“We Still Miss Some of Them”: A DisCrit Analysis of the Role of Two 4-Year Hispanic Serving Institutions in Racially Diversifying the K–12 Teaching Force

Abstract

Background/Context: Although some research has been conducted on the experiences of preservice teachers of color who attend Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), little cross-institutional, qualitative research—disaggregated by type of MSI—exists on the potential of MSIs to prepare and graduate teachers of color. This article examines how teacher preparation programs and professors at two 4-year public Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs)—a type of MSI—respond to two barriers to the profession for Hispanic and Black students: state licensure exams and being underserved in their K–12 education. Focus of Study: At both institutions, white students were overrepresented, and Hispanic and Black students were underrepresented, in the population of students admitted to a teacher preparation program. Through a conceptual framework of “servingness” and an intersectional theoretical framework, disability critical race theory (DisCrit), I sought to center the voices of students and faculty of color and understand: (a) how state requirements for employment and licensure were incorporated into each teacher preparation program’s admissions criteria, (b) how each program’s admissions process impacted the race and ability/academic achievement of students enrolled in education coursework, and (c) how professors responded to the racial and ability diversity of their students. Participants: Four focal professors (two at each institution) and nine students (two or three in each course) participated. At each institution, one professor was teaching an introductory class—open to any undergraduate student who might have an interest in teaching—and one a methods course—open only to admitted preservice teachers (graduate and undergraduate students seeking certification). Research Design: A DisCrit methodology was utilized to center the voices of multiply-marginalized students and faculty and to analyze their stories in relation to larger systems of power and privilege. Primary data sources—three interviews with the focal professors and one interview with each student—were analyzed inductively. Codes and categories generated from the interviews were used to deductively analyze course observations. To better understand “servingness,” analytic categories were compared between institutions and between course types. Conclusions/Recommendations: Each preparation program responded differentially to state requirements in their admissions criteria, which had implications for both the racial demographics of admitted preservice teachers and how professors (a) responded to students’ prior K–12 experiences, and (b) described which students (of color) had the capacity to be teachers. Recommendations include: (a) examining “servingness” not only across HSIs, but also across different levels of courses, and (b) integrating support—rooted in students’ experiences—throughout teacher preparation.