novices worried that they would “get
in trouble” with administrators (p. 129). They weighed costs and benefits of
advocacy, choosing not to speak when they felt benefits were unachievable or
costs were too high (de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007).
Achinstein and Ogawa (2006) described one teacher who paid a high cost
for refusing to adhere to her school’s norms. They conducted an in-depth
study of two novices who resisted pressure to implement a scripted literacy
curriculum. The authors interviewed teachers, mentors, and administrators,
conducted observations of novices’ instruction and mentoring interactions,
and administered a new teacher survey. One novice, Sue, was committed to
creativity and meeting students’ individual needs; this commitment led her to
create literacy lessons that incorporated novel study and dialogue among stu-
dents. Although her administrators viewed her as highly competent, she was
released from her contract after 1 year because her adherence to a balanced
literacy program and her advocacy for enriching literacy experiences led her
administrators to believe she was not a “team player” (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2006, p. 42).
Conclusion about school cultures and collegial interactions. Across studies, only
three novices worked in schools where their administrators and their school’s
culture held values aligned with novices’ commitment to teaching for social
justice (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006, 2011; Bergeron, 2008). Most novices
endeavored to enact their values in a culture that either actively discouraged
teaching for social justice (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011) or passively ignored
issues of cultural and linguistic diversity (Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008). Nov-
ices experienced school cultures that were committed to controlling students
(Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011; Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Chubbuck & Zemby-
las, 2008), had pervasive low expectations (Rodriguez, 2015), and promoted
teaching as transmission of information (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006).
Novices were aware of how working against the dominant school culture
could (and in one case did) carry substantial costs; this awareness influenced
how they advocated for students and resisted normative cultural pressures
(Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007).
Collegial Interactions
Six studies examined novices’ interactions with colleagues. Prior research
consistently indicates administrative and collegial support is crucial for nov-
ices’ retention (e.g., Guarino, Santibanez, & Daley, 2006) and learning (e.g.,
Kraft & Papay, 2014). Consistent with prior research, reviewed studies found
that novices relied on support from administrators and colleagues.
Early and Shagoury (2010; previously described) found novice language
arts teachers’ experiences were deeply influenced by interactions with admin-
istrators. Some novices reported that administrators treated them with respect,
communicated regularly, modeled positive perspectives on their school and
students, included them in decisions, and helped them improve; relationships
with administrators helped them feel confident and committed to their
schools. In contrast, other novices reported feeling “invisible” in schools
where administrators did not communicate regularly or offer support (p.
1053). Novices also reported relying heavily on opportunities to collaborate
with other beginning language arts teachers.
In Achinstein and Ogawa’s (2006; previously described) study, both nov-
ices’ commitment to creative, individualized literacy instruction led them to
create literacy lessons incorporating novel study and dialogue among stu-
dents. However, Sue’s school did not promote supportive, instructionally
focused professional interactions, and she described feeling isolated. In con-
trast, Rob had frequent, instructionally focused interactions with other nov-
ices. He felt less isolated than Sue and reported that these interactions helped
him maintain his commitment to CLR practices.
Waddell (2010) similarly found that eight novice elementary teachers
who continued teaching for 4 to 6 years reported relying heavily on sup-
port from colleagues and administrators. Waddell conducted observa-
tions, gathered documents, and held semi-structured interviews and focus
groups. Waddell found that relationships with colleagues were essential
for teachers’ decisions to continue teaching. Teachers reported going to
colleagues for support, valuing their membership in a community with a
shared mission, and experiencing “a sense of belonging, ownership, and
satisfaction” (p. 76). They also reported that feeling “valued, respected
and supported” by their principal was instrumental in their decisions to
continue teaching (p. 78).
Bettini and Park 15
Anderson and Olsen (2006) interviewed and observed 15 teachers with 2

to 6 years’ experience teaching in urban schools to understand the nature of
novices’ interactions with colleagues. Profiles of two novices were presented
to illustrate the themes. Jasmine, a second-year teacher, reported interacting
frequently with other novices, which she described as “the blind leading the
blind” (p. 363). She interacted with grade-level colleagues frequently, but
explained that interactions focused on logistical issues, not instruction. Her
school had a climate of “anxiety and alienation,” as administrators responded
to accountability pressure by micro-managing instruction (p. 363). In con-
trast, the other novice, Cristina, had meaningful collaborative relationships
with colleagues. She team-taught with two teachers and collaborated daily
with grade-level colleagues, focusing on instructional improvement. She and
her colleagues had extensive autonomy, with few mandates about how to
structure team teaching. Across cases, novices reported opportunities to inter-
act with colleagues were the most important mechanism by which they
improved their instruction.
Hopkins and Spillane’s (2015) investigation of novices’ instructional inter-
actions with colleagues was one of only two studies comparing novices’ expe-
riences in high- versus low-poverty schools. Participants were in their first 3
years of teaching; 49 novices taught in “Auburn Park,” a predominantly
White, affluent district where 22% of students receive free and reduced price
lunches, while 34 novices taught in “Twin Rivers,” a district where 69% of
students receive free and reduced price lunches, 48% of students are Latino/a,
and 45% are White. All teachers in each school were surveyed, and novices’
social networks were compared across districts and with more experienced
teachers’ social networks. The authors also conducted semi-structured inter-
views with personnel in five Auburn Park schools and two Twin Rivers
schools. In both districts, novices sought help from more people than experi-
enced teachers and sought advice from more people in reading than in math.
Twin Rivers teachers sought more colleagues’ help in math than Auburn Park
teachers. In both districts, novices primarily sought help from grade-level col-
leagues and formal leaders (e.g., mentors, literacy coaches), although Twin
Rivers novices were more likely to go to their principal than Auburn Park
novices. Novices in both districts were significantly more likely to go to their
principal than experienced teachers. Novices’ interactions with grade-level
colleagues were facilitated by the proximity of their classrooms to skilled col-
leagues, shared instructional curricula, and common planning time, and in
Auburn Park, a professional learning community. School principals also
reported intentionally creating opportunities for novices to obtain instructional
support; these opportunities included observations with feedback and model-
ing by instructional coaches. Novices reported that interactions with
colleagues provided them essential opportunities to learn about content, cur-

ricula, pedagogy, and students.
Fall and Billingsley (2011) also compared novices’ experiences in high-
poverty schools with low-poverty schools. Participants included a nationally
representative sample of 400 special educators from high-poverty districts
and 292 special educators from low-poverty districts; all participants had 5
or fewer years of experience. Novices in high-poverty districts reported
experiencing significantly less administrative support, collegial support, and
involvement in decision making.
Conclusion about collegial interactions. Consistent with prior research on teachers

in general (e.g., Guarino et al., 2006; Kraft & Papay, 2014), novices reported
that supportive, instructionally focused interactions with colleagues and admin-
istrators facilitated their learning (Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Hopkins & Spill-
ane, 2015), their commitment to CLR practices (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006),
and their commitment to continue teaching in their schools (Early & Shagoury,
2010; Waddell, 2010). However, access to supportive instructional interactions
with colleagues varied; some novices reported that collegial interactions with
other novices were unhelpful (Anderson & Olsen, 2006), while others felt
invisible in schools where administrators were not involved in their work
(Early & Shagoury, 2010). Furthermore, novices in high-poverty schools were
significantly less likely to report having adequate collegial support than nov-
ices in low-poverty schools (Fall & Billingsley, 2011).
Professional Learning Opportunities, Including Formal Induction

and Mentoring
Professional learning opportunities are intended to help novices continue
developing instructional knowledge and skills, as well as teaching them about
the expectations and norms of their school and district (Wang, Odell, &
Schwill, 2008). Seven studies examined novices’ professional learning
opportunities in high-poverty schools.
Israel and colleagues interviewed 16 first-year special educators and their
mentors, collected logs of mentors’ time use, and collected mentors’ formal
observation data. The authors found that a formal process for mentor obser-
vations helped mentors focus on providing novices detailed guidance about
improving their instruction. Novices reported that mentors’ feedback helped
them improve. They also shared that emotional support was embedded within
instructional support (Israel, Kamman, McCray, & Sindelar, 2014). Similarly,
in Anderson and Olsen’s (2010) investigation (previously described), novices
reported that mentors’ feedback was instrumental for helping them learn how
Bettini and Park 17
to teach, and in Bergeron’s study (also previously described), Christina’s

mentor observed her frequently and provided essential feedback about how
to improve. In contrast, Gary, the novice teacher in Rodriguez’s investigation
(previously described), reported feeling frustrated that, although he was fre-
quently observed by administrators and a mentor, they never provided him
substantive feedback, and he questioned whether his instruction could
improve without it (Rodriguez, 2015).
Achinstein and Barrett (2004; previously described) evaluated the sub-
stance of mentoring conversations. They found that mentor–mentee dyads
who used a managerial frame to discuss teaching problems were less likely to
use human relations and political frames, whereas dyads who used a human
relations frame were more likely to also use a political frame. Novices were
more likely to initiate conversations using a managerial frame, whereas men-
tors were more likely to initiate conversations using other frames. Through
dialogue with mentees, some mentors helped novices reframe their thinking
about the problems of teaching, moving from managerial framing to political
and human relational framing.
Wasburn-Moses compared novice special educators with novice general
educators in high-poverty schools. She surveyed 232 novice teachers in two
urban school districts in the Midwest. Although most special educators in
these districts had an assigned mentor (64.4%), they were significantly less
likely to have an assigned mentor than novice general educators (79.3%). In
addition, special education mentors were significantly less likely to have
release time for mentoring activities (14.3%) than general education men-
tors (29.9%). Similarly, only 14.9% of special education mentors were paid
for mentoring, significantly less than the proportion of general education
mentors (40.8%) who were paid. These differences raised the possibility
that access to mentorship may be a greater problem for novice special edu-
cators than novice general educators (Wasburn-Moses, 2010). However,
Fall and Billingsley (previously described) found that novice special educa-
tors in high-poverty districts were significantly more likely to participate in
formal mentoring programs (62.8%) than special educators in low-poverty
districts (57.7%).
Only two studies examined other forms of professional development,
aside from mentorship (Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Fall & Billingsley, 2011).
Fall and Billingsley found that there were no significant differences in the
total hours of professional development novice special educators reported
receiving in high- versus low-poverty schools, but there were significant dif-
ferences in the nature of their professional development. Novices in high-
poverty schools were significantly more likely to participate in university
coursework (58.1%) than novices in low-poverty schools (45.6%), likely
because they were also more likely to be pursuing certification through an

alternative program while beginning their teaching career. In contrast, novice
special educators in low-poverty districts were more likely to receive infor-
mal help from colleagues (96.4%) than novices in high-poverty districts
(92.3%) and participate in informal networks of teachers (58.1%) than nov-
ices in high-poverty districts (46.8%).
Anderson and Olsen (2006; previously described) found that teachers ear-
lier in their careers were more likely to report needing more professional
development, especially regarding classroom management and instructional
strategies. In contrast, as novices gained experiences, they became more
interested in professional development focused on the socio-political context
of their teaching, taking on leadership roles, and school improvement efforts.
Some teachers had extensive, high-quality professional development avail-
able in their school, whereas other novices had to provide professional devel-
opment for newer teachers, at a time when they themselves were still learning
to teach (Anderson & Olsen, 2006).
Conclusion about novice teachers’ professional development experiences in high-

poverty schools. Most of the reviewed studies examined novice teachers’
experiences of mentorship in high-poverty schools (Achinstein & Barrett,
2004; Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Bergeron, 2008; Fall & Billingsley, 2011;
Israel et al., 2014; Rodriguez, 2015; Wasburn-Moses, 2010). These studies
generally indicated that novices found mentorship more useful when their
mentors provided substantive feedback on how to improve instruction
(Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Bergeron, 2008; Israel et al., 2014; Rodriguez,
2015). In addition, some mentors may have helped novices reframe the ways
they thought about the problems of teaching, to be better aligned with CLR
practices (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004). However, access to mentorship may
vary depending on teachers’ teaching assignments (Wasburn-Moses, 2010)
and the poverty level of their district (Fall & Billingsley, 2011), as special
education teachers and teachers in low-poverty schools were less likely to
have assigned mentors.
The Larger Social Context of High-Poverty Schools

Two studies examined novices’ social context outside their school and how
their social capital influenced their experiences. Anderson (2010) investigated
four novice teachers’ experiences teaching in a high-poverty high school serv-
ing predominantly Latino/a students. She administered a social network sur-
vey, observed each teacher for 1 full week, conducted interviews, and collected
relevant documents. Novice teachers’ relationships with colleagues from other
Bettini and Park 19
schools contributed to their career decisions. Two novices whose connections

at other schools received better support explained that their decisions to leave
their school were, in part, a function of realizing that they could experience
more supportive conditions elsewhere. In contrast, two other novices used
their social capital outside their schools to complement the support they
received within their school and to contribute to their own school’s
improvement.
Early and Shagoury (2010; previously described) found that novice lan-
guage arts teachers in high-poverty schools were troubled by the disparity
between their own positive views of the schools and the deficit-oriented
views of the local community. For instance, one novice said,
I know everybody thinks my school is made up of thugs who get in fights every
day . . . It’s not that bad. There’s nothing particularly dangerous here—just
normal kids . . . It’s a normal busy campus. (p. 1052)
Novices reported struggling to negotiate the balance between actively coun-

tering society’s deficit orientation toward their school and students, while
addressing the very serious challenges their schools experienced, such as
inadequate resources and facilities.
Conclusion about the larger social context of high-poverty schools. Two studies
examined novices’ experiences of the larger social context of high-poverty,
urban schools. These studies differed greatly in focus, but they both concur in
finding that novices are aware of and influence community members outside
school (Anderson, 2010; Early & Shagoury, 2010). Some novices were able
to use social capital within the community to help improve their school
(Anderson, 2010) and to counter prevailing stigmas about working in high-
poverty, urban communities (Early & Shagoury, 2010).
Curricula
Novices are often still developing their instructional beliefs and practices,
and they may be susceptible to adopting instructional approaches promoted
by curricular materials (Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Grossman, Thompson,
& Valencia, 2002). The design and delivery of curricula in high-poverty
schools are a contentious topic (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Milner, 2013,
2014). On one hand, some scholars have argued that structured, standardized
curricula can provide novices necessary guidance about what and how to
teach, thus reducing demands and providing opportunities for them to con-
tinue learning effective pedagogical practices (Grossman & Thompson,
2004; Hiebert & Morris, 2012), and some studies of novice teachers have
found that novices felt better able to manage the demands of planning and
delivering instruction when they had access to structured curricula (e.g.,
Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Kauffman et al., 2002). However, none of
those studies focused on novices in high-poverty schools. On the other hand,
some scholars have expressed concern about how standardized curricula
might affect novice teachers in high-poverty schools (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2006). Because standardized curricula are based on dominant, White middle-
class culture, they seldom promote CLR practices, and they may be subtrac-
tive in nature, framing students’ diverse background knowledge, skills, and
cultures as problems to be fixed rather than assets to be leveraged and
strengthened; thus, some scholars contend that standardized curricula may
reduce novices’ autonomy to learn about their students’ cultures and incorpo-
rate their students’ funds of knowledge into instruction (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2006; King et al., 2015). Five reviewed studies investigated novices’ experi-
ences of curricula; in all studies, novices’ experiences were consistent with
the second set of concerns.
Crocco and Costigan (2007) interviewed language arts and social studies
teachers with 5 or fewer years’ experience about accountability pressures in
New York City’s public schools. Individual teachers were interviewed mul-
tiple times, and focus groups were conducted with small groups of teachers.
Novices reported experiencing a “shrinking space” in which to make autono-
mous instructional decisions (p. 517). Although they wanted support for
instructional decisions, they felt that narrowed curricula and scripted lesson
plans limited the autonomy they needed to develop positive relationships
with students, to learn from their own decisions, and to teach effectively.
Schultz, Jones-Walker, and Chikkatur (2008) obtained similar results in
their investigation of how novice elementary school teachers enacted a “lis-
tening stance” (i.e., a reflective, inquiry-based approach to teaching and
learning, in which teachers listen to their individual students, their class-
rooms, and their communities). Participants included seven teachers in their
first 4 years and five student teachers, all of whom had attended a teacher-
preparation program that cultivated a listening stance and all of whom taught
in the same elementary school in a high-poverty urban district that had
recently been taken over by the state. The school served 80% African
American students, 9% Asian students, 7% Latino/a students, and 5% White
students, the majority of whom were from lower income families. The district
had adopted standardized curricula in language arts and math. Over the 2
years of the study, the authors conducted monthly focus groups with partici-
pants and observed participants’ classrooms for 6 to 10 hr weekly. The authors
found that novices’ efforts to incorporate a listening stance into instruction
Bettini and Park 21
were influenced by the “extent to which such rituals could work in concert
with the district core curriculum” (p. 174), as well as their own beliefs about
urban schools and students of color. One first-year teacher, Diane, felt trou-
bled by the discrepancy between the mandated writing rubric (which empha-
sized responding to prompts and mechanically editing those responses) and
her own approach, which emphasized writing and revising for authentic pur-
poses. At first, she adopted the district’s rubric, introduced more prompts into
her instruction, and reduced time on authentic writing workshops. However,
she felt uncomfortable with this approach, and eventually created her own
rubric, which her principal approved. Another teacher, Julie, endeavored to
incorporate community building and listening into her implementation of
district-mandated writing prompts, by having community discussions of indi-
vidual students’ responses to prompts. However, the authors expressed con-
cerns that the teachers tended to enact the listening stance in superficial ways,
using a listening stance to build relationships with kids, but not to substan-
tively build curriculum around their students’ strengths, needs, and interests.
Strom (2015; previously described) found that Mauro’s instructional prac-
tices were more responsive to students’ learning needs in his 11th-grade
course, which was not associated with any standardized testing or established
curricula. In contrast, his ninth-grade course had a tightly paced curricula and
mandated standardized assessments; as a result, Mauro felt more pressure to
“cover” content, at the expense of being responsive to students’ interests and
learning needs.
Achinstein and Ogawa (2006; previously described) also found that nov-
ices felt limited by structured curricula. The novices in their study shared a
commitment to creativity and meeting students’ individual needs, but worked
in schools with mandated scripted literacy curricula. The first teacher, Sue,
paid lip service to the mandated curriculum, but also involved her students in
literary discussions, novel study, and authentic writing. As mentioned previ-
ously, her administrators, colleagues, and mentor viewed her as a promising,
skilled new teacher, but her contract was not renewed because of her resis-
tance to the prescriptive literacy program. The second teacher, Rob, had more
social support for deviating from the curriculum; however, he felt that
changes in district personnel and policy were going to erode this support. As
a result, he moved to a different school at the end of his second year.
Like Sue and Rob (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006), Gary, the novice teacher
in Rodriguez’s (2015) investigation (previously described), resisted standard-
ized curricula. He adhered to sTc principles, rather than following his dis-
trict’s science curriculum. However, deviating from the curriculum created
major problems. He reported having to “find the time to work around” the
curriculum so he could create culturally responsive activities. Creating his
own curriculum allowed him to provide the kind of science instruction he felt
his students needed, but it also created tensions, including tension with school
administrators as he struggled to obtain appropriate material resources, ten-
sion with his wife when he spent personal money to purchase materials, and
tension within his workday as he struggled to find time to develop curricula.
Conclusion about novices’ experiences of curriculum. The novices in the five

reviewed studies all experienced structured curricula as limiting their instruc-
tional decisions (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Crocco & Costigan, 2007;
Rodriguez, 2015; Schultz et al., 2008; Strom, 2015). Their experiences dif-
fered greatly from novices’ experiences in studies that did not focus on high-
poverty contexts. Studies that included novices in low-poverty contexts have
reported that structured curricula helped novices manage their instructional
responsibilities (e.g., Grossman & Thompson, 2004; Kauffman et al., 2002);
in contrast, novices in high-poverty schools reported that their efforts to pro-
vide CLR instruction were more complicated, challenging, and risky because
of their structured curricula (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Crocco & Costigan,
2007; Rodriguez, 2015; Schultz et al., 2008; Strom, 2015).
Discussion
The purpose of this literature review was to examine the nature of novice
teachers’ experiences in high-poverty schools. Sixteen studies since 2001
addressed novices’ experiences in high-poverty schools. Across studies, there
were some consistent findings worth noting.
First, although novices’ interactions with students were often consistent
with practice shock and cultural mismatch, many novices were able to
respond to these experiences in productive ways (Achinstein & Aguirre,
2008; Achinstein & Barrett, 2004; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez,
2015; Strom, 2015). Certain kinds of experiences seemed to support them in
doing so, including their pre-service preparation (Early & Shagoury, 2010;
Rodriguez, 2015), mentorship (Achinstein & Barrett, 2004), students
(Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Strom, 2015), and their own cultural and lin-
guistic backgrounds (Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008).
Second, most novices’ social contexts were characterized by norms,
beliefs, and assumptions that were incongruent with novices’ commitments
to social justice and CLR teaching (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006, 2011;
Anderson & Olsen, 2006; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007; Chubbuck &
Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez, 2015). Some novices were able to enact their
instructional values within contexts hostile to those values (Achinstein &
Ogawa, 2006; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez, 2015) and others
Bettini and Park 23
advocated for change (de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007). However, novices
were acutely aware of potential consequences of continuing to enact their
commitments, and in one case, a novice lost her job as a result of acting upon
instructional values that conflicted with her school’s (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2006; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007, 2007).
Third, novices relied on supportive, instructionally focused interactions
with colleagues and administrators (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Anderson &
Olsen, 2006; Early & Shagoury, 2010; Fall & Billingsley, 2011; Hopkins &
Spillane, 2015; Waddell, 2010). Novices reported supportive interactions
helped them improve their instructional skills (Anderson & Olsen, 2006;
Hopkins & Spillane, 2015) and remain committed to teaching in their schools
(Early & Shagoury, 2010; Waddell, 2010). In contrast, novices reported
struggling or leaving when support was lacking (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006;
Anderson & Olsen, 2010; Early & Shagoury, 2010; Waddell, 2010).
Fourth, novices considered mentorship an important support for learning
to teach, especially when mentors provided critical feedback on their instruc-
tion (Anderson & Olsen, 2006; Bergeron, 2008; Israel et al., 2014). However,
access to skilled mentorship may vary greatly among novices (Fall &
Billingsley, 2011; Wasburn-Moses, 2010).
Finally, novices reported structured curricula further complicated their
efforts to provide CLR instruction (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Crocco &
Costigan, 2007; Rodriguez, 2015; Strom, 2015). This finding was particu-
larly interesting because qualitative studies not focused on novices in high-
poverty schools obtained quite different results, finding structured curricula
were an essential support for learning to teach (e.g., Kauffman et al., 2002).
No studies to date have used generalizable methods to examine differences in
novices’ experiences of their curricula in high- versus low-poverty schools,
but our findings suggest novices in high-poverty schools may experience and
respond to structured curricula differently from novices in low-poverty
schools. Our review does not allow us to determine why this might be the
case, but there are several plausible explanations. It may be the result of cur-
ricula that are primarily designed for a White middle-class audience and are
poorly aligned with CLR practices. Another possibility is that novices who
are committed to high-poverty schools may have greater pre-dispositions to
be independent, reflective, and critical of instructional materials. It is also
possible that, because high-poverty schools have greater difficulty attracting
and retaining skilled leaders (Beteille, Kalogrides, & Loeb, 2012; Loeb,
Kalogrides, & Horng, 2010), school-wide implementation of structured cur-
ricula may be carried out with less skill in these settings. Another possibility
is that high-poverty schools are often subject to more rigid, hierarchical con-
trols than low-poverty schools (Diamond & Spillane, 2004; King et al.,
2015), and thus, structured curricula may be implemented with greater rigid-
ity, making it more difficult for novices to adapt curricula to meet student
needs. No reviewed studies provide any insights into which, if any, of these
possibilities might be at play.
Studies of novice general educators addressed quite different concerns
from studies of novice special educators. Whereas many studies of novice
general educators focused on CLR instruction and promoting educational
equity (e.g., Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008; de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007;
Rodriguez, 2015), studies of novice special educators focused on profes-
sional learning experiences, without addressing how teaching students from
traditionally marginalized backgrounds might interact with novices’ experi-
ences (Fall & Billingsley, 2011; Israel et al., 2014; Wasburn-Moses, 2010).
There were also methodological differences, as most studies of general edu-
cators used qualitative methods, whereas two of three studies of novice spe-
cial educators used quantitative methods. Only one study of novice general
educators (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015) used quantitative methods.
Implications for Policy and Practice

Findings contribute to urban education by highlighting key policies and prac-
tices needed to better cultivate effective teachers for urban schools. To effec-
tively retain novices in high-poverty, urban schools, the reviewed studies
suggest administrators should communicate regularly with novices about
instruction (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; Early & Shagoury, 2010; Hopkins &
Spillane, 2015; Waddell, 2010). We recommend that school leaders invest
extra time in building trusting relationships with novice teachers. For instance,
they should schedule informal observations and meetings early in the school
year, so that novices have an opportunity to get clarification about administra-
tors’ expectations for their work and to obtain more support if needed.
School leaders should also purposefully plan for others to provide support.
Novices rely on a network of support, from colleagues as well as administra-
tors; school leaders can facilitate the development of that network, by ensuring
that skilled instructional support personnel (e.g., mentors, instructional special-
ists, etc.) have dedicated time for supporting each novice (Anderson & Olsen,
2010; Bergeron, 2008; Early & Shagoury, 2010; Hopkins & Spillane, 2015).
The reviewed studies also indicate school leaders should carefully culti-
vate their school’s culture (e.g., Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006, 2011; de Oliveira
& Athanases, 2007). Novices reported struggling in schools with cultures of
low expectations (Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008; Rodriguez, 2015), cultures
focused on controlling rather than supporting students (Achinstein & Ogawa,
2011; Chubbuck & Zembylas, 2008), and cultures with deficit perspectives
Bettini and Park 25
on students (Early & Shagoury, 2010). School leaders can reflect upon their
own words and actions, examining how they are modeling and cultivating an
asset-based culture of high expectations for all students.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015) mandates that states sub-
mit equity plans detailing how they will ensure that students’ racial, ethnic,
and socio-economic background does not place them at increased risk of hav-
ing an ineffective or inexperienced teacher. All teachers are, at some point,
novices, and it is inevitable that some students will have inexperienced teach-
ers, but equity plans are required to articulate how states will ensure that a
students’ race, socio-economic status, and disability status does not increase
the likelihood of repeated exposure to inexperienced teachers. Our findings
indicate that, to retain teachers in high-poverty schools for longer, states
should consider incorporating strategies to improve school social contexts
into equity plans. For instance, they might evaluate whether any current poli-
cies (e.g., individual teacher evaluation) have potential to undermine sup-
portive, collaborative school cultures, and consider how those policies might
be adjusted to support collaborative cultures with high expectations for all
students (e.g., Jones, Bettini, & Brownell, 2016). States should also consider
whether their administrator licensure programs adequately prepare school
principals to cultivate positive school cultures and provide instructional sup-
port for novices in high-poverty urban schools.
Implications for Future Research

Findings also contribute to urban education by highlighting key research
needed to inform future policy and practice for cultivating effective teachers
for urban schools. The reviewed qualitative studies indicate that certain expe-
riences may support novices in framing interactions with students positively
(Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008; Achinstein & Barrett, 2004; Chubbuck &
Zembylas, 2008; Early & Shagoury, 2010; Rodriguez, 2015; Strom, 2015).
Future research should continue investigating circumstances under which
novices are most likely to interpret interactions with students in ways that are
compatible with CLR instruction. In particular, generalizable quantitative
studies would help to determine whether relationships identified by these
qualitative investigations (e.g., the relationship between pre-service prepara-
tion in sTc and a novice’s ability to respond positively to practice shock;
Rodriguez, 2015) apply to other teachers. Such studies could help justify
policies incorporating these experiences into pre-service preparation.
Only two studies explicitly compared novices’ experiences in high-pov-
erty schools with experiences in low-poverty schools (Fall & Billingsley,
2011; Hopkins & Spillane, 2015). This is unfortunate; both studies identified
important differences, and this review found novices’ experiences of struc-

tured curricula may differ in high- versus low-poverty schools. Further
research is needed to better understand (a) how novices’ experiences in high-
poverty schools differ from experiences in low-poverty schools, (b) why
these differences occur, (c) what impact differences have on attrition and
instruction, and (d) how school demographics might moderate the effect of
certain experiences (e.g., structured curricula) on important outcomes.
Studies of novice special versus general educators differed in focus and
methodology. No studies of novice special educators investigated how nov-
ices negotiated the intersection between disability and cultural and linguistic
diversity. This is a complex and challenging issue (Tefera, Thorius, & Artiles,
2014), and further research is needed to understand how novice special edu-
cators make sense of it. Methodologically, only one study of novice general
educators relied on quantitative methods (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015), and
more quantitative research is needed to determine whether the experiences
and relationships identified in the reviewed studies are common among nov-
ices in high-poverty schools.
Further research is also needed to examine dimensions of novices’ experi-
ences in high-poverty schools that were seldom or never examined in the
reviewed studies. For instance, only one study investigated the kinds of pro-
fessional development novices wanted (Anderson & Olsen, 2006); future
research should further examine what professional development novices in
high-poverty schools find most useful and what factors moderate the useful-
ness of different professional development (PD). Similarly, research on nov-
ices’ social contexts primarily focused on whether their schools’ culture was
consistent with novices’ instructional values and goals, but other aspects of
the social context are also likely to be relevant and worthy of investigation,
such as whether the school context promotes a sense of collective efficacy
(Hoy, Tartar, & Hoy, 2006) and collective responsibility (Jones, Youngs, &
Frank, 2013). Further research on novices’ experiences of their school’s
macro-social context (e.g., Early & Shagoury, 2010) is also needed to better
understand how novices make sense of the socio-political context of teaching
and their students’ lives. Other aspects of novices’ experiences were never
addressed. For example, what is the nature of novice teachers’ experiences
interacting with students’ parents? How do novices connect with and relate to
the communities in which they teach? How do novices in urban schools expe-
rience teacher evaluation systems?
Future research should more carefully describe research settings. Only a
handful of studies (e.g., Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008; Early & Shagoury,
2010; Fall & Billingsley, 2011) clearly articulated why they classified schools
as high-poverty and/or urban. Many studies stated that the study took place in
Bettini and Park 27
a high-poverty school (e.g., de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007), or stated that a

substantial proportion of novices’ students were from diverse backgrounds
(e.g., Achinstein & Barrett, 2004), without providing any data to support that
assertion. Novices’ experiences in moderate-poverty schools may be quite
different from their experiences in high-poverty schools, which seem to be
less responsive to school reform efforts (Rothstein, 2013). More detailed
information about schools’ demographics and communities may be essential
for interpreting findings across studies, and future research should more thor-
oughly provide this information.
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 publi-
cation of this article.
References
Achinstein, B., & Aguirre, J. (2008). Cultural match or culturally suspect: How new
teachers of color negotiate sociocultural challenges in the classroom. Teachers
College Record, 110, 1505-1540.
Achinstein, B., & Barrett, A. (2004). (Re)framing classroom contexts: How new
teachers and mentors view diverse learners and challenges of practice. Teachers
Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teach-
ers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies.
Harvard Educational Review, 76, 30-63.
Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2011). Change(d) agents: School contexts and the
cultural/professional roles of new teachers of Mexican descent. Teachers College
Record, 113, 2503-2551.
Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., & Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining teachers
of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff” schools.
Review of Educational Research, 80, 71-107.
Anderson, L. (2010). Embedded, emboldened, and (net)working for change: Support-
seeking and teacher agency in urban, high-needs schools. Harvard Educational
Review, 80, 541-572.
Anderson, L., & Olsen, B. (2006). Investigating early career urban teachers’ per-
spectives on and experiences in professional development. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57, 359-377.
Bergeron, B. S. (2008). Enacting a culturally responsive curriculum in a novice teach-
er’s classroom: Encountering disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43, 4-28.
Beteille, T., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career
paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41, 904-919.
Bettini, E., Park, Y., Benedict, A., Kimerling, J., & Leite, W. (2016). Situating special
educators’ instructional quality and their students’ outcomes within the condi-
tions shaping their work. Exceptionality, 24, 1-18.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,
12, 67-92.
Billingsley, B., Carlson, E., & Klein, S. (2004). The working conditions and induc-
tion support of early career special educators. Exceptional Children, 70, 333-347.
Borman, J. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-
analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research,
78, 367-409.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The
influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American
Educational Research Journal, 48, 303-333.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008, May). Who
leaves? Teacher attrition and student achievement (Working Paper No. 14022).
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from http://
www.nber.org
Chubbuck, S. M., & Zembylas, M. (2008). The emotional ambivalence of socially just
teaching: A case study of a novice urban schoolteacher. American Educational
Research Journal, 45, 274-318.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and pro-
cedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in
the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42, 512-535.
Curry, K. A., & Holter, A. (2015). The influence of parent social networks on par-
ent perceptions and motivation for involvement. Urban Education, 1-29.
doi:10.1177/0042085915623334
Darling-Hammond, L. (2013). Inequality and school resources: What it will take to
close the opportunity gap. In P. L. Carter & K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the
opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp.
77-97). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DeAngelis, K. J., & Pressley, J. B. (2011). Toward a more nuanced understanding of
new teacher attrition. Education and Urban Society, 43, 598-626.
de Oliveira, L. C., & Athanases, S. Z. (2007). Graduates’ reports of advocating for
English language learners. Journal of Teacher Education, 58, 202-215.
Devine, F. (2008). Class reproduction and social networks in the USA. In L. Weiss
(Ed.), The way class works (pp. 100-116). New York, NY: Routledge.
Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elemen-
tary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record,
106, 1145-1176.
Dixon-Romàn, E. J. (2012). The forms of capital and the developed achievement of
black males. Urban Education, 48, 828-862.
Bettini and Park 29
Early, J. S., & Shagoury, R. (2010). Learning from the lived experiences of new lan-
guage arts teachers working in diverse urban schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26, 1049-1058.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). US Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1177enr.pdf
Fall, A., & Billingsley, B. S. (2011). Disparities in work conditions among early
career special educators in high- and low- poverty districts. Remedial and Special
Education, 32, 64-78.
Goldhaber, D., Destler, K., & Player, D. (2010). Teacher labor markets and the per-
ils of using hedonics to estimate compensating differentials in the public sector.
Economics of Education Review, 29, 1-17.
Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens
on teacher learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 281-301.
Grossman, P., Thompson, C., & Valencia, S. (2002). District policy and beginning
teachers: Where the twain shall meet. Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy. Available from https://depts.washington.edu
Guarino, G. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and
retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational
Research, 76, 173-208.
Henry, G. T., Bastian, K. C., & Fortner, C. K. (2011). Stayers and leavers: Early-
career teacher effectiveness and attrition. Educational Researcher, 40, 271-280.
Hiebert, J., & Morris, A. K. (2012). Teaching, rather than teachers, as a path toward
improving classroom instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 92-102.
Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2015). Schoolhouse teacher educators: Structuring
beginning teachers’ opportunities to learn about instruction. Journal of Teacher
Education, 65, 327-339.
Hoy, W. K., Tartar, C. J., & Hoy, A. W. (2006). Academic optimism of schools:
A force for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43,
425-446.
Israel, M., Kamman, M. L., McCray, E. D., & Sindelar, P. T. (2014). Mentoring
in action: The interplay among professional assistance, emotional support, and
evaluation. Exceptional Children, 8, 45-63.
Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need
schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satis-
faction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-39.
Jones, N. D., Bettini, E., & Brownell, M. T. (2016). Competing strands of educational
reform policy: Can collaborative school reform and teacher evaluation reform
be reconciled? Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from http://www.shankerin-
stitute.org/resource/competingstrands
Jones, N. D., Youngs, P., & Frank, K. A. (2013). The role of school-based colleagues
in shaping the commitment of novice special and general education teachers.
Exceptional Children, 79, 365-383.
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S. M., Kardos, S. M., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G. (2002). “Lost
at sea”: New teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment. Teachers
Kikuchi, M., & Coleman, C.-L. (2012). Explicating and measuring social relation-
ships in social capital research. Communication Theory, 22, 187-203.
King, J. E., Akua, C., & Russell, L. (2015). Liberating urban education for human
freedom. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education
(pp. 24-49). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools pro-
mote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching expe-
rience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 476-500.
Lareau, A., & Calarco, J. M. (2012). Class, cultural capital, and institutions: The case
of families and schools. In S. T. Fiske & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Facing social class:
How societal rank influences interaction (pp. 61-86). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., & Horng, E. L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven
distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 32, 205-229.
Mason-Williams, L. (2015). Unequal opportunities. Exceptional Children, 81, 247-262.
Milner, H. R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47, 556-561.
Milner, H. R. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban
Education, 48, 3-8.
Milner, H. R. (2014). Scripted and narrowed curriculum reform in urban schools.
Urban Education, 49, 743-749.
Monkman, K., Ronald, M., & Thèramène, F. D. (2005). Social and cultural capital in
an urban Latino school community. Urban Education, 40, 4-33.
Mosenkis, D. (2014). Racial bias in Pennsylvania’s funding of public schools.
Available from http://thenotebook.org/
Palardy, G. (2015). Classroom-based inequalities and achievement gaps in first grade:
The role of classroom context and access to qualified and effective teachers.
Teachers College Record, 117, 1-49.
Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). Managing institutional and sociocultural challenges through
sociotransformative constructivism: A longitudinal case study of a high school
science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 448-460.
Rothstein, R. (2013). Why children from lower socioeconomic classes, on average,
have lower academic achievement than middle-class children. In P. L. Carter &
K. G. Welner (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give
every child an even chance (pp. 61-76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schernoff, E. S., Mehta, T. G., Atkins, M. S., Torf, R., & Spencer, J. (2011). A quali-
tative study of the sources and impact of stress among urban teachers. School
Mental Health, 3, 59-69.
Schultz, K., Jones-Walker, C. E., & Chikkatur, A. P. (2008). Listening to students,
negotiating beliefs: Preparing teachers for urban classrooms. Curriculum Inquiry,
38, 155-187.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclu-
sive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children,
73, 392-416.
Strom, K. J. (2015). Teaching as assemblage: Negotiating learning and practice in the
first year of teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 321-333.
Bettini and Park 31
Tefera, A., Thorius, K. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2014). Teacher influences in the racializa-
tion of disabilities. In H. R. Milner & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban
education (pp. 256-270). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ushomirsky, N., & Williams, D. (2015). Funding gaps 2015: Too many states still
spend less on educating students who need the most. Education Trust. Available
from edtrust.org
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes
accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 519-558.
Waddell, J. H. (2010). Fostering relationships to increase teacher retention in urban
schools. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4, 70-85.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwill, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on begin-
ning teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher
Education, 59, 132-152.
Wasburn-Moses, L. (2010). Rethinking mentoring: Comparing policy and practice
in special and general education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1-25.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research
on learning to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.
Review of Educational Research, 68, 130-178.
Xu, Z., Ozek, U., & Corritore, M. (2012, June). Portability of teacher effectiveness across
schools (Working Paper No. 77). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal
Data in Educational Research. Available from http://www.caldercenter.org
Xu, Z., Ozek, U., & Hansen, M. (2013, July). Teacher performance trajectories in
high and lower-poverty schools (Working Paper No. 101). National Center for
Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research. Available from http://
www.caldercenter.org
Youngs, P., Frank, K., Thum, Y. M., & Low, M. (2012). The motivation of teachers
to produce human capital and conform to their social contexts. In T. M. Smith, L.
M. Desimone, & A. C. Porter (Eds.), Organization and effectiveness of induction
programs for new teachers (pp. 248-272). New York, NY: National Society for the
Study of Education.
Youngs, P., Jones, N., & Low, M. (2011). How beginning special and general educa-
tion elementary teachers negotiate role expectations and access to professional
resources. Teachers College Record, 113, 1506-1540.
Author Biographies
Elizabeth Bettini is an assistant professor of Special Education at Boston University.
Her research explores how working conditions can be leveraged as a mechanism to
support special educators in providing more effective instruction and in remaining
committed to their schools over the course of their careers.
Yujeong Park is an assistant professor of Special Education at the University of
Tennessee, Knoxville. Her scholarly interests focus on evaluating the effectiveness of
reading interventions and strategies for students with learning disabilities, and devel-
oping a reliable and valid assessment tool/system in reading for K-6 students with
specific learning disabilities as well as English Language Learners.

Maestros Novatos en Escuelas Pobres

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maestros Novatos en Escuelas Pobres

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

685763

Elizabeth Bettini1 and Yujeong Park2

Students of color and students who live in poverty are disproportionately

1Boston University, Boston, MA, USA

effectiveness of teachers serving students from diverse racial and socio-eco-

urban is often used to describe schools in which substantial proportion of

Research Question: What is the nature of novice teachers’ experiences in

shaped by an interaction among personal factors (e.g., identity, knowledge),

Literature Search Method

complicated, or extended our understanding of each theme; thematic sum-

Literature Review Results

Interactions With Students

expectations. He felt he had to actively work against these expectations to

Anderson and Olsen (2006) interviewed and observed 15 teachers with 2

colleagues provided them essential opportunities to learn about content, cur-

Conclusion about collegial interactions. Consistent with prior research on teachers

Professional Learning Opportunities, Including Formal Induction

to teach, and in Bergeron’s study (also previously described), Christina’s

because they were also more likely to be pursuing certification through an

Conclusion about novice teachers’ professional development experiences in high-

The Larger Social Context of High-Poverty Schools

schools contributed to their career decisions. Two novices whose connections

Novices reported struggling to negotiate the balance between actively coun-

Conclusion about novices’ experiences of curriculum. The novices in the five

Implications for Policy and Practice

Implications for Future Research

important differences, and this review found novices’ experiences of struc-

a high-poverty school (e.g., de Oliveira & Athanases, 2007), or stated that a

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

You might also like