Journal of Urban Mathematics Education 

July 2009, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 22–51 

©JUME. http://education.gsu.edu/JUME 

 

 

 

LIDIA GONZALEZ is an assistant professor of mathematics at York College of the City Uni-
versity of New York (CUNY), 94-20 Guy R. Brewer Blvd, Jamaica, NY, NYC 11451; e-mail: 

lgonzalez@york.cuny.edu. Her primary research interest is in the teaching of mathematics for so-

cial justice.  Additionally, she is working on a study of alternatively certified mathematics teachers 

in NYC and interested, more broadly, in efforts at improving the educational experiences of urban 

youth. 

Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice: 

Reflections on a Community of Practice for 

Urban High School Mathematics Teachers 
 

Lidia Gonzalez 

York College of the City University of New York 

 
In this article, the author reports on a study that explored, in part, the developing 

identities of seven New York City public high school mathematics teachers as 

teachers of mathematics and agents of change. Meeting regularly as a community 

of practice, the teachers and author/researcher discussed issues of teaching ma-

thematics for social justice; explored activities and lessons around social justice; 

and created a unit of study that attempted to meet high school level mathematics 

standards, while addressing a social justice issue affecting the lives of urban stu-

dents. The author reports on the mathematics teachers’ growing awareness of and 

concerns about infusing issues of social justice into their teaching as well as the 

teachers’ evolving conceptions of what it might mean to teach mathematics in an 

urban school, of the nature of mathematics itself, and of what their roles as edu-

cators might include. 

 
KEYWORDS: mathematics education, teacher development, teacher identity, 

teaching mathematics for social justice 
 

Approaching mathematics through a social justice context has been pro-
posed and used by some, including mathematics educators, as a way to address 

issues that confront urban youth from historically marginalized communities, 

while engaging them in the study of meaningful mathematics (see, e.g., Frankens-

tein, 1983; Gutstein, 2006, 2008). Although the idea of education as a vehicle for 

social justice has been around for decades (see, e.g., Freire, 1970/1993), it is only 

fairly recently that the idea has been applied to mathematics education: 

  
Until recently, embedding mathematics pedagogy within social and political contexts 

was not a serious consideration in mathematics education. The act of counting was 

viewed as a neutral exercise, unconnected to politics or society. Yet when do we ever 

count just for the sake of counting? Only in school do we count without a social pur-

pose of some kind. Outside of school, mathematics is used to advance or block a par-

ticular agenda. (Tate, 2005, p. 37)  



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       23 

Within recent years, there does appear to be a growing interest with respect 

to teaching mathematics for social justice, as evident by the recent published 

edited volumes that focus on mathematics and social justice (see Burton, 2003; 

Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). How mathematics teachers might be prepared to 

teach mathematics for social justice, however, is an area still in need of explora-

tion. Gau (2005) argued:  

 
Despite the potential teaching math for social justice has in addressing issues of equi-

ty in mathematics education, little research exists that examines mathematics teach-

ers learning to teach for social justice, a necessary step in beginning to understand 

the entailments of teaching mathematics for social justice. (p. 3) 

 

It also has been argued that most of the existing examples of social justice units 

appear to rely on elementary mathematics rather than upper-level mathematics 

(Brantlinger, 2007; Brantlinger, Gutstein, Buenrostro, & Turner, 2007), though 

this reliance is somewhat changing as more lessons and materials become availa-

ble (see, e.g., Gutstein & Peterson, 2005; Mukhopadhyay, Powell, & Frankens-

tein, 2009).  

Thus, with these arguments in mind, I undertook a study with the explicit 

goals of illustrating how mathematics teachers might learn to teach mathematics 

for social justice and how teaching mathematics for social justice might be done 

within the context of the high school mathematics curriculum (see Gonzalez, 

2008). In my study, I reported on the formation of a community of practice con-

sisting of seven New York City (NYC) public high school mathematics teachers 

and me, the researcher and a former NYC public high school teacher. As a com-

munity of practice, the teachers and I shared and developed ideas on the intersec-

tion between mathematics, mathematics education, and issues of social justice. 

Together, we explored and generated knowledge around the idea of mathematics 

teachers as agents of social change and on the use of mathematics as a critical tool 

for understanding and working to improve social life, primarily those aspects 

most affecting the students served by the school at which the teachers of the study 

had taught. Additionally, we developed a high school level curriculum unit 

around a social justice issue that the teachers saw as relevant in the lives of their 

urban students, while also attempting to successfully attend to the standards-based 

content of high school mathematics without compromising the nature of the ma-

thematics learned.  

In this article, I report only a portion of my study, with an emphasis on 

teachers‘ developing identities as mathematics teachers and agents of change. In 

so doing, I focus on the teachers‘ beliefs about the teaching and learning of ma-

thematics and their own roles as teachers of mathematics. Because identity and 

awareness mediate both action and pedagogy (Holland, Lachiotte, Skinner, & 

Cain, 2003), the article focuses on the teachers developing identities, exploring 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       24 

shifts in their thinking and beliefs. In reporting partial findings, I draw heavily 

from the interviews and written reflections of the teachers who participated in the 

community of practice. Through using the teachers‘ own words, it is my hope that 

their beliefs about their roles as both mathematics teachers and agents of change 

might become transparent. 

 
Conceptual Framework 

 

Many education scholars, among them critical pedagogues, argue that ma-

thematics (particularly Algebra) stands as a gatekeeper to future success (Apple, 

1992; Burton, 2003; Gutstein, 2006; Martin, 2000, 2003; Moses & Cobb, 2001). 

This gatekeeping status is especially evident for low-income students of color 

that, for the purposes of this article, will be referred to as students from margina-

lized communities. The inequities that exist between students of marginalized 

communities (such as those taught by the teachers in my study) and their ―main-

stream‖ peers in terms of mathematics achievement, course-taking patterns, and 

enrollment in mathematics-related majors, are well documented (Burton, 2003; 

Gutstein, 2006; Tate, 1995, 2005). Addressing these inequities through the teach-

ing of mathematics for social justice is viable and worthwhile to me, both as a ma-

thematics education researcher and teacher of mathematics, especially given the 

extensive research highlighting the role that mathematics plays as a gatekeeper to 

future success (Burton, 2003; Moses & Cobb, 2001; Tate, 1995, 2005). 

 
Defining Teaching Mathematics for Social Justice 
 

The phrase teaching mathematics for social justice is not uniformly defined 

within the research literature. There are numerous definitions ranging from equal 

access to upper-level mathematics courses to social reconfiguration spurred by the 

use of mathematics as an analytical tool to understand social life and the inequi-

ties that exist therein. The definition of mathematics for social justice that I rely 

on, and that guided my work with the teachers, draws from the work of several 

researchers and is comprised of four components. The first of these components is 

access to high quality mathematics instruction for all students. Moses and Cobb 

(2001) argued that mathematics is needed to be a full participant in society, and 

likened the struggle for access to high quality mathematics instruction for margi-

nalized students to the civil rights movement and access to voting rights for Afri-

can Americans. Another way to talk about this component is to say that all stu-

dents deserve a strong grounding in what is usually referred to in the literature as 

dominant mathematics. Gutiérrez (2007) defined dominant mathematics as that 

which ―reflects the status quo in society, that gets valued in high-stakes testing 

and credentialing, that privileges a static formalism in mathematics, and that is 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       25 

involved in making sense of a world that favors the views of a relatively elite 

group‖ (p. 39). 

A second component of the definition that I rely on is a re-centering of the 

curriculum around the experiences of students from marginalized communities. 

That is, teaching mathematics for social justice involves building upon the expe-

riences of students from marginalized communities, while exploring issues of so-

cial justice through mathematics (Gutstein, 2006). This component is supported 

by research that advocates for instruction to be centered on students‘ experiences 

in order for it to be meaningful to them (Darling-Hammond, French, & Garcia-

Lopez, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002). 

The third component is the use of mathematics as a critical tool for under-

standing social life; one‘s position in society; and issues of power, agency, and 

oppression. This component is often referred to as critical mathematics and often 

set in contrast to dominant mathematics. For instance, Gutiérrez (2007) defined 

critical mathematics as ―mathematics that squarely acknowledges the positioning 

of students as members of a society rife with issues of power and domina-

tion…[and] takes students‘ cultural identities and builds mathematics around 

them in ways that address social and political issues, especially highlighting the 

perspectives of marginalized groups‖ (p. 40). In this way, mathematics becomes a 

tool used to examine social environments, increase awareness of social injustice, 

and serves as a valued language that can be used to further an agenda of social 

change towards a more just society. While increasing awareness is important, 

without a component that addresses change, the injustices that exist in society will 

continue to persist. In order to bring about social change, action and agency need 

to shape the perspectives with which we view mathematics for social justice. 

Thus, the fourth component of teaching mathematics for social justice is the 

use of mathematics to radically reconfigure society so that it might be more just. 

Mathematics for social justice units and lessons, according to Gutstein (2006), 

should serve the purpose of ―liberation from oppression‖ (p. 22); he argued that 

schooling should be a vehicle for empowerment and social change. This compo-

nent is consistent with the position of many educational scholars who argue that 

citizenship should not involve blindly following the rules of an inherently unjust 

society, but instead should involve being a critical observer taught to understand 

the world and work toward making it more just (Aronowitz, 2004; Burton, 2003; 

Michelli & Keiser, 2005). Gutstein (2006) furthered this position specific to ma-

thematics education, arguing ―a crucial aspect of mathematics for social justice is 

what students do with the mathematics‖ (p. 14).  

When mathematics for social justice is understood as a tool to further social 

change and the emancipation of oppressed communities, it is being viewed as an 

extension of Paulo Freire‘s scholarship (see, e.g., 1970/1993) and his pedagogy of 

liberation. Frankenstein (1983) claimed, ―Freire‘s theory compels mathematics 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       26 

teachers to probe the nonpositivist meaning of mathematical knowledge, the im-

portance of quantitative reasoning in the development of critical conscious-

ness…and the connections between our specific curriculum and the development 

of critical consciousness‖ (p. 318). Understanding mathematics as a means to de-

velop a critical consciousness makes clear that the end product is not confined to 

equal academic performance or to equal access, but to a complete rethinking and 

restructuring of the current society. 

  
Defining Socially Just Society 
 

Given that the creation of a more socially just society is seen as a goal of 

teaching mathematics for social justice, it seems necessary to discuss and attempt 

to define what is meant by social justice and what a socially just society might 

look like. The work of Zollers, Albert, and Cochran-Smith (2000) looked specifi-

cally at the concept of social justice and its definition for a group of teacher edu-

cators. Their study aimed to ―investigate individual understandings of the mean-

ing of social justice and find the commonality necessary to ‗teach for social jus-

tice‘‖ (p. 1). The teacher educators in their study linked social justice to issues of 

fairness and equity, personal and institutional responsibility, and individual and 

collective action. Michelli and Keiser (2005) described a socially just society as 

one in which each individual can realize their potential and access all life‘s 

chances. Furthermore, it is a society characterized by nonrepression and nondi-

scrimination in which no one individual or group oppresses another. A related 

way of understanding social justice is the principle of distributive justice; charac-

terized by an equitable distribution of society‘s resources, including all that is 

both good and bad (Rorty, 1979). This idea is to distribute both the benefits and 

burdens of society among its members, though issues arise when one attempts to 

define how such benefits and burdens can and/or should be distributed and is o f-

ten accompanied by a discussion of wealth and access to opportunities.  

The scholarship noted above leads to a definition of social justice that in-

cludes access to opportunities and resources distributed in such a way as to not 

repress or discriminate against any one individual or group, whether for the good 

of another or not. A socially just society can therefore be characterized by equal 

opportunities, equal access, and the ability of all to reach their potential through 

access to all of life‘s opportunities (Michelli & Keiser, 2005).  

In addition to the scholarships noted, I rely on Gutiérrez‘s (2007) bench-

mark for achieving equity in education. She argued that equity in education is 

―being unable to predict student patterns (e.g., achievement, participation, ability 

to critically analyze data/society) based solely upon characteristics such as race, 

class, ethnicity, gender, beliefs, and proficiency in the dominant language‖ (p. 

41). We can expand upon this idea from Gutiérrez in order to define a socially just 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       27 

society. In so doing, I argue that a socially just society is one in which we are un-

able to predict success in life based upon characteristics including—but not li-

mited to—race, ethnicity, gender, beliefs, citizenship status, and proficiency in the 

dominant language. 

Proponents of teaching mathematics for social justice argue that a more so-

cially just society is possible through the teaching of mathematics for social jus-

tice (see, e.g., Gau, 2005; Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). In order for 

teachers to teach mathematics for social justice, however, they must be prepared 

to do so. 

  

Preparing Teachers as Agents of Change 
 

Professional development programs for inservice teachers as well as teacher 

education programs for preservice teachers are now beginning to address issues of 

social justice (Darling-Hammond, French, & García-Lopez, 2002). Sleeter (1997), 

in discussing a professional development opportunity for teachers to learn to teach 

in multicultural ways (a possible precursor to teaching for social justice), ex-

plained that the most common result of the training was that teachers became 

―more aware of the differences among their students, student learning styles, rac-

ism in society, cooperative learning, curriculum, and school problems‖ (p. 688). 

Gau (2005) also noted that the biggest change in the preservice mathematics 

teachers she worked with in her mathematics for social justice project was an in-

creased awareness of differences. It is this awareness that teacher preparation pro-

grams should, I believe, strive for. By becoming aware of their students‘ back-

grounds and of their own position in social life, both Sleeter and Gau argued that 

teachers often become ready to act on this knowledge for the betterment of stu-

dents. Teaching for social justice involves teachers and students becoming increa-

singly aware of their social realities and of one another‘s respective histories, cul-

tures, and understandings. The development of teachers‘ identities as agents of 

change and discussion about the role of teachers as political agents is also neces-

sary (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).  

As our behavior is mediated by our identities, changes in our behavior re-

quire changes in how we see ourselves (Holland et al., 2003). Identities affect 

agency and action, making identity development an essential element of teacher 

preparation. In defining identity, Holland et al. stated: 

 
People tell others who they are, but even more important, they tell themselves and 

they try to act as though they are who they say they are. These self-understandings, 
especially those with strong emotional resonance for the teller, are what we refer to 

as identities. (p. 3) 

 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       28 

Our identities therefore are ―something that arises from a transaction rather 

than being an inherent feature of a material body‖ (Roth, 2005, p. 326). Conse-

quentially, teachers‘ identities, as those of all of us, are developed through social 

interactions. It is through interaction with others that we grow and develop in 

terms of how we see ourselves, forming and shifting our identities as we are 

pushed to entertain new ways of being (Holland et al., 2003). Entertaining these 

new ways of being often drives us to act in previously unexplored ways as we re-

define who we are. Considering new ways of being is the first step in changing 

one‘s pedagogy (Florio-Ruane, 2001). Therefore, in order to affect changes in 

teachers‘ practice, preparing them to teach mathematics for social justice, we 

must, I believe, begin by affecting change in their identities. Teachers need to 

come to see themselves as agents of social change if they are to implement ma-

thematics for social justice in their teaching (Gutstein, 2006). 

  

Using Communities of Practice 
 

The idea that learning is a social process has led many teacher educators to 

use communities of practice as vehicles through which to prepare teachers (see, 

e.g., Choi, 2006; Florio-Ruane, 2001). A community of practice, as defined by 

Choi (2006), is a ―community that shares and creates real knowledge‖ (p. 143). It 

refers to groups of people; in this case, the participants and me, who are ―bound 

by their shared competence and mutual interest in a given practice‖ (p. 143)—the 

teaching of mathematics for social justice. According to Wenger (1998), com-

munities of practice contain the following three dimensions: mutual engagement, 

a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. 

When talking about mutual responsibility, however, it is important to note 

that Wenger (1998) neither specified that the responsibility for the group be 

shared equally among its members, nor did he infer that equal sharing was possi-

ble. Members have different knowledge, experiences, and positions within the 

group that they bring to the experience, allowing for collective work—with dif-

ferent contributions—on a joint enterprise. 

Wenger (1998) also described communities of practice as communities in 

which there is prolonged engagement by the members as they work toward a joint 

enterprise. Through using communities of practice as vehicles for professional 

development in the teaching of mathematics for social justice, the teachers work 

over prolonged periods of time (not the more common workshop model) to arrive 

at understandings about what it might mean to teach mathematics for social jus-

tice as well as how to prepare to do so. 

Although it is not a necessary condition of a community of practice, the idea 

that power in the group should be shared, is supported by advocates of teaching 

mathematics for social justice, who argue that students and teachers together 

should be jointly responsible for what occurs within the classroom, including 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       29 

what is taught (Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). While Wenger (1998) 

argued that there are power dynamics at play in any community, the idea of shar-

ing power with the teachers in a community of practice aimed at professional de-

velopment is aligned with the goals of critical theorists who attempt to disrupt the 

power dynamics that presently exist in society, including those in situations such 

as the professional development of teachers (McLaren, 2000). 

Given the social conception of learning and the characteristics of communi-

ties of practice as outlined, these characteristics become powerful ways through 

which teachers can develop as educators. Communities of practice are touted by 

Choi (2006) as ―the most suitable learning method not only for achievements of 

tacit knowledge based on participation and practice in real world contexts, but 

also for implicit knowledge, which is passed easily through represented and sys-

tematic forms by practice at a group level, not at a personal level‖ (p. 143).  

 
Methods 

 

Although the larger study aimed to answer four broad questions, this article 

focuses specifically on those questions pertaining to teachers‘ views and beliefs 

about the role of teachers and the nature of mathematics and mathematics teach-

ing and learning. Or, more broadly, the teachers‘ developing identities. As a re-

sult, the focus of the analysis presented here will be teachers‘ changing views of 

whom they are and what their practice does and should entail. To this end, I focus 

on two of they study‘s research questions: (1) How do these teachers view and 

understand the teaching of mathematics for social justice? (2) How, if at all, does 

exposure to ideas about social justice and mathematics affect teachers‘ beliefs 

about teaching mathematics, the nature of mathematics, and their roles as teachers 

and agents of change?  

 
Recruitment of Participants 
 

While working in an unrelated study, I assisted in the collection of data at 

several schools, one of which I will refer to as Urban High School. This school is 

a large, comprehensive public high school in NYC that relies on a reform curricu-

lum very unlike the ―traditional‖ mandated NYC curriculum. It was suggested to 

me that as a result of teachers‘ familiarity with a reform-based curriculum, the 

school might be a good fit for my study. This suggestion was based on the as-

sumption that the teachers at Urban High would be more open to trying activities 

around the teaching of mathematics for social justice as compared with teachers at 

other schools whose curriculum was more traditional and whose ideas about what 

constitutes mathematics and the teaching of mathematics might be more narrowly 

defined.  



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       30 

I first approached the assistant principal of mathematics at Urban High and 

later the principal to obtain support for the study to be conducted with Urban 

High‘s mathematics teachers. After the appropriate permissions were obtained, 

the assistant principal of mathematics provided me with a list of email addresses 

for the teachers in the mathematics department. I forwarded a description of the 

research project to the teachers along with information about what participation in 

the study would include. Participation included: attending group sessions, partici-

pating in three interviews, and writing reflections after each group session. Poten-

tial participants were also told that in exchange for their participation, they would 

receive a copy of the edited volume Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social 

Justice by the Numbers (Gutstein & Peterson, 2005), copies of all of the articles 

and materials used during the study, and would be paid a monetary sum compara-

ble to that which they would receive for participating in similar professional de-

velopment opportunities through the NYC Department of Education. 

Eight of the nearly 30 mathematics teachers at the school expressed interest 

in the study. Of these, only one was declined due to scheduling issues, which is 

perhaps unfortunate as he would have been the only male participant. The partici-

pants, therefore, were seven female mathematics teachers who all worked in the 

same NYC public high school, Urban High, during the 2006–2007 academic year, 

though by the time that the data were collected (during the 2007–2008 academic 

year) two of the teachers had moved to other schools; they elected to be a part of 

the study nonetheless. 

 
The School 
 

This section serves to describe the school and relies on statistics obtained 

from the NYC Department of Education‘s Web site. In order to keep the name of 

the school confidential, the school‘s Web site from which the data was obtained 

does not appear in the list of references, although the homepage of the NYC De-

partment of Education does. Urban High is a large, comprehensive, public high 

school in NYC, serving over 3,000 students in grades nine through twelve. The 

physical building is very large with wide, ample hallways. One particular floor 

contains multiple classrooms, many of which are devoted to mathematics. The 

rooms are wide, with dry-erase boards and trapezoidal tables arranged in groups 

of two forming hexagons. The school administration places emphasis on the use 

of group work; the tables facilitate this pedagogical approach.  

The vast majority of students at Urban High (as of December 2007) were 

classified by the NYC Department of Education as Black (55%) or Hispanic 

(41%). Furthermore, a commonly used—though often misleading—measure of a 

school‘s overall socioeconomic status (SES) is the percentage of students who 

qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch. At Urban High, for example, in the 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       31 

2005–2006 academic year 38% of the students qualified for free or reduced-

priced lunch. The percentage presented is the ratio of the ―number of approved 

lunch applicants‖ to the number of full-time students at the school (New York 

State School Report Card Accountability and Overview Report, 2006). The partic-

ipants in my study, however, explained that due to the large number of students at 

the school, that some of the cafeterias (there were more than one) were converted 

into classrooms and so as to not overcrowd the remaining cafeteria, students were 

encouraged to take their lunch period (a required part of students‘ education pro-

grams in NYC) at the end of the day. Students who had lunch during the last pe-

riod of the day usually elected to leave the school and eat lunch elsewhere. As 

such, the number of applicants for free or reduced-priced lunch was quite low be-

cause of the high number of students who do not eat lunch at the school.  

Several members of the school‘s administration, when asked directly about 

this school policy, indicated that students may elect to take their lunch period last 

and that the overwhelming majority of those who do, leave the building at that 

time, as such they do not submit lunch applications. I asked several members of 

the administration, as well as all of the participants in my study, and several other 

teachers that I met on one of my visits, to estimate the percentage of students who 

might qualify for free or reduced-priced lunch (including those who might not ap-

ply), the various estimates I received hovered around 75%. This much higher per-

centage was representative of similar public schools in the city, as defined by the 

NYC Department of Education using data on its Web site. That Urban High is a 

large, comprehensive school in an urban area serving students who are primarily 

from historically marginalized communities made the school an attractive one for 

me to conduct my research study.  

Furthermore, after a long struggle, Urban High was able to select its own 

mathematics curriculum. The struggle to use a ―non-traditional‖ mathematics cur-

riculum was challenging, as explained by the school‘s assistant principal of ma-

thematics, but something that she felt was necessary. The teachers often made ref-

erence to the fact that the assistant principal of mathematics put her job ―on the 

line‖ to be able to use a non-traditional mathematics program. 

This non-traditional mathematics program is characterized by the use of ex-

ploration and discovery activities that highlight mathematics concepts which stu-

dents discover as they work through the activities. The program places heavy em-

phasis on problem solving; problems are contextualized in units that revolve 

around certain themes. As with most teachers, the participants seemed to believe 

that the curriculum was strong in some areas, especially in getting students to 

break down problems, but that it was lacking in others. The teachers believed that 

the curriculum did not expose students to the types of questions they are likely to 

see on the standardized examinations and that it used imprecise language. While 

the curriculum encouraged students to engage in and struggle with non-traditional 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       32 

problems while learning to deconstruct the material, the teachers believed that 

students could not always relate to the contexts provided, and that supplementa-

tion was needed. In general, because the teachers worked with a non-traditional 

and contextualized mathematics curriculum, Urban High was appealing to me. I 

imagined that the teachers might be more open to using mathematics for social 

justice lessons and activities, compared to those who worked at a school using a 

more traditional mathematics program. 

 
The Participants 

 

The participants were seven female mathematics teachers who worked at 

Urban High during the 2006–2007 academic year. Each teacher had between 1 

and 4 years of experience at the beginning of the study, and at least 1 year of ex-

perience using the school‘s non-traditional curriculum for mathematics. The fami-

liarity with the school setting and curriculum assisted the teachers in ascertaining 

the supports and limitations of implementing different activities in the mathemat-

ics classroom.  

As a result of the self-selective nature of the group, the teachers were, in 

some ways, not representative of those in the school‘s mathematics department or 

the school in general, based on data obtained from the school‘s assistant principal 

of mathematics and from the participants themselves. In that, all of the partici-

pants were women, despite roughly one third of the mathematics department be-

ing comprised of men. Additionally, as compared to others in their department 

and the school, the participants were more likely to be from racial and ethnic 

backgrounds similar to Urban High‘s students. Six of the seven teachers, approx-

imately 86%, identified as Black or Hispanic, while in both the mathematics de-

partment and the school as a whole less than 33% of the teachers did so. Accord-

ing to data obtained by the National Center for Educational Statistics (n.d.) 25.5% 

of public school teachers in urban areas such as NYC identify themselves as 

Black or Hispanic, significantly less than when considering the participants, ap-

proximately 86% of who identified themselves as Black or Hispanic (i.e., all but 

one, Vanessa). 

Moreover, this group of seven teachers tended to be less experienced than 

those in the school as a whole. While approximately 55% of the teachers at Urban 

High had taught in the NYC public school system for over 3 years, only 43% of 

the teachers in my study had done so. Additionally, while 25% of the teachers at 

Urban High had been in the NYC public school system for over 5 years, no one in 

my study had been. The participants ranged from having 1.5 to 4.5 years of teach-

ing experience, with the mean being 3.2 years. Research highlights that teachers 

in urban settings tend to differ from their students with respect to characteristics 

such as race and ethnicity, family background, and socioeconomic status, making 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       33 

it difficult for them to relate to their students (Darling-Hammond, French, & 

García-Lopez, 2002). Yet, the teachers in this study were predominantly from the 

same racial backgrounds as their students. And all but two reported growing up in 

families of low-socioeconomic status, with four reporting that their family had 

been on public assistance when they were growing up. (Table 1 provides back-

ground information about each teacher.) 

 
The Mathematics for Social Justice Group 
 

The Mathematics for Social Justice Group was a professional development 

opportunity for the teachers designed as a community of practice. It was not a col-

lege course, nor a course for which the teachers received credit or a certificate of 

any kind. It was not affiliated with any school or professional program. As the 

researcher, I was both a participant in the group and its facilitator. I did not 

―grade‖ the teachers, nor report their ―progress‖ to anyone at the school or else-

where. The group was a professional development opportunity for the teachers 

and formed part of my dissertation research (Gonzalez, 2008). 

The group that the teachers participated in met weekly for a total of 10, 2-

hour sessions. Meetings were held at Urban High during the academic year. Spe-

cifically, we met in Vanessa‘s classroom on Friday afternoons after classes had 

ended for the day and enough time had passed for those no longer at the school to 

arrive. Our first meeting began with a discussion of what social justice is and how 

we might recognize a socially just society if we saw it. The idea was to allow an 

intellectual space for us to explore our own conceptions of social justice and, in 

later sessions, explore how our work as teachers of mathematics might serve as a 

vehicle for social change. 

Our first five sessions involved reading texts related to the teaching of ma-

thematics for social justice. Articles, chapters from books, and other relevant ma-

terials from such authors as Gutstein (2006), Gutstein & Peterson (2005), Martin 

(2003), and Tate (2005) were read and discussed with the aim of understanding 

how teaching mathematics for social justice is defined in the literature and how it 

might play out in the classroom. Critical discussions about these readings and 

previous work that has been done formed the basis of our first few meetings. In 

addition, the participants and I engaged in activities and lessons that are currently 

available in the mathematics for social justice literature, allowing us an opportuni-

ty to explore some of the resources that exist and to discuss their perceived 

strengths and limitations. In the final sessions, the group developed a unit that 

linked high school mathematics (for first-year high school mathematics) with is-

sues of social justice. 

 

 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       34 

Table 1 

Summary of Participants 
 

Name 

(pseudonyms) 
Age 

Race/ 

Ethnicity 

Exp. 

(years) 

Years at 

Urban High 
College major 

Teaching 

license 

Articulated 

connections 

to school and 

students 

 

Ellen 

 

Mid 

30s 

 

Mixed (Afri-

can Ameri-

can/White) 

 

3.5 

 

3; left to 

work at the 

suburban 

HS she had 

attended 

 

 

Finance 

 

Middle 

school 

math 

 

None, 

beyond her 

race and 

working at 

Urban High 

Jenna Low 

30s 

Hispanic 3.5 3.5 Information 

Systems 

Middle 

school 

math 

Lives in 

neighbor-

hood; similar 

in expe-

riences and 

background 

(i.e., SES) 

 

Mellissa Mid 

30s 

African  

American 

3.5 3; left to 

work at 

small char-

ter school 

Economics/ 

Accounting 

High 

school 

math 

None, 

beyond her 

race and 

working at 

Urban High 

 

Monica 29 African  

American 

3.5 3.5 Engineering High 

school 

math 

Attended 

Urban High; 

lives in 

neighbor-

hood; similar 

in expe-

riences (i.e., 

SES) 

 

Nyo Upper 

30s 

African  

(Nigerian) 

4.5 4.5 Engineering High 

school 

math 

 

Attended 

Urban High 

 

Reina Low 

30s 

Hispanic 2.5 .5; taught 2 

years at a 

middle 

school 

Engineering Middle 

school 

math 

Lives in 

neighbor-

hood; similar 

in expe-

riences and 

background 

(i.e., SES) 

 

Vanessa Mid 

20s 

White 1.5 1.5 Chemistry/ 

Mathematics 

High 

school 

math 

Similar in 

experiences 

and back-

ground (i.e., 

SES) 

 

 

It was my intention at the start of my study that the teachers take more re-

sponsibility with respect to how the group should run and what we would do as 

time went on. On several occasions, I told the teachers that if they had anything 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       35 

interesting for us to read and discuss that we could substitute their suggested read-

ings for the readings I had originally planned; however, none of the teachers ever 

approached me with readings they wished to use. On other occasions, I set out 

some options in terms of how to proceed with the session at its start. Despite these 

attempts to make the sessions more participant centered, for the first six sessions 

the teachers deferred to me in terms of how the session should proceed and none 

brought in a text to read or an activity that they wanted to share with the group. 

The shift in power and responsibility about how the group would run, and that I 

had longed for, did eventually become reality, however.  

In sessions 6 through 9, the teachers were the ones who determined what 

topic our unit would address, how to proceed with the development of the lessons, 

and who would be responsible for what. The last session again featured the teach-

ers determining how we would proceed. In this session, each was an expert on 

work they put forth as they created it. If someone had walked in on this last ses-

sion (any time after the first few minutes), it would have been virtually impossible 

to tell who the participants were and who the researcher was because each of us 

was taking turns as the presenter, as the leader of the group for the few minutes 

that we each took to speak about our part. Everyone had something to offer and, 

at the same time, something to learn.  

 
Our Mathematics for Social Justice Unit 
 

In their initial interviews (discussed later in the article), each of the teachers 

expressed a passion for education and many commented that the educational op-

portunities afforded to the students at Urban High often leave them ill prepared 

for the future. This perspective, coupled with the desire that our unit be relevant to 

students and something they could all be ―on the same side of,‖ led the teachers to 

create a unit aimed at answering the question: How well does Urban High School 

prepare its students for the future? The teachers saw this question as an issue of 

importance to their students and one that the students might have interest in. 

The teachers also felt that improving their school was an attainable goal 

their students might work toward. Whereas, tackling a bigger social issue, such as 

how the unemployment rate or poverty levels are calculated, might lead to both 

good discussions and applications of mathematics, it might not result in any 

change or resolution. Reina noted, ―I loved the unit we decided upon because it is 

something practical, that [students] would need immediately and could DO some-

thing about‖ (session 9 reflection). It was important for the teachers that the stu-

dents be able to instill change in meaningful ways. They wanted the students to 

feel aware and motivated, to be able to describe the situation using mathematics, 

and to take action at improving the situation they were to explore. Additionally, 

keeping in mind the fact that they might not be able to use the unit as a whole giv-



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       36 

en the scope, sequence, and pacing guide that drove their curriculum, the teachers 

hoped to create a collection of lessons that together could form a cohesive unit, 

but that could be used independent of one another so as to facilitate implementa-

tion. 

The overarching question of the unit was explored using two approaches. 

The first of these focused on how Urban High was preparing their students as 

compared to other public high schools in NYC. Vanessa, Reina, and I worked on 

this part of the unit. Relying on statistical datasets available on the NYC Depart-

ment of Education Web site, we developed lessons and problem sets that com-

pared statistical data on Urban High to two similar, large, open-admission schools 

and one specialized high school. The statistical data used for comparison in-

cluded: graduation rates, standardized test scores, incidences of violence, number 

of Advanced Placement classes, and so forth. The focus of this part of the unit 

was the use of mathematics to understand the way in which Urban High prepares 

its students as compared to other NYC public high schools and, from this analy-

sis, to determine what changes might be needed to improve the school‘s ability to 

prepare its students for the future. Exploring what might be extrapolated from 

these datasets involved mathematical analyses of why some of the statistics might 

be misleading, what can and cannot be answered by the statistics, and the implica-

tions of the statistics on student learning and preparation. This part of the unit was 

in line with the work of Freire, as described by Frankenstein (1983), who wrote, 

―Freire‘s concept of critical knowledge further directs us to explore not merely 

how statistics are non-neutral, but why, and in whose interest‖ (p. 324). 

The second approach used to determine how Urban High prepared students 

was accomplished by comparing the opportunities students have at the school 

with the entrance requirements at various types of colleges and for various ma-

jors. By looking at how an Urban High graduate might fare when applying to var-

ious colleges and analyzing how prepared they would be to pursue various 

courses of study (e.g., mathematics/science-related majors, liberal arts-related ma-

jors, performance majors), this part of the unit aimed to address the overarching 

question of the unit. ―My hopes are to get students thinking about the best fit for a 

college in terms of what they wish to study and how their grades help them fit into 

an appropriate area of study‖ (Nyo, session 7 reflection). Nyo and Monica worked 

on this part of the unit, which also included lessons on understanding one‘s tran-

script and on the graduation standards. The teachers believed that despite having 

to meet these standards in order to graduate, many students were often unaware of 

them. 

Following these two parts of the unit, the students would then prepare pres-

entations to share their results with members of the school community, such as 

administrators, parents, teachers, and others. In so doing, they would not only 

demonstrate where the school was in terms of preparing students, but also they 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       37 

would advocate for changes that they saw as necessary for Urban High‘s gra-

duates to be prepared adequately for the futures they wish to pursue. 

The third part of the unit dealt with financial preparation. Melissa and Jenna 

undertook development of a sub-unit on financial mathematics with the belief that 

the school was not teaching students the skills required to be successful financial-

ly in the future. Aimed at addressing this deficiency, this part of the unit included 

lessons on how to balance a checkbook and how interest is calculated on credit 

cards and other types of loans. As an element of this part of the unit, students 

would create a budget based on data obtained through the Department of Educa-

tion Web site about what the typical Urban High student was planning to do after 

graduation. 

Finally, Ellen, who worked alone, explored ways in which the information 

students learned from the unit might be shared with others. She wanted to develop 

a forum for change where students could share their knowledge with incoming 

students so that new students could take full advantage of the opportunities avail-

able at the school. She also envisioned creating opportunities to inform parents 

and others about the school, the opportunities it provides, and also what students 

and parents need to do in conjunction with teachers and the school administration 

to ensure student success. Her idea took the form of a ―Success Day‖ event that 

would have older students welcoming new students and their parents to the school 

in order to foster a culture of success at the school. She created an outline for the 

day‘s events that she proposed to the administration of her new school for use at 

the start of the 2009 school year. 

The teachers‘ engagement in the unit transcended our Friday meetings. That 

is, their work on the unit was not confined to the 2 hours we met on Fridays, but 

rather something that they did all throughout the week. For example, in her ses-

sion 6 reflection, Jenna noted, with respect to her group, ―We plan to spend this 

week doing a bit of research and bringing it into the next session.‖ Similarly, oth-

ers spent the time between sessions looking up information and reworking their 

parts of the unit. The teachers‘ work on the unit and the fact that they were spend-

ing much out-of-session time on it led us to postpone the last session. Instead of 

meeting 1 week after session 9, we let 2 weeks go by before meeting in order that 

we would have more out-of-session time to work on the unit. 

The teachers responded positively to the unit they created and saw it as both 

relevant to and useful for students. Vanessa explained, ―Yeah, oh yeah, I think the 

kids would really be interested in it…this is stuff that‘s directly related to their 

life‖ (exit interview). Others noted that students often complain about what they 

learn in mathematics, seeing no use for it in their daily lives. Jenna wrote in her 

session 7 reflection: ―Students have the habit of complaining that they aren't 

going to use most of what they learn in high school.‖ She added, however, that 

with respect to our unit, ―They're definitely going to need all of this.‖ 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       38 

Interestingly, the teachers criticized the level of mathematics in some of the 

social justice activities we explored as part of the group sessions, but they did not 

raise this same concern with respect to the level of mathematics in our unit; even 

though some parts of it were informational, but devoid of any ―rigorous‖ mathe-

matics. When asked about the lack of mathematical rigor in the finance and bud-

geting sections of the unit, Melissa and Jenna, the creators, both agreed that the 

mathematics in this part did lack rigor. On the other hand, they pointed to the fact 

that understanding the content of the lessons in this part is necessary for students 

as they move beyond high school and that, as it is not covered elsewhere in the 

curriculum, it is important that students be exposed to it. 

The most rigorous mathematics part of the unit was aligned with grade nine 

mathematics standards in NYC, addressing topics such as ratios, percents, and the 

use of graphs and tables to display data and probability. These are the same topics 

that are most often covered in the mathematics for social justice lessons which 

currently exist and those that the participants and I explored as members of the 

group. 

I think that the first part of the unit, the statistical comparison of the schools, 

was much more aligned with the ideals of teaching mathematics for social justice 

than the other parts. It used data that were readily obtainable to explore and com-

pare various schools, thus exposing the differences in quality and scope of prepa-

ration offered to students. It highlighted the deficiencies that exist in some NYC 

public schools, specifically those that serve students in marginalized communities 

as compared to more ―successful‖ schools serving mainstream students. It pre-

pared students to understand these inequities statistically with the hope that by so 

doing students will be motivated to advocate for changes within their school to 

assist in mitigate them. This advocacy was further supported by the framework of 

Success Day as well as by providing avenues for students to share their concerns 

and ideas for improving the school with other stakeholders such as school admin-

istrators, community leaders, and parent groups. 

 
Data Collection 
 

Each teacher participated in two semi-structured interviews that I conducted 

with the goal of ascertaining the participants‘ initial and developing beliefs about 

their identities as mathematics teachers and agents of change. The initial interview 

was held prior to the start of the group sessions; it included in-depth questions that 

addressed the participants‘ views about their own activism, the teaching and 

learning of mathematics, and their identity as mathematics teachers and agents of 

change. Also explored in the initial interview were the participants‘ beliefs about 

the role of teachers, their views of the students whom they taught, and their rea-

sons for joining the study. To note developments in the teachers‘ thinking, the exit 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       39 

interview, also a semi-structured, in-depth interview, contained many questions 

similar in nature and content to those in the initial interview, allowing me to dis-

cern changes in the teachers‘ thinking about various issues. Other topics driving 

the questions in the exit interview were teachers‘ views of their developing identi-

ties, their opinions about the community of practice, and their thoughts about the 

teaching of mathematics for social justice. (There were additional, ongoing inter-

views conducted; they are discussed later in the article.) 

Researcher interview. I was interviewed by members of my dissertation 

committee at the start of my study as well as at its end. The interviews followed 

the protocol used for the initial and exit interviews of the participants, allowing 

me to ascertain my initial identity and beliefs and how these (might) have 

changed throughout the course of the study. This procedure also served as a way 

of somewhat gauging my beliefs and perceptions against those of the participants. 

Teacher reflections. The teachers were asked to write a reflection at the con-

clusion of each group session, addressing the activities or discussion of that ses-

sion. At times, open-ended questions were provided to the participants to guide 

their reflections. In all cases, however, teachers were reminded that they need not 

be bound by these questions and were encouraged to also address other issues or 

concerns that they might have. As the researcher, I, too, answered these guiding 

questions, when provided, in my own reflections. 

In addition to the teachers‘ reflections, I interviewed one teacher informally 

at the end of most group sessions in order to catch ―fresh‖ reactions, suggestions, 

and thoughts (these are the ongoing interviews previously mentioned). The teach-

er interviewed rotated so that each had a chance to be interviewed in this manner. 

This interview, an oral reflection, was done with the hope that I could probe 

teachers‘ reflections a bit more than was possible when they reflected on their 

own in writing in order to gather rich data about the participants‘ developing be-

liefs and identities.  

Video data. While each of the group sessions was videotaped in its entirety, 

a thorough analysis of the video data has not been undertaken at this time. The 

analysis for this article is drawn from the interviews and reflections (as previously 

noted). Nonetheless, an analysis of the video data, I believe, will provide further 

insights into the participants‘ developing identities, their beliefs and understand-

ings of mathematics for social justice, and the use of communities of practice as 

vehicles for professional development. It is the focus of my future work. 

Researcher journal. In attempting to understand my role in the group along 

with my identities as a researcher, mathematics teacher, and agent of change, I 

kept a researcher journal in which I reflected upon these topics after group ses-

sions. These reflections involved formal reflections similar to those the partici-

pants completed at the end of each session, as well as informal writing about ideas 

and issues as they emerged. The journal served several purposes, one of which 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       40 

was to see how my own thinking and identity developed through time. A second 

purpose of the journal was to monitor my own subjectivity, attempting to under-

stand and document how my own history and beliefs affected both data collection 

and analysis. Finally, the journal served as the place where I reflected after group 

meetings, forming an initial, perhaps informal, way of understanding and analyz-

ing the data.  

Entries in the journal served the function of analytical, methodological, and 

personal memos (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). That is, in part they played an analytic 

role providing a place to make initial inferences about the data, raise quest ions, 

and note emerging themes. The entries also in part allowed me to consider how to 

approach the next session or phase of the research project; therefore, they served 

an important methodological role.  

 

Data Analysis 
 

Data analysis was an open-ended process involving constant, continual ref-

lection. In keeping with the recommendation of qualitative researchers, data anal-

ysis took place throughout the data collection process and not entirely at the end 

of the study (Creswell 2005; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). This procedure enabled the 

refining of methods and future data collection. One example of this refinement 

was the addition of a written reflection by the teachers and me at the start of each 

session that was not part of the original data collection methods. These reflections 

were added later on in the study, both as a way of discerning participants‘ indi-

vidual thoughts about warm-up activities and as a way of focusing the group at 

the start of each session. 

Before my initial round of coding the data, I read through the text-based da-

ta several times in order to get an understanding of the whole of the transcribed 

discourse and, at that time, wrote some initial findings based on these readings 

that I then looked to for support when the data were later more systematically ana-

lyzed. Given the nature of this work, my belief in the validity of teaching mathe-

matics for social justice, and the goal of preparing teachers to teach in this man-

ner, I came to my study with a fairly well-articulated (preconceived) agenda, 

complete with research questions, analytic categories (e.g., teacher identity, 

teacher understandings of mathematics for social justice), and the goal of prepar-

ing teachers to teach mathematics for social justice. Although I was open to 

themes that might ―emerge‖ from the data, the fact that I had research questions I 

wished to address made it impossible to go into the coding process without any 

preconceived ideas. My interest in the teachers‘ developing identities and in their 

understandings of teaching mathematics for social justice necessitated the devel-

opment of codes that addressed these issues. Working definitions of the codes 

were constructed and refined as the coding scheme was applied to the data. These 

codes represented themes that were derived from my interaction with the data and 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       41 

included the teachers‘ developing understandings of teaching mathematics for so-

cial justice, their awareness of the literature, and changes in their ―style of talk‖ 

that I had not foreseen.  

The analysis of data was done in two ways. One was to look at the coded 

statements across time for each participant, allowing me to ―see‖ changes across 

time for each participant. A teacher‘s understandings of mathematics for social 

justice, for instance, could be traced using this method across time. A second me-

thod was to compare the coded statements across teachers by topic, noting agree-

ment and disagreement between their beliefs and understandings.  

 
Reliability of Findings 
 

In an effort to present reliable findings, various procedures were undertaken. 

These included the use of multiple methods of data collection and multiple data 

sources, an essential component of trustworthy research (Creswell, 2005; Strauss 

& Corbin, 1990). Findings were triangulated by data source (participants and re-

searcher) and data collection method (interviews and reflections). Incongruous or 

conflicting information that surfaced was noted with the belief that negative cases 

strengthen research by contextualizing findings. Ongoing interviews with the par-

ticipants as well as their written reflections allowed me to learn about how they 

viewed their participation in the group, the nature of our meetings, and their un-

derstanding of various constructs, as well as their own developing ident ities. My 

own views and the patterns were checked against the views and patterns that the 

participants perceived and related back to me. Additionally, the participants were 

presented with various preliminary findings through phone conversations and 

email exchanges and provided feedback with respect to these (i.e., member check-

ing). 

 
Findings 

 

My analysis of the data demonstrated that the teachers were acutely aware 

of the injustices that their students face; they were acutely aware of students‘ 

home lives, inadequate academic preparedness, and the lack of opportunity avail-

able to them and their families. As previously mentioned, five of the seven teach-

ers are from similar backgrounds as their students and feel they share the expe-

riences of these urban youth. Those with similar backgrounds saw themselves as 

being able to succeed in society despite the lack of opportunity because of their 

reliance upon education. They saw education as the way to future success, al-

though they were cynical about the education their students receive. In her initial 

interview, Melissa, noted:  

 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       42 

I believe that sometimes the curriculum is set up towards the government. Obvious-

ly, if they‘re picking the curriculum, they‘re picking what they want you to learn. 

They want to shape you in the way they want to shape you. The old school that I 

used to work with is just that—we just want to produce servants. We just want to 

produce someone who will be the serving class. It was not geared toward producing 

these high-level, educated, intelligent individuals. 

 

The teachers, as Melissa‘s quote exemplifies, saw the public school at which they 

had taught, as well as similar schools, as producers of servants and not leaders. 

They feared that their students are being done a disservice and struggle with the 

fact that they are a part of the very system that is keeping these students from suc-

ceeding. Melissa was one of two participants (the other being Ellen) who have 

young sons of color and who vehemently opposed sending their sons to Urban 

High or similar schools, as they believe that these schools are not adequately serv-

ing students—most notably, young men of color. They both talked about toying 

with the idea of starting a school specifically for this population of students. Nei-

ther Melissa nor Ellen has their son enrolled in a NYC public school, nor do they 

have plans to do so. Melissa explained: 

  
And I refuse—I told my husband, I will quit my job and be a home-school teacher 

instead of putting my child in this little zoo, any zoo that they got going here. I do 

not trust the system. I don‘t trust them, not with my black, male child. I know it 

sounds crazy, but I just don‘t because if you look at the, you know, what they have 

been producing, they haven‘t been producing much. (initial interview)  

 

Her sentiments were echoed by Ellen, who has her son enrolled in a suburban 

school, and by some of the other teachers who have labeled these schools as 

―pipelines to prison,‖ especially for male students from marginalized communi-

ties. It is interesting to note that neither Ellen nor Melissa still work at the school, 

choosing instead to work in schools serving more mainstream students. 

The teachers‘ initial ideas about social injustice was that it is prevalent—

something both they and their students deal with constantly—and that it could be 

addressed through school better than in school, as mathematics for social justice 

proponents aim to do. Their love of mathematics and interest in social justice is-

sues drove them to participate. It was their awareness of such issues and their ea-

gerness to address them that led them to the group. 

Although all but three of the teachers noted a lack of familiarity with the 

phrase teaching mathematics for social justice in the initial interviews, this lack of 

familiarity referred mainly to a lack of awareness of how the term is defined in 

the research literature. The teachers, as evidenced by their initial interviews and 

our first group discussions, did indeed have their own construction of what teach-

ing mathematics for social justice might mean. This construct, to them, consisted 

of some aspects of the four components of the definition of mathematics for social 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       43 

justice previously discussed, as well as a view of how they, as teachers, might be 

agents of change. For example, two of the teachers, Nyo and Vanessa, admitted 

that they had not heard of the expression teaching mathematics for social justice, 

but explained their understanding of the topic. Nyo‘s definition involved bringing 

real-life situations and contexts into the classroom. Instead of relying on problems 

devoid of context, teaching mathematics for social justice for her, initially meant, 

―incorporating social issues in sort of a word problem‖ (initial interview). Nyo‘s 

initial understanding of teaching mathematics for social justice addressed the need 

to bring social issues and real-life contexts into mathematics education consistent 

with the re-centering component of the definition previously presented as well as 

with the use of mathematics as a way of examining and understanding issues in 

society. 

Initially, Vanessa described mathematics for social justice as, ―maybe like 

integrating certain things that students would relate…for them to have a better 

understanding about mathematical context using context, but something that‘s 

more familiar‖ (initial interview). Vanessa also believed from the start that educa-

tion should be a means for raising class consciousness and, though these are not 

her terms, teaching for liberation in the Freirian sense: ―I wanna be able to raise 

some of these issues to my kids and be able to address them and discuss them and 

maybe to open up their eyes to what exists‖ (exit interview). 

Melissa noted that she brings social issues into her teaching. Mostly, this ef-

fort involved bringing up individuals of color who were noted mathematicians 

and scientists and asking the students to find examples of such individuals as 

well: 

 
I used to bring articles, and I used to—during Black History Month, I used to tell 

them that, ―You have to find a mathematician that was either African-Caribbean, 

African-American, African-Latino that you know, and read about it, and you get ex-

tra credit if you come up, and you present, and you talk about it.‖ And I would also, 

before the test, extra credit would be, ―I‘m gonna read you a passage of a person that 

created all these things, and they were black.‖ And I would read about it, and the 

kids would take notes, and they can use their notes for extra credit. (initial interview) 

 

While there is an element of critique or conscious raising that is consistent 

with teaching for social justice, Melissa‘s comments are what many researchers 

call the ―heroes and holidays‖ approach to multiculturalism in education; this li-

miting approach was also common to the initial conceptions of teaching mathe-

matics for social justice that some of Gau‘s (2005) preservice teachers had at the 

start of her study. The definitions initially put forth by Nyo, Vanessa, and Melissa 

include bringing the ―real world‖ into their classrooms, but are vague as to how to 

do so; again, similar to what Gau found of her participants‘ initial views of teach-

ing mathematics for social justice. 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       44 

As they were introduced to activities and lessons created around the idea of 

teaching mathematics for social justice, the teachers began to see the political na-

ture of mathematics teaching and realized how mathematics might be used to 

highlight social injustice. The teachers quickly realized the power of mathematics 

for social justice activities to raise student awareness of the injustices prevalent in 

society. Vanessa spoke of these lessons as a way of raising ―class consciousness‖ 

(exit interview), which is parallel to Freire‘s (1970/1993) ―massified conscious-

ness‖ (p. 17) and forms a key component of teaching for liberation (Nasir, Hand, 

& Taylor, 2008). Reina noted that mathematics for social justice lessons are ―a 

way to get the kids to be aware of what‘s happening around them‖ (exit inter-

view). While the teachers disagreed as to how aware their students are of various 

social and political issues, they all commented that engaging students in mathe-

matics for social justice lessons would result in increased awareness. 

When asked in their exit interviews about their roles as agents of change, all 

of the teachers pointed to the changes that they affect in their students within their 

own classrooms as evidence that they are agents of change. This response was 

consistent with the experiences of Coti (2002) as he reflected upon a similar pro-

fessional development opportunity he engaged in. Vanessa, on the other hand, 

stressed her desire to raise class consciousness as a means of affecting broader 

change in society, noting that she needed to further consider how to best do so 

within her classroom. Many of the teachers noted that they did not initially realize 

the power they had as teachers to affect change in the broader society and that this 

power was something they were now beginning to consider: 

 
So this group kind of made me more like, ―Well, I have this intelligence. I need to 

use it for good.‖ Yes. With much power comes much responsibility, so it just, it 

made me more aware that I need to be more socially active, that, you know, I need to 

be part of affecting change, because no one‘s gonna do it for me kind of thing, and it 

also made me feel like I have more of a sense of like the same thing I was saying 
about the kids, like ownership, like I have control over what could happen, you 

know, but I‘m choosing not to exert that control and that power. So these sessions 

kind of made me like, ―No, I have to. I have to, because I have that responsibility as 

someone who knows.‖ (Reina, exit interview) 

 

The power to affect change in society through their students was also a new 

idea that many of the teachers were beginning to understand. ―I learned new ways 

students could change their environment while involving math,‖ wrote Monica in 

her session 9 reflection, adding that she was excited at the possibility of helping 

students to do just that. 

The teachers realized that mathematics for social justice activities could lead 

to student empowerment and larger societal change: ―It would give [students] a 

voice if you realized that there was actually something that they could do or say 

about an issue‖ (Ellen, exit interview), and ―definitely would make [students] 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       45 

more empowered‖ (Reina, exit interview). Empowerment, the teachers argued, 

could lead to change: ―You could change the community,‖ Monica noted in her 

exit interview. Similarly, in her exit interview, Reina explained that through ma-

thematics for social justice students would ―feel like they can affect change.‖ At 

some point or another, each of the teachers suggested that students often feel dis-

empowered because of their situation/life experiences, noting their students ―see 

how hard the world can be‖ and ―feel like there‘s no hope‖ (Monica, exit inter-

view). Having students realize their agency by working towards social change 

was seen as a way of combating this learned helplessness. The teachers saw this 

positive change in their students as a possible outcome of teaching mathematics 

for social justice, a belief consistent with that of mathematics for social justice 

advocates (Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). As Turner and Font 

Strawhun (2005) noted, ―We found that creating space for students to pose their 

own problems and to inject their interests and concerns into the curriculum was a 

powerful way of supporting student activism‖ (p. 87). 

The teachers began to consider ways that their teaching could be informed 

by the ideas and activities that we were discussing and using in our group. Reina‘s 

written reflections are an indication of this awareness. She began to shift her writ-

ing toward ways she could incorporate the ideas and activities she was learning 

about in the group. She stated in her written reflection after the fourth session, ―I 

feel [my teaching] would look more like a way to use the math to make arguments 

about our point of view…possibly at the end of a math unit as a project where the 

students can now use the math topics we've learned to hold roundtable discussions 

on a specific social issue.‖ In another reflection, she noted, ―I would really love to 

work in a school where I could tie this into their social studies classes, where we 

do the investigations in mathematics and they talk about the social impacts in 

their social studies classes.‖ 

This second quote hints at the struggle that all but one (Nyo) of the teachers 

expressed facing. These teachers dealt with their belief that engaging students in 

examining social injustices is a worthwhile endeavor while feeling simultaneously 

tied by a school culture that focuses on standardized exams the students are re-

quired to take as well as a curriculum implemented through an often rigid pacing 

guide. Reina was so affected by the group and the identities of being a mathemat-

ics teacher and agent of change that she struggled with her role as a high school 

mathematics teacher at Urban High. By her session 9 reflection, Reina spoke of 

the frustration she was feeling as she noted that participation in the group ―made 

me very angry about how mathematics is currently taught.‖ 

As she did not feel she could teach mathematics in a relevant, meaningful 

way, Reina explained in her exit interview that she was considering leaving the 

school or teaching in general. She explained why in her session 9 reflection: 

 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       46 

To make math relevant, to create students who are socially active in what occurs in 

their lives feels like a huge responsibility. I have always done what was required be-

cause it was required. To create for my students something I never needed for myself 

seems like too much of a stretch on top of everything else that is expected of a teach-

er. The thought is very overwhelming. 

 

By the time her exit interview was scheduled, Reina had decided to continue 

teaching but to do so at the middle school level as she had done prior to her work 

at Urban High. She felt that the middle school curriculum allowed her more free-

dom to address issues that her students were facing through mathematics.  

At the start of the study, the teachers feared that examining social issues 

would serve not to empower students but to paralyze them into inaction as they 

considered the many injustices that they must face. Ellen noted in her reflection 

after the eighth session, ―as a participant in a research group on social justice, I 

often worried that making students aware of the injustices they are faced with 

would cause them to throw in the towel or take on an attitude of self-defeat.‖ 

Throughout the course of our sessions, the teachers‘ concerns about this issue be-

gan to lessen. In that same reflection, Ellen continued to say that now she rea-

lized, ―students are fully aware of the injustices they face each day, and all they 

need is some empowerment, backing, and the means to have their issues ad-

dressed.‖ Many teachers echoed Ellen‘s sentiment, noting that increasing aware-

ness alone was not helpful to students and that opportunity for action, where stu-

dents could exercise their agency, must accompany such work. 

The participants‘ desire for student empowerment and action as part of 

teaching mathematics for social justice is consistent with research that posits that 

activities around mathematics for social justice should include opportunities for 

action (Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). As a result, many were drawn 

to an article by Turner and Font Strawhun (2005), which described a project 

where students used mathematics to explore the space allotted to them as a small 

school housed in a larger building with other schools. The students in Turner and 

Font Strawhun‘s study compared their space with that of the other schools and 

used their findings to support their argument that they were not given a fair 

amount of space in the building. What the teachers in the study were most drawn 

to in this project was that it ended with students presenting their findings to the 

school board in an attempt to change the situation and rectify the injustice being 

committed against them. 

Although the teachers began to consider how to incorporate social issues 

and the activities we did into their classes, they were highly discriminating about 

what they would and would not be comfortable bringing into their classes. Some, 

most notably Nyo and Vanessa, felt that students will be engaged in mathematics 

because of the draw of these social issues and that this is a way of hooking stu-

dents. Nyo wrote in reference to some of the activities we did, noting, ―I loved the 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       47 

use of the cartoons that illustrated political issues and how it tied into the data that 

were later handed out. [It was a] great introduction to the hardcore math topics.‖ 

She claimed that connecting mathematics to social issues might make the mathe-

matics more meaningful and exciting to students. She added, in a reflection writ-

ten after the ninth session, ―Oddly enough I never liked social studies in school, 

but I feel if it were presented and related to math in a similar fashion I might have 

enjoyed it.‖ The findings discussed here highlight the fact that exposure to ways 

of incorporating social justice issues in mathematics can lead to teachers valuing 

such work and reconsidering the ways in which they teach their students, as well 

as the way in which they define what it means to be a teacher of mathematics.  

Mathematics for social justice activities were met with interest, though not 

always with full support. Specifically, the teachers worried if raising awareness 

about social issues would serve to paralyze rather than motivate students, hig-

hlighting the need to provide avenues for action along with such lessons as argued 

by the research literature (Gutstein, 2006; Gutstein & Peterson, 2005). The teach-

ers raised numerous other concerns as well, including the fact that teaching ma-

thematics for social justice might not be supported by the school‘s administration 

or by parents. These concerns mirrored those described by the teachers in the 

study conducted by Gau (2005). Thus, in order that teachers are able to implement 

mathematics for social justice lessons into their teaching in a meaningful way, 

they must be supported and taught ways in which they could provide avenues for 

action to follow mathematics for social justice lessons if these lessons are to be 

used as a catalyst for social change and not merely a way to raise awareness that 

on its own might not be as beneficial to students. 

Participation in the group also led to changes in how the participants (and 

me) saw themselves (and myself). Consistent with the work of Gau (2005), the 

teachers‘ conceptions of their roles as mathematics teachers expanded as a result 

of their exposure to the teaching of mathematics for social justice. They began to 

reconsider what it meant to teach mathematics and what counts as mathematics in 

the classroom. The study found that providing a forum to learn about the teaching 

of mathematics for social justice led to the teachers‘ growing understanding of 

teaching as a political act, as well as the power of mathematics to be used as a 

critical tool for analyzing social life. 

Finally, as I considered issue of power and responsibility among the teach-

ers and me in the group sessions, I noticed that the sessions during which we 

worked on the unit, unlike the others, were not planned out ahead of time. In the 

outline of group sessions that the teachers received at our first meeting, these ses-

sions simply listed ―work on project‖ for the main activity to be done and I did 

not consciously think through or plan out how this work would be done. This 

omission might account for why the teachers were able to take responsibility for 

these latter sessions. Taking responsibility for one of the earlier sessions would 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       48 

have meant disrupting the plan I had conceived and laid out for us in the session 

overview. That is much more challenging than taking responsibility for the work-

ing session because these were not planned prior and taking ownership of them 

would not necessitate a rejection of the plans I had already developed. 

These realities with respect to the level of participation in our group sessions 

highlight to me a need for professional development to be carefully structured to 

include avenues for participants to take both ownership of the work and responsi-

bility for the development of the professional development experience. Ownership 

is defined as, ―our ability to take responsibility for negotiating meaning‖ (Wen-

ger, 1998, p. 201). That is, opportunities are created for teachers to come to an 

understanding of the materials or methods, to bring in their points of view and 

experiences, and to impact what occurs as part of the professional development. 

Given opportunities to truly engage in the material, teachers are more likely to 

value the professional development and more likely to use what they learn than if 

they are treated as mere receivers of information.  

 
Implications, Unanswered Questions,  

and Issues for Further Research 
 

This study was informed by, and hopefully adds to, the research literature in 

the teaching of mathematics for social justice and teacher development through 

communities of practice. The conclusions reached can inform future professional 

development programs, hopefully leading to improved experiences for teachers, 

and through them, for students as well. Lessons learned about the developing 

identities of the participants can serve to inform future studies and also programs 

aimed at pre- and in-service teacher development. 

Although my study added to the research in the areas specified above, it left 

unanswered questions that can serve to guide further research. Answering such 

questions might provide valuable insight into a number of topics, including the 

teaching of mathematics for social justice, professional development through a 

community of practice, and teacher pedagogy. The focus here is on teachers‘ de-

veloping understandings of teaching mathematics for social justice and the effects 

of participation in the group on teachers‘ identities as agents of change. Both of 

these are pre-cursors, or necessary conditions, for changes in teacher action lead-

ing to pedagogical shifts. Following these teachers into their classrooms to deter-

mine how these changes in understandings and identity impact teacher‘s actual 

practice is a logical next step that might lead us to answer questions such as: 

 

 Does participation in a community of practice centered on teaching ma-
thematics for social justice change teachers‘ pedagogical practices? If 

so, in what ways? 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       49 

 

Another area for further research involves studying the ways that teachers 

could be supported so that they move from understanding mathematics for social 

justice to implementing it in their classrooms. Examining ways that teachers could 

be supported as they move from awareness to implementation seems an invalua-

ble endeavor. Any reform, in order to be successful, requires support from the 

school, and so while we see work on preparing teachers to teach mathematics for 

social justice, an example of which is this very study, I continue to wonder: 

 

 What resources does a school and/or administration staff need to provide 
in order that teachers might fully implement mathematics for social jus-

tice lessons into their teaching? 

 

Another factor to further explore would be how the findings might have dif-

fered if the professional development group and the study as a whole were under-

taken with teachers who were not necessarily all aligned with the goals of teach-

ing mathematics for social justice from the start or with teachers whose political 

and social understandings were less congruous than those of the participants in 

this study. 

 

 How would the group and the experience in general for teachers have 
been different if their opinions on various social issues were not so 

closely aligned? 

 

These are very rich questions that I believe are valuable ways of focusing future 

research—my own included.  

Before concluding, I would like to share a quote from a reflection written by 

Nyo after the fourth session that I think speaks to the excitement that I, the teacher 

participants, and hopefully some of you reading this article feel about teaching 

mathematics for social justice: ―I absolutely liked the idea of mathematizing eve-

rything around us.‖  

 
Acknowledgments 

 

This article is based upon work partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

under Grant No. ESI-0333753. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations ex-

pressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. 

 
References 

 

Apple, M. (1992). Do the standards go far enough? Power, policy, and practice in mathematics 

education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23, 412–431. 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       50 

Aronowitz, S. (2004). Against schooling: Education and social class. Social Text [79], 2(2), 13–

35. 

Brantlinger, A. (2007). Geometries of Inequality: Teaching and researching critical mathematics 

in a low-income urban high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern Uni-

versity, Evanston, IL. 

Brantlinger, A., Gutstein, E., Buenrostro, P., & Turner, E. (2007). Teaching mathematics for so-
cial justice: Is there math there? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National 

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Atlanta, GA. 

Burton, L. (Ed.). (2003). Which way social justice in mathematics education? Westport: Praeger. 

Choi, M. (2006). Communities of practice: An alternative learning model for knowledge creation. 

British Journal of Educational Technology, 37(1), 143–146. 

Coti, C. (2005). Finding myself in my students: A step toward transforming social dynamics in the 

classroom. In L. Darling-Hammond, L. French, & S. P. Garcia-Lopez (Eds.), Learning to 

teach for social justice (pp. 52–58). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative 

and qualitative research (2
nd

 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. 

Darling-Hammond, L., French, L., & García-Lopez, S. P. (Eds.). (2002). Learning to teach for 

social justice. New York: Teachers College Press. 
Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher Education and the Cultural Imagination: Autobiography, con-

versation and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Frankenstein, M. (1983, Fall). Critical mathematics education: An application of Paulo Freire‘s 

epistemology. Boston University Journal of Education, 165(4), 315–359. 

Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. (Original work published 

1970) 

Gau, T. (2005). Learning to teach for social justice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University 

of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 

Gonzalez (2008). Mathematics teachers as agents of change: Exploring teacher identity and so-

cial justice through a community of practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Graduate 

Center of the City University of New York, NY. 
Gutiérrez, R. (2007). (Re)Defining equity: The importance of a critical perspective. In N. S. Nasir 

& P. Cobb. (Eds.). Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom. 

(pp. 37–50). New York: Teachers College Press. 

Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for 

social justice. New York: Routledge. 

Gutstein, E. (2008). Reinventing Freire: Mathematics education for social transformation. Pro-

ceedings of the Fifth International Education and Society Conference, 9–24. Albufeira, Por-

tugal. 

Gutstein, E., & Peterson, B (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the 

numbers. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. 

Holland, D., Lachiotte, W., Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (2003). Identity and agency in cultural 

worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Martin, D. B. (2000). Mathematics success and failure among African-American youth: The roles 

of sociocultural context, community forces, school influence and individual agency. Mah-

wah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. 

Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in the Mathematics for All 

rhetoric. The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21. 

McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. New York: 

Rowman & Littlefield.  

Michelli, N. M., & Keiser, D. L. (Eds.). (2005). Teacher education for democracy and social jus-

tice. New York: Routledge. 



 

 

 

Gonzalez                                                                   Mathematics for Social Justice 

 

Journal of Urban Mathematics Education Vol. 2, No. 1                                       51 

Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E., Jr. (2001). Radical Equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the 

Algebra Project. Boston: Beacon Press. 

Mukhopadhyay, S., Powell, A. B., & Frankenstein, M. (2009). In B. Greer, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. 

B. Powell, & S. Nelson-Barber (Eds.) Culturally responsive mathematics education. (pp. 

65–84). New York: Routledge. 

Nasir, N. S., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school: Boundaries be-
tween ―cultural‖ and ―domain‖ knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. 

Review of Research in Education, 32, 187–240. 

National Center for Educational Statistics. (n.d.). School and staffing survey. Retrieved on Sep-

tember 5, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass  

New York City Department of Education. (n.d.) Homepage. Retrieved on May 26, 2007, from 

http://schools.nyc.gov 

New York City Department of Education. (2006). New York State School Report Card and Ac-

countability Overview Report. Retrieved on May 26, 2007, from 

https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/Home.do?year=2007  

Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. 

Roth, W.-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Rotterdam, NL: Sense. 

Sleeter, C. E. (1997). Mathematics, multicultural education, and professional development. Jour-
nal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 680–696. 

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and 

techniques. London: Sage. 

Tate, W.F. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics pedagogy. 

Theory Into Practice, 34, 166–173. 

Tate, W. F. (2005). Race, retrenchment, and the reform of school mathematics. In E. Gutstein & B 

Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the numbers, (pp. 31–

40). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. 

Turner, E. E., & Font Strawhun, B. T. (2005). ―With math, it‘s like you have more defense‖ In E. 

Gutstein & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking mathematics: Teaching social justice by the 

numbers, (pp. 81–87). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. 
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent ap-

proach. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Zollers, N. J., Albert, L. R., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2000). In pursuit of social justice: Collabora-

tive research and practice in teacher education. Action in Teacher Education, 22(2) 1–14. 

 

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass
http://schools.nyc.gov/
https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/Home.do?year=2007