This chapter builds from two frameworks (presented in Chapter 1) that action scientists use to explain how individuals’ theories-in-use shape their action strategies, which in turn yields important consequences for their behavioral worlds and learning processes within an organization. I explore how faculty participants at a high-performing MSI expressed Model I and Model II values as “value expressions,” and discuss how common elements in those expressions can have both positive and negative consequences for instructors’ learning about and from cultural differences between themselves and their students.

This chapter builds upon the foundation established in Chapter 1 to explore how urban teachers learn to assign and share culturally accepted meanings about their students’ cultures and the communities they belong to outside the classroom. It does so through a review of evidence in the literature reviewed of basic underlying assumptions, espoused values, and observable artifacts related to teacher thinking about students’ cultures as evidenced in the literature reviewed.

This chapter discusses dimensions of the master program frameworks associated with Model I and Model II theories-in-use that link Model I and Model II governing values to the actions they inform, as well as implications of those actions for an individual’s learning experiences and effectiveness. This chapter discusses how these Model I value expressions were coded and analyzed as precursors to negative consequences for teacher effectiveness at learning across student–teacher cultural differences. In later sections I discuss how Model II value expressions were analyzed as facilitators of the instructors’ effectiveness at learning across cultural differences.

This chapter explores consequences of the traditional and culturally responsive classroom management strategies reviewed in Chapter 11 from an action science perspective in depth. In the action science literature, action strategies that individuals use from the Model I perspective seek to: (1) design and manage the environment so that the actor is in control, (2) own and control tasks, (3) unilaterally protect themselves, and (4) unilaterally protect others from being hurt (i.e., upset, offended). Individual action strategies used from the Model II perspective seek to: (a) design situations in which they can experience high personal causation, (b) jointly control tasks, (c) understand protection of self as a joint, growth-oriented enterprise, and (d) bilaterally protect others. In this chapter, I substantiate these associations in the data by exploring how traditional and culturally responsive classroom management strategies are behavioral expressions of Model I and Model II values respectively – with corresponding consequences for CUNY instructors’ learning effectively across student–teacher cultural differences.

This chapter reviews directly observable data about K-12 urban teachers pertinent to the intrapsychic and psychosocial factors influencing their propensities to effectively learn across cultural differences between themselves and their students.

Chapter 5 presents a comprehensive conclusion, revisiting the theory of vested interests in the context of education policy. It summarises the key findings of the analysis and examines the extent to which group politics can explain both change and stability in European education systems. The chapter highlights the growing tensions between interest groups – particularly the dominant teachers’ unions, which have a strong stake in maintaining the status quo – and governments striving to improve underperforming education systems, provide better support for the most vulnerable students, and raise academic standards for all. Ultimately, the chapter argues that for governments to achieve meaningful educational reform, they must first redefine their relationship with powerful interest groups, particularly the unions, to overcome entrenched resistance and drive lasting change.

This chapter extends the argument that K-12 urban teachers learn through organizational socialization to adopt shared cultural meanings about their students that inform the individual actions they use to manage cultural differences between themselves and their students. It argues that these actions operate to increase, maintain, or decrease relational distance – or the perception that there is psychological status and structural distance amongst individuals within an organization – between teachers and their students. It also begins to develop the argument that urban-teacher actions may vary based on the nature of their organizational commitment – in particular how the type of commitment they have for their work informs their perceptions and management of various role stressors in their workplace environments.

This chapter combines insights from across the three literatures that inform the book’s central thesis to demonstrate how these disciplines speak to one another in ways that amount to a novel approach for resolving the knowing–doing gap introduced in the book’s Introduction. In marrying these interdisciplinary perspectives, the chapter concludes with recommendations for resolving lingering questions about how Model O-I and Model O-II systems in K-16 school contexts serving students from low-income and other minoritized cultural communities are established, maintained, or precluded altogether.

This chapter explores how instructors designed their classroom management strategies in response to the student challenges discussed in their interviews. It is guided by three research questions: (1) How do instructors enact traditional and culturally responsive classroom management strategies in response to challenging student situations? (2) To what extent does instructor use of traditional and culturally responsive classroom management strategies align with action strategies associated with Model I and Model II learning values in the action science literature? (3) From an action science perspective, what consequences do traditional and culturally responsive classroom management strategies have for CUNY instructors’ behavioral worlds?

This chapter explores the pervasive influence of a "white gaze" as it frames the collective action strategies K-12 urban teachers use to manage intercultural differences between themselves and their students, and how those strategies can operate to increase, maintain, or decrease relational distance with consequences for teachers’ cultural learning processes at work. It also discusses some key intrapsychic and interpersonal constraints on teachers’ cultural learning processes at work associated with the intergroup and group dynamics they share in urban schools.

This chapter introduces action science as a novel approach to reconciling the knowing–doing gap presented in the Introduction. It reviews primary goals of this discipline as established in its seminal literature, as well as central tenets and terms in this discipline that are foundational to the analyses featured throughout the book. It also presents evidence that action science is a suitable approach to reconciling this knowing–doing gap, because its central tenets and terms speak to consistent and recurring themes in the extant educational literature. I explain how the ladder-of-inference framework from this literature is used to investigate K-12 urban teachers’ inferential thinking about cultural differences in the literature review featured across the next six chapters.

This chapter reviews information about the demographic and democratic imperatives prompting K-16 educators to reconsider what they do not know about their students’ cultural backgrounds in urban schools and minority serving institutions (MSIs). It highlights the connection between the student–teacher racial mismatch characterizing K-16 contexts in the United States and a coexistent cultural mismatch. It makes an argument that these demographic characteristics present a human capital challenge that ultimately diminishes teacher effectiveness at learning across cultural differences between themselves and their students in urban schools and MSIs. It concludes by modeling this human capital challenge as a knowing–doing gap using a framework from the organizational literature.

Between 2000 and 2020, governments intensified efforts to raise education standards, driven in part by the OECD’s PISA surveys, which exposed stark disparities in national performance. The case study countries lagged behind the top performers, with Germany ranking near the very bottom. As a result, introducing new reforms – or revising previous performance-driven policies – became a top priority. However, teachers’ unions continued to resist these measures, as they placed sharp light on teacher performance, potentially threatening job security.

This chapter examines the extent of educational reform across the case countries. It highlights how Germany, after decades of near stagnation, embarked on major reforms as the government successfully curtailed union influence. In contrast, in Sweden, which had initially embraced significant changes, experienced a slowdown and partial reversal of earlier reforms following the resurgence of teacher union power. England, despite a Labour government, continued to push forward with reforms, as unions remained effectively held at bay. Meanwhile, France saw little change, as unions repeatedly thwarted reform efforts from both the politically right and left.

The chapter further examines how teachers’ unions, having solidified power bases at both the local and EU levels, effectively sidelined competing interest groups, particularly private schools and parental groups. As a result, they maintained a dominant role in shaping education policy, largely insulated from broader public influence.

Chapter 3 investigates the period 1980–2000, a time when governments, with the exception of Germany, inherited comprehensive systems widely seen as inadequate for equipping students with the knowledge and skills needed in an era of rapid globalisation and technological advancement. In response, governments sought to drive higher levels of performance in their education systems, introducing major reforms such as decentralisation, including school autonomy and accountability measures for schools and teachers. However, implementing these reforms proved extraordinarily challenging, as teachers’ unions – now deeply entrenched in the existing institutions – strongly resisted changes at different levels of policy-making venues as these reforms stood to erode their traditional sources of power and material benefits. The chapter demonstrates that in countries where union influence weakened, such as England and Sweden, significant performance reforms took hold, creating opportunities for traditionally marginalised groups from private sectors. Conversely, in countries where unions retained their dominance, such as France and Germany, the education system remained largely unchanged, reinforcing the status quo.