‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’ Studentsfrom Nondominant Group.docx

‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’: Students
from Nondominant Groups Respond to Teacher
Personalism
Kate Phillippo
Published online: 5 January 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Urban school districts have increasingly enacted
policies of personal-
ism, such as converting large schools into smaller schools. Such
policies ask
teachers to develop supportive, individual relationships with
students as a presumed
lever for student achievement. Research on student–teacher
relationships generally
supports policies of personalism. Much of this literature also
considers these rela-
tionships’ sociocultural dimensions, and so leads to questions
about how low-
income youth and youth of color might respond to teacher
efforts to develop closer
relationships with them. This qualitative study, conducted over
1 year with 34 youth

at 3 small, urban high schools, explores how youth from
nondominant groups
responded to teacher personalism. Data show that teacher
practices consistent with
culturally-responsive pedagogy and relational trust literature do
promote student–
teacher relationships. However, tensions arose when
participants perceived that
teacher personalism threatened their privacy or agency.
Sociocultural and institu-
tional contexts contributed to these tensions, as participants
navigated personalism
amidst experiences that constrained their trust in schools. A
staged model of stu-
dent–teacher relationships integrates these findings and extends
current thinking
about culturally-responsive personalism. These findings inform
implications for
teacher practice and policies of personalism.
Keywords Urban education � Student–teacher relationships �
Teacher personalism � Relational trust � Culturally-responsive
pedagogy �
Small schools
K. Phillippo (&)

Department of Cultural and Educational Policy Studies, School
of Education, Loyola University
Chicago, 820 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100, Chicago, IL
60611, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
DOI 10.1007/s11256-011-0195-9
You’re here for science, for math, and you’re trying to know
me.
(Lupe, age 17)
Lupe expressed uncertainty about teacher personalism, defined
as teachers’
efforts to provide students with personal support via individual,
interpersonal
relationships (Bryk et al. 2010).
1
By contrast, Malik (age 16) affirmed his teacher’s
efforts to address his poor attendance at school. ‘‘She started
getting on me. She was
worried about me and she didn’t want me roaming the streets.
She wasn’t acting like

my mom, she just told me how she feels.’’ Together, Malik and
Lupe’s statements
illustrate this study’s primary finding, that teacher personalism
has the potential to
both deliver support and bring about tension. This finding
expands and complicates
our understanding of research that shows the positive impact of
student–teacher
relationships, particularly for students from nondominant
groups.
2
I conducted this
study with a specific group of participants—low-income
students of color, each of
whom was experiencing a degree of social-emotional stress
(e.g., living apart from
their parents). Further, participants attended small, urban high
schools that explicitly
encouraged teacher personalism. This focus made it possible to
explore the results
of teachers’ attempts to build relationships with students
presumed—whether
correctly or not—to be most vulnerable and in need of their
support. Participants’

responses showed that teacher personalism, which often
promoted effective
student–teacher relationships, was unavoidably embedded in
schools’ sociocultural
and institutional contexts. These broader contexts often failed
to inspire student
trust. In such circumstances, the reach of sincere, well-executed
teacher personalism
was constrained.
Research Problem and Rationale: Policies of Personalism
Policies that promote teacher personalism have recently
appeared in schools and
districts, often in urban areas, and often promise to boost
academic achievement.
The Gates Foundation brought national attention to personalism
as they framed
student–teacher relationships as one of their ‘‘3 R’s’’ (along
with rigor and
relevance) of improving high schools. Echoing prior research
(e.g., Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development 1989), Bill Gates (2005)
asserted that student–
teacher relationships support academic success by ‘‘making sure

kids have a number
of adults who know them, look out for them, and push them to
achieve.’’ The small
schools model, substantially supported by the Gates Foundation,
also highlights
personalism as key to achievement, emphasizing positive,
sustained relationships
between students and their teachers (Ayers 2000; Cotton 2001;
Hammack
2008; Meier 2002; see Strike 2010 for a discussion of this
argument). Small
schools proponents point to teachers’ knowledge of student
strengths and needs
1
Understanding that all teachers and students have relationships
of some kind with one another, I use the
term personalism to describe a particular kind of student–
teacher relationships as succinctly defined by
Bryk et al. (2010).
2
I use the term nondominant groups as Lee (2009) does, to
describe both youth of color and low-income
youth, and to emphasize their ‘‘political positioning’’ (p. 88) in
American society.
442 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467

123
(Darling-Hammond 1997), and the opportunities for
individualized instruction,
academic press and connectedness that comes with this
knowledge, particularly for
students who have not had access to personalized or rigorous
academic environ-
ments in the past (Fine 2000; Nieto 2000). Small learning
communities (SLCs)
within larger schools (David 2008; Lee and Ready 2007; Levine
2010) also stress
personalism as a lever for improved student outcomes, by
arranging students and
teachers in smaller units in order to promote interpersonal
relationships and
teachers’ knowledge about their students. Finally, advisory
programs, in which
teachers support and monitor a group of assigned student
advisees, promote teacher
personalism in a range of secondary schools (Johnson 2009;
McClure et al. 2010;
Shulkind and Foote 2009).

The spread of policies of personalism impacts many schools and
students. As
urban school districts have restructured poorly performing high
schools, they have
often chosen small school or SLC models (e.g., Cuban 2010;
Hemphill and Nauer
2009). Hundreds of thousands of American secondary
students—many enrolled in
urban districts, which serve populations with significant
proportions of lower-
income youth and youth of color (Council of Great City
Schools, n.d.)—have found
themselves in schools striving to engineer and strengthen their
relationships with
their teachers.
Research on student–teacher relationships generally supports
policies of person-
alism. It also inspires questions about the practice of
personalism—how student–
teacher relationships develop, how they work for students from
nondominant
groups—that demand empirically-based answers. This study
delves into these
puzzles. It extends the body of literature on student–teacher

relationships and takes
an important step towards guiding teacher practice and
initiatives intended to
promote student–teacher relationships in the name of raising
student achievement.
Below, I describe the bodies of literature that inform my
research questions. I then
outline this study’s methods, introduce this study’s participants,
and describe the
analytic strategies I used to interpret the data. Next, I outline
this study’s findings. I
conclude this article by considering these findings’ implications
for teacher
education and K-12 schooling.
Review of Literature Related to Teacher Personalism
Four bodies of literature—concerning student–teacher
relationship outcomes,
culturally-responsive pedagogy, teacher caring, and trust in
schools—inform this
study. Below, I identify how each body of literature contributes
to the understanding
of teacher personalism, addresses sociocultural dimensions of
student–teacher

relationships, and gives rise to questions that require further
inquiry.
Student–Teacher Relationship Outcome Studies
Empirical research establishes that student–teacher
relationships, particularly the
kind that reflect teacher personalism, truly matter with regard to
students’ academic
and personal well being. Scholars have found that teacher
support boosted students’
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 443
123
academic engagement, achievement and school attachment
(Davis 2003; Hallinan
2008; Hughes and Kwok 2007; Klem and Connell 2004; Muller
2001). Students
who experienced teacher support outperformed their peers in
GPA, attendance and
persistence to graduation (Croninger and Lee 2001; Crosnoe et
al. 2004; Erickson
et al. 2009; Kahne et al. 2008; Murdock 1999; Rosenfeld et al.
2006). When
students with poor academic achievement histories encountered

teacher support,
their school engagement and achievement improved (Brewster
and Bowen 2004;
Hamre and Pianta 2005; Muller 2001). Teacher support has also
been found to
moderate the negative effects of neighborhood violence
(Woolley and Bowen
2007), school closings (Gwynne and de la Torre 2009) and
social disadvantage, as
designated by lower levels of parental, peer and school
resources (Erickson et al.
2009; Olsson 2009) on academic achievement. Finally, scholars
connect teacher
support to youth resiliency in the face of adverse life
circumstances (Werner and
Smith 1982), and to a decreased severity and incidence of youth
health risk
behaviors (McNeely and Falci 2004; Resnick et al. 1997).
Socioeconomic status and ethnicity factor into many of the
studies discussed
above, often as stand-alone predictor variables or as sampling
criteria (e.g.,
Brewster and Bowen 2004, who sampled intentionally from low
SES and nonwhite

populations). These status characteristics are more implicit in
other studies of
student–teacher relationships. In Muller’s study (2001), Latino
and African-
American students are overrepresented in the group of survey
respondents deemed
at higher risk for academic failure. Hamre and Pianta’s (2005)
definition of
demographic risk (a key predictor variable in their study) uses
participants’
mothers’ postsecondary attainment rates, a characteristic that
varies significantly by
ethnicity and SES (Engle and Lynch 2009). Student–teacher
relationship research
consistently incorporates notions of student SES, race and
ethnicity, and demon-
strates these relationships’ benefits for youth from nondominant
groups.
These outcome studies, however, do not address the
interpersonal processes that
lead to strong student–teacher relationships in the first place.
The large data sets that
inform this literature do not include measures of dimensions or
mechanisms of the

interpersonal interactions that lead to such compelling results,
although work of this
nature has been done with early childhood populations and
student-mentor
relationships outside of schools (Pianta et al. 2008; Rhodes et
al. 2006). This
research also raises questions about the role of social class,
race, and ethnicity in
student–teacher relationships.
Culturally-Responsive Pedagogy
Research and theory related to culturally-responsive pedagogy
(CRP) illuminates a
number of practice orientations and approaches that promote
strong, supportive
relationships between students from nondominant groups and
their teachers. Gay
and Kirkland (2003, p. 181) define CRP as an approach that
uses ‘‘the cultures,
experiences and perspectives of African, Native, Latino and
Asian American
students as filters through which to teach them academic
knowledge and skills.’’ A
range of scholars argue that CRP (or practice by other names

that resembles this
approach) engages a range of students—with diverse learning
styles, funds of
444 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
knowledge, and life experiences—in the learning process (e.g.,
Garcı́a et al. 2010;
Flores-González 2002; Gay 2000; Irizarry 2007; Irvine 2002,
2003; Ladson-Billings
1995; Nieto 2010; Villegas and Lucas 2002).
‘‘Relationships among teachers and their students are the most
important
ingredient in successful schools,’’ Nieto (2010, p. 32) writes,
echoing CRP scholars’
consistent emphasis on student–teacher relationships. Three
themes emerge from
this literature regarding how teachers’ relational practices can
be culturally
responsive. First, CRP scholarship underscores the importance
of teachers’ deep
knowledge of student culture, community and sociopolitical
experience (e.g., Bondy

et al. 2007; Ladson-Billings 1995; Gay and Kirkland 2003;
Nieto 2010; Villegas and
Lucas 2002) as a basis from which teachers can understand and
effectively engage
with their students. Second, given that students of color have so
often encountered
low expectations, CRP scholars describe student–teacher
relationships as necessar-
ily intertwined with academic press. Ware (2006) describes this
approach as ‘‘warm
demander pedagogy,’’ in which teachers balance nurturing and
support with high
expectations (Antrop-González and De Jesús 2006; Gay 2000
and Nieto 2010 make
a similar argument). Third, Irvine (1990) encourages cultural
synchronization of
teachers’ practice, in which teachers use, or approximate,
practices from students’
cultures.
While student–teacher relationships clearly have a central place
in CRP, this
literature does not consistently specify how or when these
relationships develop.

Jiménez and Rose (2010) portray student–teacher relationships
and instruction as
dependent upon one another, while Sleeter (2000) and Delpit
(1995) claim that these
relationships lead to effective instruction. Some scholars (e.g.,
Gay 1994; Villegas
and Lucas 2002; Young 2010) assert that student–teacher
relationships require an
understanding of and responsiveness to students’ ethnic
backgrounds. This literature
encourages teachers to promote culturally-responsive
relationships with their
students, but may confuse teachers as to where they should
begin or how to proceed.
Teacher Caring
Like CRP literature, scholarship on teacher caring describes a
constructive student–
teacher relationship as essential to student learning. This body
of literature moves
our understanding of teacher personalism forward by clarifying
the sociocultural
aspects of caring.
Noddings, a recognized scholar of teacher caring, claims that
‘‘we learn from

those we love’’ (2005, p. 107) and asserts that teachers must
demonstrate caring for
students in order to teach them well. She stresses the
importance of reciprocal
caring, in which teachers demonstrate care while students
receive and respond to it.
While she acknowledges that differences of power and culture
can occur in student–
teacher relationships, Noddings ultimately emphasizes the
individual student–
teacher relationship as the unit of attention and change.
Additional scholarship on caring (e.g., Antrop-González and De
Jesús 2006;
Barber 2002; McIntyre 1997; Noblit 1993; Rolón-Dow 2005,
Sleeter 1993;
Valenzuela 1999; Toshalis 2011) delves further into the
sociocultural complexities
of caring in schools, and problematizes color-, culture- and
power-blind caring
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 445
123

theories and practice. Many of these scholars also raise
concerns about teachers’
deficit-based assumptions about students’ communities or
families, which can result
in teachers’ pity for, social distance from, or efforts to save
their students families.
Rolón-Dow (2005) describes these assumptions—such as that
students come from
dysfunctional families who care less about their children’s
education than teachers
do—as ‘‘normalized racism’’ (p. 96).
‘‘Critical care’’ (Antrop-González and De Jesús 2006) scholars
also focus on
socio-cultural variation in individuals’ definition of, and
interest in, caring at school.
Valenzuela (1999) claims that different understandings of
caring about school
contributed to alienation between Mexican–American high
school students and their
teachers in her study. Authentic teacher caring, she claims,
involves a demonstration
of interest in students, efforts to develop truly reciprocal
relationships with them and
‘‘deliberately bringing issues of race, difference and power into

central focus’’
(p. 109). Teachers’ efforts to know students also appear to vary
in their appeal to
young people. Garza (2009) found that Latino students ranked
academic support as
the most important form of teacher care, while White students
preferred behaviors
that indicated teacher attention and kindness. This body of
literature, applied to the
broader issue of student–teacher relationships (including, but
not restricted to,
teacher caring), suggests that teachers’ attempts to develop
relationships with
students should consider socioculturally-influenced perspectives
and expectations.
Relational Trust in Schools
Student trust of educators is one reflection of how students
respond to teacher
personalism. Mayer et al. (1995), innovators in trust research,
define trust as ‘‘the
willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another
party’’ (p. 712).
Trust theorists contend that trust is rooted in interpersonal
relationships and based

both on the trustor’s expectations of the other and on trustees’
specific actions
(Hardin 2002; Mishra 1996; Schoorman et al. 2007). These
scholars also assert that
contextual factors—such as history, culture and organizational
setting—influence
the extent and nature of trust. In this way, trust theory
resembles CRP and caring
literature—all three stress relationships’ context.
Most research on trust in schools, which might expand readers’
understanding of
how students engage with educators, focuses largely on trust
among adults in
schools (e.g., Bryk and Schneider 2002; Louis 2006; Hoy et al.
2006). Other trust
research considers adults’ trust of students (Goddard et al.
2001). School-oriented
trust research also emphasizes individual relationships in
context. Bryk and
Schneider (2002) assert that individuals discern others’
trustworthiness through
daily interactions that are organized by different roles (teacher,
administrator,

parent, student) and take place in a setting that has significant
tensions over power.
This literature yields very little information about K-12 student
trust of educators,
however, aside from survey instrument development (Adams
and Forsyth 2009) and
two empirical studies of student trust of teachers (Adams 2010;
Gregory and Ripski
2008). Adams identifies home and school factors correlated
with trust, while
Gregory and Ripski clarify that student trust seems supported by
a relational, rather
than authoritarian teacher discipline style, and that trust is
associated with lower
446 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
levels of defiant behavior. These findings connect student trust
to school and
community context, and also to students’ response to teachers,
but do not address
the sociocultural issues so central to other research on student–
teacher relationships.

Scholarship related to student trust paints a grim picture for
students from
nondominant groups. Payne (2008), reviewing literature
relevant to African-
American trust of others in general and of educators specifically
(e.g., Ferguson
2006; Taylor et al. 2007; see also Ruck et al. 2008), argues that
student trust in
schools can be constrained in two ways: via limited access to
educational resources
and via disproportionate experiences of negative treatment. He
argues that students
from nondominant groups are prone to ‘‘low expectations, low
demands, listless
teaching and inequitable distribution of resources, human and
social’’ (p. 113).
Similarly, Fine et al. (2004) found that students experienced a
sense of betrayal in
response to inadequate, inequitably distributed educational
resources. Dispropor-
tionate school suspension and expulsion rates among students of
color (cited by
Payne, see also Gregory et al. 2010, 2011) further jeopardize
their trust in schools.

Alongside research that illustrates the importance of strong
student–teacher
relationships, these findings raise questions about how these
potentially powerful
relationships can develop in such adverse conditions.
Research Questions
The literature reviewed above makes it clear that (a) strong
student–teacher
relationships, characterized by teacher personalism, can
promote positive outcomes
for students from nondominant groups, and (b) sociocultural and
institutional factors
factor prominently into how student–teacher relationships
develop, as well as the
nature of these relationships. This information gives rise to the
following questions,
whose answers will further specify principles to guide teachers’
practice of
personalism with students from nondominant groups:
1. How do students from nondominant groups perceive teachers’
efforts to
develop relationships with them?
2. How do students from nondominant groups envision optimal

student–teacher
relationships? (In other words, to what extent do students from
nondomi-
nant groups want student–teacher relationships characterized by
teacher
personalism?)
3. What sociocultural or school factors promote strong student–
teacher relation-
ships or detract from them?
Study Design and Methodology
I draw this study’s data from a larger study of students’ and
teachers’ experiences
with forms of social and emotional support in the small high
school setting. This
setting, with high expectations for teacher personalism and for
well-developed
student–teacher relationships, provided a rich opportunity to
study these
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 447
123
phenomena. By design, small high schools require a high level

of engagement with
students from all adult employees, beyond the parameters of
more traditional
student–teacher relationships (Ancess 2003; Ayers 2000;
Darling-Hammond 1997;
Strike 2010). Expectations for teacher personalism are often
further formalized in
small schools via advisory programs (Johnson 2009). Assigned
advisors often
address students’ emergent problems as the student’s first point
of contact at school
(Gewertz 2007).
Participant Selection
Participating schools’ demographic and organizational
characteristics made it
possible to pose this study’s questions about how students from
nondominant
groups experienced teacher personalism. Using purposeful
sampling, I selected
three small high schools in a metropolitan area of California
that saw a
proliferation of small schools through both conversions of
larger schools and the

opening of new schools. Selection criteria required that each
school have an
advisory program where teachers served as advisors, at least
40% of its students
received free or reduced-price lunch, and enrolled at least 65%
students of color.
Table 1 includes additional details about participating schools.
These schools’
Academic Performance Index scores—figures calculated from
standardized test
results, attendance and graduation rates—show that each school
strained to meet
state-set performance expectations.
I asked twelve advisors participating in the larger study, who
represented a range
of professional and demographic characteristics, to nominate
two to three student
participants of color from low-income families. The larger
study’s design (not
specifically related to this article’s research questions) included
the following
student selection criteria: a history of disruptive behavior in
class, known
engagement in health or safety risk behavior (e.g., substance

use, delinquent
behavior, sexual activity), or living in substitute care (not in
either parent’s
custody). This selection strategy created a limited pool of
participants, but also
enabled me to talk with youth who are often presumed to need
teacher support and
caring. This group of participants (see Table 2), although not
randomly selected, is
diverse with regard to participant ethnicity, gender, native
language, immigration
history and academic and disciplinary status.
Table 1 School characteristics
King Los Robles Western
Total student enrollment 358 295 345
Free- or reduced-price lunch 69% 82% 40%
Students of color 97% 99% 91%
California academic performance index
(out of 1,000, statewide target of 800)
529 613 637
Total student participants in study 12 10 12

All school names are pseudonyms
448 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
Data Collection Methods
This study’s data consist of observation records and student
interviews. I adapted
ethnographic methods (e.g., Spindler and Spindler 1987) in
order learn about each
school site. Over the course of 6 weeks, I visited all content-
area and advisory
classrooms, observed unstructured periods of the day (passing
periods, dismissal,
lunch recess) and staff meetings. I also engaged in brief,
informal conversations with
students and educators. I kept field notes on both observations
and conversations.
I interviewed individual student participants three to four times
over the course of
the 2007–2008 school year. I asked students to describe their
schools and their
views of good teaching. In each interview, students also
described recent

interactions with their advisors, and interactions with adults at
their schools where
participants or the adult initiated discussions about students’
academic or personal
lives. I asked about a range of educators so that I could learn
about student–teacher
relationships that schools arranged, by assigning advisors, as
well as more
spontaneous student–teacher relationships. I asked participants
to describe how they
determined the extent to which they engaged with educators. In
the final interview, I
also asked student participants to identify any adults at their
school whom they felt
Table 2 Study participant
characteristics (N = 34)
Ethnicity (%)
African-American 23
Latino 60
Pacific Islander 8.5
Mixed 8.5
Gender (%)

Female 53
Male 47
Native language (%)
English 40
Spanish 51
Other 9
Immigration history (%)
Immigrated to U.S. (First-generation) 20
Parents immigrated to U.S. (Second-generation) 43
Neither 37
Current academic performance (%)
Strong (Mostly As and Bs) 23
Moderate (Mix of grades, passing all classes) 37
Struggling (Not passing all classes) 40
Current behavioral status at school (incidents leading to staff
intervention) (%)
No incidents 51
Occasional incidents 29

Frequent incidents 20
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 449
123
knew them well, and what they would recommend to teachers
who wanted to
support their students. Interviews with advisors (while not the
focus of this article)
provide triangulating data where appropriate.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
I combined analytic strategies of reviewing field notes,
discussing preliminary
findings with participants, memo-writing and exploratory
readings of interview
transcripts (Taylor and Bogdan 1998). I developed a list of
codes for analysis while
collecting data and developed the list further once I read all
interview transcripts. To
develop this code list, I combined methods characteristic of a
‘‘tight, prestructured
qualitative design’’ (Miles and Huberman 1994, p. 17) with a
more open-ended

stance, allowing for themes to emerge. I applied descriptive
codes for key concepts
derived from this study’s theoretical framework (e.g., trust,
perceived teacher
caring), and research questions (e.g., student perception of
teacher’s relational
practices), along with codes that identified emergent themes in
the data. The
processes of data coding and analytic memo-writing informed
the development of
focused, thematic codes (e.g., teacher actions described by
students as ‘‘good for
me, but I don’t like it’’). I applied the full set of codes to
interview transcripts using
HyperResearch software. During the early stages of the coding
process, I refined
and expanded my code list, applying it to all transcripts. After I
coded all the data, I
used visual case display strategies (Miles and Huberman 1994)
to order and focus
my interpretation of coded data.
While using reasonably established analysis methods, I also
considered how my

positioning as a researcher had the potential to influence how I
made sense of this
study’s findings, and how I generated the findings in the first
place. Fine and Weis
(1998) assert that qualitative researchers ‘‘coproduce the
narratives we presume to
‘collect’’’ (p. 277), highlighting how researchers themselves
contribute to what
research participants say. I neither wanted to constrain
participants’ responses, to
corral participants into providing ‘‘right’’ answers, nor miss the
meanings of
participants’ statements due to my own limitations. As a white
graduate student
from a university known by most students at King, Los Robles
and Western, I
differed from participants with regard to race, culture,
socioeconomic status, age
and status within the United States’ educational system.
Further, as a former school
social worker and an instructor to preservice teachers and social
work students, I
was highly familiar with teachers’ work and with practices of
teacher personalism. I

had many reasons to approach this study with caution about the
potential influence
of my own identity and subjectivity.
My efforts to tame my own subjectivity (Peshkin 1991)
permeated my
construction of the study and my analysis of the information
shared by participants.
I interviewed candidates at three sites, multiple times over one
school year, in order
to hear perspectives from a diverse group of students and to
establish relationships
with them that would facilitate clear communication and,
ideally, the development
of authentic rapport. While recruiting and interviewing
participants, I strived to
maintain an ‘‘outsider within’’ stance (Acker 2000; Collins
1986), as someone who
was clearly not a high school student from a nondominant group
but who was
450 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
familiar with the topic at hand, through over 15 years of work

as a bilingual
(Spanish–English) professional with organizations and schools
that served popu-
lations similar to those at the sites. This stance contributed to
what Collins calls a
‘‘creative tension’’ (p. 29). I was aware of my own biography as
a source of both
difference and knowledge, one that caused me to take an
inquisitive and unassuming
stance towards the study’s topic and the individual participants
with whom I spoke.
When I tentatively identified themes, I consulted about them
with participants. As I
wrote up my findings, a diverse group of colleagues and
mentors reviewed them. In
these ways, I monitored, addressed and gained knowledge from
potential sources of
bias due to the differences between myself and this study’s
adolescent participants.
Results
Teacher personalism was a complicated package for participants
to receive, as
illustrated by Omar’s
3

comments. ‘‘They’re on you,’’ he told me during our first
interview, referring to his team of core subject teachers. ‘‘They
actually care, I
guess,’’ he continued, rolling his eyes. ‘‘But it’s annoying
sometimes.’’ Omar
identified his teachers’ efforts to know him and push him as
caring, but also found it
unpleasant to a certain extent. Data analysis identified two
factors that impacted
students’ willingness to engage in relationships with their
teachers. These involved
students’ appraisal of teachers’ everyday interactions with them
and other students,
and schools’ organizational and institutional contexts. These
factors highlighted the
importance of teacher personalism and framed how students
interpreted it.
Relationship-Promoting Teacher Practices
To begin, I consider what students described as experiences that
led them to want to
work more closely with their teachers, or that discouraged them
from doing so. Most
responses strongly resembled themes identified in culturally-

responsive pedagogy,
caring and relational trust literature, as illustrated in Table 3.
Teacher practices that evoke culturally-responsive pedagogy
include teachers’
knowledge about students’ cultures and communities, as well as
specific knowledge
about students. This second type of knowledge could be about
either students
themselves or about the groups to which participants perceived
themselves to
belong, such as their school, their geographic community or
their ethnic group.
Participants mentioned an understanding of students’ daily
lives, connections with
family and friends, and current goals and stresses as important
components of
effective student–teacher relationships. They described a lack of
this knowledge as a
deficit. Leandro, a student who disclosed to me his involvement
with a local gang,
said he was wary of teachers who, in his opinion, naively
promoted peer mediation
among known gang members. He anticipated that gang members
might later be

subject to suspicion or retaliation from peer or rival gang
members for participating
in such conversations.
3
All student names are pseudonyms.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 451
123
Participants also identified the ‘‘warm demander’’ pedagogy
popularized by Ware
(2006). They noted the combination of teacher support and
academic press that
several CRP and caring scholars described as essential. Further,
they criticized
teachers who held low expectations for their behavior or
academic performance,
like Jaime’s previous advisor, who ‘‘said come in, take out your
work, she didn’t
talk to us. We had too many parties, didn’t do much work.’’
Bryk and Schneider’s four criteria for the discernment of
relational trust (regard,
respect, integrity and competence) also surfaced from interview

data. Regard,
defined as caring, a willingness to extend oneself beyond
required duties, and
interest in students as individuals, was mentioned most
frequently by students as a
factor that helped them gauge the viability of relationships with
teachers.
Participants spoke positively of teacher actions like engaging
students during
passing periods and providing direct academic support.
Conversely, teachers’ lack
of regard, as indicated by arriving late to class or evident
disinterest in students’
personal or academic well-being, bode poorly for students’
willingness to engage in
student–teacher relationships.
Interview data also suggested the importance of unconditional
positive regard,
popularized by psychotherapist Rogers (1961). When one takes
this perspective,
Rogers argues, one accepts the other with no hesitation or
qualification.
Unconditional positive regard was particularly important in
circumstances (e.g.,

academic failure, disciplinary incidents, outside involvement
with the legal system)
Table 3 Relationship-promoting teacher practice, including
frequency of students noting practice
Practices noted by students
a
Frequency Example of strong practice
Student-specific knowledge 10 ‘‘Mr. D. understands my life.’’
Knowledge of students’ cultures
and communities
3 ‘‘They know that there’s some discipline with belts and
stuff, they went through it. They know the island
ways. They totally understand where we’re coming
from.’’
Combined support and academic
press (‘‘Warm Demander’’)
8 ‘‘I was really stressed out and I just wanted to give up
and she was on me, like, ‘No, you’re better than this,
you’re going to do this, I don’t care what you say.’

Even though I didn’t want to she still pushed me. I like
that.’’
Regard 28 ‘‘They’re more interested in what you think, how to
make it easier for you, and how to work with you.’’
Respect 19 ‘‘He gives me a lot of space and just listens to what
I
have to say.’’
Competence 16 ‘‘He made everything fun, but at the same time
you get
your work done. It stays in your head.’’
‘‘He knows how to connect with teenagers.’’
Integrity 21 ‘‘She doesn’t have two faces. Outside of class,
she’s a
friend. Inside of class, she’s a friend.’’
Academic support 12 ‘‘They help me, talk more clearly and they
offer me
more help. Then I understand the work.’’
a
Practices noted by students include positive and negative
incidences (e.g., respect and lack of respect)
452 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467

123
where students had done something that others might criticize.
When I asked Essie
to tell me how she knew a teacher cared about her, she told me
about her advisor’s
response to her spending 3-months in juvenile hall. ‘‘She tried
to come visit me,’’
she explained. ‘‘When I got back she helped me catch up with
school, and she was
just there.’’ Her advisor continually reached out to her and
offered her support
during this time, unlike others, whom Essie said backed away
from her under her
strained circumstances.
Participants also emphasized the importance of respect to
student–teacher
relationships. They specifically mentioned respect for their
privacy and agency.
Most responses that student participants gave involved either
wishes about what
teachers would do that would show respect towards them
(‘‘Help us, guide us, just

show us the way and let us figure it out, and if we don’t, then
that’s on us,’’) or
accounts of teachers demonstrating what they considered a lack
of respect towards
them (‘‘They’re trying to know my business’’). Perceived
teacher competence
concerned instructional skills, organization and ability to
communicate and connect
with students (as particularly noted in students’ observations of
their assigned
advisors, whose job it was to connect with them). Integrity also
emerged from the
data. Bryk and Schneider define integrity as acting in a child’s
best interest, which
expands upon the idea of integrity as adherence to a code of
moral values.
Participants noticed consistency between teachers’ words and
their actions, their
fairness and actions that supported rather than damaged students
(‘‘Don’t do nothing
that would hurt him.’’).
Finally, a number of students mentioned the importance of
receiving basic
academic support from teachers: explaining work clearly,

supporting how students
are doing in their classes, offering help when necessary, and
showing patience in the
face of student confusion. This finding highlights the
importance of strong
instruction in establishing student–teacher relationships. In
addition, it resembles
Garza’s finding (2009) that Latino students valued and
preferred academic support
over social-emotional support.
Knowledge of Teacher Practices Through Interaction and
Observation
Participants’ assessed not only teachers’ direct, individual
interactions with them,
but also what they saw teachers doing with other students.
Lupe, for example, told
me that she felt comfortable with her advisor after watching her
interact with other
students in her advisory class.
Sometimes she takes us outside, and we say, Ms. Saenz, how
you been, what’s
your life, and she says, ‘Come on girls, do this, don’t do that.’
And that’s how,

I was like, okay, the other girls could, what’s it called? Trust on
her.
Similarly, participants noted when teachers helped students
outside of class hours
(e.g., lunch, after school), whether or not students chose to
work with them at those
times. Participants also noticed how teachers treated other
students during tense
moments. Janeth, who hadn’t had any conflicts with her advisor
(Ms. McFerrin),
still knew how Ms. McFerrin worked with students when
conflicts arose: ‘‘When a
kid is mad, she will give him a break, and then talk to him
outside of class.’’ As a
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 453
123
result of such observations, Janeth knew Ms. McFerrin’s
interactional style and
knew what to expect from her. This finding is consistent with
Bryk and Schneider’s
claim that ‘‘relational trust is rooted in a complex cognitive
activity of discerning

the intentions of others’’ (p. 22). It also suggests that students
have the option to
manage the potential vulnerability of a relationship with a
teacher by gathering
information about them before engaging directly with them.
Congruence and Tension Between Practices of Personalism
At times, these teacher practices could be highly congruent with
one another. Warm
demander pedagogy, academic support and integrity, for
example, clearly concern
similar, often identical, behaviors. At other times, these
practices existed in tension
with one another. Teachers’ efforts to learn about students
sometimes conflicted
with student preferences and cultural norms about discussing
personal matters.
When teachers pursued what they thought best for students,
students sometimes felt
like their wishes were devalued. Josué walked out of a meeting
in tears after his
guidance counselor refused to let him transfer to an alternative
school where he
could more easily make up credits towards graduation. His
counselor may have

based her decision on knowledge of the other school’s
drawbacks or a desire to keep
Josué engaged at his current school, arguably in his best
interest. Josué, however,
perceived from his counselor’s actions that ‘‘nobody listens,’’ a
lack of respect for
his concerns and priorities, which he said was instrumental in
his decision to
ultimately stop attending school. In this instance, his
counselor’s practice of
personalism (acting in Josué’s best interest) conflicted with the
kind of personalism
(a demonstration of respect) that Josué wanted. The congruence,
or match among
personalism-oriented educator practices as described above
seems obvious and
intuitive. The tension, however, between practices of
personalism, as suggested by
Josué’s negative experience, merits further inquiry. These
tensions threatened
student–teacher relationships, and thereby had the potential to
undermine the goals
of teacher personalism. How could educators’ practices of
personalism work against

student–teacher relationships? I next consider the school
environment’s contribu-
tions to these tensions.
Tensions Related to Teacher Personalism in Small Schools
Certain school-level strategies that promoted personalism also
contributed to
tension between students and teachers. Below, I describe these
strategies as I
identified them at King, Los Robles and Western. I then
consider the tensions that
emerged out of schools’ and teachers’ efforts to create
personalism: students’
concerns about privacy and student agency in their relationships
with teachers.
Strategies of Personalism in Small Schools
In keeping with the broader small schools movement, King, Los
Robles and
Western all attempted to build personalism into students’ daily
experiences. At each
school, students attended an advisory class where they and a
group of 10–20 peers
454 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123

met with an assigned advisor. This arrangement is common
among small high
schools (Gewertz 2007; Makkonen 2004). Advisors followed
students for 2 years at
Western, and 4 years at the other schools. Besides advisory,
schools had other
strategies in place to encourage student–teacher relationships.
These included block
scheduling (at Western and Los Robles), sub-school houses
where core area
teachers shared a group of approximately 75 students (Western),
regularly
scheduled meetings where groups of teachers discussed student
issues (Western
and King), required faculty supervision of passing periods,
recess and bus boarding
(Los Robles), faculty-supervised peer mediation (Los Robles)
and teacher-
supervised, after-school academic support (all three schools).
Advisors at Los
Robles also received students whose teachers had sent them out
of class for

misbehavior and coordinated the assignment of consequences.
Teachers connected
with students, per participant report, through coaching and
supervising other
activities, such as the school yearbook. Overall, educators had
rich, multifaceted
opportunities to interact with and learn about their students.
Ayers’ appeal that ‘‘in small schools every student must be
known well by some
caring adult’’ (2000, p. 5) was a reality in these schools,
according to many of this
study’s participants. Of the 29 participants who participated in
final interviews,
4
23
named an adult at school who knew them well. Of those 23, 11
named their advisor.
Both the strategies identified by participants and these
particular results show that
teachers used relationship-promoting practice and that most
student participants
responded to it. Were it not for the tensions described by
participants, one could
readily conclude that policies of personalism worked precisely

as intended by
educators.
Privacy Amidst Personalism
At King, Los Robles and Western, schools that intentionally
chose to pursue
personalism, student privacy proved evasive at times. Policies,
programs and
practices that promoted personalism created multiple
opportunities for educators to
learn about their students as well as their friends, siblings,
cousins and significant
others. These efforts to know their students well could also
eclipse student privacy.
Student participants noticed the ease with which their teachers
could learn about
them. 22 participants reported experiences, both positive and
negative, with teachers
and sensitive personal information. All 22 expressed the
importance of teachers
respecting their privacy. Miguél experienced tension about his
own privacy right
away at Western. ‘‘The first day I got here teachers already
knew my name. I didn’t

know nothing about them and they acted like they knew me.’’
What teachers may
have intended as showing interest, Miguél perceived as
uncomfortably familiar.
Students also expressed concern about teachers exchanging
information about them.
‘‘They (teachers) just come up to me, well I guess they heard
something about me,’’
Nalani said about teachers revealing to her that they knew
sensitive information
about her that she hadn’t shared directly with them. She
responded to these
4
Six participants had either left their schools or were absent
during the days when I conducted final
interviews, and could not be reached by phone.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 455
123
experiences with dismay. ‘‘I’m like, huh? This is none of your
business.’’
Participants knew that information about them might travel
among adults at the

school. They noticed whether teachers protected or disclosed
personal information
and judged what they said in future conversations accordingly.
Xiomara said that
she trusted Ms. Saenz more after Ms. Saenz learned that she’d
missed school for a
Planned Parenthood appointment, and had not told other
teachers or her parents.
Students’ concerns about privacy extended to conversations
where adults had
assured their confidentiality. Participants who attended
counseling at school said
that they were informed about confidentiality guidelines and
limitations, but those
not participating lacked this information and seemed unsure
about their potential
privacy. Anselmo expressed discomfort with the privacy of
mental health services at
his school. ‘‘People would tell me to go talk to her (counselor),
but I don’t really
want to. I know she might say things are confidential but a lot
of teachers here, staff
here, tells everyone everything, and it gets around.’’ At schools
where faculty

(including, at times, mental health professionals) had multiple
responsibilities, knew
each other well, knew a lot about students, and appeared to
exchange student
information freely, privacy concerns sometimes overrode
students’ interest in
getting additional support. Eddie’s principal, Ms. Franklin,
learned sensitive
information about him when she mediated a conflict between
him and another
student, and had promised to keep that information confidential.
Eddie was
surprised, then, to hear Ms. Franklin share this information with
his mother when
the three of them met to discuss a serious disciplinary incident.
I told her (Ms. Franklin) I thought this was confidential, I
thought you won’t
say nothing. ‘‘Oh, but, I’m just telling your mom.’’ But you
weren’t supposed
to tell nobody. I ain’t telling nobody, he ain’t telling nobody,
why you got to
tell anybody?
Eddie’s response to his principal’s breach of confidentiality, in
his words, was to

withdraw from all adults at the school: ‘‘It’s not the same no
more. I talk (to adults),
but not that much.’’ During a period when adults at his school
had serious academic
and safety concerns about him, Eddie distanced himself from
them. Tension created
by a breach of privacy impaired these student–teacher
relationships. The intimate
environment of the small school at times overrode agreements
of confidentiality,
both in students’ expectations and in educators’ practice.
Personalism’s strained
relationship with student privacy, in these cases, had a
paradoxically negative
impact on students’ relationships with educators.
Student Agency and Student–Teacher Relationships
While many participants developed relationships with teachers,
they also expressed
concern about the amount of agency they had amidst teachers’
push to enact
personalism. Participants at times felt pressured to engage in
relationships that they
did not necessarily want or did not consider authentic. Advisors

were literally
assigned to know students well. Yet some participants felt that
advisors acted as if
they knew them well before developing an authentic
relationship with them.
Advisors reviewed advisees’ grades, facilitated their parent–
teacher conferences (at
456 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
Los Robles and Western), and often coordinated staff
intervention for advisees
when problems arose at school. Schools required advisors to
know a lot about their
advisees. Participants understood this role, and often
appreciated having teachers
who wanted to know and help them, but some felt pressed into
relationships with
advisors. 17 participants said that they did not like discussing
personal matters with
teachers. When asked about her feelings about sharing personal
information with
her advisor or other teachers, Essie replied, ‘‘I just don’t think
it’s necessary for a

school person to know.’’ Participants often named supportive
friends or family
members to whom they preferred to turn for support. Namond
felt, though, that he
had limited say about what information he shared with his
teachers, explaining that
his advisor ‘‘keeps on asking and asking again. He always asks
about little things so
it really doesn’t seem like we have a choice.’’ Jaime discussed
stresses in his family
with a teacher who was not his advisor, someone with whom
he’d developed a
positive relationship. He said that if this teacher shared this
sensitive information
with his advisor, ‘‘I’d never tell her (the teacher) that again.’’
Participants wanted to pace their relationships with their
advisors, and did not
respond very well to expectations to discuss school issues or
personal information
on command. Cleo vividly illustrates this perspective: ‘‘If a
teacher would be getting
on me about that I would tell them to back off. I would get
really pissed off if

they’re up in my face over things that don’t concern them.’’
When advisors pushed
for relationships because they were assigned that role, students
did not always
cooperate, or, contrary to the goals of personalism, retreated
from them.
Rather than relationships mandated by teachers’ roles,
participants wanted
relationships created by mutual knowledge. I learned of this
wish by hearing
participants describe both ideal experiences and negative
experiences. Deirdra
advocated for teachers’ more gradual approach in student–
teacher relationships, as
demonstrated by her advice to a hypothetical teacher attempting
to help a student
having problems.
I would say don’t ask it directly. Don’t just go, ‘‘WHY ARE
YOU NOT
COMING TO SCHOOL?’’ Or, ‘‘I SEEN YOU GETTING IN A
FIGHT,
WHAT’S WRONG?’’ Just ease into the situation. First try to
build up a
relationship with them so they know they could trust you and if

they trust you
then they’re going to come to you with all this information. You
probably
won’t even have to ask if you have a trust that good, they’ll
probably be like,
‘‘Oh I trust them so much I’m just gonna tell them my
situation,’’ versus, ‘‘Oh
I don’t really know that teacher. I’m not gonna come up and tell
them
everything.’’
Deirdra distinguishes between immediate, required, teacher-
directed connection
and a more gradual, organic, mutual connection between
students and teachers,
clearly favoring the latter. Her distinction resounds with
Noddings’ (2005)
insistence that teacher caring is only meaningful when students
reciprocate it.
Ms. Bruce, Deirdra’s advisor, had recently learned from
Deirdra’s grandmother that
Deirdra’s biological mother was homeless, a frequent drug user
and had been
diagnosed with HIV. When I asked Ms. Bruce whether she had
discussed this matter

with Deirdra, she said, as if following Deirdra’s suggestions: ‘‘I
would like her to
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 457
123
share it with me herself.’’ In both Deirdra’s and Ms. Bruce’s
words, one can see a
vision of a solid relational footing that creates a path upon
which teachers could
make such forays. Without it, teachers attempting personalism
came across to
students, in participants’ words, as ‘‘trying to figure out what’s
wrong with me,’’
‘‘looking for information,’’ ‘‘interrogating,’’ or ‘‘trying to bust
into other people’s
information.’’ Such student perceptions suggest teachers’
strategic or instrumental
interest, rather than an authentic interest, in them. Such
experiences ran counter to
participants’ sense of teachers’ trying to promote their well-
being. While
participants rarely expressed direct opposition to their teachers’
efforts to develop

relationships with them, they did experience tensions around
how teachers managed
and pursued these relationships.
Teacher Personalism’s Institutional and Societal Contexts
The findings discussed above suggest that schools’ and
teachers’ pursuit of
personalism surfaced significant tensions with students from
nondominant groups. It
is important to consider these practices in their sociocultural
and institutional
contexts. Small or not, schools are part of, and associated with,
other institutions
that have not always inspired nondominant groups’ confidence.
Participants who experienced unwanted intervention by
institutions other than
schools, either directly, in their immediate circle of family
members and friends, or
in their broader communities, often expressed wariness of
schools’ reach into their
personal lives. For example, all participants understood that
teachers are mandated
reporters of suspected abuse. Nina, who had called the police
years ago during a

domestic dispute between her parents, told me she did not tell
any adult at school
about her parents’ pending divorce. She feared additional
intervention and the
increased family distress it might cause. ‘‘If a teacher finds out
what is happening
with a student at home,’’ she explained, ‘‘then they tell the
police and some other
people, and then they go look at the home.’’ Other participants
told me they had
first-hand experiences with such intervention. While educators’
responsibility to
protect children is both important and complex, it occurs amidst
the reality of
disproportionate intervention by child protective services in the
lives of low-income
youth and youth of color (Derezotes et al. 2005; Fluke et al.
2003). Participants
connected sharing personal information with teachers to their
vulnerability to
outside institutional intervention.
Discomfort over sharing information with teachers may also be
connected to

immigration status, given that 63% of the participants either
were children of
immigrants or immigrated to the US themselves. At the time of
data collection,
national discourse and policy about immigration included
workplace and commu-
nity raids, increased US border patrol and immigrants
withdrawing their children
from school due to concerns about potential deportation
(Associated Press 2007;
Fernández-Kelly and Massey 2008; Zehr 2008). While no
student specifically
mentioned immigration concerns, this discourse and these
policies are relevant to
immigrant students’ perspectives on school employees
requesting personal infor-
mation, in as much as discourse imbeds itself in practice and
vice versa (Bourdieu
1972; Foucault 1985).
458 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
Other students encountered law enforcement officers, and not

always in a
positive light. When Miguél’s teacher disclosed to other
teachers information he’d
shared with her about girlfriend problems, he equated her
response with his
experiences with police and probation officers (following a
recent arrest). ‘‘She tried
to talk to me, explaining that she didn’t mean it that way, she
was just concerned,
you know, like the nice police way, the law way.’’ His teacher’s
concern, in
Miguél’s experience, closely resembled his experiences of
police and probation
officers as invasive and exerting unilateral control. The overlap
between person-
alism and law enforcement proved even stronger for Eddie, who
experienced police
intervention at school, initiated by school personnel. During
this intervention, police
officers watched while a teacher searched him. The officers
then searched his wallet
and his backpack, making jokes about his sexuality. ‘‘I had a
picture of my girlfriend
and then I had a condom in my backpack,’’ Eddie explained,

expressing dislike of
how he was treated. ‘‘They started saying if I use this condom
on my girlfriend.’’
Regardless of Eddie’s or the school’s culpability in his negative
experience with
these particular police officers, his school was now also
involved in direct and
indirect interactions with him and authorities whom he did not
trust.
While most participants said they liked their current schools,
many also had
reasons to mistrust schools in general. This diffuse mistrust
rendered teacher
personalism suspect. Two of this study’s three schools had
faced district attempts to
remove their school from its current building. One of these
attempts succeeded, after
a season of complaints from the surrounding high-SES
neighborhood about student
noise and behavior. Many faculty and students interpreted these
complaints as
racialized. Both attempts illustrated the potential for students to
experience schools
as places that did not meet their needs, or worse, undermined

efforts to meet them
(Fine et al. 2004 and Kirshner et al. 2010, present this same
perspective).
Schools’ attempts to promote strong student–teacher
relationships occurred
amidst a history of nondominant groups’ uncomfortable, and
often outright
subjugated, relationships with governmental institutions over
time. While schools
and teachers attempted, often skillfully and sensitively, to build
these relationships,
students navigated these efforts in a context rife with reasons to
mistrust educators
and governmental institutions. Neither organizational design nor
best teacher
practices, alone, could overcome the tensions created by a push
for personalism.
A Staged Model of Student–Teacher Relationships
Along with best practices and stubborn tensions they identified
in this study,
participants’ comments also point towards a way towards
personalism that
acknowledges their experiences and preferences. Participants
wanted to observe

educators’ behavior and to exercise choice about when and to
what extent they
engaged in relationships with them. Sociocultural and
institutional contexts that
both discourage student trust and magnify its importance also
factored significantly
into the patterns of responses to teacher personalism. Taken
together, these
responses suggest a staged model of student–teacher
relationships, as illustrated in
Fig. 1.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 459
123
This figure illustrates how students preferred to observe and
interact with
teachers prior to more intense teacher interventions, such as
talking with them about
serious issues in their academic or personal lives. Maya’s
comment sums up this
illustration: ‘‘I think you have to gain a relationship with that
kid before you start

asking about their personal life and stuff.’’ Participants
described an initial period of
lower engagement with teachers, where they noted teachers’
qualities and styles of
interacting with them and with others at school, before deciding
to engage in more
substantive relationships. These interactions did not involve
intense personal or
academic issues, but rather everyday matters of teaching and
learning. When
teachers engaged with students outside of academic instruction,
such as during
passing periods and extracurricular activities, students
continued to learn about their
teachers. In this stage of relationship-building, students gauged
teachers’ trustwor-
thiness and relational capacity. When intervention or inquiry
followed after earlier
stages of observation and interaction, it was less likely to be
described as premature.
With trust established, students found teacher’s efforts to
connect with them
reasonable, rather than perplexing and perhaps unwelcome.
This proposed model characterizes effective intervention and

inquiry as a
possible result of building a relationship with a student, not the
beginning of
building a relationship with a student. Educators cannot always
choose when they
must ask intensive questions, or intervene in a student’s
academic or personal life.
Urgent academic and personal situations rarely follow a
schedule. Still, when
teachers already established relational trust, students showed
greater receptiveness
to teachers’ forays into their lives. No participant explicitly
described this approach
to developing relationships as a culture-based practice. Still, it
appears culturally
synchronized, in Irvine’s words (1990), because it matches the
relational pace that
seemed comfortable for the majority of adolescent students from
nondominant
groups in this study. This study’s design and methods make it
impossible to
determine whether the preference for a more modest relational
pace is one that
specifically or exclusively relates to participants’ sociocultural,

political and
institutional experiences. Nonetheless, the promotion of trust
prior to the initiation
of more intense forms of intervention is compatible with
participants’ reported
preferences and experiences.
Fig. 1 Staged model of student–teacher relationships
460 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
Limitations
This article’s data come from a larger study with specific
selection criteria, and as a
result present certain limitations. I selected participants for the
larger study who
both showed signs of social-emotional strain and were also low-
income students of
color in small high schools. This strategy provided a powerful
opportunity to
understand how student–teacher relationships worked in settings
where students
were likely to be targeted for developing these same

relationships. This selection
strategy also limits my ability to generalize the study’s findings
beyond this specific
population. While diverse in age, ethnicity, immigration history
and academic
status, the participants do not represent all students of color, all
lower-SES students,
or students who attend other types of high schools. Further, it is
not possible to
determine whether participants’ responses to teacher
personalism differed substan-
tially from students from other demographic groups, since other
groups were not
represented in this study. These limitations illuminate pathways
for future research
that can further specify the interpersonal and social processes
involved in student–
Summary and Implications
Above, I report on a study of how youth from nondominant
groups responded to
their schools’ press for intensified student–teacher
relationships. Participants in this

study, all students at small, urban high schools, identified
specific teacher practices
that motivated them to engage in relationships with teachers.
These practices are
highly consistent with existing research on culturally-
responsive pedagogy, teacher
caring and relational trust in schools. Participating schools’
sociocultural and
institutional contexts, which often discouraged student trust of
schools in general,
further framed the need for a staged development of student–
In this staged approach, less interpersonally demanding
interactions, like student
observation of teachers and every day classroom interaction
with teachers, precede
interactions that involve teachers’ more intesnsive intervention
and inquiry with
students. These findings inform implications for the practice
and policy of
personalism.
This study’s findings extend and develop the body of research
literature on the
importance of student–teacher relationships to young people.

Principally, this study
highlights how policies and practices of personalism can
promote student–teacher
relationships but can also remain insufficient for achieving
them. Participants
indicated a willingness to engage in relationships with teachers
who used specific
practices, such as regard for students and combined high
expectations and support,
and a disinclination to engage with teachers who showed the
opposite of these
practices. This stand-alone finding suggests that teacher
education that promotes
culturally-responsive pedagogy ought to include more explicit
discussion of
student–teacher relationships. Further, these discussions would
benefit from
engaging the literature on interpersonal trust in schools, which
could both enhance
learners’ understandings of optimal practices and how such
practices relate to K-12
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 461
123

students’ broader educational and social contexts. This article
represents an initial
contribution to the bridging of CRP and relational trust
literature in the interest of
enhancing teacher learning about student–teacher relationships.
Relational practice
training has been found lacking in teacher education as
compared with other helping
professions’ training programs (Grossman et al. 2007). This
article expands the
field’s knowledge beyond the importance of student–teacher
relationships, as
specified in student–teacher relationship outcome research (e.g.,
Erickson et al.
2009), by contributing evidence of what specific practices
promote such relation-
ships in the first place.
Still, findings about teacher practice are never merely stand-
alone. The
participants whose experiences and perspectives inform this
article did not respond
just to teachers and their practice but rather to their teachers,
set in schools, set in

communities, set in American society. Well-received teacher
practices intentionally
or unintentionally responded to participants’ nested contexts,
achieving a degree of
synchronization with them. This finding suggests that
personalism works best when
it acknowledges and engages students’ sociocultural and
institutional contexts. It
also suggests that schools or districts that establish policies of
personalism—such as
advisory programs, lower-enrollment schools or sub-school
house groupings of
students and teachers—should not expect student–teacher
relationships to spring
forth from these policies. In fact, these policies may backfire if
implemented in
ways that fail to engage or recognize students’ needs and
desires, or worse, may
alienate them, as was sometimes the case with participants’
experiences of loss of
privacy, lack of agency and teachers’ premature press for
relationships. Implemen-
tation support that promotes context-responsive personalism,
such as guidance for

teachers on the development of relationships and transparent,
youth-accessible
guidelines about how educators can and cannot share student
information within
schools, might head off well-intentioned but misguided practice
(e.g., Rolón-Dow
2005; Toshalis 2011) that strives but fails to establish authentic,
supportive student–
teacher relationships. Given that recent research (Phillippo
2010; Shiller 2009)
suggests that teachers in small schools do not necessarily intuit
how to carry out
more intense student–teacher relationships, and can find this
aspect of their work
stressful, such guidance could support implementation in ways
that would lead to
more informed practice.
Clearly, such guidance would require attunement to the unique
groups of students
in schools and districts. Educators and policymakers must
recognize their student
bodies’ characteristics, experiences and contexts when
designing interventions that

promote interpersonal relationships between students and their
teachers. This study
illustrates that well-intended but uninterrogated policies of
personalism can have
positive results, but that they can also create tensions that
ultimately undermine
student–teacher relationships. More critical, context-sensitive
approaches to teacher
personalism, however, promise to address these tensions so that
strong relational
practices can reach students. Under such circumstances, teacher
personalism
promises to promote student–teacher relationships and, in turn,
student achievement.
Acknowledgments This research was funded in part by the
Spencer Foundation’s Research Training
Grant and Dissertation Grant. The author wishes to thank the
following individuals for their comments on
462 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
earlier versions of this manuscript: Robert Ream, James
Spillane, Jennifer Jennings, Elizabeth McGhee
Hassrick, René Antrop-González, Leanne Kallemeyn, Bridget

Kelly, Ann Marie Ryan and Anita Thomas.
The author is also grateful to The Urban Review’s anonymous
reviewers for their very helpful
suggestions.
References
Acker, S. (2000). In/out/side: Positioning the researcher in
feminist qualitative research. Resources for
Feminist Research, 28(1/2), 189–208.
Adams, C. M. (2010). Social determinants of student trust in
high-poverty elementary schools. In
W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Analyzing school contexts:
Influences of principals and teachers in
the service of students. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Adams, C. M., & Forsyth, P. B. (2009). Conceptualizing and
validating a measure of student trust. In
W. K. Hoy & M. DiPaola (Eds.), Studies in school
improvement. Charlotte, NC: Information Age
Publishing.
Ancess, J. (2003). Beating the odds: High schools as
communities of commitment. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Antrop-González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Toward a theory
of critical care in urban small school
reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring into
Latino community-based schools.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4),
409–433.
Associated Press. (2007). Immigrant children withdrawing from
Irving schools. Houston Chronicle.
Retrieved May 23, 2011 from
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5187007.htm
l.
Ayers, W. (2000). Simple justice: Thinking about teaching and
learning, equity, and the fight for small
schools. In M. Klonsky, W. Ayers, & G. H. Lyon (Eds.), A
simple justice: The challenge of small
schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Barber, T. (2002). ‘‘A special duty of care’’ exploring the
narration and experience of teacher caring.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 23(3), 383–395.
Bondy, E., Ross, D. D., Gallingane, C., & Hambacher, E.
(2007). Creating environments of success and
resilience: Culturally responsive classroom management and
more. Urban Education, 42(4),
326–348.
Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brewster, A. B., & Bowen, G. L. (2004). Teacher support and
the school engagement of Latino middle
and high school students at risk of school failure. Child and
Adolscent Social Work Journal, 21(1),
47–67.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core
resource for improvement. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., &
Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for
improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. (1989). Turning
points: Preparing American youth for the
21st century. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The
sociological significance of Black feminist
thought. Social Problems, 33(6), 14–32.
Cotton, K. (2001). New small learning communities: Findings
from recent literature. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Lab.
Council of the Great City Schools. (n.d.). Fact Sheet. Retrieved
May 23, 2011 from http://www.
cgcs.org/about/fact_sheet.aspx.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and
dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk
students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College
Record, 103(4), 548–581.
Crosnoe, R., Johnson, M. K., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2004).
Intergenerational bonding in School: The
behavioral and contextual correlates of student–teacher

relationships. Sociology of Education, 77(1),
60.
Cuban, L. (2010). As good as it gets: What school reform
brought to Austin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn: A blueprint for
creating schools that work. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
David, J. L. (2008). Small learning communities. Educational
Leadership, 65(8), 84–85.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 463
123
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5187007.htm
l
http://www.cgcs.org/about/fact_sheet.aspx
http://www.cgcs.org/about/fact_sheet.aspx
Davis, H. A. (2003). Conceptualizing the role and influence of
student–teacher relationships on children’s
social and cognitive development. Educational Psychologist,
38(4), 207–234.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in
the classroom. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Derezotes, D., Poertner, J., & Testa, M. (Eds.). (2005). Race
matters in child welfare: The

overrepresentation of African American children in the system.
Washington: Child Welfare League
of America.
Engle, J., & Lynch, M. (2009). Charting a necessary path: The
baseline report of Public Higher
Education Systems in the Access to Success Initiative.
Washington, DC: Education Trust.
Erickson, L. D., McDonald, S., & Elder, G. H. (2009). Informal
mentors and education: Complementary
or compensatory resources? Sociology of Education, 82(4),
344–367.
Ferguson, R. (2006). Recent research on the achievement gap:
How lifestyle factors and classrom culture
affect black-white differences. Harvard Education Letter,
November/December 2006.
Fernández-Kelly, P., & Massey, D. (2008). Borders for whom?
The role of NAFTA in Mexico-U.S.
Migration. The Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 610(1), 98–118.
Fine, M. (2000). A small price to pay for justice. In M.
Klonsky, W. Ayers, & G. H. Lyon (Eds.), A simple
justice: The challenge of small schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y. A., & Torre, M. E. (2004).
Civics lessons: The color and class of betrayal.
Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2193–2223.
Fine, M., & Weis, L. (1998). The unknown city: Lives of poor
and working-class young adults. Boston,

MA: Beacon.
Flores-González, N. (2002). School kids/street kids: Identity
dvelopment in Latino students. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y.-Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A.
(2003). Disproportionate representation of
race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and
victimization. Children and Youth
Services Review, 25(5/6), 359–373.
Foucault, M. (1985). The use of pleasure: A history of
sexuality, volume II. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Garcı́a, E., Arias, M. B., Murri, N. H., & Serna, C. (2010).
Developing responsive teachers: A challenge
for demographic diversity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–
2), 132–142.
Garza, R. (2009). Latino and white high school students’
perceptions of caring behaviors. Urban
Education, 44(3), 297–321.
Gates, W. (2005). Remarks from National Education Summit on
High Schools. Retrieved March 15, 2010
from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-
commentary/Pages/bill-gates-2005-national-education-
summit.aspx.
Gay, G. (1994). Coming of age ethnically: Teaching young
adolescents of color. Theory Into Practice,
33(3), 149–155.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical
consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 181–
187.
Gewertz, C. (2007). An advisory advantage. Education Week,
26(26), 22–25.
Goddard, R. D., Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). A
multilevel examination of the
distribution and effects of teacher trust in students and parents
in urban elementary schools.
Elementary School Journal, 102(1), 3–17.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., & Fan, X. (2011). The relationship of
school structure and support to suspension
rates for black and white high school students. American
Educational Research Journal, 48(4),
904–934.
Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in
teachers: Implications for behavior in the high
school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 337–353.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The
achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two
sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Shahan, E., Ronfeldt, M., Igra, D.,
& Shaing, J. (2007). Preparing
practitioners to respond to resistance: A cross professional
view. Teachers and Teaching: Theory

and Practice, 13(2), 109–123.
Gwynne, J., & de La Torre, M. (2009). When schools close:
Effects on displaced students in Chicago
Public Schools. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School
Research.
Hallinan, M. T. (2008). Teacher influences on students’
attachment to school. Sociology of Education,
81(3), 271–283.
464 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-
summit.aspx
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-
summit.aspx
Hammack, F. M. (2008). Off the record—Something old,
something new, something borrowed,
something blue: Observations on the Small Schools Movement.
Teachers College Record, 110(9),
2067–2072.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and
emotional support in the first-grade classroom
make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child
Development, 76(5), 949–967.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation.
Hemphill, C., & Nauer, K. (2009). The new marketplace: How
small-school reforms and school choice
have reshaped New York City’s high schools. New York, NY:
Center for New York City Affairs.
Hoy, W. K., Gage, Q., & Tarter, C. J. (2006). School
mindfulness and faculty trust: Necessary conditions
for each other? The Journal of Educational Administration, 43,
439–461.
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O.-M. (2007). Influence of student-
teacher and parent-teacher relationships on
lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the
primary grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51.
Irizarry, J. (2007). Ethnic and urban intersections in the
classroom: Latino students, hybrid identities and
culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives,
9(3), 21–28.
Irvine, J. J. (1990). Black students and school failure: Policies,
practices and prescriptions. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Irvine, J. J. (2002). In search of wholeness: African American
teachers and their culturally specific
classroom practices. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing
with a cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.

Jiménez, R. T., & Rose, B. C. (2010). Knowing how to know:
Building meaningfulrelationships through
instruction that meets the needs of students learning English.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5),
403–412.
Johnson, B. (2009). Linchpins or lost time: Creating effective
advisories. Horace, 25, 2–3.
Kahne, J. E., Sporte, S. E., de La Torre, M., & Easton, J. Q.
(2008). Small high schools on a larger scale:
The impact of school conversions in Chicago. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3),
281–315.
Kirshner, B., Gaertner, M., & Pozzoboni, K. (2010). Tracing
transitions: The effect of high school closure
on displaced students. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 32(3), 407–429.
Klem, A., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter:
Linking teacher support to student engagement
and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262–273.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The
case for culturally relevant pedagogy.
Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lee, C. D. (2009). Historical evolution of risk and equity:
Interdiscipinary issues and critiques. Review of
Research in Education, 33, 63–100.
Lee, V. E., & Ready, D. D. (2007). Schools within schools:
Possibilities and pitfalls of high school

reform. New York: Teachers College Press.
Levine, T. H. (2010). What research tells us about the impact
and challenges of smaller learning
communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 276–289.
Louis, K. S. (2006). Trust and improvement in schools. Journal
of Educational Change, 8(1), 1573–1812.
Makkonen, R. (2004). Advisory program research and
evaluation. Horace, 20(4). Retrieved January 1,
2012 from
http://old.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/345.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An
integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McClure, L., Yonezawa, S., & Jones, M. (2010). Can school
structures improve teacher student
relationships? The relationship between advisory programs,
personalization and students’ academic
achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(17), 1–21.
McIntyre, A. (1997). Constructing an image of a white teacher.
Teachers College Record, 98(4),
653–681.
McNeely, C. A., & Falci, C. (2004). School connectedness and
the transition into and out of health-risk
behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging
and teacher support. Journal of
School Health, 74(7), 284–292.

Meier, D. (2002). In schools we trust: Creating communities of
learning in an era of testing and
standardization. Boston: Beacon Press Books.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 465
123
http://old.essentialschools.org/cs/resources/view/ces_res/345
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizatinal responses to crisis: The
centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer &
T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations (pp. 261–287).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muller, C. (2001). The role of caring in the teacher-student
relationship for at-risk students. Sociology of
Inquiry, 71(2), 241–255.
Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and
motivational predictors of alienation in
middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 62–
75.
Nieto, S. (2000). A gesture toward justice: Small schools and
the promise of equal education. In W.
Ayers, M. Klonsky, & G. H. Lyon (Eds.), A simple justice: The
challenge of small schools
(pp. 13–17). New York: Teachers College Press.

Nieto, S. (2010). Language, culture and teaching: Critical
perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noblit, G. W. (1993). Power and caring. American Educational
Research Journal, 30(1), 23–38.
Noddings, N. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An
alternative approach to education (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Olsson, E. (2009). The role of relations: Do disadvantaged
adolescents benefit more from high-quality
social relations? Acta Sociologica, 52(3), 263–286.
Payne, C. M. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The
persistence of failure in urban schools.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Peshkin, A. (1991). Appendix: In search of subjectivity–One’s
own. In The color of strangers, the color of
friends (pp. 285–295). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Phillippo, K. L. (2010). Teachers providing social and
emotional support: A study of complex role
enactment in small high schools. Teachers College Record,
112(8), 2258–2293.
Pianta, R. C., LeParo, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom
assessment scoring system (CLASS)
Manual, K–3. Baltimore: Brookes.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E.,
Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997).
Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National

Longitudinal Study on Adolescent
Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10),
823–832.
Rhodes, J. E., Spencer, R., Keller, T., Liang, B., & Noam, G.
(2006). A model for the influence of
mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of
Community Psychology, 34(6), 691–707.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
psychotherapy. London, UK: Constable.
Rolón-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color(full) analysis of
care narratives in the schooling experiences
of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal,
42(1), 77–111.
Rosenfeld, L. B., Richman, J. M., Bowen, G. L., & Wynns, S. L.
(2006). In the face of a dangerous
community: The effects of social support and neighborhood
danger on high school students’ school
outcomes. Southern Communication Journal, 71(3), 273–289.
Ruck, M., Harris, A., Fine, M., & Freudenberg, N. (2008).
Youth experiences of surveillance. In M. Flynn
& D. C. Brotherton (Eds.), Globalizing the streets: Cross-
cultural perspectives on youth, social
control and empowerment. New York, NY: Columbia University
Press.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An
integrative model of organizational trust: Past,
present and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2),
344–354.

Shiller, J. T. (2009). ‘‘These are our children!’’ An examination
of relationship-building practices in urban
high schools. The Urban Review, 41(5), 1573–1960.
Shulkind, S. B., & Foote, J. (2009). Creating a culture of
connectedness through middle school advisory
programs. Middle School Journal, 41(1), 20–27.
Sleeter, C. E. (1993). How white teachers construct race. In C.
McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race
identity and representaiton in education (pp. 157–171). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Epistemological diversity in research on
preservice teacher preparation for
historially underserved children. Review of Research in
Education, 25, 209–250.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1987). Interpretive ethnography of
education: At home and abroad.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Strike, K. A. (2010). Small schools and strong communities: A
third way of school reform. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1998). Introduction to qualitative
research methods (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Wiley.
Taylor, P., Funk, C., & Clark, A. (2007). Social trends:
Americans and social trust: Who, where and why.
Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Toshalis, E. (2011). The rhetoric of care: Preservice teacher

discourses that depoliticize, deflect and
deceive. Urban Review, 44(1), 1–35.
466 Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467
123
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S. Mexican
youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY:
State Univeristy of New York Press.
Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally
responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20–32.
Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally
responsive teaching that supports a culture of
achievement for African American students. Urban Education,
41(4), 427–456.
Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible:
A longitudinal study of resilient children
and youth. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Woolley, M. E., & Bowen, G. L. (2007). In the context of risk:
Supportive adults and the school
engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56(1),
92–104.
Young, E. (2010). Challenges to conceptualizing and actualizing
culturally relevant pedagogy: How
viable is the theory in classroom practice? Journal of Teacher

Education, 61(3), 248–260.
Zehr, M. A. (2008, May 21). Congress looks at immigration
raids. [Web log post]. http://blogs.
edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2008/05/.
Urban Rev (2012) 44:441–467 467
123
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-language/2008/05/
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/learning-the-
language/2008/05/‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’: Students from
Nondominant Groups Respond to Teacher
PersonalismAbstractResearch Problem and Rationale: Policies
of PersonalismReview of Literature Related to Teacher
PersonalismStudent--Teacher Relationship Outcome
StudiesCulturally-Responsive PedagogyTeacher
CaringRelational Trust in SchoolsResearch QuestionsStudy
Design and MethodologyParticipant SelectionData Collection
MethodsData Analysis and InterpretationResultsRelationship-
Promoting Teacher PracticesKnowledge of Teacher Practices
Through Interaction and ObservationCongruence and Tension
Between Practices of PersonalismTensions Related to Teacher
Personalism in Small SchoolsStrategies of Personalism in Small
SchoolsPrivacy Amidst PersonalismStudent Agency and
Student--Teacher RelationshipsTeacher Personalism’s
Institutional and Societal ContextsA Staged Model of Student--
Teacher RelationshipsLimitationsAcknowledgmentsReferences
The three responses to literature will be uploaded to Canvas in
APA format, using the title provided with each prompt. Each
response will receive in-depth feedback, and the first two can be
rewritten once to allow the student to improve his/her writing
and earn the full ten points. Rewrites must be submitted with

earlier versions of the paper in the same document using a PDF
merger tool, and must be resubmitted the week after they are
returned to you (approximately 2 weeks after you submit the
first one).
The title of your paper will be Response to Literature 1: (LAST
NAME OF AUTHOR) Response to Literature 1: Bartow
Jacobs OR Response to Literature 1: Phillippo
Week 3Option A
Bartow Jacobs (2018)
In this article, Bartow Jacobs, explores the field experiences
encountered by teacher learners and their deep-seeded
perspectives of students, culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP),
and maintaining high standards. Begin by summarizing the
research question, settings and participants in the study before
discussing your reactions to tensions in the article between
culturally responsive pedagogy, developing cultural
competence, and maintaining high standards. What lessons can
you learn in regards to actualizing CRP in the classroom? Are
you aware of any cultural constructions you experienced that
may cause tensions when implementing ideas like CRP? What
role might your history of schooling have played in the adoption
or implementation of CRP in your field experiences?
Week 3
Option B
Phillippo (2012)
Phillippo examined the use of personalism, teachers’ efforts to
develop closer relationships with their students in three high
schools. In the article, she discusses students’ perceptions of
their relationships with these teachers, both in terms of best
practices and in terms of tensions that develop as a result of the
way teachers build these relationships. Summarize the research
question, settings and participants in the study before

discussing what some of the best practices and tensions that
develop when teachers attempt to know their students better.
Consider: how do we draw the line between knowing students,
providing them support and invading their lives? How would
you, in your practice, define that line and act accordingly?

‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’ Studentsfrom Nondominant Group.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’ Studentsfrom Nondominant Group.docx

Similar to ‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’ Studentsfrom Nondominant Group.docx (20)

More from odiliagilby

More from odiliagilby (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

‘‘You’re Trying to Know Me’’ Studentsfrom Nondominant Group.docx