Microsoft Word - 398 - Article20200922 (Gallley Proof 2).docx Journal of Urban Mathematics Education December 2020, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 17–25 ©JUME. https://journals.tdl.org/jume ALESIA MICKLE MOLDAVAN is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics Education in the Gradu- ate School of Education at Fordham University, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023-7414; email: amoldavan@fordham.edu. Her research interests include culturally responsive pedagogy, eth- nomathematics, and teacher preparation that promotes equity and social justice advocacy in mathe- matics education. EDITORIAL A Call for Critical Reads of “Trouble” Texts that Inform Urban Mathematics Education Alesia Mickle Moldavan Fordham University Each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something… Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. – John Lewis, “Together, You Can Redeem the Soul of Our Nation” choing the decade-long mission of the Journal of Urban Mathematics Education (JUME) as restated in Dr. Robert M. Capraro’s (2019) editorial, the journal’s purpose is to “foster discourse among a community of scholars to catalyze and trans- form the global academic space in mathematics education into one that embraces critical research, emancipatory pedagogy, and scholarship of engagement in urban communities” (p. 1). As JUME readers and potential contributors, the new Critical Reads section expands on JUME’s previous Book Review section (see Jett, 2015) and provides an extended, scholarly space to highlight critical texts (e.g., books, research articles, short stories, social media posts, poetry, play/film scripts) in order to push conversations in the field that offer an empowering and transformative vision for ur- ban mathematics education. As the section’s editor and an active scholar with JUME since my early doctoral days, I am well aware of how the journal has inspired the field of urban mathematics education for over a decade by offering a “revolutionary spirit” of critical mathemat- ics education knowledge dissemination (Stinson, 2018, p. 2). I anticipate that the Critical Reads section will continue the legacy of JUME honoring—not marginaliz- ing—the professional work central to urban scholarship. This new section serves as another outlet within JUME where scholars can recognize foundational and newly published works that can be described as necessary reads for keeping current in the field of urban mathematics education. Whether the texts inspire new understandings, motivate the interrogation and dismantling of systemic inequities, or catalyze social justice advocacy, the Critical Reads section opens possibilities for readers to learn of (and revisit) new and old texts focused on “illuminating urban excellence” (Mat- thews, 2008, p. 1). E Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 18 In this section editorial, I invite you to learn about the Critical Reads section, including its purpose and expectations for those wishing to contribute. Although the section is open to both new and seasoned scholars in writing critical reviews, I also pose questions to urge all scholars to get in “good trouble” with the ways they engage in critical reading and reflection in the urban context. These questions serve to not only strengthen professional practice but also raise collective awareness that cata- lyzes newfound conceptualizations and emancipatory actions focused on improving mathematics education in urban communities. Writing for the Critical Reads Section of JUME Critical readers and writers should “take themselves in hand and become agents of curiosity, become investigators, become subjects in an ongoing process of quest for the revelation of the ‘why’ of things and facts” (Freire, 1992/1994, p. 105). The purpose of the Critical Reads section of JUME is to create a scholarly space to reflect on texts that challenge the status quo, reconceptualize beliefs and practices, and/or respond to new problems and new possibilities in urban mathematics education. Au- thors interested in contributing to this section are encouraged to thoughtfully reflect on texts that explore the complexities of mathematics education in urban contexts. These texts should have the potential to introduce new critical perspectives or reflect on foundational pieces that elicit provocative conversations that disrupt societal norms and inspire new ways of thinking. Furthermore, the emphasis on the variety of texts from various mediums invites interdisciplinary works that are often over- looked yet beneficial in advancing our knowledge of urban mathematics education, promoting discussion and controversy, and shaping high quality research of the urban domain. Submissions for the Critical Reads section should be approximately 1,500– 2,500 words, inclusive of references, appendices, footnotes, tables, and figures, and create a public dialogue in which the author(s) of the referenced text or others might be invited to respond to your critical review. Outside of the length constraints, the structure of your submission is open to interpretation, as it should reflect your objec- tive for writing as well as your writing style. Although a suggested template could guide you to focus your attention on targeted areas of “typical” review feedback (e.g., relevance, rigor, quality of writing, implications), I recognize that templates can also be restrictive and discourage creative liberties that reflect how you personally re- spond to the text. Thus, I encourage you to select a well-organized structure that pro- motes meaning making crucial to your (and others’) ongoing professional growth that accounts for the complexities (e.g., social, cultural, political) of urban mathematics education reform. To guide the process of writing your critical review, I recommend referencing the work of Wallace and Wray’s (2016) critical synopsis questions: Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 19 1. Why am I reading this? 2. What are the authors trying to achieve in writing this? 3. What are the authors claiming that is relevant to my work? 4. How convincing are these claims, and why? 5. In conclusion, what use can I make of this? (p. 42) These questions elicit critique and challenge you to look beyond the surface of the text and peel back its many layers. Asking these questions will not only shift your perspective as a reader but will also offer you more insight into the text, which will help you develop your stance, adopt a reaction, and provide critical feedback to in- form others. Additionally, it is equally, if not more, important to know how to inter- weave your response into a critical summary that invites reflection from the author of the text as well as the audience (see Cannon & Myers, 2016; Hamilton, 2015; Martin, 2015; Meyer, 2016). As you begin to reflect on what drew you into the piece, consider who else may be interested in reading the text and why the text is worth reading. When you intro- duce the text, you may want to say more about the author and, as an extension of that, describe the context of the text. Consider making a statement about the motivation behind the text to not only set a scene but also determine whether the purpose was fulfilled. It may also be advantageous to describe the structure of the text. For in- stance, how is the book organized and what is the purpose of the book’s structure? To support your claims, you should reference the author’s arguments, finding that balance between restating the shared information and explaining why the text should be of interest to JUME readers. It may be helpful to consider how the text can be used as a resource among other works to reframe a vision for empowering and advancing urban mathematics education. In your evaluation of the text, you may want to assess if the author appropriately communicated the key takeaways and if their claims were warranted. You can do this by going beyond the surface and challenging the structural and political boundaries of the text. You may also want to reference your own expertise on the content or highlight how the key takeaways disrupted or aligned to your own experiences, be- liefs, and values. Thus, do not forget to say more about yourself and your positional- ity in relation to the work you are reviewing. Consider how the text inspired your work moving forward and how it can similarly inspire others. Therefore, a critical review, yet flexible in nature, must inform the readers about the text and clearly com- municate what you as a reviewer want to convey. Connecting a Critical Review to Urban Mathematics Education Another major point of emphasis for authors submitting to the Critical Reads section is to ensure the critical review is thoroughly connected to urban mathematics Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 20 education. The text under critique may not classify itself in the urban or mathematics education domain; however, your positioning of the text should clearly be associated. Before I begin to offer my recommendation for such positioning, I find it necessary to address what topics and themes may elicit provocative conversations that disrupt societal norms and inspire new ways of thinking (or rethinking) about urban mathe- matics education. For authors of JUME and the field at large to be critical in produc- tive ways that push boundaries and advance new breakthroughs that illuminate urban excellence often overlooked by mainstream discourses, efforts must be made to de- fine (or redefine) the essence of “urban” or “urbanicity” in teaching and learning mathematics (Matthews, 2008; Tate, 2008; Walker, 2012). Welsh and Swain (2020) address this very idea of problematizing what consti- tutes “urban” education, which is often viewed as a socially constructed and disputed concept with no common definition (Buendía, 2011; Milner, 2012; Schaffer et al., 2018). In their research to conceptualize the nuances of urban education, Welsh and Swain (2020) explored how urban can be defined in terms of six categories: geo- graphical location, enrollment size, student demographic composition, school re- sources (e.g., pupil-teacher ratios, instructional expenditures), discrepancies in edu- cational inequities, and social/economic context (e.g., poverty, unemployment, hous- ing, family structure). These categories not only challenge traditional ways of con- ceptualizing urban education in terms of location, size, and population (Buendía, 2011; Schaffer et al., 2018) but also blur the geographical/place boundaries by illu- minating the crossroads of other social, oft-neglected, issues (e.g., segregation, sys- temic institutional failures, racial and environmental inequities, economic and re- source gaps) that impact research and policy initiatives in education. When urban education is described as a dynamic, multifaceted concept, we begin to include schools that encompass their own “urban characteristic” in suburban and rural areas that experience challenges (e.g., increases in English language learn- ers, access to technology) shared with those in large cities and metropolitan areas (Milner, 2012; Tatum & Muhammad, 2012). As noted by Welsh and Swain (2020), “urban can be defined as a continuum of conditions dependent on the characteristics, challenges, and context” (p. 97); thus, schools with such conditions should not be overlooked because they lack the scale and scope of other classified “urban” schools. A further look into the described conditions of urbanicity calls attention to the educational inequities as well as the sociohistorical, sociopolitical, and socioeco- nomic hardships faced by traditionally underserved communities (Leonardo & Hunter, 2007). Historically, urban communities have been (and continue to be) shaped by discrimination and systems of oppression (Kohli et al., 2017). Such chal- lenges have led to socioeconomic segregation (e.g., Free and Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) vs non-FRL, Latinx/Black-White) in school districts, student underperfor- mance in educational outcomes, and deficit perspectives/stereotypes by those in (and seeking) the teaching profession (Gadsden & Dixon-Román, 2017; Jacobs, 2015). Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 21 Urban has become common nomenclature to describe race and class (Milner, 2012) and is often used to label impoverished and uneducated inner city Black and Latinx children (Buendía, 2011; Jacobs, 2015). To challenge the deficit-oriented language and perspectives rooted in such definitions of urban, counternarratives must be shared to disrupt deficit discourses and assumptions (e.g., shortcomings, limitations), de- bunk common stereotypes, and highlight students’ assets (e.g., social, cultural, lin- guistic) in urban schools and communities (Buendía & Ares, 2006; Popkewitz, 1998; Schaffer et al., 2018). For instance, Welsh and Swain (2020) described urban schools in terms of the following: “There are safe, academically successful, and desirable urban schools. Urban is success as well as failure” (p. 95). Likewise, Milner (2012) stated: “Not all urban districts and the people in them are ‘bad.’ There is a rich array of excellence, intellect, and talent among the people in urban environments” (p. 558). When considering urban mathematics teaching and learning, it is also necessary to recognize the contributing factors of out-of-school settings that impact students’ learning environments, experiences, and educational outcomes in mathematics. For example, infrastructure, housing, poverty, parental education, and access to transpor- tation, health care, and teacher quality are essential factors that play a role in students’ educational experiences and trajectories (Carter & Welner, 2013). Deficiencies in these essential factors coupled with the scarcity of adequate resources (e.g., high- quality teachers, rigorous curriculum, appropriate texts and technology) may limit participation in learning mathematics, especially when available resources do not support students’ mathematical, cultural, and linguistic needs. Thus, there is a need to unpack the cultural context of where students live and learn, both in and out of the classroom, to consider what constitutes an effective environment for teaching (Gads- den & Dixon-Román, 2017; Ladson-Billings, 2008). Furthermore, consideration must be made for the development (and redevelop- ment) of communities where students attend school. Gentrification projects revital- izing cityscapes are often changing the city landscape of communities and public schools at the cost of displacing families who historically inhabited the area (Keels et al., 2013; Kennedy & Leonard, 2001). As families are financially forced to relocate to suburban and rural areas, new urbanism requires us to expand our research beyond traditional ideologies of what constitutes an urban place (e.g., density, geographical locations). This forces the field of urban mathematics education to engage in “inter- preting and reinterpreting the definition and conceptualization of urban education amid a confluence of significant changes in demographics as well as economic and social circumstances” (Welsh & Swain, 2020, p. 99). A growing population of ethnically and racially diverse students rapidly chang- ing the context of urban education also forces reexamination for what signifies “ur- banness” to educators, researchers, and policymakers. Additionally, what urban looks like in one context (e.g., the United States) should not be generalized to what (and how) urban is defined across the globe. Although Welsh and Swain (2020) note that Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 22 “urban education collapses race (people), place, and space” (p. 94), researchers are challenged to not lose the essence of what constitutes urban in the context of their work. Urban is not monolithic (Jacobs, 2015), so urban needs to be seen as an epi- center of varying racial, linguistic, socioeconomic, and cultural differences that ex- tend both in and out of the classroom. Thus, authors considering submission to the Critical Reads section for publica- tion in JUME should connect their critical review to the urban context as follows: § Problematize the work in terms of place, space, people, and educational processes within new landscapes of urbanicity (see Welsh & Swain, 2020). Recent works (e.g., Jacobs, 2015; Schaffer et al., 2018) have rein- forced the significance for urban to be explicitly defined to not only foster a common understanding and language about what is meant by urban but also to guide others in exploring the nuances of urban to provide better support and greater equity for all students. Be sure to state how the author of the referenced text defines urban and how this aligns (or not) with the multifaceted definition of urban in mathematics education (see Martin & Larnell, 2013; Matthews, 2008; Tate, 2008). § Position yourself within your work in relation to the scope of the refer- enced text. Use creative liberties to personalize your work by discussing your identity, experiences, and ideologies to strengthen your positionality within the critique. This will assist readers in understanding your perspec- tive; it will also serve as an opportunity to model how others might do the same in reading the referenced text or other texts. § Consider the contribution of the text you are reviewing in terms of chal- lenging the complexities of mathematics education in urban contexts, in- cluding how the text’s ontological and epistemological constructs engage with the field. Furthermore, describe how the text can be used to shape theoretical, conceptual, and empirical work to make sense of urban math- ematics education. You may also consider the following questions: What assumptions are made about mathematics in urban schools? What as- sumptions are made about students doing mathematics in urban schools? And finally, what connections between schools, mathematics, and the community does the text suggest may be supportive or problematic? Be sure to communicate how urban mathematics educators can benefit from reading the referenced text and what might be missing or further explored in other texts. Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 23 A Call (And Obligation) to Get in “Good Trouble” For the last decade, JUME has fostered “revolutionary” works in mathematics that have inspired us to engage in critical research, embrace emancipatory pedagogy, and unite in scholarship and advocacy in our urban communities. As we embark on the next decade, let us use the steppingstones that we have traveled on thus far to continue revolutionizing the future of urban mathematics education. The Critical Reads section of JUME is a scholarly space to engage in critical thinking and creative rethinking that unpacks the concept of urbanicity in ways that may get authors in “trouble” for questioning existing truths concerning learning conditions, students, schools, communities, and mathematics teaching and learning and summarily sub- jecting these to criticism and discussion. Submissions must reframe teaching and learning mathematics in the urban context to not only shift the discourse but also improve educational experiences and outcomes for historically marginalized students by capitalizing on both foundational and new works from the field. Such an orienta- tion focuses on the mathematical success and excellence in urban spaces while also drawing attention to issues of access, power, race, and identity (Gutiérrez, 2007, 2009; Martin et al., 2017). The need for such a practice is summarized in Martin and Larnell’s (2013) statement: Urban mathematics education scholars and practitioners must continue to … generate significations that position urban education not simply as a counternarrative to main- stream ideology but that transform the entire field. … This transformation is not simply about rearranging power relations and hierarchies inside and outside the field to produce new inequities but about realizing the potential of urban mathematics education to aid in the struggle against inequities. (p. 32) Thus, it is my hope that the Critical Reads section serves as a model for what critical reviews of texts and critical engagement in the broader context of the field can offer to reform urban practice and excellence. References Buendía, E. (2011). Reconsidering the urban in urban education: Interdisciplinary conversations. The Urban Review, 43(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-010-0152-z Buendía, E., & Ares, N. (2006). Geographies of difference: The social production of the east side, west side, and central city school. Peter Lang. Cannon, S. O., & Myers, K. D. (2016). Radical reconfiguring(s) for equity in urban mathematics classrooms: Lines of flight in Mathematics and the body: Material entanglements in the class- room. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 9(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v9i2a314 Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (Eds.). (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press. Capraro, R. M. (2019). Duty is necessary, passion is sufficient: It takes both. Journal of Urban Math- ematics Education, 12(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v12i1a379 Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 24 Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed (R. B. Barr, Trans.). Con- tinuum. (Original work published 1992) Gadsden, V. L., & Dixon-Román, E. J. (2017). “Urban” schooling and “urban” families: The role of context and place. Urban Education, 52(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085916652189 Gutiérrez, R. (2007). Context matters: Equity, success, and the future of mathematics education. In T. Lamberg & L. R. Wiest (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the North Amer- ican Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1– 18). University of Nevada. Gutiérrez, R. (2009). Framing equity: Helping students “play the game” and “change the game.” Teaching for Excellence and Equity in Mathematics, 1(1), 4–8. Hamilton, B. (2015). Book review: Empowering science and mathematics education in urban schools. Urban Education, 50(3), 377–381. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085913507460 Jacobs, K. B. (2015). “I want to see real urban schools”: Teacher learners’ discourse and discussion of urban-based field experiences. Perspectives on Urban Education, 12(1), 18–37. Jett, C. C. (2015). An urban mathematics education book review?: Considerations for JUME book review authors. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 8(1), 14–16. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v8i1a271 Keels, M., Burdick-Will, J., & Keene, S. (2013). The effects of gentrification on neighborhood pub- lic schools. City & Community, 12(3), 238–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12027 Kennedy, M., & Leonard, P. (2001). Dealing with neighborhood change: A primer on gentrification and policy choices. Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy; PolicyL- ink. https://www.brookings.edu/research/dealing-with-neighborhood-change-a-primer-on- gentrification-and-policy-choices/ Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., & Nevárez, A. (2017). The “new racism” of K–12 schools: Centering critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0091732X16686949 Ladson-Billings, G. (2008). “Yes, but how do we do it?” Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In W. Ayers, G. Ladson-Billings, G. Michie, & P. A. Noguera (Eds.), City kids, city schools: More reports from the front row (pp. 162–177). The New Press. Leonardo, Z., & Hunter, M. (2007). Imagining the urban: The politics of race, class, and schooling. In W. T. Pink & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), International handbook of urban education (pp. 779– 802). Springer. Martin, D. B. (2015). The collective Black and Principles to actions. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 8(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v8i1a270 Martin, D. B., Anderson, C. R., & Shah, N. (2017). Race and mathematics education. In J. Cai (Ed.), Compendium for research in mathematics education (pp. 607–636). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Martin, D. B., & Larnell, G. V. (2013). Urban mathematics education. In H. R. Milner IV & K. Lo- motey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 373–393). Routledge. Matthews, L. E. (2008). Illuminating urban excellence: A movement of change within mathematics education. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v1i1a20 Meyer, B. (2016). A critical dialogue: Continuing the conversation about “The collective Black and Principles to actions.” Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 9(2), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v9i2a302 Milner, H. R., IV. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085912447516 Popkewitz, T. S. (1998). Struggling for the soul: The politics of schooling and the construction of the teacher. Teachers College Press. Moldavan Editorial Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 13, No. 2 25 Schaffer, C. L., White, M., & Brown, C. M. (2018). A tale of three cities: Defining urban schools within the context of varied geographic areas. Education and Urban Society, 50(6), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013124517713605 Stinson, D. W. (2018). Celebrating a decade of critical mathematics education knowledge dissemina- tion: A movement of people revolutionaries. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 11(1&2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v11i1-2a353 Tate, W. F. (2008). Putting the “urban” in mathematics education scholarship. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.21423/jume-v1i1a19 Tatum, A. W., & Muhammad, G. E. (2012). African American males and literacy development in contexts that are characteristically urban. Urban Education, 47(2), 434–463. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0042085911429471 Walker, E. N. (2012). Building mathematics learning communities: Improving outcomes in urban high schools. Teachers College Press. Wallace, M., & Wray, A. (2016). Critical reading and writing for postgraduates (3rd ed.). SAGE. Welsh, R. O., & Swain, W. A. (2020). (Re)Defining urban education: A conceptual review and em- pirical exploration of the definition of urban education. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 90– 100. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X20902822 Copyright: © 2020 Moldavan. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of a Cre- ative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.