ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: EXPLORING THE CIVIC POTENTIAL OF PLACES: PLACE-BASED EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT Kristin A. Sinclair, Doctor of Philosophy, 2019 Dissertation Directed By: Betty Malen Professor Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership This qualitative case study examined how place-based education (PBE) (e.g. Gruenewald, 2003a, Sobel, 2004), might provide opportunities for young people from marginalized backgrounds to develop civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills. This study investigated personally responsible and participatory civic engagement (e.g., Westheimer & Kahne, 2004), but focused on critical or sociopolitical action and justice-oriented civic engagement (Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Grounded in a conceptual framework encompassing PBE?s theory of change, critical theories of place, and youth sociopolitical development (Watts & Flanagan, 2007) this study drew on documents, observations, student work, and interviews with administrators, teachers and 11th grade students at Greenfields Public Charter School during the three month long food justice project (FJP). The FJP was an interdisciplinary, experiential project wherein students researched a local food justice issue through community- and school-based fieldwork. Teachers? goals for the FJP included that students would gain data analysis and research skills, understand the impact of their individual choices, and develop a set of skills and dispositions for engaging in critical social action, specifically a ?sense of their own agency.? Even with a favorable school environment, supportive and flexible administrators, and dedicated teachers, the FJP?s outcomes were ultimately disappointing. Findings suggest that while most students gained research skills, only some developed a sense of agency and civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments. Students who completed projects that investigated school-based issues demonstrated participatory behaviors and skills. Students who studied neighborhood-based issues, however, were the only ones who demonstrated gains in justice-oriented civic engagement. They reported changes in their attitudes towards other marginalized groups, a greater awareness of structural explanations for injustice, and expressed newfound commitments to ?be more active? in their communities. This study identifies conditions under which PBE might foster youth civic engagement. Primarily, it argues that the spatial context of PBE ? defined as the arena (i.e., school, neighborhood, or city) in which projects are situated and the meanings of place a project invokes (e.g., place-as-container versus place-as-content and context) ? may mediate PBE?s impact on civic engagement. Implications for practice, suggestions for future research, and potential refinements to the conceptual framework are discussed. EXPLORING THE CIVIC POTENTIAL OF PLACES: PLACE-BASED EDUCATION AS A TOOL FOR YOUTH CIVIC ENGAGEMENT By Kristin A. Sinclair Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Advisory Committee: Professor Betty Malen, Advisor and Chair Professor Tara Brown Professor Michelle Espino, Dean?s Representative Professor Campbell Scribner Professor Katy Swalwell (Iowa State University) ? Copyright by Kristin A. Sinclair 2019 ii Acknowledgements I am deeply appreciative of the people who have guided, challenged, and supported me throughout this journey. First and foremost, thank you to the administrators, teachers, and staff of Greenfields Public Charter School and the students of the Class of 2019. I am forever indebted to you and your willingness to welcome me into your school and your classrooms. You were so incredibly giving of your time, thoughts, insights and spirit; I cherish my time spent learning from you all. This dissertation, obviously, would not have been possible without your generosity. Thank you to the members of my dissertation committee and their contributions to this project. First, I am forever grateful for Betty Malen, my advisor and dissertation chair. Since we first met nearly seven years ago she has been both my toughest critic and biggest champion at UMD; she has nurtured my skills and talents and helped shape me into the scholar I am today. Her patience, understanding and encouraging words through every phase of my PhD program, especially amidst the early days of new motherhood, have meant the world to me. I can only hope to bring the same balance of care and rigor to my advising and teaching that she does to hers. I was incredibly lucky to have met Katy Swalwell at her UMD job talk back in 2013, since then she?s taken me under her wing and provided invaluable mentorship, guidance, and friendship, along with many professional opportunities. She provided a critical, thoughtful listening ear at key moments as I worked through the complexities of qualitative research and made sense of my data. I am grateful to Tara Brown for her critical eye and attention to the role of race in my research, Michelle Espino for guiding me toward deeper reflexivity, and to Campbell Scribner for giving me an opportunity to think through the philosophical iii underpinnings of my work. Thank you to other UMD faculty who gave their time, expertise and guidance along the way: Bob Croninger, Ethan Hutt, and Tirza White. To my peers at UMD, you gave me a community and a sense of belonging that helped buoy me through the ups and downs of graduate school: Thank you. Justin, Laura, and Teddy, for your friendship from day one. Alisha, for our weekly Sunday work sessions (shout out to the Petworth and Mt. Pleasant branches of the DC Public Library!), being my intellectual partner and sounding board, your endless cheerleading and helping me shine. Erin J. and Erin H., for helping me navigate the eternal work-life balancing act of academic motherhood. Bradley, Christina, Colleen, Erin H., Erin J., Jessica, Justin, Maggie, Neil, and Virginia, our Skype accountability check-ins and countless days of writing side-by-side kept me on track, motivated, and connected. Thank you to my framily and the buds for your invaluable friendship and support, and especially to fellow PhDs Bernadette and Meredith for your wisdom, advice, and encouragement. Finally, this accomplishment is impossible without my family, who have always believed in me even when I was not so sure. Thank you to my parents, Eric and Andrea, who raised me to know that ?girls can do anything? and gave me the confidence and determination to persist and always be true to myself. My mother, especially, for refusing to let me give up on my dreams when I needed that reminder the most. Thank you to my brother, Tom, for celebrating my successes and encouraging me through obstacles with humor and love. To my husband and partner, Andy, for his steadfast presence, love and unyielding faith in me during the toughest and best of times. I am forever grateful for your willingness to give me the space and time I needed to read, think, and write. And finally, to Charlie, my blond-haired little bundle of energy. The unbridled enthusiasm and iv curiosity you bring to each day fills me with such joy and provides a constant reminder of all that is left to know in this world and all that makes life worth living. Thank you, everyone, from the bottom of my heart. What can I say? It takes a village to write a dissertation. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... ii List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. vii List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Integrative review of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature on PBE ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Literature review methods and data sources .......................................................................... 9 PBE: A new term for an old concept ...................................................................................... 10 Essential elements. ................................................................................................................ 13 Three ?camps? of PBE ............................................................................................................ 20 Liberal humanist PBE.. ......................................................................................................... 20 Critical PBE. .......................................................................................................................... 21 Indigenous education. ........................................................................................................... 26 PBE: The theory of change ..................................................................................................... 28 Sense of place and place attachment. .................................................................................... 30 Action. ................................................................................................................................... 33 Building civic engagement skills. ......................................................................................... 37 Summary analysis and implications for this study ............................................................... 39 Chapter 3: Methods ........................................................................................................ 48 Theoretical perspective and conceptual framework ............................................................. 48 School and community context: Theories of place and spatial justice. ................................. 51 Students? views of community.. ............................................................................................ 55 Students? sense of agency.. .................................................................................................... 57 Opportunity structure. ........................................................................................................... 60 Civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills.. ....................................... 60 Methods of data collection and analysis ................................................................................ 63 Case and case context.. .......................................................................................................... 64 Data collection methods.. ...................................................................................................... 72 Researcher reflexivity and positionality. ............................................................................... 79 Data analysis methods.. ......................................................................................................... 83 Chapter 4: Findings Part 1 ............................................................................................. 87 RQ1a: What place-based opportunities were provided to students? .................................. 87 Research questions tackle a local problem.. .......................................................................... 87 Fieldwork.. ............................................................................................................................. 90 Connections to local places. .................................................................................................. 95 RQ1b. How did teachers conceptualize PBE and how did they enact it? ........................... 97 Origins and development of the FJP.. ................................................................................... 97 Educators? goals for project. ................................................................................................ 100 Curricular organization and timeline. .................................................................................. 105 RQ1c. What factors supported or constrained the enactment of PBE? ........................... 119 Supports. .............................................................................................................................. 119 Challenges and Constraints. . .............................................................................................. 126 vi Chapter 5: Findings Part Two ..................................................................................... 140 RQ2: How did students respond to these place-based experiences and what do their responses suggest about how PBE affected their civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills? ...................................................................................................... 140 Students? sense of agency ...................................................................................................... 140 Experience of agency.. ........................................................................................................ 140 Political efficacy. ................................................................................................................. 147 Summary.. ........................................................................................................................... 155 Students? views of community .............................................................................................. 156 Community-based fieldwork. .............................................................................................. 156 Sense of place.. .................................................................................................................... 162 Critical social analysis. ....................................................................................................... 165 Civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills ...................................... 173 Personally responsible citizenship.. ..................................................................................... 173 Participatory citizenship. ..................................................................................................... 175 Critical action and justice-oriented citizenship. .................................................................. 186 Missed opportunities for student voice ................................................................................ 192 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 205 Chapter 6: Discussion and Directions for Future Research ...................................... 207 (RQ3): What, if anything, does this case suggest about PBE?s theory of change and the conditions under which PBE might foster students? civic engagement? .......................... 207 Place as container versus place as context and content.. ..................................................... 209 Students? distinct arenas have implications for civic engagement.. .................................... 214 Spatial context as mediator for civic engagement.. ............................................................. 219 Refined conceptual framework. ........................................................................................... 224 Summary. ............................................................................................................................ 228 APPENDIX A: Summary of Sources .......................................................................... 230 APPENDIX B: Administrator Interview Protocols ................................................... 249 APPENDIX C: Teacher Interview Protocols .............................................................. 253 APPENDIX D: Community Partners Interview Protocol ........................................ 259 APPENDIX E: Student Interview and Focus Group Protocols ............................... 261 APPENDIX F: Survey Items and In-class Reflection ................................................ 266 APPENDIX G: Initial First-round Codes for RQ1 and RQ ..................................... 275 References ...................................................................................................................... 279 vii List of Tables Table 1. Definitions of Place-Based Education .................................................................14 Table 2. Observation Data ..................................................................................................75 Table 3. Study Participants ................................................................................................77 Table 4. Interview Data ......................................................................................................78 Table 5. Other Data Sources ..............................................................................................79 Table 6. Research Questions and Data Sources .................................................................85 Table 7. Summary of FJP Groups, Topics and Study Participants .....................................88 Table A.1. Summary of Sources ......................................................................................230 List of Figures Figure 1. Place-based Education Theory of Change ..........................................................29 Figure 2. Model of Youth Sociopolitical Development .....................................................50 Figure 3. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................51 Figure 4. Food Justice Project Timeline and Key Events ................................................108 Figure 5. Matrix of Possible Spatial Contexts .................................................................223 Figure 6. Revised Conceptual Framework .......................................................................228 viii List of Abbreviations ES = Environmental Science FJP = Food justice project GPCS = Greenfields Public Charter School MFP = My Friend?s Place PBE = Place-based education UGB = University of Great Bay YSPD = Youth sociopolitical development 1 Chapter 1. Introduction Throughout the United States, gaps in voting, volunteering, and other forms of civic engagement persist across race, social class, and education lines and contribute to inequitable levels of political influence (e.g., Gaby, 2016; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008). One of many factors that may contribute to this civic engagement gap is the inequitable distribution of civic learning opportunities in schools. For example, research has suggested that students who are white, academically successful, and from higher socioeconomic classes have more school-based civic learning opportunities than their counterparts (Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Levinson, 2010, 2012). Scholars have theorized that providing more opportunities for students from marginalized populations to practice civic skills may be a crucial step in bridging the civic engagement gap (Cohen, 2010; Hart & Youniss, 2018; Littenberg-Tobias & Cohen, 2010; Sherrod, Torney-Purta & Flanagan, 2010). As Flanagan and Levine (2010) point out, the civic skills and behaviors of adults stem from the ?accumulation of [civic] engagement opportunities in the child and adolescent years? (p 166). The purpose of this study is to further our understanding of how one approach to teaching and learning, place-based education (PBE) (e.g. Gruenewald, 2003a, 2003b; Sobel, 2004), can provide an opportunity for young people from historically marginalized backgrounds to practice civic engagement within a school-based setting. Civic engagement is a broad concept that encompasses a range of dispositions and behaviors including but not limited to electoral engagement, volunteering, and social movement participation (Gaby, 2016). This study investigates all forms of civic engagement that may emerge from participation in PBE but is particularly interested in alternative ?civic 2 pathways? (Mirra & Garcia, 2017, p. 153) such as youth activism (e.g., Conner & Rosen, 2016; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2007; Ginwright, Noguera & Cammarota, 2006; Jenkins et al., 2016; Kirshner, 2015) and critical or sociopolitical action, which includes collective work for social justice through initiatives and advocacy work launched from both inside and outside conventional institutions (Diemer, Rapa, Park & Perry, 2017; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Watts & Hipolito, 2015). Grounded in a conceptual framework encompassing theories of place, place-based education, and youth sociopolitical development, this study draws upon data from an in-depth case study of an 11th grade food justice1 project and attempts to answer the following research questions: (1) What sort of place-based opportunities were provided to students during this project? a. How did teachers conceptualize PBE and how did they enact it? b. What factors supported or constrained the implementation of PBE? (2) How did students respond and what do their responses suggest about how PBE affected students? civic engagement behaviors, attitudes, commitments and skills? (3) What, if anything, does this case suggest about PBE?s theory of change and the conditions under which PBE might foster students? civic engagement? Some scholars argue that existing literature on civic engagement focuses too heavily on ?the maintenance of social and political institutions? (Watts & Flanagan, 2007, p. 779; see also Watts & Guessous, 2006). Instead, they argue, research on youth civic engagement should pay more attention to identifying strategies for developing what Westheimer and Kahne (2004) call the ?justice-oriented citizen,? that is, young people 1 The school at the center of this study uses the word ?justice? to describe the project. I identified how teachers and students define and operationalize ?food justice? throughout this study. 3 who can identify and critically analyze injustices and take action to effect systemic change (p. 242; see also Mirra & Garcia, 2017; Wheeler-Bell, 2014). Theories of youth sociopolitical development (YSPD) draw upon developmental psychology and liberation pedagogy (e.g. Freire, 1970) to provide a framework for understanding how young people develop the knowledge and skills to be justice-oriented citizens. Such theories embrace a vision of civics education that empowers young people to take action on behalf of their communities (Watts, Griffith & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Place-based education (PBE) is a particularly promising strategy for youth sociopolitical development because its approach to teaching and learning embodies many aspects of YSPD. Thus, this study may open new approaches to teaching and learning forms of civic engagement that produce ?justice-oriented citizens.? In PBE, teachers use social, cultural, economic, political, and natural aspects of local places to teach science, math, art, social studies, and language arts (Smith, 2002; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004). Ideally, PBE is also interdisciplinary (Ault, 2008), includes experiential learning, and asks students to identify and solve local problems (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith, 2012; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004). Through the process of identifying and solving local problems, PBE has the potential to ?lay the groundwork for civic participation? (Smith, 2007, p. 203) by providing opportunities for students to engage in social analysis, practice civic engagement skills, and develop personal agency. The most effective forms of PBE, some scholars argue, combine the best of both environmental and civic education by examining the convergence of the social (i.e. civic education) and the natural world (Smith, 2012; Smith & Sobel, 2010). A stronger understanding of PBE?s benefits and challenges could open up new avenues for 4 school-based opportunities to develop students? civic engagement skills. While most studies of YSPD and youth activism focus on opportunities outside the classroom (e.g., Ginwright, Noguera, & Cammarota, 2006), PBE provides an opportunity to study how any classroom can become an agent of YSPD. In PBE, ?place? is a cultural and ecological entity embedded with meaning that includes a location?s human scale, natural and geographical landmarks, and built environment (e.g., Basso, 1996; Cresswell, 2004; Gruenewald, 2005; Greenwood, 2012). While sociopolitical action is studied often within the realm of social or economic injustice, the concept of ?place? opens possibilities for young people?s civic engagement to encompass local issues and environmental injustice and examine how social, economic, and environmental justice intersect. Existing empirical research offers limited evidence that PBE can be a tool for civic engagement. This research suggests that PBE can promote changes to young people?s individual environmental stewardship behaviors (e.g., Gallay, Marckini-Polk, Schroeder, & Flanagan, 2016) and can help raise the public?s awareness around local environmental issues (e.g., Buck, Cook, & Weiland, 2016); less evidence exists to support the claim that PBE can engage students in the types of behaviors associated with critical action and justice-oriented citizenship. This study will add to our understanding of PBE?s potential as a tool for civic engagement and youth activism with marginalized populations. In doing so, this study will generate insights about how studying local places may contribute both to students? individual development as social actors and the well- being of places and communities. 5 I explored the above-mentioned research questions through an in depth case study, using ethnographic methods, of a PBE project in an urban public charter high school in a large mid-Atlantic city. This case is a strategic, ?information-rich? (Yin, 2014, p. 61) case because it involves a favorable set of conditions under which one would expect PBE to be an effective tool for cultivating students? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills, particularly their sociopolitical development and engagement in critical action. Data collected for this study included: semi-structured interviews with teachers and administrators involved in the project, observations and field notes of classes and related activities, curricular documents and student work including in-class reflections and surveys, and formal interviews and focus groups with students. This dissertation consists of six chapters. Chapter Two is an integrative review of the theoretical, conceptual, and empirical research on PBE. It provides an overview of the key thinkers and concepts associated with PBE and draws upon the literature to present a working definition of PBE and articulate its theory of change. Additionally, it presents findings from an analysis of the empirical literature on PBE to ascertain what we know about the forms PBE takes in practice as well as what evidence we have to support or refute the various claims in PBE?s theory of change. Chapter Three outlines the theoretical underpinnings and conceptual framework that guide this study. It combines ideas from multiple streams of literature, including PBE?s theory of change, theories of place and spatial justice, youth sociopolitical development, and youth activism. In this chapter, I define the terms and concepts that will guide data collection and analysis, describe the case and case context in greater detail, and provide a summary of data collection and analysis methods. Chapter Four and Chapter Five outline the findings of 6 my data analysis. Chapter Four addresses RQ1 and describes the place-based opportunities within the food justice project, their implementation, and the supports provided to the project as well as the constraints imposed on it. Chapter Five addresses RQ2 by analyzing students? responses to the food justice project. Using the categories in the conceptual framework to organize the data, this chapter attempts to unpack how the food justice project shaped students? views of their community, sense of agency, and their civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills. Finally, Chapter 6 steps back and provides some analytic generalizations that help us understand the conditions under which place-based education might develop young people?s civic engagement skills and refines PBE?s theory of action (RQ4). Finally, this chapter outlines implications for teaching practice, offers some theoretical propositions that warrant further research, and proposes refinements to the conceptual framework. 7 Chapter 2: Integrative review of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical literature on PBE Our day-to-day experiences, from when we wake up in the morning until we go to bed at night, all happen in a place. The tree-lined sidewalks we walk down, the roads we drive on, the corner store where we stop for a newspaper, the building that houses our offices, are all specific and concrete places that shape and form our experiences. As Geertz (1996) wrote, ?no one lives in the world in general? (p. 262). Place is an inescapable aspect of daily life and is intimately linked to our life experiences and knowledge of the world. Places are pedagogical. They provide the context in which we learn about ourselves and make sense of and connect to our natural and cultural surroundings. The geographical, social, and cultural attributes of the places we come from shape our identities, our relationships with others, and our worldview (Basso, 1996; Greenwood, 2012; Gruenewald, 2003b, Haymes, 1995; Orr, 1994; Semken & Brandt, 2010). In this sense, ??place? is a lens through which ? people begin to make sense of themselves and their surroundings. It is where they form relationships and social networks, develop a sense of community and learn to live with others? (McInerney, Smyth, & Down, 2010, p. 5). For marginalized people, place can be a site of inequality and oppression while simultaneously functioning as a setting for resistance transformation, group consciousness and solidarity (Haymes, 1995; Keith & Pile, 1993; Sutton & Kemp, 2011). Hooks (1990) argues for the importance of ?homeplaces,? private spaces apart from white racism within the African American community. Such places, she argues, have ?subversive value? because they provide opportunities for marginalized people to build 8 ?a meaningful community of resistance? (p. 47). Place, then, is not only a ubiquitous feature of our life, but also an important context for our growth and development as human beings in relationship with the social and natural world. Without attentive, meaningful relationships with our places, we miss out on their rich pedagogical potential. Elder (1998) describes the missed opportunities for learning that happen when we fail to be attentive to our places: Without any stake in the places where we live, we walk through days in which there are trees but no tree in particular, we drive along roads that could be anywhere, never registering the mountains to the east and lake to the west that determined, in fact, exactly where that route would run. Such casual familiarity is the opposite of intimacy and attentiveness (p. 8). Place-based education (PBE) operates on one basic assumption that stems from the theoretical arguments above: Distinct and diverse places ? that emerge from the natural and built environment, local culture, and social relationships ? are fundamental to our individual identities and the identity of our communities; consequently, they deserve our attention, respect, and care (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Semken & Brandt, 2010). Having a ?stake? in such places ? and developing intimate and attentive relationships with these places ? is important for our individual health and well being as well as the vitality of our human communities and sustainability of the natural environment. This chapter reports the findings from a systematic, integrative review (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005) of the literature on PBE as it pertains to this study. Covering a broad range of conceptual, theoretical and empirical literature, this review discusses what we know about PBE and explains how this study builds upon that knowledge. This chapter consists of four major sections: (a) an outline of methods used to develop the literature review, (b) a brief history of PBE and a working definition of PBE, (c) an 9 analysis of PBE?s theory of change, existing empirical literature on the ability of PBE to meet its goals, and the evidence that supports or calls into question the chains of reasoning found in the theory of change and (d) a summary of the limitations of the research base and the implications of this literature base for my study. Literature review methods and data sources To gather literature for this review, I searched education-specific databases (ERIC and Education Research Complete) as well as JSTOR and Google Scholar for the following terms: ?place-based education,? ?place-conscious education,? ?critical pedagogy of place,? ?place-based pedagogy,? and ?place-based learning.2? This initial search returned over 200 sources. I included all sources that investigated some aspect of a place-based curriculum, classroom unit, lesson, or activity and all theoretical, conceptual, or ?think-piece? articles that discussed the field of PBE. My initial list included works published in peer-reviewed journals, practitioner-focused publications, ERIC digests and books. I divided these sources into two categories: 1) theoretical and conceptual literature, and 2) empirical literature.3 My final list included a total of approximately 160 sources from both categories.4 The empirical literature on PBE varies in quality, purpose, and intended audience. Empirical literature included evaluative research reports generated by organizations that have sponsored or advocated for PBE and articles published in peer-reviewed journals. I 2 I conducted the initial literature search in February 2017 and an additional search in June 2019 to identify any new studies published in the interim. 3 For the empirical literature, in order to maintain construct validity (Malen & Ogawa, 1991), I included only those sources in which authors explicitly described the phenomenon of study as ?place-based education? I included only those studies that were conducted within the realm of K-12 education policy, in a K-12 school, or in a non-school setting that served K-12 students. 4 See Sinclair, 2017a and Sinclair, 2017b for more details regarding literature review data collection and analysis methods. 10 used Shavelson and Towne?s (2002) scientific principles for education research to distinguish some peer-reviewed articles as ?gold star? studies; these sources are strong examples of well-crafted research. Throughout this review, my analysis draws most heavily on these ?gold star? studies and the most frequently cited theoretical and conceptual work. The empirical literature included studies that have been conducted in a wide variety of contexts and with a diverse range of students. Well over half were conducted in rural contexts, about a third in urban contexts, and the remainder in suburban contexts. In terms of student participants, most studies and reports were conducted with middle- school aged (US equivalent 6th-8th grade) students and high school aged (US equivalent 9th-12th grade) students. While this set of studies and reports was conducted with students from a wide range of demographic backgrounds, implications for future research and practice related to the race, gender, social class or sexuality of participations were rarely discussed (see Leonard, Chamberlin, Johnson & Verna, 2016 and Rubel, Hall-Wieckert, & Lim, 2016a for exceptions). This dissertation study focuses on a commonly studied population (high school students) in an understudied context (urban school), and both the design of the study, as well as data analysis, account for the role of race and class in shaping students? experiences with and responses to PBE. PBE: A new term for an old concept Place-based education (PBE) is a methodological approach to teaching and learning. PBE is tightly linked to ?community-based? education. Scholars often use the terms interchangeably and fail to clearly articulate what, if anything, makes them 11 different (Theobald & Curtiss, 2000).5 For the purposes of this review, I use the term ?place-based education? because it encompasses a broader range of ideas than ?community-based education?. As Theobald and Siskar (2008) explain: ?the full range of an individual?s humanity will unfold someplace, whether or not we would choose to call that place a community? (p. 198). Scholars and advocates attach broad, ambitious goals to PBE. They claim that PBE can increase student engagement and academic achievement, enhance students? appreciation for the natural world, help students and schools develop stronger ties to their communities, and heighten students? commitment to being active citizens (Gruenewald, 2003a; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith, 2002; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004). Scholars and advocates claim that, as a result of these changes to students? dispositions and behaviors, PBE will strengthen and restore communities and reverse the effects of climate change (Haas & Nachtigal, 1998; Orr, 1992, 1994; Sobel, 2004; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). As noted, PBE is a new term for an old concept (Smith & Sobel, 2010; Woodhouse, 2001; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000); teachers, particularly in rural areas, have used the immediate environment of the school as a laboratory for learning for many years (Haas & Nachtigal, 1998; Jennings, Swidler, & Koliba, 2005; Woodhouse, 2001).6 Indigenous educational philosophies and knowledge systems, for example, have always been place-based (Cajete, 1994; Semken & Brandt, 2010). The specific terms and 5 Smith & Sobel?s (2010) widely cited book, Place- and community-based education in schools, is an example of this. They chose to ?conjoin place- and community-based education to emphasize even more clearly our commitment to both the human and the natural environments in which children and their teachers live? (p. 24). 6 Progressive philosophies, particularly Dewey?s conceptualization of the ideal relationship between schools, communities, and students? lived experiences, are intertwined with place (Dewey, 1915; Jayanandhan, 2009). 12 concepts associated with PBE first emerged in the mid-1990s in several books and articles published in the fields of environmental education (e.g., Elder, 1998; Orr, 1992, 1994; Smith & Williams, 1999; Sobel, 1996; Woodhouse, 2001) and rural education (e.g., Bowers, 1987, 2001; Haas & Nachtigal, 1998; Theobald, 1997). This literature helped to build the conceptual groundwork and rationale for PBE found in Gruenewald?s (2003a, 2003b), Sobel?s (2004), and Smith?s (2002b) foundational works on PBE. Around the same time that PBE began to emerge in the literature, several organizations across the US were encouraging teachers and schools to use PBE. Two of the most influential organizations7, the Annenberg Rural Challenge (now known as the Rural Schools and Community Trust) and the Orion Society began to spread the terms ?place-based education? and ?pedagogy of place? into classrooms through grants to schools and professional development for teachers around community partnerships and engagement in local places. Both organizations have encouraged the spread of PBE in practice with a strong focus on the ?local? as well as the importance of engaging both natural places and human communities in PBE curricula. Over time, the field of PBE has grown tremendously beyond its roots in rural and environmental education. Currently, PBE shares common features with other approaches to education that include engagement with local settings, such as experiential, bioregional, civic and Indigenous education as well as problem-based learning, service learning and constructivist approaches to teaching (Gruenewald 2003b; Smith & Sobel, 2010). However, three major factors set PBE apart from these approaches: (1) teachers 7 Other organizations that provide early examples of PBE in action include the Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative (AKRSI), the Center for Ecoliteracy, the Place-Based Education Evaluation Collaborative, and the Foxfire Project (Barnhardt, 2008; Smith 2002b, Smith & Sobel 2010; Sobel, 2004; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). 13 build their curriculum on the knowledge and experiences found in local places, (2) PBE includes both the natural environment and human community in what counts as ?place,? and (3) PBE recognizes that place is a multifaceted concept that requires the application of multiple disciplinary lenses in order to understand and address problems within that place. Although definitions of PBE are not clear or consistent across the literature (McInerney et al., 2010), the vast majority of empirical studies draw their definition from several seminal works in PBE. In the section that follows, I rely on two of these seminal works8 (Smith, 2002b; Sobel, 2004) to unpack the foundational definition of PBE that guides this study. Essential elements. In the section below I describe four essential elements of the basic working definition of PBE that guides this study: 1) local phenomena and students? experiences of those phenomena form the basis of the curriculum; 2) teachers create opportunities for interdisciplinary learning by applying multiple disciplinary lenses to local phenomena; 3) educational activities are experiential and hands-on; and 4) teachers engage with students to identify, understand, and attempt to address problems in their local communities and places. While these four elements are common throughout most, if 8 I consider these two works seminal because a) both were published in the early 2000s, and while they were not the first scholarly works to address the general ideas and concepts undergirding place-based education, they were among the first to use the term ?place-based education? explicitly, b) they are among the most commonly cited works in the field, and c) many subsequent works on place-based education rely on the definitions provided in these two pieces. For example. Sobel?s (2004) definition is used by theoretical and conceptual works such as Edelglass (2009), Jayanandahan (2009), Knapp (2008), Resor (2010), Smith and Sobel (2010), Styres, Haig-Brown, and Blimkie (2013), van Ejick and Roth (2010); empirical works such as Isogai, et al. (2012), Perkins et al. (2010), Rubel et al., (2016c); Somerville and Green (2011), and Waite (2013) among others. Smith?s (2002b) definition is used by conceptual works such as Ruitenberg (2005) and empirical works such as Conkey and Green (2018), Gautreau and Binns (2017); Heffez and Bornstein (2016), Owens et al. (2010); Rubel et al. (2016a, 2016b); Wilson and Stemp (2010); Yamauchi and Purcell (2009) among others. I excluded two other seminal works (Gruenewald 2003a, 2003b) from this section because they are less relevant to establishing a foundational definition of PBE. These two articles largely served to extend the ideas of PBE outlined in Sobel (1996) and Smith (2002a, 2002b), among others, to the concepts of place- conscious education (PCE) and critical pedagogy of place (CPP). 14 not all, definitions of PBE, the extent to which PBE in practice reflects these elements varies. Generally speaking, the definition that I provide below represents an ideal form of PBE that may or may not reflect what happens in practice. Table 1. Definitions of Place-Based Education Citation Definition Sobel (2004) ?PBE is the process of using the local community and environment as a starting point to teach concepts in language arts, mathematics, social studies, science, and other subjects across the curriculum. [This approach emphasizes] hands-on, real-world learning experiences? (p. 7). Smith (2002b) Place-based learning is ?an approach to curriculum that is grounded in students? own lives, community and region? It adopts local environments ? social, cultural, economic, political, and natural ? as the context for a significant share of students? educational experiences ? it locates learning in the lives and concerns of students and communities ? and takes advantage of students? natural interest in the world and their desire to be valued by others? (p. 30). Prominence of the local. First and foremost, the definitions in Table 1 emphasize that in PBE local phenomena or ?place? takes a prominent role in the classroom. Teaching and learning in PBE ?emerges from the particular attributes of a place? (Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000, p. 4) and capitalizes on students? experiences of their places (Knapp, 2005). The term ?local? or ?place? appears in all of the foundational definitions of PBE as well as nearly every conceptual or theoretical text written about PBE (e.g., Elder, 1998; Haas & Nachtigal, 1998; Knapp, 2005; Greenwood, 2012; Gruenewald, 2003a, 2003b; 2005; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith 2002a, 2002b, 2007, 2012; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 1996, 2004; Theobald, 1997; Woodhouse, 2001; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). As earlier noted, this focus on the ?local? sets PBE apart from other educational traditions. 15 Scholars define the scope of the local in multiple but related ways: the ?location of the learner? the home, the backyard, the school grounds, the community, the bioregion ? the place the learner inhabits? (Woodhouse, 2001, p. 1), students? immediate surroundings (Knapp, 2005; Smith, 2002a), home landscapes (Elder, 1998) or the community and region (Smith, 2002b). As these examples indicate, teachers might define ?local? as what immediately surrounds a student or a school or expand this notion to include the community or region. Whatever connections teachers make to national and global contexts, however, scholars argue that PBE?s focus on the local makes it an effective method for teaching and learning. Sobel (1996) introduced this idea when he argued that the curriculum should focus on the ?scope of the child?s significant world ? first on the surroundings of the home and school, then the neighborhood, the community, the region, and beyond? (p. 23). He argues that because the ?local? is concrete, easy to observe and experience, it provides a powerful jumping off point for teaching abstract ideas and national or global issues. ?Local phenomena? usually include human and non-human elements, such as local culture, politics, economy, the natural environment, and ecology (Smith 2002b, 2007; Smith & Sobel, 2010). Teachers may draw upon these and other elements of the local context to teach subjects including math, science, social studies, and language arts (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Smith, 2012; Sobel, 2004). While PBE is most commonly implemented in science classrooms, due in part to the similarities between PBE and environmental education, scholars argue that many subject areas can capitalize on local phenomena (e.g., Ball & Lai, 2006; Edelglass, 2009; Resor, 2010). The empirical 16 literature suggests this element of the PBE definition is the most common in practice: every instance of PBE covered by this review included a focus on the local. Experiential, ?hands-on? learning. PBE engages students as creators of knowledge and takes an experiential, hands-on approach to teaching and learning (Elder, 1998; Knapp, 2008; Smith, 2002a; 2002b; 2012; Sobel, 2004; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Experiential learning in PBE can take many forms. For example, students might conduct oral histories with residents of a nearby nursing home to learn about local history, collect water samples from a stream, write and produce a local newspaper, plant a garden in their schoolyard or a nearby abandoned lot, conduct geography projects that explore local historical and contemporary issues, or even identify and track the amount of waste created by their school cafeteria (Sobel, 2004; Sobel & Smith, 2010). Teachers who use PBE avoid lecturing students about local phenomena and instead tap into students? knowledge of their communities and identify learning experiences that may arise from local phenomena (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008). Barnhardt (2008) argues that the experiential nature of PBE ?shifts emphasis from teaching about local culture to teaching through local culture as students learn about the immediate places they inhabit? (p. 113, emphasis added). By teaching students though experience, scholars argue that PBE validates local knowledge ? both what students bring to the classroom and what exists in their natural environment and human communities ? and takes students outside of the classroom to experience that local knowledge through hands-on activities. The empirical literature reviewed here suggests that this component of PBE is the second most common; over three quarters of the examples of PBE covered by this review included a hands-on, experiential component. 17 Interdisciplinary learning. Fragmented or compartmentalized curricula provide little opportunity to understand or study place (Arenas, 2001; Elder, 1998). Thus, while teachers might implement PBE in a single-discipline classroom, scholars argue that one of PBE?s strengths is its potential to encourage interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary teaching (Ault, 2008; Elder, 1998; Knapp, 2008; Orr, 1992; Resor, 2010; Smith 2002a, 2002b; Sobel, 2004; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). This potential emerges from the ?integrating function? (Noddings, 2005) or ?interdependence? (Ault, 2008) of place. The features of a place may allow for exploration of multiple subject areas and different disciplinary lenses might illuminate different components of a place. Because ?a place has a human history and a geologic past? (Orr, 1992, p. 130) one could study place using the disciplines of history and geology (among others). As Arenas (2001) explains further, ?A locality cannot be understood from the vantage point of a single discipline or specialty. It can only be understood as a complex mosaic of phenomena and situations? (p. 45). In order to fully study a place, then, one must bring a range of disciplines to bear on it; ?place supplies the context, disciplines the tools? (Ault, 2008, p 615) for learning. Scholars caution that practitioners of PBE should use the disciplines not just as sources of information but as ?disciplined ways of thinking appropriate to solving particular problems? (Ault, 2008, p. 626). Such an application of disciplined thinking provides opportunities for students to draw connections across disciplines and should allow for a deeper, more complex study of place, which can in turn provide a greater range of opportunities for students to make contributions to and address problems in that place (Theobald & Siskar, 2008). 18 I found interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary PBE in only about a quarter of the instances of PBE included in this literature review. Multidisciplinary PBE, whether in a whole-school PBE model (e.g., Howley et al., 2011a; Smith, 2011; Takano et al., 2009; Yamauchi & Purcell, 2009) or where PBE content was integrated into multiple subjects (e.g., Ngai & Koehn, 2010a, 2010b) was more common than interdisciplinary PBE, when teachers made deliberate connections across disciplines (e.g., Powers, 2004; Muthersbaugh et al., 2014). Identifying and solving local problems. Taking action on local issues is a prominent form of experiential learning reflected in theoretical and conceptual definitions of PBE. Students identify, investigate, and attempt to address issues or problems in the local community. Teachers facilitate this process and find links between the problems to be solved and the curriculum (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Knapp, 2008; Smith, 2002b). This process of identifying and solving local problems blurs the traditional distinctions between teacher and students and provides opportunities for students to learn from community members as teachers partner with local community-based organizations through the problem identification and solving process (Smith, 2012; Smith & Sobel, 2010). The nature of the issues and problems that PBE might address will vary depending on the characteristics of the local community and the interests of the students. The examples of PBE in the empirical literature reveal two ways in which the process of identifying and solving local problems looks different in practice than in theory. First, most of the PBE projects were teacher-driven. That is, instead of students driving the problem-identification process, teachers often picked the topic and guided the activities. About a third of the examples of PBE included a project-based, teacher-chosen 19 action component such as the restoration of wetlands or park space, trail maintenance, beach cleanups, or planting a garden. Second, students might identify and understand local problems, but not take action to solve them, as was the case with about a third of the examples of PBE. When students did take action, they usually did so by raising public awareness of the problems they identified by making posters, creating a website, or developing a public service announcement (e.g., Somerville & Green, 2011; Zimmerman & Weible, 2016). In a few cases, students made presentations to community organizations or local decision-making boards (e.g., Heffez & Bornstein, 2016; Plumb et al., 2015; Yamauchi & Purcell, 2009). While such forms of raising awareness had the potential to create actual change, few studies indicated whether these presentations resulted in any action to address the problems studied (see Owens et al., 2011 & Trinidad, 2011 for exceptions). To summarize, theoretically, in PBE teachers use multiple disciplines to engage students in hands-on explorations of their natural environment and human communities. Such explorations often include attempts to identify and address local problems or issues. The project at the center of this study reflected all four elements of this definition of PBE: It was experiential, interdisciplinary, grounded in the local, and asked students to identify and solve local problems related to food justice. In this sense, it was an ?ideal? form of PBE. The theoretical and conceptual literature also suggests that how these four elements play out in the classroom might vary tremendously depending on many factors, including how teachers define ?place? and ?community;? what both teachers and students think counts as important ?problems? or ?issues,? and the philosophical or theoretical lens that 20 teachers bring to their work. Thus, this study paid careful attention to these issues during both data collection and analysis. Three ?camps? of PBE As PBE evolved, three ?camps? emerged, each with a different interpretation of the above definition. This section builds on the work of several authors (Ball & Lai, 2006; Jayanandhan, 2009; Seawright, 2014; van Ejick & Roth, 2010) to briefly describe these three camps: 1) Liberal humanist PBE that focuses largely on the natural environment and human community, 2) Critical pedagogies of place, politicized approaches that explicitly call for social change and challenge the status quo, and 3) Indigenous education, which has evolved separately from the first two strands. I describe critical pedagogies of place (CPP) in greater detail than the other two camps because the project at the center of this study reflects the tenets of CPP (See Sinclair, 2017a for an in- depth discussion of all three camps). Liberal humanist PBE. Liberal humanist PBE develops students? connections to their natural environment and human community while building their awareness of relationships between their places and the larger social and ecological world (Jayanandhan, 2009; Seawright, 2014). Sobel (2004) and Smith (2002a, 2002b, 2007; 2012) are the primary champions of this strand which is firmly rooted in rural and environmental education and draws heavily on the ideas of John Dewey (1915). Teachers, scholars, and advocates of liberal humanist PBE tend to focus heavily on the natural environment and human community ? broadly defined ? and aim to develop an academically successful pedagogy that can work within the confines of traditional public education, academic standards, and systems of accountability (Jayanandhan, 2009; 21 Seawright, 2014; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004). Relying primarily on a ?discourse of rooted, empathetic experience? (Gruenewald, 2003a, p. 8), work in this camp generally takes a celebratory, uncritical approach to place, is largely apolitical, and lacks a specific theoretical tradition (Ball & Lai, 2006; Gruenewald, 2003a; McInerney et al, 2010; Seawright, 2014). Generally speaking, it focuses heavily on place-as-nature and fails to adequately recognize or embrace the multiple meanings or complicated cultural history of places. Advocates argue that this approach still has merit despite its shortcomings. In the words of Smith (2007), this strand ?avoids the controversial and is used as a vehicle for enriching the curriculum and providing the local context for student learning. This ? in itself ? is without question valuable? (p. 2020). Those researchers whose work falls within this camp tend to emphasize its ability to work within the existing system of education (Gibbs & Howley, 2000; Jennings et al, 2005; Smith, 2007; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004), therefore, it may be the most commonly implemented. Critical PBE. Critical PBE shares the commitment to ecological and social places found in liberal humanist PBE but also challenges the assumptions undergirding schooling, questions the status quo, and asks students to engage in critical social change (Gruenewald, 2003a; Seawright, 2014). Work in this field draws upon the ideas of critical pedagogues such as Freire (2000), dissident ecological scholars such as Bowers (2001, 2002) and Bullard (1993) and critical scholars who incorporate place (Haymes, 1995). Gruenewald (2003a) first coined the term ?critical pedagogy of place? (CPP) and his ideas have shaped this strand of work. Unlike liberal humanist PBE, CPP has a strong theoretical and philosophical foundation in critical theory and eco-justice. Because CPP asks those educators who use it to challenge the status quo and question the assumptions 22 behind schooling, it is an inherently political stance that requires a particular theoretical or philosophical lens. Critical pedagogy of place (CPP) emerged out of concerns that liberal humanist PBE?s depoliticized approach may be insufficient to meet the broad goals of social and environmental transformation. Gruenewald (2003a) points out that scholars and advocates frequently discuss PBE at a distance from the urban, multicultural arena, and that its ecological and rural focus often fails to address cultural conflicts. Critical pedagogy, on the other hand, has a sociological focus but neglects peoples? relationships with the natural world and their responsibility to protect the environment. CPP attempts to bridge the gap between these two approaches. Gruenewald (2003a) argues that blending critical pedagogy with PBE allows both traditions to build on the others strengths and is a necessary step to help PBE meet its goals: Human communities, or places, are politicized, social constructions that often marginalize individuals, groups, as well as ecosystems. If place- based educators seek to connect place with self and community, they must identify and confront the ways that power works through places to limit the possibilities for human and non-human others. Their place-based pedagogy must, in other words, be critical (p. 7). CPP has two interrelated objectives: decolonization and reinhabitation. Decolonization means identifying and changing ways of thinking that injure and exploit other people and places and is most closely linked to critical pedagogy (Gruenewald, 2003a). Gruenewald (2003a) expands upon Orr?s (1992) idea of reinhabitation: learning to live well socially and ecologically in places that have been disrupted and injured. This goal is most closely linked to PBE. Taken together, decolonization and reinhabitation are two dimensions of the same task: improving the health and well-being of the natural environment and human communities through critical reflection, engagement with places, 23 and social action. CPP is inherently political and builds upon other socio-ecological traditions that investigate the cultural, political, economic, and ecological dynamics of places. Through CPP, Gruenewald (2003a) hopes that teachers and students will reflect on their own lives and situationality in a way that explores the complex interrelationships between cultural and ecological environments. Additionally, scholars argue, marginalized people can use CPP as a means of liberation, because it ?[prepares] the disenfranchised to seek, create, and use place as a tool for resistance? (Jayanandhan, 2009, p. 103). Haymes (1995) work on pedagogy of place makes important links between critical multiculturalism, critical pedagogy, and place and provides some of the foundational ideas for CPP. Haymes (1995) conceptualizes place as the built environment of the city, and investigates the relationship between the ?spatial structure of the city? and ?how black identities have been historically constructed? (p. 143). He argues that white supremacy, operating largely through gentrification and mass consumer culture, has naturalized certain problematic meanings and uses of blackness and urban space. He proposes that a pedagogy of place can establish the ?conditions that enable blacks in the city to critically interpret how dominant definitions of and uses of urban space regulate and control how they organize their identity around territory, and the consequences of this for black urban resistance? (p. 114). Place becomes a tool for marginalized people to resist and challenge oppression and recapture their own meanings of place. Here, pedagogy of place is linked most closely to the politics of decolonization, as new meanings of blackness and black identity are created and reclaimed. This connection between place as a site for decolonization and resistance is a foundational idea for CPP. 24 Similarly, Bullard?s (1993) edited volume on environmental racism and the environmental justice movement provides an important social critique of mainstream environmentalism. He argues that environmental issues are social justice issues because pollution and industrial encroachment, among other environmental problems, disproportionately affect people of color and people living in urban and rural poverty. The environmental justice movement focuses its advocacy and social change efforts on the links between racism, poverty, and the environmental crisis. As Taylor (1993) explains: [The environmental justice movement] integrates both social and ecological concerns much more readily [than traditional ecology groups] and pays particular attention to questions of distributive justice, community empowerment, and democratic accountability. It does not treat the problem of oppression and social exploitation as separable from the rape and exploitation of the natural world. Instead, it argues that human societies and the natural environment are intricately linked and that the health of one depends on the health of the other (p. 57). Gruenewald (2003a) draws upon these arguments that social and environmental concerns are interrelated as a rationale for why CPP is important. To summarize, CPP is a variation of PBE that combines the critical social change of critical pedagogy with the focus on living well in our natural places found in PBE to engage students in creating socio-ecological change on multiple levels. Gruenewald?s (2003a) article has sparked additional scholarly work, much of which has sought to expand upon his initial conception of CPP and how he defines place. For example, many scholars argue that dialogue and interaction ? between teachers and students, between students and community members, and between people and places ? should play a primary role in how teachers and schools implement CPP and chose a local focus. Scholars who have made this argument engage with place as a setting for social interaction and tend to see place as a lived, evolving entity that emerges 25 through dialogical relationships. Ball and Lai (2006), van Ejick and Roth (2010), Coughlin and Krich (2010), and McKenzie (2008) all have contributed to the conversation about the role that dialogue could and should play in PBE and CPP and have complicated the idea of what counts as a ?place.? Other scholars have focused on the need for PBE in general and CPP in particular to attend to the multiple meanings, histories, and stories of a place. Ruitenberg (2005), Lim (2010), and Somerville (2010) all have a slightly different take on which interpretations of place should take precedence, but generally speaking, these authors provide insight into the complexities of place. Taken together, these authors push the field of CPP to more carefully consider how to define place, the relationships between people, their natural places and human communities, and whose ideas and priorities should guide the implementation of CPP. Several themes are common throughout most, if not all, of these articles. No singular definition, story, or understanding of a particular place exists either across people or across time: places and their meanings are constantly in flux. Whether or not scholars and practitioners embrace this conceptualization of place may influence what CPP looks like in practice and how deep or complex an understanding of local places their scholarship or practice will generate. Keeping in line with critical pedagogy, these authors remind us that teachers should not be the primary drivers in choosing which ideas, local places and problems that CPP engages with. Instead, these ideas should emerge from a process of dialogue between teachers and community members and should make room for multiple place meanings and stories. Thus, according to this group of scholars, the role of CPP should be to tap into and engage in all of these dialogues and multiple place meanings, stories and histories. 26 Indigenous education.9 Indigenous scholars have critiqued both liberal humanist PBE and CPP for not citing Indigenous scholars? work and for reinforcing settler colonialism. These critiques are in part based on their assumption that socio-ecological change will only happen with Indigenous peoples and epistemologies at the center (Johnson, 2012; Tuck et al, 2014). Generally speaking, PBE has not given serious or sufficient consideration to the potential contributions of Indigenous students and Indigenous perspectives on education (Cajete, 1994; Johnson, 2012; Kawagely & Barnhardt, 1999). Additionally, Indigenous scholars have criticized both camps of PBE for perpetuating settler colonialism10 by failing to acknowledge or account for the Indigenous histories of places as well as the history and ongoing process of colonization (Bang et al, 2014; Calderon, 2014; Greenwood, 2009; Johnson, 2012; Tuck et al, 2014; Seawright, 2014). Current forms of PBE are ?critical site[s] of struggle? (Bang et al, 2014, p. 39) for Indigenous educators and have limited liberatory possibilities for Indigenous people. PBE has limited liberatory possibilities in part because PBE curricula usually construct land as implicitly or explicitly no longer Indigenous and uses a language of discovery that affirms setters? rationale for their right to land (Bang et al, 2014; Tuck et al, 2014). Indigenous scholars critique both liberal humanist PBE and the 9 I use the term Indigenous here to refer to Native communities throughout the world who assert their sovereignty as peoples ? or as unique cultural groups ? because of their status as the original inhabitants of the land, whether or not this sovereignty has been acknowledged by other nations (Villegas, Neugebauer, & Venegas, 2008, p. 5). Some of the authors in this section use the term ?American Indian? to refer to indigenous tribal populations of North America (Cajete, 1994; Deloria & Wildcat, 2001). This proposal will respect the terminology chosen by particular authors when citing their work, but generally rely upon the broader term ?Indigenous,? recognizing that there is immense diversity within and amongst Indigenous groups throughout the USA and the world. 10 Settler colonialism is ?a form of colonization in which outsiders come to land inhabited by indigenous peoples and claim it as their own new home? (Tuck et al, 2014, p. 6). It is distinct from other forms of colonialism in that settlers are seeking land and resources, not necessarily labor. Settler colonialism is not a relic of the past but an ongoing activity as settler colonial states, such as the US, continually ignore their own history as settler states as well as Indigenous peoples? resistance to settlement and claims to land (Tuck et al, 2014). 27 concepts of decolonization and reinhabitation put forth in Gruenewald?s (2003a) critical pedagogy of place (CPP). The central tenets of PBE, specifically its focus on the natural environment and human community, have been central to Indigenous ways of teaching and learning long before Western scholars ever addressed the concept of place (Cajete, 1999; Deloria & Wildcat, 2001). In fact, traditional systems of Indigenous education are ?among the oldest continuing expressions of ?environmental? education in the world? (Cajete, 1994, p. 21). Indigenous education is distinct from both liberal humanist PBE and CPP because it has an inherently different epistemology, rooted in an ethic of social and ecological sustainability and responsibility for developing a harmonious relationship with the natural world (Seawright, 2014). For example, while liberal humanist PBE and CPP attempt to engage otherwise ?placeless? people in their places, the value and meaning of place and community are already deeply entrenched in Indigenous culture and educational systems and have strong spiritual meaning. Place-based, local knowledge derived from direct experience in the natural environment has traditionally been the cornerstone of Indigenous education (Deloria & Wildcat, 2001; Kawagley & Barnhardt, 1999; Villegas, Neugebauer, & Venegas, 2008). The project at the center of this study most clearly reflects the tenets of critical pedagogy of place (CPP); the goals and purposes of the project, as expressed by educators and on the school?s website, include addressing injustices and challenging the status quo. My observations and analysis pay close attention to which, if any, components of CPP this project reflects in practice, the extent to which teachers consider multiple 28 place meanings and engage in dialogue with students, and concerns raised by critics of CPP including indigenous scholars. PBE: The theory of change The theoretical and conceptual literature on PBE points to a theory of change comprised of three inter-related chains of reasoning that tie PBE ? primarily liberal humanist and CPP ? to its potential benefits (See Figure 1). One chain of reasoning argues that by engaging in the study of places, students will deepen their sense of place and increase their attachment to and care for places. As this attachment deepens, young people will take action to protect their places. As a result, students will develop stronger civic engagement skills and as a result of this engagement (both now and in the future), their human communities will flourish and the health of the environment will improve. The second chain claims that as students study places, schools develop stronger ties to their communities. The third chain claims that, as students study places, school becomes more relevant to students? lives, students become more engaged in school and students? academic achievement increases. All chains in the theory of change assume (a) that place and authentic relationships between humans and their places are crucial for human flourishing and maintaining the health of the natural environment and (b) that schools must prepare young people for more than economic participation and adaptation to technological advancements if we want to address current social and environmental crises (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Orr, 1992; Theobald, 1997). PBE scholars assume that the purpose of schooling should be to improve the public good by renewing communities, sustaining the ecological integrity of places and giving students 29 the knowledge needed to participate in democratic process (Haas & Natchigal, 1998; Orr, 1992, 1994; Theobald, 1997; Woodhouse, 2001; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Ault (2008) describes the purpose of education in PBE as reflecting a ?place-enhanced sense of reciprocal equity,? (p. 608), where students and schools develop a sense of responsibility toward their natural environment and human communities. In general, PBE advocates argue that the education system is an appropriate and necessary venue for restoring place and community (Theobald, 1997). ?If education is not about people working together for the well-being of places,? the argument goes, ?then what is education for?? (Gruenewald, 2005, p. 281). FFiigguurree 1 .1 P.B PEl Tacheeo-rBy aofs Cedha nEgde u cation Theory of Change Students explore and study their places 1st chain of reasoning 2nd chain of reasoning 3rd chain of reasoning Sense of place School is more and place relevant to attachment daily life Stronger connections btwn schools, places Taking action and communities Increased student to improve engagement places Increased student achievement Stronger Healthier democratic natural places and human par civ ticipation and communities ic engagement skills 30 This study is primarily focused on deepening our understanding of the first chain of reasoning. Thus, building upon the work of Johnson, Duffin, and Murphy (2012), Plumb (2003), and Powers (2004), this section draws upon the theoretical, conceptual and empirical literature to unpack that chain of reasoning and examine the evidence from the empirical literature (drawing primarily from the ?gold star? studies) that supports or calls into question this chain of reasoning. To summarize, this chain of reasoning argues that when students study their places, their sense of place will deepen and their attachment to and care for places will increase. This attachment, in turn, will inspire young people to take action to protect their places. Through this process, students will develop civic engagement and democratic participation skills (which will, in turn, support future action on behalf of their places), and the health and well-being of students? communities will improve. The available evidence suggests that PBE can indeed deepen students? connections to their places, however, this increased attachment does not automatically translate into action. Little evidence exists to support the claim that PBE revitalizes places or builds students? civic engagement skills. Sense of place and place attachment. As noted, PBE advocates argue that by engaging students in exploration and study of their places, PBE provides opportunities for students to make active, meaningful connections to the natural environment and human community and develop students? sense of place (Feld & Basso, 1996; Knapp, 2005; Smith, 2007). Theoretically, a fully developed sense of place increases students? attachment to their places; this increased attachment in theory then leads students to care 31 more deeply about their places and be more likely to take action to restore and protect them. Place attachment is one component of sense of place (Semken & Brandt, 2010). Advocates assume that PBE?s focus on the ?local? in particular develops students? place attachment and leads to greater care for places. Biologist E. O. Wilson (1984) argued that human beings are genetically predisposed to bond with and care for other living being. He called this bond ?biophilia,? or the innate ?urge to affiliate with other forms of life? (p. 85). This urge manifests in a sense of wonder about the natural world, particularly during childhood. The direct engagement with place that happens through PBE taps into our predisposition to biophilia by encouraging students to listen to the land and their communities, learn in harmony with the earth, cultivate mindfulness, and build connections to place, whether that place is an urban neighborhood or a rural town (Cajete, 1999; Orr, 2004; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). PBE?s focus on the local means that topics of classroom discussion are concrete, readily observable, and valuable to students; they stand in stark contrast to the more abstract and disconnected knowledge that is associated with critiques of traditional schooling (Smith, 2002a; Orr, 1994; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). Thus, the argument goes, PBE is particularly effective at building place attachment because it is easier to care for a place that you can ?see, smell, and touch? (Orr, 1994, p. 147) than a place that is abstract or far away. Sobel (1996) argues that teachers should develop children?s attachment to local places before they address broader environmental problems and crises. Exposing young children to environmental tragedies, he argues, can foster ecophobia, the fear of ecological problems and the natural world. Instead, teachers and schools should focus on 32 local problems where children can take direct action and potentially have a measurable impact. Building students? attachment to place is an important first step in motivating students to work toward social change. Generally speaking, evidence from the empirical literature supports this first logical link in the theory of change. Several ?gold star? studies found that students? sense of place deepened as they participated in PBE activities. Researchers? definitions of ?sense of place? tended to encompass cognitive knowledge of place, ability to articulate multiple meanings of place, and an emotional connection to place. Azano?s (2011) study found that place-based learning activities, specifically reading and writing place-centered poetry, ?granted students an ?authorial voice?? (p. 7) that allowed students to articulate their own understandings of place and the meanings those places have for them, thus deepening their sense of place. Schindel Dimick (2016) studied critical pedagogy of place (CPP) (Gruenewald, 2003a) and framed her discussion of sense of place and place attachment through the lens of reinhabitation, what she defined as ?establishing productive relationships between people and places? (p. 826). Through a park restoration project, students in this study ?developed a knowledgeable care for? and ?fostered a deep connection? to place (p. 830). Similarly, Takano et al. (2009) found that Indigenous students? understanding of and connection with the land increased as they participated in a PBE curriculum based on the principles of subsistence living. Zimmerman and Weible (2016) described the changes in students thinking as ?revised? senses of place, as students discovered the multiple meanings that watersheds had for them and their communities. 33 Some studies focused specifically on place attachment, or increased care for both natural places and human communities. Endreny (2010) found that students cared more for their place and expressed a desire to keep their watershed clean following a place- based watershed exploration unit. Waite (2013) found that students became more attached both to their natural environment and to their peers through PBE. Trinidad?s (2011) study of youth-run farm found that through PBE Hawaiian youth became attached to their community and developed a sense of ?kuleana,? reciprocal responsibility to their community (p. 204). Several empirical studies and reports also found increases in students? attachment to their natural environment (e.g. Comber & Nixon, 2013; Duffin, 2007; Gallay et al., 2016; Gannon, 2009; Kuwahara, 2013; Muthersbaugh et al., 2014; Rote et al., 2015), or human community (e.g., Flanagan, Gallay, Pykett & Smallwood, 2019; Ngai & Koehn, 2012a, 2012b). Action. In theory, as students? attachment to and care for their places increases, they develop a sense of responsibility to those places that prompts them to take action to protect and nurture those places (Dentzau, 2014; Elder, 1998; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). Place attachment cultivates what Smith & Sobel (2010) call an ?ethic of environmental stewardship? that motivates students to take action to protect and address problems in both their own and others? places (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Noddings, 2005). Proponents of PBE contend that students? natural places and human communities are readily accessible sources of meaningful, authentic problems (Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). PBE?s focus on the local is key. Local settings provide the most effective context in which to build students? skills and create lasting change for communities and the environment. The local context provides opportunities for students to effect change in 34 concrete, observable ways, which is an important ?stepping stone? toward developing the readiness to respond to social and environmental problems that happen on a global level (Orr, 1994; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 1996). Additionally, scholars argue that national or global problems will be more effectively addressed by local solutions. Because the environmental and sustainability crisis, Orr (1992) argues, are aggregations of local problems, solutions to the crisis must come from the local level as well (see also Berry, 1993). Social and environmental action that stems from the local level is more likely to reflect and protect local interests than action taken by national or global actors or organizations. As Gruenewald and Smith (2008) explain: If the mass of humanity is to preserve or reclaim the resources and social practices necessary to guard their own security and ability to care for the young, diverse actions in many local communities may prove to be more successful than national and international activities that tend to be stymied or co-opted by those in power (p. 356). The empirical literature suggests two11 categories of student-initiated ?action? that PBE could inspire: 1) Individual environmental stewardship behaviors and 2) efforts to engage in social change to protect and nourish places. The available evidence suggests that PBE is effective at promoting the first category of action but may be an insufficient tool for the second. Environmental stewardship. A handful of empirical studies and evaluative reports found that students? ?environmental stewardship? or ?private sphere environmentalism? (Chawla & Cushing, 2007) increased after participating in PBE. Generally speaking, ?environmental stewardship? meant that students adopted or committed to adopting individual, private environmentally friendly behaviors such as 11 Many of the PBE projects reviewed include a project-based action component. This type of action is excluded from this section because the PBE theory of change suggests that, through participation in PBE, students should be motivated to take action on their own. 35 recycling or reducing water usage (e.g. Duffin, 2007; Duffin et al., 2004; Tsevreni, 2009). One ?gold star? study, Gallay et al. (2016), found that students reported an increase in responsible environmental behavior, such as turning off lights when not in use and picking up trash, following participation in a PBE project. Another ?gold star? study, Herman (2018) found that students were more likely to express intent to change their pro- environmental behaviors, such as recycling or giving up electronics, and to donate ten dollars (an honorarium for participating in the study) to environmental causes after participating in a seven-day place-based science unit in Yellowstone National Park. One empirical study (Kermish-Allen et al., 2015) found a statistically significant increase in students? individual energy-saving behavior after participating in PBE. The study does not indicate, however, what motivated such changes in behavior or if students sustained these changes over time. Social change. A major theme throughout the research literature was that even when students? sense of place deepened and their attachment to their places increased, students did not automatically take action to protect those places. Zimmerman and Weible (2016) found that while students could identify environmental and social issues during a study of their local watershed, they did not identify solutions or indicate a shift in their commitments to taking action toward addressing those issues. On a similar note, Waite (2013) found that students? place-based experiences in nature did not translate to awareness of broader environmental issues or motivation to take action. Even studies of critical pedagogy of place, an extension of PBE that explicitly intends to spur social change by developing students? critical consciousness (Gruenewald, 2003a), rarely found that students took action. Several ?gold star? studies illuminate this 36 finding. For example, Buxton?s (2010) study found that students gained increased awareness of social and environmental injustice when participating in a science program based on CPP. They identified instances of inequality in their environment such as the potential health impacts of polluted water. However, this increased awareness didn?t translate into change as ?participants rarely connected the inequitable risks? to the actions people took? (Buxton, 2010, p. 129). One set of ?gold star? studies (Rubel et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2016c) investigated two CPP math modules, Cash City and Local Lotto. Despite the critical focus, these modules failed to spur students to take social action and had mixed success at building students? awareness of issues and problems in their community. For example, while students in Cash City (Rubel et al., 2016c) developed an awareness of some local injustices, such as experiences of exclusion at local banks, their interviews with local pedestrians also surfaced ?counter-stories? to the narrative that banks were predatory. As a result, students ?seemed to accept and at times even defend their city?s inequitable distribution of financial services? (p. 11). In Local Lotto (Rubel et al., 2016b), on the other hand, most students expressed critical opinions about the lottery and identified how the lottery functioned as a system of inequality in their neighborhood and surrounding communities. However, while some students expressed interest in ?forms of activism around issues raised in the ? curricula? (Rubel et al., 2016a), in neither case did students explicitly develop ideas for change or social action related to the lottery or personal finance institutions. Two exceptions to this pattern were Owens et al.?s (2011) and Trinidad?s (2011) studies. In Owens et al.?s (2011) study, PBE ?[played] an innovative role in engaging 37 youth in progressive change initiatives? and in Trinidad?s (2011) study, participation in CPP ?built awareness and urgency among youth to get involved in local political issues? (p. 205). Unlike Cash City or Local Lotto, programs in both of these studies took place in non-school settings and youth participation was voluntary; program leaders explicitly engaged youth in conversations about critical social change. To what extent such factors (or others) impacted the different social change outcomes of the programs described in this set of studies is an open, empirical question and an important line of future research. Several other studies found that during PBE lessons or units, students identified problems and issues in their environment and community, were aware of what types of solutions might be effective, expressed a desire to make positive change, and learned social responsibility (e.g., Donovan, 2016; Jennings, Swidler, & Koliba, 2005; Takano et al., 2009). However, none of these studies indicated whether students actually followed through on their intentions. For example, in Tsevreni?s (2014) study, students discussed actions they could take to improve their school and/or city and voted on one to try, but the authors did not follow up to see if students fulfilled these commitments. Building civic engagement skills. As students take action on behalf of their natural places and human communities, PBE theoretically develops students? problem solving, critical thinking, and democratic participation skills (Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Sobel, 2004; Smith, 2002a; Smith & Sobel 2010). In this way, PBE engages students in civic life and builds their social capital. It cultivates an ?ethic of service? and heightens students? commitment to contributing to the well-being of their places and communities both now and later in life (Gibbs & Howley, 2000; Gruenewald, 2003a; Gruenewald & Smith, 2008; Haas & Nachtigal, 1998; Orr, 1994; Sobel, 2004; Smith, 38 2002a, 2002b; Smith & Sobel 2010; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000; Theobald & Siskar, 2008; Woodhouse & Knapp, 2000). Only a handful of studies documented that students? civic engagement skills increased as a result of participating in PBE and those that did described civic engagement in several ways. For example, in Owens et al.?s (2011) study, young people engaged in civic discussions, researched local problems, and made presentations to local civic decision-making authorities (see also Heffez & Bornstein, 2016). One ?gold star? study (Gallay et al., 2016) used pre- and post-participation in PBE student survey data to argue that students? ?civic capacity? increased. They defined ?civic capacity? as a specific set of skills such as the ability to gather data and describe a problem, getting other people to care about a problem, ability to express views in front of other people, and identifying individuals or groups who could help with a problem (Gallay et al., 2016, p. 164). Other studies described civic engagement as students? individual and collective efficacy, or perceptions of themselves as change agents (Duffin, 2007; Flanagan et al., 2019; Gallay et al., 2016) or expression of desire to be more involved in their community (Rote et al., 2015). A cluster of evaluative reports conducted by the Place-based Education Evaluation Collaborative (PEEC) found increases in student civic engagement defined by teachers? reports that students? connection to and sense of responsibility for improving their communities increased during participation in PBE (e.g. Duffin, 2007; Duffin, Powers & Tremblay, 2004). Despite some promising findings, the variety of ways that researchers define the construct of civic engagement makes it difficult to draw conclusions about this component of the theory of change. 39 Ideally, students will maintain the attachment, engagement, skills, and awareness they develop through PBE as they become adults and potentially move to other places. Both immediate and future action on the part of students who partake in PBE will help to stop the environmental sustainability crisis and preserve the unique cultural and social identity of local communities. Semken and Brandt (2010) summarize the ?mutually beneficial? nature of PBE?s theory of change: PBE can endow succeeding generations not only with the knowledge needed to look after local places, but with love and attachment that will motivate them to do so. ? PBE is a mutually beneficial transaction among people and place if it enhances the sense of place and local knowledge of students and teachers, while also fostering care for places that promotes their ecological integrity and cultural sustainability (p. 300). As this section makes clear, additional research is necessary in order to flesh out PBE?s potential benefits, as well as the conditions under which these benefits may be realized. This study attempts to address this gap in the literature by using a favorable case of PBE to examine what types of civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills result from engagement in place.12 Summary analysis and implications for this study This section steps back and analyzes the findings of this literature review as a whole. It highlights several overarching themes of the literature base and discusses the implications of this review for this study.13 12 While not a primary focus, this study will pay attention to students? place attachment. 13 Given the relatively small empirical research base, and the limitations discussed above, I approach this section with caution. I did not identify any clear lines of agreement or disagreement in the research literature, perhaps in part because so many different scholars are dabbling in this work. In many cases, the evidence backing a claim in PBE?s theory of change was simply insufficient to draw any positive or negative conclusions. However, a few areas of broad consensus emerged from this literature review, all of which are promising lines of future research. 40 Scholars have studied PBE in a diverse range of settings and contexts; this diversity is both a strength and a weakness. The studies reviewed were conducted in a wide range of settings and with students from many different backgrounds. The ability of PBE to meet some of its goals in the midst of such diversity suggests that it is an approach with broad appeal, relevance, and potential effectiveness. However, the diversity of settings makes it difficult to draw strong conclusions or make recommendations for using this approach in any particular setting or with any specific population. Additionally, I could not identify a clear ?line of research? (a set of studies conducted by one or two researchers following a particular line of inquiry) within this body of literature ? amongst the peer-reviewed articles that I included in this review, only a few authors appear multiple times. Thus, we don?t know under what circumstances, for what populations, or in what contexts PBE might most effectively accomplish its goals. At best, the literature suggests potential areas for future research and promising areas of practice. The research literature fails to pay attention to the role of race, class, sexuality, immigration or gender in shaping students? experiences with place. The theoretical and conceptual literature on PBE discusses the multiple aspects of ?place? and the role of one?s identity in shaping one?s experiences of places. Because place is a cultural construct (Casey, 1996; Cresswell, 2004), the meaning that people make of a place is likely to be highly individualized, situational since the meaning ?[arises] from [one?s] unique cultural and social identities? (Dentzau, 2014, p. 166). Places can also be sites of power struggles and resistance, and can function as a means of reproducing oppression and hegemony (Feld & Basso, 1996; Lefebvre, 1974). Therefore, where one 41 stands within the power structure of society can influence the meaning one makes of a place and whether one experiences a place as welcoming, empowering, or oppressive. The empirical literature reviewed here often fails to take into account the social and cultural aspects of place, the role of racism, classism, and sexism in constructing peoples? different meanings and experiences of place and the long Indigenous cultural histories and meanings of place (see Johnson, 2012 and Nespor, 2008 for similar critiques of PBE). While many of the studies and reports address the unique experiences of place and challenges faced by students living in rural settings (e.g., Azano, 2011; Donovan, 2016; Howley et al., 2011a, 2011b), only a handful address the role of race (Freidel, 2011; Leonard et al., 2016; Rubel et al., 2016a) and/or immigration (Comber & Nixon, 2013) in shaping students? experiences with place; no study addresses the role of social class, gender, or sexuality. This omission from the literature limits our understanding of PBE?s potential as a tool for improving community vitality and instigating social change and is a key area for future research. The research literature gives insufficient attention to the role of the teacher, the teacher?s own sense of place and personal bias/positionality. The theoretical and conceptual literature argues that how teachers define place, particularly whether or not teachers attend to the social and political aspects of place as well as students? multiple stories or senses of place, can influence the outcomes of PBE (McInerney et al., 2010; Nespor, 2008; Ruitenberg, 2005). Because ?coming to know a place, therefore, means learning the diverse and competing stories told about it? (Greenwood, 2012, p. 98), in order for PBE to meet its potential, scholars and practitioners of PBE must be attuned to what meaning(s) of place are being enacted by students, research participants, community 42 members, and themselves (Dentzau, 2014; Nespor, 2008; van Ejick, 2010). The theoretical and conceptual literature suggests that teachers who embrace multiple, conflicting perspectives on and stories of a place create room for a range of students to engage with the curriculum and illuminate places? complicated histories and how places embody issues of race, class, gender, and power. However, if teachers only view place as a physical location, or only make room for some interpretations of sense of place, PBE is less likely to engage all students in the curriculum and achieve its social and ecological goals and could potentially reinforce systems of oppression and settler colonialism. Indigenous scholars add an important voice to the story of PBE when they remind us that all land was and is Indigenous. The literature argues that a failure to recognize this history or listen to the voices of Indigenous people will also work against PBE?s ability to meet its social and ecological goals. However, almost none of the studies or reports reviewed for this paper address teachers? understandings of place, which is particularly problematic given that so many of the examples of PBE were developed and/or implemented by the author of the paper. Additionally, the majority of the examples of PBE were designed and driven by the teacher, with minimal input from students. The lack of a strong theoretical grounding in many studies and reports limits the explanatory power of the research. The majority of studies had no explicit theoretical grounding; those that did used a range of theories with varying levels of sophistication and effectiveness. Some used theories of place and space (e.g., Waite, 2013), some used theories pulled from sociology such as sociopolitical development (Trinidad, 2011) and sociocultural theory (Leonard et al., 2016), and some relied on 43 critical theories such as spatial justice (e.g., Rubel et al., 2016a, 2016b, 2016c), transformative education (Buxton, 2010), and critical pedagogy (Schindel Dimick, 2016). Many of these theories, particularly theories of space and place (e.g., Lefebvre, 1974) and spatial justice (Soja, 2010), provide useful explanatory tools for better understanding the role of race, class, gender, etc., in shaping both places themselves and people?s experiences of places. Generally speaking, future research would benefit from stronger connections between theory, research design, and findings. Place-based education helps students develop knowledgeable and caring relationships with their places. Multiple studies and evaluative reports from all three strands of work in PBE (liberal humanist, critical pedagogy of place, and Indigenous education) found that students? relationships to their places ? both their natural environment and human communities ? changed during students? participation in PBE activities. Students knew more facts and information about their places, were able to develop and articulate what their places meant to them, and began to care about their places, and started to identify their places? possibilities and challenges. The research literature describes this changing relationship in a number of ways, calling it ?sense of place,? ?place attachment? or simply claiming that students are more ?connected? to their natural environment. Future research would benefit from clearly defining such constructs as ?sense of place? and ?place attachment,? tracking to what extent these changes are maintained over time, and exploring whether or not students are able to apply this relationship-building to other arenas of their lives. PBE may be more effective at motivating students to change their individual environmental stewardship behaviors than to engage in or initiate social change. As 44 demonstrated throughout this chapter, the claim that PBE will inspire and motivate students to take action on behalf of their natural environments and human communities is more complex in practice than the theory of change suggests. This review found five different types of action described in both the theoretical and empirical PBE literature: 1) project-based action, hands-on environmentally restorative activities that were teacher- driven and part of the PBE curriculum; 2) raising awareness, where students shared information about issues or problems in their places either by making presentations to local decision makers, community organizations, and/or members of school community or by creating an online resource such as a website or wiki page; 3) environmental stewardship, when students adopted new individual behaviors such as recycling, picking up trash, conserving water or reducing energy usage; 4) social change or collective political action, when students initiated action projects that would benefit their communities and/or natural environments; and 5) a life-long commitment by students to serving as active citizens who work on behalf of communities and the natural environment. Scholars and advocates in the theoretical and conceptual literature claim that all five types of action are potential outcomes of PBE. However, the empirical literature reviewed for this study suggests that PBE can effectively promote the first three types of action (project-based action, raising awareness, and individual environmental stewardship behaviors) but less evidence exists for the last two types of action (social change and life- long active citizenship). Studies do not capture long-term effects; the lack of longitudinal data is unsurprising due the relative youth of the field of PBE. However, several documents within this body of literature studied PBE programs that attempted to get 45 students to initiate social change and had little success. These studies and reports found that, for example, ?experiences in nature and care for one?s place will not automatically lead to greater environmental awareness? (Waite, 2013, p. 426). Even when students enjoyed their PBE projects, or attempted to raise awareness by sharing information with local decision-making officials, they did not necessarily apply these experiences or feelings of empowerment to taking social action in other areas of their lives (Plumb et al., 2003). This finding is particularly problematic because social change and collective political action may be a more effective means of creating long-term, lasting positive social and environmental changes ? an important piece of PBE?s theory of change ? than a change in individual behaviors (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Schild, 2016). A handful of studies attempted to identify some reasons for this gap between theory and practice and made recommendations for future work in PBE. Zimmerman and Wieble (2016) suggested that more explicit connections between environmental issues raised through PBE in science classrooms and the civic engagement and political action discussions within the realm of social studies classes might help spur students to action. Similarly, Schindel Dimick (2016) suggested that students don?t automatically use their critical consciousness to challenge social inequalities; instead such practice needs to be ?deliberately fostered? (p 831) within curricula. Rubel et al.?s (2016a) reflective essay on two participatory mapping modules, Cash City and Local Lotto, identified other potential barriers to students? taking social action: the failure to make race explicit in the curricula and the perpetuation of an a priori narrative about the institutions at the center of the module. Both modules reflected the authors? own perspectives on place, failed to incorporate student voice, and ?presented place as a site of oppression without giving a 46 corresponding perspective of place as a site of transformation" (Rubel, et al., 2016, p. 573). Using students to help develop PBE modules, and incorporating critical race theory with spatial analyses, are two ways the authors suggest future PBE practice and research could address these barriers. CPP was the primary ?strand? of PBE where research explicitly discussed inequality and addressed the need for change. While still insufficient for motivating students to take social action, CPP holds the most potential for meeting PBE?s broader social change goals and is another important avenue for future research. The extent to which students have a voice in the development of PBE projects and the extent to which projects explicitly teach civic engagement skills and address issues related to students? social identities may influence the critical potential of PBE. Implications for this study. This integrative review of the research literature on K-12 PBE provides a synthesis of how researchers have conceptualized and studied PBE, the forms it takes, and what we know about PBE?s ability to meet its goals. As noted in the key findings, while the research base is limited, several areas are ripe for further study and hold promise as potential lines of research. This study adds to our understanding in one such area: the potential for PBE to initiate and support young peoples? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills. Additionally, this study included elements that respond directly to several of the limitations discussed here. First, data collection and analysis attended to the role of race and social class in shaping the place-based opportunities and participants? experiences of those opportunities. As a naturalistic study, I did not play a role in designing the PBE project at the center of my case and so had no control over its implementation or personal investment, beyond this 47 dissertation, in its outcome. I highlight a population and context under studied within the field of PBE ? urban high school students from marginalized communities ? and thus shed potential insights on the ability of PBE effectively engage such populations. As the next chapter makes clear, this study is grounded in a theoretical perspective and conceptual framework drawn from PBE?s theory of change, theories of place and space, and youth sociopolitical development. This framework guided the research design, the nature of the data collected, and the evolution of data analysis. The next chapter explains the conceptual framework guiding this study, provides details related to the case selection, and outlines my methods for data collection and analysis. 48 Chapter 3: Methods This chapter summarizes the theories of place, spatial justice, and youth sociopolitical development that undergird my conceptual framework and explains the components of the framework in greater detail. It also describes my case, case context, and methods for data collection and analysis. Theoretical perspective and conceptual framework Theories of youth sociopolitical development (YSPD) draw upon developmental psychology and liberation pedagogy (e.g. Freire, 1970) to provide a framework for understanding how young people develop the knowledge and skills to be ?justice- oriented citizens? (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Such theories embrace a vision of civics education that rejects the status quo and instead empowers young people to take action to improve their communities (Watts, Griffith & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Sociopolitical development is The evolving, critical understanding of the political, economic, cultural and other systemic forces that shape society and one?s status in it, and the associated process of growth in relevant knowledge, analytical skills, and emotional faculties (Watts & Flanagan, 2007, p. 784). YSPD?s goal is that young people engage in a particular type of civic action, namely, critical or sociopolitical action, which includes work for social justice, community organizing and involvement in initiatives launched from outside conventional institutions (Diemer et al., 2017; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). YSPD theories both resist oppression and actively envision creating a just society (Watts, Williams & Jagers, 2003). This perspective offers a dynamic model of behavior change 49 that considers the role of both internal attitudes and motivations and environmental stimuli in shaping young peoples? behaviors and dispositions. Watts & Flanagan (2007) provide a theoretical model for YSPD. This model, commonly used in literature on youth activism (e.g., Kirschner, 2015) considers young people to be potential key change agents and centers young peoples? experiences and voices (e.g., Ginwright, Cammarota, & Noguera, 2005). The model includes four components: students? worldview and critical analysis of social issues, their sense of agency, the surrounding opportunity structure, and students? engagement in sociopolitical action (See Figure 2). This model hypothesizes that, once young people have a critical worldview and an understanding of social injustice, their sense of agency and the available opportunities to practice civic engagement will, in part, determine whether or not they move from being ?armchair? activists to ?real? activists engaged in critical or sociopolitical action (e.g., Diemer et al., 2017; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). Much like other conceptions of civic engagement (e.g., Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Levinson, 2010) this model posits that providing students the chance to practice their skills is a key component of developing ?justice-oriented citizens? (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Generally speaking, the conceptual framework that I used for this study expands and modifies the YSPD framework to account for the local focus of place-based education and the theoretical assumptions within PBE?s theory of change (See Figure 3). This model hypothesizes that through participation in the food justice project (FJP) enacted at my study site, students? views of their community will evolve, their sense of agency will expand, and they will have opportunities to practice civic engagement skills through the place-based experiences that the FJP provides. Taken together, these three 784 ? Journal of Community Psychology, August 2007 same functions they would provide for adult-led organizations. Their second aim was youth development: The adults often offered exercises designed to address the ?pol- itics of internal transformation? ~which includes personal socio-emotional develop- ment! as well as exercises intended to advance critical consciousness in the sociopolitical realm. Many of the adults had backgrounds in community organizing coupled with a long-standing interest in youth development. Others were more traditional youth development workers politicized by policies and initiatives in California that they saw as having an adverse effect on youth. This front-line work described by HoSang embod- ies the closer integration of PYD and community organizing that we are proposing in this article. Readers who are interested in more examples of successful youth activism are urged to consult the Youth Activism Project ~2004! where over 80 youth-led cam- paigns are documented at last count. 50 Youth Sociopolitical Development factors theoretically will influence students? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors and Social analysis is a critical element in youth organizing for social change. This section develops this and related ideas as a part of sociopolitical development ~SPD! theory. commYiotmutehnstso.c iTohpiosl iftricaaml edwevoerlko pamlseon rteicsoagnpirzoedsu cptootefnbtioatlh inlitbeerraacttioionnsa nbdetdweeveelno pstmuednetnatls? psychology. It is the evolving, critical understanding of the political, economic, cul- viewst uorfa cl,omanmduontihtyer, sseynstseem oicf afogrecnecsy,t haantds hthaep eopspoocirettuyniatnyd storuncet?surseta. tSucshionlairts, oanf dcrtihtiecal associated process of growth in relevant knowledge, analytical skills, and emotional conscifoacuuslntieesss~ stheeeoWriaztets ,a Wcoilmliapmlesmx r&elaJatigoenrss,h2ip00 b3e!.twSPeDeni sthneosem coorme apnocnilelnartsy;t foocr oelxleacmtivpele, human development than is moral development, so it ought to occupy a similar status. changFeisg uinres liinters epcotiloi ktenic Ga oafl nefdfhici,aMandela, M.L. King, Jr. and Aung San Suu Kyi all point to themoralictyy manady pporleitciecadle,l ifboelrlaotwio,n o, rs obet hceoncocumrpreanrits ownitihs cmhoarnegtehsa inn an analogy. behavior aPnYdD ,dCiffYeDr,enatn dkinyodust ohf oirngtaenrvizeintgioonffse mr hayig hinlycrperaasgem cartiitcicmalo adcetlisofno r(ey.ogu.,t hD-iaedmuletr, partnerships for social justice work. Liberation psychology can extend the challenge McWhthirattert,h Oeszeear p&p rRoaacphae,s 2p0o1s7e).t o conventional scholarly thinking on treatment roles, psychopathology prevention, and societal replication. Toward this end, we offer a fra mework for empirical research on youth activism that emphasizes liberation. As Figurseh o2w. nMiondFeilg oufr eYo1,utthh eSreocairoepofoluitriccaol mDpeovneelnotpsm: ~e1n! tW. orldview and social analysis, of Figure 1. Potential moderators in a theory of sociopolitical development. Figure 2. Elements of YSPD model and their theJoourrneatlicofaCl ormemlauntiitoynPssyhchioplosg.y (DWOaI t1t0s.1 &00 20jcop Flanag an, 2007) All of these processes are embedded in the particular school these students attend and the community in which they live. The school and community context plays an important role in shaping the processes and outcomes outlined in the framework; place itself is a research participant worthy of analysis and consideration (Tuck & McKenzie, 2015). The remainder of this section summarizes key ideas that shape my approach to understanding the school and community context, and outlines the variables of interest for each component of the conceptual framework. 51 Figure 3. Conceptual Framework. Figure 3. Conceptual framework hypothesizing how the food justice project will lead to increases in youth civic engagement. Combines concepts from Watts and Flanag an?s (2007) model of youth sociopolitical development and place-based education?s theory of action (see Sinclair, 2017a for a detailed explanation). School and community context: Theories of place and spatial justice. The findings outlined in Chapter Two suggest that how researchers and practitioners of PBE conceptualize place may be a key factor in PBE?s successful implementation, especially when working with young people from historically marginalized backgrounds. Thus, my assessment of school and community context pays close attention to how all participants, particularly students, understand and think about place. In this section, I outline the definition of place that I bring to this study and explain its relevance to the outcomes of interest (civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills). 52 A wide range of theoretical literature from multiple disciplines14 addresses and explores the idea of ?place? and the closely related concept of ?space.?15 This study draws primarily upon the work of critical and human geographers Agnew (1987), Harvey (1973), Lefebvre (1974, 1996), and Soja (2010) and uses other place scholars to flesh out their ideas. The perspective these authors provide views place as a multi-faceted construct and assumes that place is an essential underlying factor in civic engagement. Agnew (1987) argues that political behavior is inherently geographical: ?the social contexts provided by [places] are viewed as crucial in defining distinctive political identities and subsequent political activities ? from votes to strikes to street violence? (p. 6). He defines three inter-related aspects of place: locale, location, and sense of place. Locale refers to the setting in which every day social practices occur and social relationships develop. In Agnew?s (1987) framework, however, the locale exists in a concrete location ? or a specific geographical area as defined by national and global social and economic processes. While the location and locale of a place may be the same or similar for everyone, the third characteristic of place, sense of place, may differ depending on one?s social positionality. As Cresswell (2004) explains, ?Place is how we make the world meaningful and the way we experience the world. Place, at a basic level, is space invested with meaning in the context of power? (p. 12). This explanation reveals two key dimensions of 14 A few other examples include philosophy (Casey, 1996, 1997), cultural geography (Tuan, 1977), critical theory (Keith & Pile, 1993), and cultural anthropology (Feld & Basso, 1996). 15 At a cursory level, ?space? is an abstract, general realm without meaning (Casey, 1996; Cresswell, 2004; Johnson, 2012). Place, on the other hand, is concrete, particular, and has meaning (Agnew, 1987; Casey, 1996; Cresswell, 2004). However, the theoretical and conceptual literature doesn?t always clearly agree on what counts as ?place? and what counts as ?space,? or the nature of the relationship between these two concepts. For example, Lefebvre?s (1974) theory of social space closely resembles the notions of place discussed in this paper. He describes space as a social construction imbued with experience and meaning, both as a result of the daily activities that happen in a space, the symbols and forms in that space, and the meaning that inhabitants and users make of those places. 53 sense of place: first, that places are cultural products with different meanings for different people. The attachments people develop to places and the meanings they make of places may vary greatly depending on one?s cultural background and positionality; in fact every person has a unique sense of place (Cresswell, 2004; Dentzau, 2014). The meaning- making dimension also reflects an understanding of place as a cultural construct that is continually made and remade on a daily basis as we perceive and make sense of places (Casey, 1996; Cresswell, 2004; Greenwood, 2012). The second dimension of sense of place sees place as political. In this understanding places are political entities that embody and produce systems of power and can perpetuate or resist forces of oppression; place is the context in which human agency and social structure interact and influence each other. Agnew (1987) draws upon structuration theory to describe place as ?process.? This theory rejects dichotomous views of behavior as either purely an outcome of individual agency or a result of structural forces. Instead, behavior, particularly political behavior, is ?the product of agency as structured by the historically constituted social contexts in which people live their lives ? in a word, places? (p. 43). That is, place is central to the formation and maintenance of social structures. In other words, places can be sites of power struggles and resistance, and can function as a means of reproducing oppression and hegemony (Feld & Basso, 1996; Lefebvre, 1974) particularly related to race (e.g., Delaney, 2002; Sutton & Kemp, 2011), class (e.g., Harvey, 1973), gender (e.g., Massey, 1994), and across multiple intersecting lines of identity (e.g., McKittrick, 2006). As a result, where one stands within the power structure of society can greatly influence the meaning one makes of a place and whether one experiences a place as welcoming, empowering, or oppressive. This 54 understanding of place, as a multifaceted cultural construct that provides the backdrop upon which individual agency and social structures collide and political behavior manifests, provides the underlying theoretical orientation for this study. In addition to being a site for developing political behavior, place is also inherently connected to issues of social justice. Justice and injustice both have a spatial expression, or a ?consequential geography? (Soja, 2010, p. 1). Spatial and social justice, then, are also inseparable and embedded in a particular, localized set of changing social, political and economic conditions (Marcuse, 2009; Soja, 2010). Delaney (2002) argues that localized spatialities constitute and reinforce aspects of the social, particularly race and racism. Any understanding of space or spatial justice must take race seriously, because race ?in all of its complexity and ambiguity, as ideology and identity ? is what it is and does what it does precisely because of how it is given spatial expression? (p. 7). This critical spatial perspective also gives rise to a call for resistance. Lefebvre (1996) argued for a ?right to the city,? that is, the right to equitable distribution of resources, access to geographical space, and the right to ?make the city different? (Soja, 2010, p. 99) by challenging forces of homogenization, fragmentation and uneven development imposed by the state. The overall aim of the struggle for spatial rights is to reclaim the city16 and related democratic processes from the hands of those in power (Harvey, 2008; Lefebvre, 1996; Soja, 2010). Harvey (2008) argues that the struggle for spatial justice is not an individual endeavor but one that requires the ?exercise of a collective power to reshape the processes of urbanization? (p. 23). 16 Lefebvre (1996) argues that the processes of urbanization and the ?urban fabric? have influenced communities beyond the city center and blurred the boundaries between ?town and country? (p. 118). Thus, the idea of ?the right to the city? and related concepts of spatial justice extend to rural as well as urban areas. 55 Taken together, these theories argue that understanding justice (and injustice) and the potential for young people to commit to and participate in social change requires careful attention to and engagement in their places. The places in which young people operate are rife with ideology and hegemony, they reflect and remake oppressive social structures but also have the potential to serve as sites of resistance and transformation. It is within and through their places that young people have the opportunity to re-make the world. For young people understanding place is crucial for understanding relevant issues of social justice; place also shapes how their political behaviors unfold. Throughout all aspects of data collection, I attended to how students described and defined their places, the role that place plays in shaping students? civic engagement, how issues of social justice manifest through students? spatial experiences, and the role of race and social class in shaping students? experiences in their places. In the sections that follow, I describe in greater detail the components of the conceptual framework as well as what type of evidence I gathered to assess each component. Students? views of community. This component of the framework expands upon Watts and Flanagan?s (2007) construct of worldview and social analysis to better reflect the local focus of place-based education. For purposes of this study, students? views of community encompass two main variables adapted from both the YSPD and the PBE literature. The first variable is students? sense of place, as defined in the previous section, which includes place attachment, or the emotional bonds that people develop with various places (Lewicka, 2011). Students? sense of place will provide insights as to how students think about their places and the meanings they attach to those places; it may 56 generate insights as to how place-based education might build upon those meanings to engender civic engagement attitudes, behaviors and commitments. The second variable, which may overlap with and inform students? sense of place, is also one component of critical consciousness: critical social analysis. Critical social analysis is the ?recognition of social inequalities and an understanding of the unjust exercise of sociopolitical power that creates them ? learning to think critically, discerning hidden interests, learning to see how ways of thinking serve to perpetuate inequality? (Watts & Hipolito-Deglado, 2015, p. 649). Critical social analysis is often developed through group discussions that problematize recurring aspects of every day experience through an analysis of authority, power, and systems of oppression including but not limited to white supremacy, patriarchy, and social class inequality (Watts et al., 2011; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). Essentially, students? critical social analysis ? or lack thereof ? reflects the extent of their ability to identify and discuss perceived inequalities and injustices from a structural or systematic perspective. This ability may or may not be linked with their sense of place; for example, the meaning students make of their neighborhood may be tied to the injustices that they observe within that setting. Scholars theorize that critical social analysis and perceptions of social inequality may predict political efficacy and that they are a key jumping-off point for both conventional and unconventional political action (e.g., Diemer & Rapa, 2015, Watts & Flanagan, 2007). I gathered data related to students? sense of place and critical social analysis through field notes, artifacts, and interviews with students that include open-ended questions adapted from surveys designed to measure these constructs (e.g., Price et al, 2011; Syvertsen, Wray-Lake, & Metzger, 2015). For example, for sense of place I asked 57 students to describe their neighborhoods, the people in their neighborhoods, and the strengths of those places. I probed for references to growing attachment to or new perspectives on students? communities and places in interviews, observations, and fieldwork. Classroom observations, document analysis, and interviews with teachers helped to identify the range of worldviews and senses of place teachers and curricular materials emphasized and nurtured. For critical social analysis, I asked students to identify injustices and problems in their neighborhoods and communities and coded for references to structural explanations for these problems, as well as how they explained or understood food justice. See Appendix E for the complete student interview protocol. Students? sense of agency. Sense of agency encompasses one?s internal motivation towards action and the acknowledgement that people are ?agents of experiences rather than simply under-goers of experiences? (Bandura, 2001, p. 4). Building on Watts and Flanagan?s (2007) framework, I used two variables to assess sense of agency: students? experience of agency and their political efficacy. Experience of agency refers to a person?s ability to make choices and shape appropriate courses of action within a particular context (Bandura, 2001). More specifically, scholars have operationalized experience of agency as the amount of ?voice? or control a person has in a project, such as the extent to which they have meaningful responsibilities, challenging tasks, help plan the project, or made important decisions regarding implementation of the project (Watts & Gessous, 2007). Thus, I assessed students? experience of agency in the food justice project by the nature of the choices they were able to make within the FJP and the role that student ?voice? played in the implementation and day-to-day activities of the FJP; the more central student voice was 58 to the process and the more control they had, the greater their experience of agency (Watts & Gessous, 2007, p. 68). I collected data on experience of agency through curricular documents, observations, and teacher and student interviews. Generally speaking, self-efficacy refers to ?people?s beliefs in their capability to exercise some measure of control over ? environmental events? (Bandura, 2001, p 10). Political efficacy refers to a person?s belief that change is possible and that they have the ability to impact change within the political domain. Scholars theorize that political efficacy affects motivation and resilience, and that it can be the impetus for engagement (Beaumont, 2010; Flanagan et al., 2007). The boundaries that scholars place around the ?political? domain and what types of ?events? count as ?political? vary considerably. Some scholars use political efficacy to refer specifically to a person?s belief in their ability to impact formal political or governmental processes (e.g, Beaumont, 2010; Diemer & Rapa, 2015), while some use it to refer to the perceived capacity to effect community, social and political change (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2007; Watts et al., 2011), while others give an even broader definition that encompasses one?s ?growing sense of confidence or a motive to take action to improve one?s status in society? (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015, p. 649). Political efficacy can be individual or collective; collective efficacy is the belief in one?s capacity in collaboration with a group to impact shared change or address shared problems (Bandura, 2001; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Watts et al., 2011). For this study, I coded for evidence of students? individual and collective political efficacy; I adhered to an understanding of political efficacy that encompasses change in political, social, and community domains. I assessed political efficacy through student interview questions adapted from Flanagan, Syversten and 59 Stout?s (2007) civic engagement survey and Syversten, Wray-Lake & Metzger?s (2015) youth civic and character measures toolkit as well as the ?Political Efficacy? and ?Competence for civic action? survey items. Because this study is particularly interested in PBE?s ability to engender critical social action in young people, one component of students? general political efficacy that I considered was their critical motivation. Critical motivation is a person?s commitment and agency to address injustice and produce social change (Diemer et al., 2015; Diemer et al., 2017). As a component of one?s critical consciousness, critical motivation is a specific form of political efficacy that includes a ?moral concern with inequity, the motivation to address it, and the perceived ability to make a difference? (Diemer et al., 2015, p. 815). Scholars theorize that critical motivation may precede behaviors taken to produce sociopolitical change (Diemer et al., 2017). To assess critical motivation, I used the Critical Motivation scale (Diemer et al., 2015) and analyzed interview and observation data for evidence as to the types of change (e.g., change related to organizational behavior, policy, or social injustices) that students reported they were capable of making. Taken together, these two constructs ? students? experience of agency and political efficacy ? provide a picture of the extent to which students believe they can foster change and whether or not they have the opportunity to impact change across a range of domains and issue areas. These constructs also provided insights as to the role that the place-based experiences within the FJP may have played in developing those beliefs and providing those opportunities. 60 Opportunity structure. One of the unique contributions of this study is its focus on the ?opportunity structure for action? (Watts & Flanagan, 2007, p. 786) that the place- based experiences in the food justice project provide. Watts and Flanagan (2007) emphasize the importance of this component when they argue that young people?s ?potential for societal involvement is strongly influenced by the availability of meaningful and desirable opportunities for action in their community? (p 786). They go on to note that even when community-based organizations are available to students, their practices may marginalize some young people by insisting that they assimilate to the expectations of the dominant culture. I describe features of the food justice project such as the financial and personnel resources available to the project, the rules and restrictions that govern the project, students? access to decision-makers as well as their relationships with other adults through the FJP, and the boundaries and other features of the curricular place-based experiences within. I describe the nature of the opportunity structure provided by the FJP, as well as the factors that may support or constrain those opportunities, though observations, teacher and administrator interviews, and document analysis. Civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills. Scholars have argued that expectations or commitments to be civically engaged are more developmentally sensitive conceptions of social and political action among adolescents than measures of actual behavior, given the many age-based barriers to formal participation that they face (Diemer & Rapa, 2015; Watts & Flanagan, 2007). In terms of civic engagement outcomes, then, I collected data related to behaviors but focused more on young peoples? attitudes and commitments related to civic engagement. I categorize 61 students? civic engagement behaviors using categories that combine both Watts and Flanagan?s (2007) and Westheimer and Kahne?s (2004) three categories of citizenship behavior with the five types of action commonly found within PBE that I identified in Chapter Two. Combining multiple ways of defining civic action allows me to capture behaviors and commitments related to both environmental and social change. The three conceptual categories I coded for were personally responsible, participatory, and critical or sociopolitical action. Attitudes, behaviors, commitments, and skills that fall into the individual, personally responsible category include environmental stewardship, where students adopt behaviors such as recycling, picking up trash, conserving water, reducing energy usage, and aid to individuals (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Participatory citizenship includes collective engagement with community issues such as volunteering with local, state, or national organizations and political parties or organizing community efforts to care for those in need (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This category also includes any efforts made to advocate for change within students? schools or raise the public?s awareness about issues or problems by making presentations to local decision makers, community organizations, and/or school community or by creating an online resource such as a website or wiki page. People who engage in participatory citizenship tend to be aware of social issues, but do not prioritize or necessarily include a critical reflection on the root causes of such social issues (Watts, Deimer & Voight, 2011). The attitudes, behaviors, and commitments associated with participatory citizenship, therefore, can engender organizational or political change but likely will not address the underlying systemic reasons why change is necessary. 62 Critical or sociopolitical action and justice-oriented citizenship may include personally responsible or participatory attitudes, behaviors or commitments, when people act in order to address areas of injustice and affect systemic change (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Schild, 2016; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). People who engage in critical action fall into the category of ?justice-oriented citizens? (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). These citizens analyze and understand the interplay of social, economic and political forces (Westheimer, 2015). Watts and Hipolito-Delgado (2015) argue that critical action requires personal action, group action, and the mass action of social movements; individual or collective behavior at any of these three levels must reflect an explicit critical analysis of the targeted problem and its structural features, even if it doesn?t have a direct impact on those features. Critical action emphasizes collective work related to the life and issues of the community that could include both social justice activism outside of traditional institutions as well as action taken within the political system to change unjust social conditions and policies (Diemer et al., 2017, Watts & Diemer, 2011; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015; Westheimer, 2015). The key to whether action counts as critical or sociopolitical action depends on participants? degree of critical reflection and whether they view social problems in systemic terms. The combination of critical reflection and action is key, since one danger of justice-oriented citizenship is becoming an ?armchair activist? who can critically analyze social problems without ever acting to solve them (Westheimer, 2015; Wheeler- Bell, 2014). I collected data on these three action categories through observations of students? small group and community work, their final presentations, and student interviews. 63 Student interviews included questions about what they learned or gained from participation in the FJP as well as questions, adapted from civic engagement surveys (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2007; Syvertsen et al., 2015), designed to capture a wide range of civic engagement behaviors, skills and dispositions. I coded students? explanations of skills learned from the FJP, as well as changes in attitudes or adoption of new behaviors, and categorized them as personally responsible, participatory, or critical action behaviors. Additionally, the ?Critical Action ? Sociopolitical Participation? survey item measured students? current levels of sociopolitical participation and the ?Expectations for political and civic engagement? survey item captured the types of civic behaviors students plan to display in the future. While positive results on these survey items cannot be directly linked to the food justice project, lack of results may reveal types of action the FJP failed to engender. Methods of data collection and analysis I took a case study approach, using ethnographic methods, within the vein of transformative research (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006), to answer my research questions. This research responds to Anyon?s (2006) call to understand how schools can function as ?movement-building spaces? (p. 24) and seeks to discover new possibilities for what could and should be accomplished in schools. I subscribe to Yin?s (2014) definition of a case study as an ?empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-world context? (p. 16). Yin (2014) argues that the case study method is appropriate for answering ?how? and ?why? questions; both types of questions are central to this study. Qualitative indicators are particularly appropriate for research examining critical consciousness because qualitative research can illuminate the 64 processes by which critical consciousness develops and help us understand how critical consciousness manifests in some domains of young people?s lives but not others (Diemer et al., 2015). Case study research is also appropriate because my research questions require a study that includes multiple sources of evidence, consists of events outside of my control, and recognizes that the context ? the natural environment and human community in which students live ? is not only relevant but central to the phenomenon of study. This section describes the case at the center of my study, explains my rationale for choosing this case, and outlines my methods for data collection and analysis. Case and case context.17 The case at the center of this study is a strategic ?information-rich? (Yin, 2014, p. 61) case because it involves a theoretically favorable set of conditions under which one would expect place-based education to be an effective tool for cultivating students? societal involvement behaviors and commitments. This section describes the details and parameters of the case as well as the school and local context surrounding the case. Throughout, I draw on the PBE definition and theory of change to illustrate my rationale for why this case warrants the ?information-rich? designation. The food justice project (FJP). This study focused on the 11th grade food justice project (FJP), a semester-long experiential, interdisciplinary project. According to GPCS?s website, during the food justice project all 11th grade students ?investigate issues of food justice? in their city and learn more about these issues through field-based research, reading books and articles, and data analysis. The project culminates in a city- wide conference during which students host food justice workshops and present their 17 This description is drawn in part on data collected during the dissertation study. 65 research. The general goal of the project was to ?hone [students?] ability to research, synthesize and apply information from a variety of sources and perspectives? and ?demonstrate their ability to advocate for change.? The ?case? includes all teachers, administrators, community members and students who participated in the project; the case is bounded in time by the beginning of the food justice project in late January 2018 and the food justice celebration that occurred in early May after the final conference. The case is theoretically favorable in part because the project under study reflected all four elements of the literature-based definition of PBE described in Chapter Two. The topics for students? food justice projects were all locally based, either at the school itself or in the community. The project was hands-on and experiential in that it required students to spend time at a fieldwork site relevant to their topic; during fieldwork students interviewed relevant stakeholders and observed how their topic played out in a real-world setting. Additionally, the project was heavily interdisciplinary. While the bulk of the project happened in Environmental Science and English classes, the Algebra II and US History teachers also tied segments of their curriculum to the project. Finally, the whole purpose of the project was to have students identify and solve local problems under the umbrella of food justice. This case?s broad focus on food justice18 shares many common elements with critical pedagogy of place (CPP) and is theoretically well-suited for studying sociopolitical development (Trinidad, 2012). Generally speaking, food justice is an apt manifestation of CPP because food justice tends to emphasize both the natural and social aspects of place (Crosley, 2013). Scholars and advocates of food justice claim that it is 18 Gottleib and Joshi (2010) define food justice as activism that ?seeks to ensure that the benefits and risks of where, what and how food is grown, produced, transported, distributed, accessed and eaten are shared fairly? (p. 6). 66 firmly rooted in explorations of place and operates at local levels (Crosley, 2013); it taps into local knowledge and is a manifestation of critical pedagogy of place that draws connections between the local and the global and addresses institutional racism and racialized geography (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009; Trinidad, 2012). As Alkon and Norgaard (2009) claim, the food justice movement is about ?bringing social justice back into sustainability? (p. 300). Given the topical focus of food justice and the experiential, interdisciplinary nature of the project, the FJP appears to be a ripe setting for investigating my research questions. As I describe in the next section, the school?s mission, the teacher and student culture, and the local context all seem to support the project?s goals, so the site may be a favorable environment in which the FJP might flourish. GCPS and Barryville. Tucked away in the northern section of Barryville, a large mid-Atlantic City, right on the border between a quiet residential neighborhood of single- family homes and a strip of commercial properties, lies Greenfield Public Charter School (GPCS).19 Upon walking through the spacious lobby that forms the entranceway of the bright, open brick school building that houses students from PreK-3 through twelfth grade, visitors are greeted by smiling front desk staff members. Walking up several flights of stairs, one senses the passing of time as the voices reverberating through the hallways flow from the high-pitched sweetness of elementary school to the ramped-up energy of early adolescence to the settled-in, nearly adult tones of high school students. On the third floor, which houses the high school, the hallways that rise up from the blue and yellow checkered floors are adorned with college materials, a map of the world with 19 All names and identifying information, including the name of the school and city, have been changed to protect participants. 67 flags indicating students? countries of origin, and hand-written posters from a recent young men?s retreat featuring students? reflections on the role of racism and stereotypes in their lives. Spacious and inviting classrooms, bordered on one side by windows, are adorned with student work and sunlight. GPCS, the school at the center of this study, is an urban public charter school. It has been in operation for seventeen years, and in that time has received local and national recognition for its curriculum and programs. Test scores qualify this school as amongst the highest performing charter schools in the city, and parent surveys indicate a high level of satisfaction. The high school enrolls approximately 330 students from mostly historically underserved and marginalized backgrounds. 77 students were in 11th grade at the time of the study. Students are of many different races (3.6% Asian, 38.7% black non- Hispanic, 55% Hispanic/Latinx, 0.6% Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, 0.9% White non-Hispanic, 1.2% multi racial), approximately 12 percent are English Language Learners, and about 19% receive special education. Approximately 86% of the student body is ?economically disadvantaged,? and 45% are from an ?at-risk? population, however, the school?s website doesn?t define these terms. These statistics suggest that students at GPCS may be lacking opportunities to practice civic engagement (e.g., Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Littenberg-Tobias & Cohen, 2010; Sherrod, Torney-Purta & Flanagan, 2010) and may be particularly receptive to engaging in issues related to social justice and oppression (e.g. Watts, Griffith & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Barryville is a geographically small city with a fairly large metro area that has undergone waves of growth and transformation since its founding. While still segregated by race and class, the young, wealthy, educated, and white share of the city?s population 68 has increased over the last twenty years. Along with these population shifts, the wide availability of jobs in both the governmental and private sector, public and private investments and improvements to local amenities, have contributed to rapid gentrification of many areas of the city. Gentrification began in the city center and gradually spread outward; the neighborhood where GPCS is located sits on the outskirts of the outward spread. The public schooling options for Barryville residents are split almost evenly between the Barryville Public Schools and approximately 120 charter schools. Residents of Barryville have easy access to many cultural and historical institutions, green spaces and parks, and opportunities for national civic engagement due to the close proximity of the city to seats of governmental power. School mission and vision. Generally speaking, GPCS seems to be a high- functioning school whose educational philosophy parallels the key themes of this study?s phenomena of interest (PBE). The school?s mission includes a commitment to graduating students ?who are self-directed, intellectually engaged and possess a commitment to personal and civic responsibility.? This mission, along with the school?s professed community values of ?compassion, contribution, courage, integrity, self-discipline? seemed to be reflected in teachers? and students? descriptions of their school. Interviews with staff and observations of teacher-student interactions suggest that teachers and curriculum at GPCS empower students, educate the whole child, and develop well- rounded citizens in a relationship-driven, social justice-focused culture. Nearly every teacher and administrator described themselves as ?child-centered? or focused on the ?whole person,? several also described the school?s ?family-like? atmosphere. Amelia (a former English teacher) mentioned in her interview that the school values the social 69 curriculum almost as much as the academic curriculum, and Heather (the Algebra II teacher) described the ?core? of her teaching philosophy as ?remembering that I?m teaching the whole student, not just the math part.? Similarly, Aja (the US History teacher) reflected that GPCS provides ?a stable space where you can have a long-term relationship with young people [in which] you can create a container for them to really know themselves and what?s going on around them.? Tanya (the principal) described GPCS as ?a school with a social justice mindset.? Jessica (the instructional coach) said that school faculty and staff pride themselves on both ?talking the talk and walking the walk? of social justice; nearly every teacher mentioned educating ?actively engaged citizens? as one of their goals. As one teacher summarized, the school aims to ?arm students with as much knowledge and skills and the ?affinity to want to make change.? Student and teacher culture. During my classroom observations, teachers often responded to students who seemed to be off-task by encouraging them to ?take a moment,? or drawing them back into the work at hand. For example, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher), guided students in one situation by saying ?if this is not a productive space for you, I encourage you to go in the hallway.? For the most part, students also reported feeling supported socially and emotionally at the school while also being challenged academically; one aspect of GPCS that many students valued was the lack of uniforms and the trust that teachers placed in them. Students also appreciated the racial diversity and sense of community that they found at GPCS. Three students? descriptions of GPCS reflect these themes: Even though there?s a variety of races, there?s still, I feel like people tend to be more united and more kind at this school. (Isabel) 70 [GPCS] teaches you a lot of things and makes you improve on a lot of things that you struggle with. (Stephanie) I always wanted to go to a diverse school, so I always wanted like that group of friends that had like a little bit of everything, because most of my life I?ve always gone to schools that were like predominately black people. (Reina) Teachers report that they have ?lots of freedom? and ?autonomy in terms of curriculum creation? that allows them to follow their ?passion? and be ?creative.? Similarly, Aja (the US History teacher) described the school as a ?a work environment where people put a lot of thought and energy into building really beautiful curriculums.? However, some teachers found this freedom to be a ?double edged sword? that could be ?overwhelming and scary.? Teachers also reported that administrators provided teachers with a lot of support within this freedom. For example, Heather (the Algebra II teacher) described feeling ?valued as a human being beyond being just a teacher? and Amelia (a former English teacher) saw ?a support web around every teacher and every kid, and it?s a place where everybody thrives.? Others described school leadership as ?phenomenal,? ?super invested in students ? and their teachers;? teachers added that administrators ?put [their values] into practice on a daily basis.? Curricular goals. GPCS is a member of a nation-wide network of schools whose model reflects the tenets of PBE. These tenets include connecting students? learning to real-world issues through project-based learning expeditions, case studies, fieldwork, and service learning. Teachers and administrators described several focal points of the curriculum that reflect and expand upon these tenets. First, they emphasized the importance of ?learning by doing? and ?students [seeing] connections between what they?re doing in the classroom and the world outside the classroom.? Teachers also 71 placed an emphasis on student voice within the curriculum. Tanya (the principal) described GPCS as ?a school that actually listens to children,? and nearly every teacher I observed demonstrated that they valued students? voices and opinions through their teaching practice and how they responded to classroom behaviors. For example, teachers would address talking out of hand with comments such as ?I want to make sure you can hear what [student] is saying? or by encouraging students to ?pay attention to the equity of voice.? Other emphases included a focus on building students? presentation skills and ensuring students produce high quality work that is ?authentic, well-crafted, and complex? and ?goes beyond the walls of the classroom? in terms of its content focus and potential impact. By far the most common theme in teachers? and administrators? descriptions of what they hope students learn while at GPCS was critical thinking, self-reflection and ?how to advocate for themselves and others.? Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) noted that her most valued teaching goal was for students leave her class able to ?have an impact on the world around them.? Along similar lines, other teachers aimed to build students? empathy, ability to have ?courageous conversations,? ?look at the world critically,? understand their impact on others, and willingness to ?speak out against something that is happening that is wrong.? Heather (the Algebra II teacher) hoped that her students would not only be able to identify issues of inequality, but actually ?make strides to do something about it.? Jessica (the instructional coach) explained further how she hoped the curriculum would also help students be able to back up their social justice beliefs with argumentation and evidence. In her words: ?one of the reasons that I love being here and one of things that I think is important in high school is 72 ? standing up for what you believe in not just because you think it?s right but because there is something behind that, to prove or support your stance.? Given the mission, vision, culture and curricular priorities of GPCS, as well as its local context, this school may be a favorable site in which to study PBE?s ability to nurture young people?s civic engagement. Data collection methods. As a case study using ethnographic methods, data collection revolved primarily around fieldwork, ?a form of inquiry in which one is immersed personally in the ongoing social activities of ? a group? (Wolcott, 2005, p 58). Fieldwork techniques included structured direct observation of events, observation and recording of the physical environment, casual and informal conversations with informants, and semi-structured interviews (Wolcott, 2005). My ?case? included all 11th grade students participating in the food justice project (FJP), four 11th grade teachers and two administrators involved in the FJP, one former teacher currently on sabbatical who was vital to the founding and development of the FJP, and one representative from each of four community-based organizations who partnered with GCPS during the FJP. The bulk of data collection began with the project kick-off in late January 2018 and concluded following the final community presentations and subsequent reflective activities in early May 201820. During that time, I immersed myself, as a participant observer, in the life of these students and teachers as they completed their food justice work. In order to ensure construct validity and allow for triangulation of data (Yin, 2014), I collected a wide range of evidence21 from multiple sources including formal classroom observations, observations of community-based activities, interviews with 20 I conducted follow-up interviews with teachers and administrators, as well as interviews with representatives from community-based organizations, between mid-May and August of 2018. 21 This project received full IRB approval on January 29th, 2018. 73 students, teachers, and administrators, and documents such as lesson plans and related materials, curriculum maps, and student work artifacts. Student work included in-class worksheets, written final products, workshops presented during the final FJP conference, and data from a reflective survey that students completed during English class following the completion of the FJP. Data collection was carried in two overlapping phases: First, I collected background information on GPCS and the FJP through observations and teacher interviews; second, I identified a subset of focal students and conducted focused observations and interviews with those students. These two phases strengthened my study?s ?trustworthiness? by ensuring that my research process embodied both prolonged engagement, when a researcher spends sufficient time at their research site, and persistent observations, where a researcher narrows in on elements most relevant to the study (Glesne, 2016). I describe both phases of data collection, explain how they tied to my research questions and conceptual framework, and outline my data analysis methods. Phase one: Background information. During this phase, I immersed myself in the life of the school. Starting in late January, I was present 3-4 days a week, spending around 7-10 hours total each week as a participant observer. I sat in on relevant classes and activities, such as 11th grade team meetings and the FJP kick-off event. Fieldwork focused on gathering general information about the school and community context and the types of place-based opportunities provided to students through the FJP. I took field notes on all formal observations, informal conversations and interactions in the hallways, and the physical environment of the school itself. During this phase, I obtained written informed consent from all 11th grade teachers, administrators, and four 11th grade students (including written parental consent 74 for all students under the age of 18) who were willing to participate. After obtaining consent, I conducted formal, semi-structured initial interviews22 with key administrators (the principal and the instructional coach) and all 11th grade teachers. I also interviewed a former teacher who was one of the founders of the FJP. These interviews focused primarily on gathering background information about the school and community context, the history of the FJP, teachers? understandings of PBE, and the nature of the place-based opportunities that the FJP provided. See Appendix B and C for administrator and teacher interview protocols. Phase two: Focused observations and interviews. Because the definition of PBE that frames this study emphasizes using local places as a starting point for teaching and learning, for the second phase of my study I recruited seventeen students whose chosen FJP projects were most clearly rooted in their local community. These students? projects were carried out in conjunction with a community partner and involved community-based fieldwork, which I describe further in Chapter Four. I focused my phase-two observations on these students? classes, small group work sessions, and community-based activities in order to capture, in real time, the types of place-based opportunities provided to students as well as students? immediate responses to these experiences. I recorded observations through field notes or audio recording where appropriate. I also attended activities, meetings, and events related to the FJP. In total, over both phases of data collection, I spent over 80 hours conducting fieldwork in the school, and four hours accompanying students on fieldwork in the community. I also spent approximately 25 hours at the 22 Throughout both phases of data collection, I embraced two types of interviewing ? conversational interviewing (e.g., impromptu conversations in the hallway) and formal, semi-structured, open-ended interviews (Wolcott, 2005). Formal interviews were audio recorded and transcribed; conversational interviews were captured by field notes. 75 school conducting interviews and focus groups with students, teachers, and administrators. See Table 2 for a summary of all observation data. Table 2. Observation Data Category Description Quantity Length Academic classes Formal observations of class 34 total 1 ? 1.5 hours meetings related to the food justice project. Environmental Science 19 English III 10 US History 2 Algebra II 3 Food justice-related Observations of various activities 6 30 minutes ? activities including the kick-off event, the 4.5 hours final summit, presentations to stakeholders, and post-summit celebrations. Fieldwork Observations of student fieldwork 2 2 hours in the community Mentor support Informal meetings with students to 9 30 minutes ? 1 check-in about progress on their hour projects. Independent student Informal observations of students 3 5 hours ? 6.5 work time working on their projects in small hours groups. Most sessions occurred during one of three ?work days? teachers dedicated to the project. *I took detailed field notes of and/or audio recorded all observations, with the exception of independent student work time and mentor support, which I documented via general field notes immediately following the activity. I did not attend but do have complete audio recordings for four of the Environmental Science class meetings included in this table. After the final food justice conference, I conducted semi-structured interviews with these 17 students to gather data about their place-based experiences during the FJP, what they learned from these experiences, their sense of agency, views of community, and their civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills. In order to 76 capture more fully the nature of the place-based opportunities provided by the FJP, and to gain a broader perspective on students? responses to these opportunities, I conducted three focus groups with a total of 10 other students. For these focus groups, I randomly sampled students from the other food justice groups in order to ensure proportional representation from different types of projects. I also balanced the race and gender makeup of my student participants (27 students in individual interviews and focus groups) so the set of participants broadly reflected the race and gender makeup of the 11th grade class. My group of student study participants included five students who self- identified as biracial, 11 as Black or African American, two as Asian, one as white, and eight as Hispanic or Latino. Eight identified as male, and 19 identified as female.23 I did not collect data about students? social class background and immigration status, but I gleaned some information about these identity markers through fieldwork, interviews, and focus groups. See Appendix E for all student interview and focus group protocols. Finally, I conducted formal, semi-structured final interviews (approximately 30 minutes to an hour and a half) with all 11th grade teachers, and one administrator, in order to gather their perceptions of the factors that supported or constrained the implementation of the FJP,24 goals for the future of the project, and observations of student growth and learning. See Table 3 for a summary of all interview and focus group study participants and Table 4 for a summary of all interview data collected. 23 Ultimately, girls, biracial and Black/African American students appear to be over represented in my group of study participants. However, school-level data doesn?t offer racial breakdowns by grade or gender breakdowns at any level; additionally, the extent to which students? self-identified racial labels matched how they?re labeled within the school-level data is an open question. 24 During data collection, I observed that partnerships with community-based organizations played an important role in the FJP and that these partnerships presented a particular set of challenges and potential benefits to students and teachers alike. Thus, I added an additional phase of data collection and conducted interviews with a representative from each of four community-based organizations that partnered with the FJP. I conducted these interviews during June, July and August 2018, they were audio recorded and transcribed. See Appendix D for a copy of the CBO Representative Interview protocol. 77 Table 3. Study Participants Category Name* Race^ Gender Identity Administrators Principal Tanya African American Female Instructional coach Jessica Multiracial Female Teachers English (retired) Amelia White Female Environmental Sc. Danielle White Female English Lizzie White Female Algebra II Heather White Female US History Aja South Asian They/them Students Alphonso+ Biracial ? Sephardic and Taino Male Amy# Black American Female Clarisa African American Female Coco# Vietnamese American Female Cyril+ Hispanic/Latino Male Eddie Biracial ? White and Vietnamese Male Emma# Asian Female Eve+ African American Female Francisco+ Hispanic/Latino Male Isabel# Hispanic ? Salvadorian Female Jane# African American/Black Female Laura+ Latina ? Dominican and Ecuadorian Female Leona# African American Female Lilac# African American Female Luna# Latina ? Dominican Female Mallory# African American/Black Female Mari+ Latina ? Salvadorian Female Matteo# Hispanic Male Michelle# Black Female Natalia# Black ? Ethiopian Female Nathan+ White Male Pablo+ Biracial ? African American and Cuban Male Reina# Black ? Haitian Female Serenity# Biracial ? American Indian and Black Female Seth+ Biracial ? Black and White Male Stephanie# Hispanic Female Tallulah# Black Female Community partner representatives Chris White Male Susan White Female Philip Multiracial Male Nellie African American Female * All names are pseudonyms. Participants were given an opportunity to choose their own. ^ Generally, I list terms that participants themselves used when asked to describe their racial identity. # Students who participated in individual interviews. + Students who participated in focus groups. 78 Table 4. Interview Data Data Description No. of No. of Participants Interviews Avg Length Student interviews Semi-structured interviews 17 17 41 minutes designed to capture students? experiences of and reactions to PBE, perspective on community, and civic engagement attitudes, behaviors and commitments. Student focus Semi-structured discussions 10 3 focus 48 minutes groups designed to capture groups students? experiences of and reactions to PBE. Teacher interviews Semi-structured interviews 5 8 45 minutes designed to capture program philosophy, characteristics, goals and implementation. Administrator Semi-structured interviews 2 3 42 minutes interviews designed to capture the school?s mission and philosophy, and what role the project plays in the broader school curriculum. CBO Semi-structured interviews 4 4 34 minutes representative designed to capture history, interviews goals, and assessment of partnership with GCPS. Throughout both phases of data collection, I collected documents and artifacts (Glesne, 2016). Documents included curricular maps, calendars, planning documents, lesson plans, and in-class handouts related to the FJP. These documents provided a perspective on how teachers conceptualized the FJP, how they enacted PBE in their curriculum, and their understandings of PBE. I collected two types of student work artifacts: First, I collected in-class worksheets, homework assignments, audio recordings 79 of final FJP presentations, and copies of students? final FJP products (proposals and executive summaries). Second, I collected online reflections and surveys that students completed about their FJP experience and civic engagement behaviors during English class. At their request, I helped teachers design these surveys and included several sets of survey items that might generate useful data for both their teaching practice and my research.25 Both sets of artifacts provided evidence about how students understood and conceptualized PBE, how they reacted to their PBE experiences, how students? viewed their community, their sense of agency, and civic engagement. See Table 5 for a summary of all documents and artifacts. Table 5. Other Data Sources Category Description Quantity Artifacts Open-ended responses and Likert-scale survey 51 data from in-class student reflections, includes measures of civic engagement behaviors, critical consciousness, and collective efficacy. Student work including in-class worksheets, >100 homework assignments, final presentations, and final products. Documents Lesson plans, curriculum maps, teaching ~20 materials (project descriptions and rubrics). Researcher reflexivity and positionality. As a white, middle-upper class woman doing qualitative research with predominately low-income young men and women of color, I tried to approach all aspects of my research process ? from designing the research 25 Survey measures include five sets of Likert-scale responses items. The first three sets measure competence for civic action (Flanagan et al., 2007), political efficacy (adapted from Flanagan et al., 2007), and expectations for future engagement (adapted from Flanagan et al., 2007), all of which were developed and tested on high school students. The last two sets measure critical action - sociopolitical participation (Diemer et al., 2017) and critical motivation scale (Diemer et al., 2015), both of these were developed and tested with African American and Latino high school students. See Appendix B for a copy of the reflection and survey. 80 questions, to conducting fieldwork and observations, to data analysis ? with awareness of my own positionality and how that might shape the nature of the data and the findings of my research. My aim was to ?work the hyphen,? what Fine (1994) defines as ?probing how we are in relations with the contexts we study and with our informants? (p. 72). Following this advice, I continuously interrogated the implications of my identity and worldview for the validity of my research. This interrogation is what scholars call ?uncomfortable reflexivity,? or ?an ongoing self-awareness during the research process which aids in making visible the practice and construction of knowledge within research in order to produce more accurate analyses of our research ? that seeks to know while at the same time situates this knowing as tenuous? (Pillow, 2003, p. 178, 188). I tried to negotiate the ?swamp? of reflexivity and avoid ?navel-gazing? or ?excessive self-analysis? (e.g., Glesne, 2016; Pillow, 2003) by focusing my critical self- reflection on my interactions with research participants in order to identify how race, class and gender may have impacted the research process (Finlay, 2002). Through this reflexivity, I have identified a few key moments in the research process when, I believe, my decision-making and self-reflection enhanced the validity of my research. Over the course of the study, my positionality ? or what Merriam et. al. (2001) describe as ?where one stands in relation to the other? ? shifted from complete outsider to a partial insider. During the early phases, faculty seemed wary of my presence and were understandably concerned that I would take too much of their limited planning or free time. In early February, the 11th grade team briefly lost two key members to illness so Danielle, the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher, asked me to mentor two student groups. I immediately said yes. To be fair, these were groups I wanted to follow 81 more closely for my research anyway, but taking on the role of ?mentor? left me more involved with the FJP than I had anticipated. My willingness to jump in and help out was both the right thing to do and ultimately fostered more proximate and likely more trustworthy relationships with both students and teachers. At other times throughout the course of the project I helped struggling groups and gave feedback on students? practice presentations. Several teachers and administrators thanked me explicitly for this assistance during our follow-up interviews. Aja (the US History teacher), for example, said ?I really appreciated you stepping in when we were like ?Help, we?re drowning?.?26 Glesne (2016) calls these kinds of decisions a researcher makes ?commitment acts? (p. 140). Commitment acts are those activities wherein a researcher offers time or energy to the community they are researching; these acts can foster trust between a researcher and his or her participants. Through these acts, researchers and participants get to know each other; researchers can give back to the community and demonstrate they value interactions with participants (Glesne, 2016). As a researcher becomes more of a participant than an observer, however, they must navigate the tension between ?the eye of the uninvolved outsider? and the greater opportunity to learn that comes with deeper participation (Glesne, 2016, p. 66). Ultimately, this tension was worth navigating. After I became more involved with the FJP, I was a partial insider with administrators and teachers, with whom I shared 26 I also wondered whether or not teachers might feel some obligation to me as a result of the unexpected supports I provide. I wrote in my field notes: Teachers have said many times how grateful that I?ve been here this semester and how they don?t know what they would have done without me. ... I wonder how it impacts the research itself and how it will impact our final interviews, if they are eager to tell me what I want to hear in order to ?repay? me for my help with the project. I don?t think that my concerns held water, as the picture teachers painted for me in the follow-up interviews was neither rosy nor perfect; they seemed to articulate critiques, concerns, and shortcomings of the project readily and easily. 82 some identity markers and a similar role as adults invested in the outcome of the project. While I was never fully an insider with students, due in part to my race and class differences, I had moments of being an insider and an outsider, such as when students thanked me in their celebration video or referenced that my support had helped them in their final reflective survey. While discussing with some students that I might interview them, I explained the process and confidentiality and Michelle, a student, interrupted me to say, ?We trust you.? The extent to which other students felt the same way is an open question, however I suspect my willingness to do whatever was needed and consistently show up for the teachers and students helped pave the way for greater ?trustworthiness? in my relationships with participants and thus in the findings of my research. I also unearthed and confronted my own unconscious biases as I navigated race and class differences between my participants, particularly the students, and me. For example, I caught a major problem with my student interview protocol: I realized, in the middle of my first student interview, that I only included questions about problems or issues in students? neighborhoods and communities. I had failed to include questions about what students liked about their neighborhoods, the assets and strengths that these communities housed. I added these questions on the fly, but if I hadn?t, I would?ve missed out on rich, enlightening data and, more importantly sent an incredibly problematic message to my participants: that I only saw them or their neighborhoods as damaged. Research that only asks marginalized people to speak their pain is what Tuck (2009) calls ?damage-centered research? (p. 409); such an approach to research pathologizes and reinforces systems of oppression. My race and class differences emerged again when I navigated conversations about race and gentrification; as a white gentrifier who lives not 83 far from the school, I was conscious of how students might perceive me and how my identity might give students pause before talking frankly to me about race or class. In an attempt to head off these uncertainties, I proactively brought up race in our conversations and tried to name it explicitly in conversations about racism and gentrification. One excerpt from my interview with Isabel, a student who identifies as Hispanic and Salvadoran, provides an example of a move I made in many interviews in order to signal to students my awareness of race and comfort discussing it: ??[streets and storefronts look] more fancy in that place but I also noticed the people of color population has gone down. [Kristin: There?s more white people there, huh?] There?s more white people there now, so like I don?t know what?s going on.? I continued to stay connected to GPCS after my research ended. During these students senior year (the 2018-2019 school year), I mentored two students (one of whom participated in an interview) for their senior projects and attended the seniors project exhibition and their graduation. I was touched by the number of students who seemed enthusiastic to see me when I returned to the school, the hugs and squeals made me nostalgic for my field research. Similarly, I have tried to keep my affection and appreciation for these educators and students alive in this research as I keep their voices and humanity at the center of my data analysis and findings, while not letting this affection blind me to the imperfections, limitations, and challenges of the FJP. Data analysis methods. Throughout data collection, I typed up field notes as soon as possible, and continually assessed and critically reflected on my participation in the research, my observations, and the information I gathered (Wolcott, 2005). Throughout data collection and analysis I developed and critiqued analytic memos that 84 spoke to my research questions, and I used these memos to check my thinking with any key informants (teachers and/or students) that emerged through the study. As described in the data collection methods above, I collected multiple sources of evidence related to the same phenomenon, which allowed for triangulation of data sources that strengthened the construct validity of my case study (Yin, 2014). I analyzed all data by reading documents, listening to and transcribing the tape- recorded interviews, reviewing transcripts and observation records and developing summary notes and memos on the information contained in these data sources. For survey data, I used individual students? responses to survey items to confirm, refute, or extend their responses to related interview questions. I used InVivo software to organize and conduct multiple rounds of coding on all transcripts, field notes, documents, and artifacts. For my first-cycle coding, I used attribute coding to categorize and capture basic demographic information about all participants, including race, gender, role within the FJP, and, for students, their FJP topic and where they lived in the city. I did one round of provisional coding using codes and sub-codes derived from the research questions and my conceptual framework. Then, I did another round of first-cycle coding using in vivo coding to capture details and nuances within each category and to ensure that participants? voices remained central to my analysis (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014; Saldana, 2016). I coded data by research question, that is, I developed a list of codes and sub-codes relevant to RQ1 and coded all relevant data using both provisional and in vivo coding. Then, I repeated the pattern for 85 RQ2.27 Table 6 outlines which data sets I used to answer which research questions and Appendix G contains a list of all provisional codes used for each research question. Table 6. Research Questions and Data Sources Research question Data sources coded & analyzed RQ1: What sorts of place-based opportunities Teacher and administrator interviews were provided to students during this project? Observations & field notes Curriculum and lesson plan documents Student interviews and focus groups RQ1a: How did teachers conceptualize Teacher and administrator interviews PBE and how did they enact it? Observations & field notes Curriculum and lesson plan documents RQ1b: What factors supported or Teacher and administrator interviews constrained the implementation of PBE? CBO representative interviews Observations & field notes RQ2: What do students? responses to these Teacher and administrator interviews PBE opportunities and experiences their Observations & field notes responses suggest about how PBE effected Student interviews & focus groups students? civic engagement behaviors, skills Student work products and dispositions? Student reflections and survey responses For second-cycle coding, I used pattern coding (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2014) to re-sort my in vivo codes into clearer categories and to identify themes within and across categories. For RQ2, I also looked for any potential causes and explanations that linked students? PBE experiences to changes in their civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills and identified relationships amongst data that reflected the theory of the conceptual framework. Such processes allowed me to array 27 RQ3 require me to step back and examine my findings in light of my conceptual framework and theoretical perspective and will be explored in Chapter Six. 86 and inspect what Yin (2014) terms the ?chains of evidence? (p. 3) that supported or challenged my findings, identify and address gaps in the data, check for rival explanations, and scrutinize the underlying logic of my interpretations. Throughout data analysis, I used my conceptual framework to draw a clear link between research questions, framework, and codes to strengthen the internal validity of my study, increase the reliability of my findings, and distill analytic generalizations (Yin, 2014, p. 40). I also conducted in-person member checks with a teacher, an administrator and a few students; during these checks I shared overall themes ? both verbally and in writing ? that had come through in my analysis and asked for their assessment and feedback. 87 Chapter 4: Findings Part 1 RQ #1a: What place-based opportunities were provided to students? Over the course of the food justice project (FJP), students conducted research on topics related to food justice and presented their findings to their peers, students from other schools, and community members at a culminating youth conference. Throughout the FJP, students had three types of place-based opportunities: First, all students? research questions tackled a local problem; second, all students conducted fieldwork; and third, some students made connections to local places through phone calls and the internet. Each type of opportunity reflects most, if not all, of the components of place-based education (PBE) as defined in the conceptual framework.28 This section describes these place-based opportunities in detail and explains how they reflect the operative definition of PBE. Research questions tackle a local problem. All students? food justice projects required students to address a local problem; in this case, ?local problems? took the shape of research questions. For some groups, community-based organizations articulated these research questions; for others, research questions emerged out of students? previous environmental science projects and frustrations with their school lunch. Ultimately, FJP lead teachers Danielle and Lizzie were responsible for picking the ?menu? of topics avalable to students. See Table 7 for a summary of all group topics and interview/focus group participants from each group. 28 PBE is experiential, grounded in the local, interdisciplinary, and asks students to address a local problem. The FJP as a whole was enacted across multiple disciplines; I will discuss the interdisciplinary nature of these place-based opportunities in the next section. 88 Table 7. Summary of FJP Groups, Topics and Study Participants Group name Topic Student Participants Community-based groups Evermore Farms Significance of pasture-raised Amy, Lilac, Reina* meat and eggs for people in the city Healthy Cities Case Study Impact of wellness policy and Eddie, Luna, Matteo, ? Berwick Public Charter lunchroom environment on Stephanie, Tallulah* School students Healthy Cities Case Study Impact of wellness policy and Isabel, Natalia, ? Curtis Tufts Public lunchroom environment on Serenity* Charter School students My Friend?s Place Travel and nutrition needs of Coco, Emma, soup kitchen clients Michelle, Jane, Leona, Mallory* Healthy Cities Overview Impact of school location and Cyril, Mari, Nathan+ demographics on charter school wellness policies and lunchroom environment School-based groups Compost Options for composting GPCS Alphonso+ students? food waste Documentation Document process of FJP Seth+ Food Waste Amount of food waste produced Pablo+ at GPCS GPCS Funding Cost and potential sources of Francisco+ funding for GPCS kitchen renovation GPCS Present and Determine potential design and Clarisa, Eve, Laura+ Possible plan for kitchen renovation *Students who participated in individual interviews. +Students who participated in focus groups. Ten groups worked with one of three community partners. Tanya (the principal) describes how these partnerships came to be and the role students played: ?[Community 89 partners] sent [the school] proposals of issues that they wanted us to address. So our kids are responding to their questions and are doing ? research to back up what we are going to present.? The three community partners were Healthy Cities, a non-profit focused on advancing food justice through food education, food access, and food policy; Evermore Farms, a farm located about 20 miles from the school focused on regenerative pasture management and community engagement, and My Friend?s Place, an organization based out of a nearby church that provides free meals on weekends. Each community partner, in conjunction with the FJP lead teachers, developed a research question that students attempted to answer throughout the course of the FJP. Eight groups worked with Healthy Cities; two groups did ?case studies? of a local charter school to figure out how that school?s wellness policy, choice of food vendor, and lunchroom environment impacted students at the school. Six groups gathered information about 60 different charter schools within the city and attempted to answer the question ?How do charter school students? demographics and school location impact the meal offerings, wellness policies, vendor choices and lunchroom environments at their schools?? One group of three students worked with Evermore Farms to answer the question ?What is the significance of regenerative pasture management and pasture raised meat and egg consumption for the people within the city?? Finally, one group of six students worked with My Friend?s Place to answer the question ?How should My Friend?s Place change its services based on the travel needs and weekday nutrition sources of their clients?? Students in these groups communicated with representatives from their community partner organization throughout the FJP, conducted primarily field- 90 based research to answer their question, and created an executive summary of research findings for their partner. The remaining students, about eleven groups, completed projects based on research questions generated by student-identified problems at GPCS.29 These projects stemmed from student-identified concerns about two interrelated problems: the poor taste and appearance of school lunches and the large amount of food waste produced at GPCS. Four groups of students tackled the ?present and possible? of the school kitchen and lunch program by answering the questions ?What is the current status of the GPCS kitchen space? What are best practices from local school kitchens that could be implemented at GPCS?? One group researched how much it would cost to remodel the GPCS kitchen and what funding sources GPCS could tap to cover the costs. Two groups looked into how much food waste was created at GPCS and two other groups researched how GPCS could affordably and sustainably dispose of their compostable food waste. The ultimate goal of all these students? school-based research projects was to develop a proposal that included suggestions for alterations to GPCS?s lunchroom, kitchen and food-related practices and policies. Students presented these proposals both at the final conference and directly to key GPCS administrators, such as the head of school and director of operations. Students from these groups collected data through fieldwork at GPCS and other local schools. Fieldwork. Generally speaking, fieldwork is ?a big part of what we do at [GPCS].? However, as Jessica (the instructional coach) explained, more fieldwork happens during the FJP than during other projects, and is carried out in a short time frame 29 One exception was a group whose job was ?to document the process of creating and implementing the [FJP].? This group?s work was place-based in that it occurred at the school, but the project did not respond to a particular problem or research question. 91 (between late January and late March).30 During this two-month time span, students did fieldwork in the community or at their school to collect data that would help them answer their research questions. Community-based fieldwork. Students? community-based fieldwork brought them into schools, businesses, and a local church. Most groups did their community- based fieldwork during a FJP-specific ?fieldwork day? in late February; the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group did their community-based fieldwork over the course of four weekends in February and early March. This set of experiences was clearly place-based in that they were experiential, grounded in the local, and involved gathering data that, in theory, would help them address a local problem. Students from the Berwick Public Charter Middle School and Curtis Tufts Public Charter Academy case study groups visited their respective schools. In both cases, students from the Healthy Cities overview groups joined these groups and helped collect data. At Berwick, approximately 20 GPCS students, accompanied by a few GPCS teachers, observed lunch time in the cafeteria while 5th, 6th, and 7th graders cycled in and out of their lunch periods. Throughout their fieldwork, GPCS students took on different roles, such as handing out surveys, interviewing students, or taking notes on what they observed. GPCS students stood at the end of the lunch line and handed students brief surveys that asked questions including, as Tallulah explained, ?how they felt about the lunch, if they liked it, if they wanted to change it, and if it made them feel sick.? GPCS students mingled with and interviewed the middle school students while they ate. Luna, 30 Additionally, in the fall prior to the start of the food justice project, all 11th grade students visit Evermore Farms. The purpose of the trip, according to Amy, was to ?give everyone the sense or idea of how a farm is? and the farm?s environmentally-friendly practices such as rotational grazing and regenerative pasture management. 92 for example, sat amongst middle school students around a circular table and facilitated a conversation about their school lunch while other GPCS students took notes on these conversations. Afterwards, other students interviewed an administrator to gather background information relevant to their research question. Through this fieldwork, students collected data about Berwick students? opinions about their food and lunchroom environment; talking with the administrators also clarified how schools pick their food vendors. As Eddie explained: [An administrator] told us a lot of information about [Berwick] that we didn?t know ? there?s a lot of stuff that goes into vendor choices ? but it makes sense, what she was saying, like there was a lot of paperwork to do, and other vendor choices were like really expensive. Similarly, about 20 students observed lunch and interviewed students at Curtis Tufts in order to learn about their school lunch and lunchroom environment. As Cyril explains, ?We went there for a couple of hours and just basically [sat] there throughout the [four] lunch periods.? Isabel reported that they distributed surveys to twelfth grade students that asked ?if they had enough time to eat, if they liked their food, and like pretty much it was like how is that affecting them, and also how does that cause food waste, yeah.? Natalia explained that they also spent some time interviewing students, ?basically having them elaborate how they feel about their school lunch.? Students in the GPCS-based project groups visited multiple nearby charter schools in order to learn what other charter schools? cafeterias looked like and how school staff prepared students? lunches. The compost group, for example, visited two nearby schools that had well-established compost systems to gather ideas for composting at GPCS. According to Alphonso, they ?visited other schools and [saw] how much ? food waste they were producing [and observed] the students behavior on food.? The other 93 GPCS groups visited three charter schools, each within two miles of GPCS. At these schools, groups toured the kitchens, observed lunch to see what kind of food students were eating, and interviewed administrators and staff about ?their food vendors, and [what] they do to save money or ? their environmental-friendly factors? (Clarisa). Each group asked questions relevant to their topic, as Francisco explains: ?so [my group] asked how much did it cost to have all the equipment ? they were kind of helpful when it ? came to money.? At each school, students took notes on their interviews and observations and took pictures and videos of the kitchen space and lunch room. Without this fieldwork, Laura explained, ?we wouldn?t really know much about what other charter schools do to their lunch because not every website has all that information.? These place-based fieldwork experiences provided inspiration for groups? proposals of what changes GPCS might make to its kitchen. The students from the Evermore Farms group did their fieldwork at three local grocery stores, all within two miles of GPCS. Arriving prepared with pens, clipboards, and paper, Reina asked most of the questions and Lilac kept track of the answers. At each store, they interviewed produce, meat, and dairy managers and recorded data on the types of products that each store carried. Reina described the questions they asked and specific information they gathered: We would look at what products they had and whether or not it was organic or ? conventional ? that was a lot of data, ? we [also interviewed] the food source managers and asked them? ?Do customers come up and do they ask you, like, what is conventional or like what is organic or like what?s the difference?? Two of the students in this group, Reina and Lilac, noted that their families also shopped at the grocery stores where they conducted their fieldwork. 94 The six students in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group did fieldwork outside school hours. Over the course of four weekends in February, they visited MFP for a stretch of 2-3 hours and interviewed guests, the vast majority of whom were homeless. Each student was expected to interview 10 guests over the four weeks for a group total of 60 interviews. Emma explained: ?I had to interview at least 10 homeless people with the questions I created with my group, just to get a feel of like how, what they feel about the organization and based from that information we can figure out how we can improve [MFP].? Students came prepared with questions that they hoped would help them answer their research questions. Michelle explained their interview plans to Susan, the MFP representative who worked with the GPCS students: The [questions] we asked [were], how long does it take you to get to [MFP]? ? How much does it cost you to get to [MFP], and how will you get back after you eat? And, do you have a way back? If he or she travels by car we?ll ask about the mileage; where did your food come from last week? How many days a week are you unable to feed yourself? If not how many days a week do you go without eating? And could you tell me about what you like about [MFP]? In addition to interviewing guests, the students in this group observed lunch service and talked to some of the MFP volunteers. School-based fieldwork. Students in the GPCS groups and the Evermore Farms group also did fieldwork at GPCS. Both compost and food waste groups did ?food waste audits,? a process where they spent several days collecting food waste from the 11th and 12th grade lunches, the middle school lunch, and lower school lunch. They sorted out and weighed dairy, protein, and compostable food. They compared food waste from those grades that had family-style meals with those that had pre-packaged meals. Students from the ?Present and Possible? and funding groups toured the GPCS kitchen several times 95 and interviewed both kitchen staff and the school?s nutrition program manager. The purpose of this fieldwork was to help students gather more information for potential changes to the kitchen. As Clarisa explained, her group ?went down to the kitchen and we looked at the space to figure out how we?re going to remodel.? The Evermore Farms group conducted surveys of 12th grade GPCS students to gather data about peoples? perceptions of alternative farming practices. According to Reina, questions that they asked included ?Do you know what regenerative farming is? If yes, what do you know about it? if not .. Or like if you don?t care about where your food comes from what would make you care more?? These fieldwork experiences generally occurred during the school day throughout the month of February and supplemented their community-based fieldwork. Connections to local places. Generally speaking, classroom observations indicated that some teachers at GPCS tried to connect their curriculum to the local context. For example, during a lesson on organic versus conventional foods, Danielle, the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher, referenced a large landfill familiar to many students; student work posted around her classroom included students? observations of environmental concerns in their communities. Several FJP groups made non-experiential connections to the local community when they interviewed people from local schools and community-based organizations or gathered data from local charter schools? websites. The Healthy Cities overview groups, for example, combed 60 charter school websites looking for wellness policies and lunch information and then called schools to get information not available on websites. They also gathered demographic information for schools from the district?s website. Similarly, Alphonso explained how the compost group 96 ?looked at how other schools implemented compost ? through the computer? and talked on the phone with representatives from schools other local organizations that specialize in large-scale composting. When other groups were conducting community-based fieldwork during the designated ?fieldwork day,? the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group conducted in-person and phone interviews with key MFP staff, former guests, and directors of other local organizations that focus on feeding the hungry. These interviews provided background information on MFP. As Leona explained, they interviewed the person who runs the building that houses MFP ?so we could get like how much [funding does MFP get], to see what they could do with their budget, to actually add stuff into their services.? With the exception of the Healthy Cities overview groups, the data generated by internet- and phone-based research tended to supplement the more substantial research conducted during other place-based experiences. Every year, students at GPCS participate in an ?expedition,? a major interdisciplinary project that tackles a central question.31 However, the FJP stands apart from other expeditions at GPCS in that it takes up more time in the school year, includes more field-work and place-based opportunities, and requires a more complex final product than other expeditions. Of all expeditions at GPCS, the components of the FJP most clearly embody place-based education. Specifically, community- and school-based fieldwork was experiential and grounded in local places, and students conducted this fieldwork in the service of solving a local problem. 31 GPCS? website explains that expeditions ?allow us to teach all subjects through the lens of a broader topic so students learn in the context of the community and the world in which they live.? 97 RQ1b. How did teachers conceptualize PBE and how did they enact it? This section traces the origins and development of the food justice project, explains educators? goals for the project, and describes how the project played out on a day-to-day basis. Throughout, I illustrate teachers? perspectives on how to engage students in place-based opportunities most effectively and examine how teachers talk about place-based experience and organize the FJP curriculum. Generally speaking, teachers conceptualized the place-based opportunities within the FJP as potentially transformative for students and enacted them through the 11th grade curriculum and several food justice-specific activities. Origins and development of the FJP. The food justice project began in 2014 when Amelia, then the English teacher at GPCS, decided to hold a youth-led conference as the 11th grade expedition. Amelia approached Danielle, the Environmental Science teacher, about collaborating on the expedition because Amelia?s interest in youth-led work partnered well with Danielle?s food-focused curriculum and ?passion? for food justice. These two teachers, in Amelia?s words, became ?the mothers of the [FJP]? and anchored the project for the next four years. Originally, the FJP culminated with a ?teach- in? where students set up tri-fold poster boards in the GPCS cafeteria and presented results of their research to students at GPCS and a few students from ?one of the schools up the street.? Since then, the expedition has shifted its focus in terms of the topics that students research and the nature of students? presentations; the expedition has also grown in terms of the size of the conference and the extent of community partners? involvement. In the process, the FJP has become a project that, according to Danielle, ?our admin talks 98 about being institutionalized.? Echoing this observation, Tanya (the principal), described the FJP as a ?tradition? at GPCS and a cornerstone of the school?s curriculum. ?It?s become ?more locally focused.? Originally, the curricular focus of the FJP was broad; students researched general topics related to food justice and made an academic presentation to their audience about these topics. Both Danielle and Amelia reported how the topics have become ?more locally focused? over time. Danielle explained this shift: ?Last year was a more local focus, so instead of researching organic foods in general, it was like, what?s going on with [Barryville] with organic foods, so I feel like the trajectory as been tapering to a more place-based, more local focus.? This year, according to Danielle and other teachers closely involved in the project, topics were ?definitely the most specific and relevant [to local issues].? As project topics became more locally focused, the purpose of students? final presentations changed. As Amelia explained, presentations were originally ?more a teach- in or ?teaching-what-we-learned?, and now [presentations are] much more [about] organizing? action to address local problems. Tanya (the principal) concurred. She noted how presentations shifted from ?being just informational ? to really becoming action- based in the sense of here?s what we?re dong in the community.? This shift in purpose, alongside the local focus of project topics, created space for students to explore how they might take action in their communities. Aja (the US History teacher), for example, wanted students? conference presentations to ?really [connect] with who are the stakeholders that need to hear this message and what action can I take.? Similar to last year when students researched how food justice issues ?play out in [Barryville];? this 99 year teachers expected most student groups to include recommendations for change ? either at GPCS or for their community partner ? in their final products. ?It has grown? just ten-fold.? The scope of the culminating student conference ? arguably one of the most important components of the FJP ? has grown considerably. In 2016, teachers re-branded the teach-in as a youth conference and moved it to an off- campus meeting space. Eventually, they partnered with University of Great Bay (UGB), a nearby college serving many GPCS graduates, as the location for the conference. In addition to increasing their partnerships with UGB and other community-based organizations, over the years GPCS teachers and staff members have invited more community members and students from other schools to the conference. As Danielle explained, ?[the FJP] has gotten bigger and bigger each year, so now we?re kind of fully partnered with [UGB], with them hosting and kind of co-sponsoring the event.? As the scope has increased, Amelia explained, the ?stakes just [felt] like they [kept] getting higher,? which was both ?great? and ?a little stressful? for teachers and students alike. The principal described how the conference ?has just grown, like 10 fold since [the beginning] in terms of the partnerships that we?ve made.? As the conference has grown to include more members of the community, these partnerships have in turn influenced the school?s public image and ?how people have fed into us as a school.? Additionally, the partnerships through the FJP have ?[led] to many of the [programs and activities] that we?ve been able to do, uh, as a school.? Further, this year was the first time that GPCS partnered with community-based organizations to help develop and support student projects. 100 Educators? goals for project. Classroom observations, field notes, and interviews with teachers and administrators suggested that educators? goals for the project fell into three main categories32. Teachers thought that the place-based experiences woven throughout the FJP, as well as how the experiences were enacted through the curriculum, would (a) bolster students? academic skills, (b) result in changes to students? personally responsible behaviors and attitudes (e.g., Westheimer & Khane, 2004) and (c) develop students? dispositions and skills toward critical action (e.g., Watts & Hipolito, 2015).33 Educators also had specific goals related to community partnerships; teachers? conceptualization of the purpose and nature of these partnerships played a key role in how they developed and enacted the FJP. ?Developing an argument ? and really thinking about the evidence.? As Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) explained to one of her classes, all teachers hoped that students would get ?research skills, writing skills, and presentation skills? from participation in the FJP. In many ways, the ?research process? served as an umbrella for the types of academic skills teachers hoped students would gain. For example, Danielle talked about how students would gather evidence and cite sources in response to a research question, think critically about their supporting evidence, develop an argument and then present their findings both in writing (via either an ?executive summary? of findings for community partners or a proposal for changes to 32 Tanya (the principal) expressed a goal ? not evident in other teachers? comments ? that indicated a desire for the FJP to produce institutional benefits as well as benefits to students: I would actually love food justice to lead to us having a full-on kitchen with chefs and classes for our kids to take and learn from down there. ?So like I?d love for this project to lead to that, like as a big project for the school, because then we get to impact not just the high school but then its middle and lower. 33 Educators? goals for this project reflect many of the ?potential benefits? of place-based education, with the exception of academic skills. Advocates of PBE argue that such experiences might lead to academic achievement via increased student engagement, however, they don?t always address what skills might be explicitly developed by PBE itself. 101 the GPCS cafeteria) and in a formal presentation at the final conference. The ability to analyze and synthesize data was a key research skill that teachers hoped students would gain. Heather (the Algebra II teacher) articulated, ?I?m really hoping students can synthesize data ? to find trends and then also from that to make conclusions ? and build ideas for ? possible solutions [to the problem posed by their research question].? All of these academic skills, in the minds of teachers, would ultimately help students answer their research questions and advocate for change. ?Its also about your personal choices.? Every teacher and administrator hoped that students would develop a deeper understanding of how their individual choices impact the environment and other people, or as Aja (the US History teacher) said, ?a sense of their own ability to connect to where they live? through students? day-to-day choices and actions. Similarly, Tanya (the principal) wanted students to understand ?the impact of the food that they eat and how [the food] comes to their plate.? Teachers also anticipated that students would understand how their personal choices have power but are constrained by the systems in which they operate. Speaking about her goals for the FJP, Danielle explained: I think its important for people to understand what power they have within the limited choices they are given, or like where those choices can be flexed, and where they can exercise power and agency within their own lives. Later, she expanded on this goal when she explained how she hoped the food justice project would help students ?make smart decisions as a consumer with the choices that are presented to you, but also realize that the choices that are presented to you are not under your individual control and they?re not by accident.? Similarly, Jessica (the instructional coach) gave a specific example of how students? increased awareness of the 102 implications of their choices might play out when she explained how she thought students? field trip to Evermore Farms, and exposure to environmentally-friendly methods of farming, would lead to behavior change: ?it?s also about your personal choices and connecting that to the environment and realizing like, oh if I actually just in general eat less of that ? I?ll make the environment better.? Generally speaking, educators hoped that students at the very least would become more conscientious of their relationships to food. ?They can make a change in the world.? In addition to seeking changes in students? personal behaviors and food choices, educators thought that participation in the food justice project could develop in students a set of dispositions and skills for engaging in critical social change. All educators interviewed for this study hoped that participation in the FJP would expand students? ?sense of their own agency.? Specifically, they intended that the FJP would help students understand ?the impact they could have on a particular issue,? ?a sense of their own power,? and that students would come to ?believe that they are able to effect change.? Beyond changing dispositions, educators thought that students would develop skills such as the ability to identify and question injustice and be able to leverage research and data to illuminate these injustices and advocate for social change. For example, Tanya (the principal) anticipated that the FJP would help students understand ?the root cause? of inequities across their city. Jessica?s (the instructional coach) comments summarized what others articulated when she explained how she thought the FJP would help students be able to identify injustice: ?The dream would be that the kids understand food systems as a micro to help them understand the macro around justice and equity and access for different groups of people.? The academic and 103 research skills that students gained through the FJP would then help students to be able to gather the data that illustrates these injustices and then present said data to appropriate audiences to advocate for change. Some administrators at the school hoped that students would also apply these skills ? using research and data to advocate for change ? to future settings and situations. As Jessica explained: I want them to feel that they can effect change, but I also want them to have the skills to go out and do whatever they want to do later on that might effect change, like they might be going to a small university [and be] the only kid from [GPCS] who is Black at my school, [but] I?ve learned through food justice how to research and present a proposal and [make] it concrete and tangible and use data, I can present to a committee around why we need to be more active in hiring people to go to [GPCS] and get more children of color at this university, do you know what I mean? Like I want them to be able to transfer the skills. Clearly, teachers saw the academic skills gained through the project as potential tools for civic engagement and social change later in life. ?You can ? make a difference in our city."? Educators at GPCS thought that the FJP would deepen students? beliefs in their ability to make social change and students would have an immediate impact on their city through their work for community partners. As Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) said to one of her classes, ?Hopefully you?re doing work that?s going to lead to actual like real change.? Generally speaking, teachers were enthusiastic about the potential of the community partner relationships to provide an opportunity for students to do real, ?authentic? work rooted in community need and, as a result, students would be more invested in the FJP. Educators enacted these community partner relationships through a model where students worked to answer research questions developed by the partners. Working with outside partners provided students with what Jessica called an ?authentic outside audience? for their work, which reflected GPCS?s emphasis on authentic student work. 104 This approach to the FJP was, according to Tanya (the principal) and all other teachers, ?a whole lot different? than what they had done in the past. GPCS teachers sent requests out to community partners and those partners ?sent us proposals of issues that they wanted us to address. So our kids are responding to their questions and are doing [research] ? that we are going to present [to them as] executive summaries.? The ?brainchild? of this approach, according to Lizzie, was that by working with community organizations, students would ?increase their awareness? of whatever issue they were researching, and that the research process would also show students that ?if you?re passionate about something this is how you can [make change].? Similarly, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) explained that she wanted students? ?research [to] get used and cited by these organizations ? that?s what I want is for kids? research to authentically be usable by this cause.? According to all teachers and administrators that I interviewed, one of the main reasons for having students do ?authentic? work for a community partner was to increase students? engagement and investment in the FJP by making them accountable to an outside audience. Ideally, these partnerships would help to quell some of the apprehension that students allegedly had about the workload and attractiveness of the tasks that the FJP required. Danielle described how students? apprehension led in part to the ?drastic change? of partnering with community organizations: I think some of [the pushback to the FJP] ?was just building discontent from the years before ? this year when I mentioned food justice at the beginning of the year kids were like, ?Ughhh, food justice, ughhhh, like that?s going to have to happen, ughhh.? And we were like ?Oh God, we have a big PR problem, so there has to be a drastic change for this year.? So I feel like there was a big disconnect between like teacher hype ?and then kids not being bought into what was happening. 105 Both Lizzie and Danielle were optimistic that providing a ?real-world connection? with adults outside the school who would see and use their research would help students ?buy in? to the FJP: I?m [excited] to feel like maybe kids were going to be more invested in the work if they were doing research that had more of a purpose instead of just researching to research and just talk about it. (Lizzie) I think it?s the ultimate of what education can be, is developing skills in the classroom to meet a need in the community that like, an organization doesn?t have the capacity to do. And I think kids feel that, I think they have a sense of like this is bigger than you. And that builds buy-in in a way that?s like infinitely more interesting than just regurgitation kind of stuff. (Danielle) In the early phases of the FJP, some teachers and administrators noted students were responding favorably to their work with community partners. Jessica (the instructional coach), for example, observed that she saw ?a lot more energy from some kids because they know that they do have an outside audience. And they feel like their work is important? while Tanya (the principal) noted that ?the outside accountability has been a real pro ? the kids have taken it you know just seriously.? The extent to which students maintained their initially favorable responses to community partnerships throughout the course of the FJP is explored in the next chapter. Curricular organization and timeline. Teachers enacted place-based experiences through fieldwork and community partnerships as described above, as well as through the 11th grade curriculum and coursework. The food justice project began with a kick-off event in late January 2018 and culminated with a youth conference in early April. Along the way, teachers delivered the interdisciplinary FJP curriculum primarily through Environmental Science (ES) and English courses, with some connections to US History and Algebra. This section provides an overview of the 106 curricular organization of the FJP and a brief timeline of the day-to-day activities and moments through which teachers enacted the FJP. Curricular organization. Curricular maps and planning documents indicated that the purpose of the FJP was for students to ?conduct original research to support [Barryville] food justice non-profits and/or ongoing campaigns.? Students would learn food justice content knowledge in their ES class and the research and presentation skills in their English class. Overall, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) explained, the project would sit ?80% in English class,? where students would do most of their data analysis and writing. Jessica (the instructional coach) explained that the English content was ?learning to read, write, speak, and think [through] a presentation;? the ?learning target? posted in the English classroom throughout the project read: ?I can write an accurate and influential research project.? The Environmental Science (ES) curriculum, in theory, would provide background science knowledge related to food justice and, according to Danielle, help students uncover some of the structural and systemic underpinnings of their projects such as ?the food access issues and food deserts and economic conditions that limit the choices of the most marginalized people in our community in terms of food access in terms of the ways that those people can, uh, you know access healthy sustainable food.? These two classes ? ES and English ? working in tandem, would provide the curricular backbone of the FJP. As several teachers and administrators explained, the expedition ? like all expeditions at GPCS ? was interdisciplinary in nature. Thus, even though the project was housed primarily in Environmental Science and English, the US History and Algebra II teachers (Aja and Heather, respectively) made connections between their curriculum and 107 the FJP. In Algebra II class, for example, students conducted analyses of the data they collected as part of their FJP. Their ?learning target? throughout the FJP was ?I can analyze and interpret data and regression equations in a real-world context.? Jessica, who as instructional coach and curriculum director had a big-picture view of the 11th grade curriculum, observed that teachers made some ?tenuous reaches? to US History class. Going into the 2018 FJP, the teachers on the 11th grade team anticipated that their involvement with the project ? as well as the role their courses played in the project ? would reflect previous experiences. In our initial interviews, both Aja and Heather, the US History and Algebra II teachers, respectively, envisioned that the bulk of the academic work would take place in English and Environmental Science class, and that their classes would tie to the FJP when appropriate. Aja explained the ?plan? as it stood at the beginning of the school year: When it came to actually planning the work pieces, that was left to the English and the Environmental Science classes to bring it back to us with a timeline so that we could decide where we could plug in our instruction [into the FJP], because our instruction was dependent on theirs. Generally speaking, both teachers expected to play a ?supportive? role that was ?distant? from daily tasks. However, as the semester progressed, both Heather and Aja found themselves more involved in the project than expected and ended up letting students use their class time to complete FJP work not directly related to their courses. The timeline of events and day-to-day enactment of the project illustrates the role of the 11th grade teachers, their courses, and how and why those roles changed throughout the duration of the FJP. See Figure 4 for a timeline of key events in the FJP. Timeline of events. One morning in late January, all 11th grade students gathered in the auditorium for a day-long ?kick-off? event that marked the start of the FJP. 108 Students took their seats while adults from GPCS and representatives from community partners set up tables with information about their organization and/or proposed research topic. Tanya (the principal) opened the kick-off by describing the FJP as one of the ?most treasured experiences at GPCS? through which students had an opportunity to ?research and teach others to make the community healthier.? Then, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) instructed the student groups to stop by each table and identify their top three choices for FJP topics. She told students to consider: ?What is your passion for food justice? What are you the most interested in?? She emphasized the potential of community partner projects when she announced that some projects allow students to ?make a difference in our city.? After students talked with community- and GPCS-based representatives and debated their options, they moved to another common space in the school and enjoyed a catered lunch atop brightly colored tablecloths and plates. Figure 4. Food Justice Project Timeline and Key Events. Fieldwork day th Work day #2 Final (Feb 27 ) (March 13th) conference Kick-off (March 22nd) (Jan. 31 st) Data day (March 5th) Rescheduled Work day #1 Work day #3 final (March 9 th) (March 19th). conference (April 11th) Lizzie illness Product Workshops & Background research Data analysis development presentations | | | | | | | | | | | Figure 3. Timeline of the food justice project from late January to Mid-April 2018. Items on the timeline include key events, ?work days? scheduled by teachers, and the four phases of work that students completed on the project. Student work flow Key events Jan. 28 th Feb. 4 th Feb. 11 th Feb. 18 th Feb. 25 th March 4 th March 11 th March 18 th March 25 th April 1 s t April 8 th 109 In a meeting later that day, teachers seemed satisfied with the event; several mentioned that students appeared more enthusiastic about the FJP after the kick-off. They also noted that ?this was the biggest kick-off? they?d ever had, and that the presence of community partners and other special touches such as the catered lunch resulted in, as Aja (the US History teacher) said, ?the best we?ve done at making [the FJP] seem like a big deal.? Prior to the kick-off, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) had explained to students that they would be working with ?two avenues of food justice,? both their own food choices and ?the big systems that are working to make things equitable or not equitable in terms of the access people have to food.? She introduced the three questions that would guide the food justice project: ?Where does our food come from? What environmental impacts does it have? How can we make our food more sustainable?? The answers to these questions, Danielle explained, would help fix ?our broken food system? and make it more just. She elaborated that students would engage in the four phases of research ? background research, data collection, analysis, and communication ? to begin to answer these guiding questions. These four phases unfolded over the next eleven weeks of the school year, ending with a final youth conference during which students presented their findings to an audience of their peers and community members. Background research. After students submitted their choices and teachers assigned topics to groups, students began doing internet-based background research on their topic. Danielle and Lizzie, in their roles as Environmental Science and English teachers and co-leaders of the FJP, provided students with a guiding research question for 110 their project and tasked students with developing sub-guiding questions and finding at least five sources that helped them answer these questions. The goal of this phase of the FJP, as Danielle explained in class was, ?to learn as much as possible? about their topic before embarking on fieldwork. During this phase, Heather introduced the data analysis project in Algebra II class, where students would use data they collected during fieldwork or existing data sets to practice basic statistical analysis techniques and graphing skills. Additionally, Aja tied their US History curriculum to the FJP through a two-day lesson on ?multiple perspectives.? Aja posed several questions to students to help them apply the concept of multiple perspectives to their FJP: What are the perspectives [on your topic] you might be missing? In what ways might your bias inform your own perspective and/or influence your research? Aja then asked them to make a list of stakeholders related to their food justice project, which they defined as ?people whose perspective matters and who have something to gain or lose.? Throughout this background phase of the FJP, teachers continued to emphasize the importance of students? agency and the importance of students? research for community partners. For example, Danielle?s reminder to students during one of her classes was echoed by other teachers: ?Ultimately, that?s what this expedition is all about ? using your voice to make a difference for food justice in your city.? In early February, two of the five teachers on the 11th grade teaching team became extremely ill. James (the 11th grade team?s special education co-teacher) missed the majority of the remaining school year.34 Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) 34 Because he was absent for nearly the entire FJP, and was still recovering when I was conducting teacher follow-up interviews, James declined an interview. 111 missed approximately three weeks of school and returned right before the fieldwork day. The loss of two fifths of the teaching team created what nearly every teacher called a ?crisis? and significantly intensified the remaining teachers? workload. While the administrators hired a substitute teacher to cover two of the weeks that Lizzie was gone, the lack of consistency and mixed messages from teachers about what sort of background research they were supposed to do confused and frustrated students. Despite the disruption caused by these absences, the FJP continued as planned and students conducted community- and school-based fieldwork in late February. Data analysis. After fieldwork, students immediately began entering the data they collected into spreadsheets and creating graphs to display their data. During English class, students revisited research questions and Lizzie discussed how students could use their data to answer their questions. For example, teachers dubbed one day in early March ?Data Day? during which students spent their entire English, Environmental Science, and Algebra II classes sorting and entering data into Google spreadsheets. After data entry was complete, teachers devoted additional Environmental Science and Algebra II classes to teaching students how to manage data and create graphs. For example, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) taught a lesson that covered basic Excel skills (i.e., auto-fill, data sort, etc.), how to identify independent and dependent variables, how to create data tables, and how to use data to answer their research questions.35 Heather taught an additional lesson in Algebra II class where she introduced different types of graphs and their purposes. She talked with students about which graphs were appropriate for which types of data, and how to choose the ?type of graph [to use] based 35 Danielle videotaped this lesson so that students who weren?t in Environmental Science could access the information as well. 112 on the story we want to be telling about the data.? During this class, many students were creating graphs using the data they had collected during fieldwork. For example, Andrew, a student in one of the food waste groups, began experimenting with which graph would be most effective for displaying the amounts of dairy, protein, and grain food waste that they collected in the GPCS cafeteria. Again, throughout this process, teachers continued to tie the skills students were learning back to their community partners and the overall purpose of the FJP. As Danielle reiterated to students, ?[The] work you?re doing ? is either going to a non-profit organization or its going to persuade someone at our school that they need to make a change. So make sure that you?re choosing the best pictures of your data to accurately show what you found.? Product development. Once data entry and analysis were complete, students began developing their ?products:? either an executive summary of their findings to give to community partners, or a proposal of changes to the GPCS kitchen that would be given to GPCS administrators. While Lizzie taught the skills necessary to write these documents in her English classes, students did the majority of work on their products during two ?food justice work days,? where they missed nearly all other classes and devoted the whole day to food justice. Teachers provided students with examples of what their final products might look like and guides for formatting and organization. Lizzie encouraged groups to designate roles and divvy up tasks ?so you aren?t overwhelmed with doing everything all at once;? Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) encouraged students to ?make sure your product is something that you?d be proud to turn into your community partner.? 113 Workshops and presentations. As the end of the FJP approached, teachers organized another ?food justice work day? for students to create their final workshops that they would present at the culminating conference. Teachers expected workshops to be twenty five minutes long and include an ?icebreaker? activity, a second interactive component, and a final ?exit card? that allowed students to collect feedback from their audience. Lizzie gave students a mini-lesson on creating PowerPoint presentations during English class, and Heather provided some supplemental lessons on how to incorporate graphs during Algebra II classes. Teachers graded workshops on content (how effectively they answered their research question and their use of evidence), organization (structure and focus of presentation), and communication (effective use of eye contact, appropriate speaking volume, and quality of visual components); students taking Environmental Science (ES) also were graded on how well they articulated the environmental impact of their topic. For the next two weeks, students practiced their workshop presentations and exchanged peer feedback. In ES class, Danielle reminded students that ?[you?ll] be presenting to the community partners that you ? did the research for.? The final food justice youth conference was scheduled to take place in mid-March at the University of Great Bay (UGB). Over 300 people, including community organizations and students from other local schools, were planning to attend the conference. GPCS students were expecting anywhere from 40-60 audience members for their presentations. However, Tanya, Jessica, and Danielle, along with representatives from UGB, decided to postpone the conference indefinitely due to delays caused by a snowstorm. The morning of the postponed conference, Danielle and Lizzie shared the news with students during ES and English class. 114 Danielle used her ES class time that day to cover course content that had gotten lost amidst conference preparations. Because, as she told her class, she?d ?[heard] a lot of people who still had some questions? about what food justice actually meant, Danielle had students do a ?food justice definition gallery walk.? During this activity, students had to define food justice, read over six different explanations of FJ posted around the room, and write down key ideas from each. These definitions, drawn from a variety of sources including the Multnomah and Oakland Food Policy Councils,36 the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy,37 and Lexicon of Food, emphasized the role of racism, social class oppression, and immigration in the food justice movement. For example, the definition from the website Lexicon of Food distinguished between weaker and stronger forms of food justice: Food Justice refers to a wide spectrum of efforts that address injustices within the U.S. food system. Weak forms of food justice focus on the effects of an inequitable food system, while stronger forms of food justice focus on the structural causes of those inequities ? Radical food justice focuses on redistributive, structural transformations in the food system that build political power in underserved, exploited and oppressed communities?including people of color, immigrants, women, LGBTQ people?and works to dismantle the laws, regulations, institutions and cultural norms that entrench corporate, monopoly and white, male privilege in the food system38. After they reviewed and discussed these definitions, Danielle asked students to re- articulate their definition considering what they?d learned and to explain how their project connected to their revised definition of food justice. Notably, according to the explanations provided on their worksheets, students struggled to identify connections 36 https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/42290, http://oaklandfood.org/ 37 https://www.iatp.org/ 38 https://www.lexiconoffood.com/food-action/food-justice 115 between the critical definitions of food justice provided here and their own food justice projects. The conference was eventually re-scheduled for mid-April, about three weeks later. Because of scheduling conflicts at UGB, the conference was held at GPCS. Previously, Danielle commented that she ?really wanted students to have a powerful experience at the [conference] because they [were] so motivated [throughout the FJP].? Some teachers feared the change in venue would undermine the power of the final conference and take away from its ?gravitas.? The day before the conference, Danielle praised the students for their handling of the ?chaotic? ups and downs of the FJP during a pep-rally-like ?pump-up? session. ?Hello 11th grade, good afternoon, this class is incredible,? she said, ?This is a flexible, intelligent class that?s ready for anything.? Music played in the background as all 77 11th grade students stood along the back wall, sat on tables and the floor and crammed into the seats of Danielle?s classroom. The room was full of nervous, excited energy; both Danielle and Tanya (the principal) emphasized students? hard work and the importance of their projects. As Tanya said: ?You?re the first class that has actually taken so much data ? and [you] are applying it in a way that?s actually going to have an impact for [community organizations] outside of [the school].? Danielle also informed students that they earned community service hours towards the school?s graduation requirement alongside the ?the satisfaction of a job well done.? As she explained, ?I have the delight to tell you that you?ve earned 20 community services hours [clapping and cheering from students]. It will be documented. So, congratulations, that?s because you?re working to benefit your community through this academic project.? With that, teachers and students 116 handed out student-designed FJP t-shirts and students chatted in anticipation as they headed to their next class. Final conference. On April 11th, the day of the conference, the 11th grade hallway was a whirlwind of nervous, excited energy as students gathered materials and engaged in last minute preparations for their presentations. Susan, a representative from MFP who also volunteered to help with logistics, recruited several other schools to bring their students at the last minute. The day ran much like a formal academic conference: A table adorned with blue tablecloths and brightly colored programs greeted guests as they arrived; the schedule of events included a keynote speaker in the morning followed by two sets of concurrent presentations, lunch, two additional sets of concurrent presentations, and a closing ceremony. Two students emceed the opening and closing ceremonies. The guest speakers touched upon themes that resonated with teachers? goals for the FJP. The keynote speaker, for example, spoke of her development as a leader and the importance of perseverance and taking action on behalf of causes you care about. She pressed students to consider: ?What issues do you care about? [What] things make you angry? [What] things inspire you?? During the various workshop presentations, students shared their findings and engaged their audiences in interactive activities. Students from different groups asked audience members, for example, to reflect on their own school lunch experiences, to consider the perspectives and experiences of homeless people in their city trying to get food to eat, or to think more critically about where their food comes from by posing questions such as: ?If you could change how your food is made, what would you do?? and ?Do you know what happens to food waste?? While several community 117 organizations couldn?t attend the conference due to the date change, some students? audience members included key stakeholders related to their project, such as GPCS administrators or, in one case, the representative from the food vendor who supplied lunches for GPCS. These opportunities allowed students to advocate directly to people with the power to implement any proposed changes. For example, students in one of the Healthy Cities group pushed the food vendor representative to make a public, personal commitment to improve the food. Nearly every presentation included potential solutions to the problem posed by their research question, for example, the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group explained how the data they collected could ?close the [information gap] to help find a solution for problems? that MFP faced, such as ensuring hungry people had access to food. After the final round of presentations, students gathered in the auditorium for the closing ceremony and a raffle. During their remarks, teachers emphasized students? perseverance and the importance of their work to their school and community. In the final moments, Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) said to the class: You guys have done so, so much work and its been a really, really long journey with a lot of mishaps, the 11th grade story has had quite the adventure this year ? it was real work and real change you are working towards making, we love you all and we love how hard you worked. With that, teachers sent students back to their presentation rooms to clean up and the conference was over. Stakeholder presentations. While the conference signaled the formal end of the FJP, many groups still had work to do. In the days following the conference, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) debriefed the experience with her students. She reminded them that 118 There?s two parts to [the FJP], presentation to a general audience, and then the larger point to me feels like, there?s this organization that requested your research. So there?s still communicating back to [your partner] about what you found. So that?s like the final, final piece to tie together. In late April and early May, students re-presented their work to their community partner organizations or GPCS administrators. In most cases, teachers notified students about these presentations at the last minute and asked them to do the extra work of combining and paring down multiple presentations into one. For example, students working on the Healthy Cities projects pared down their eight workshops into three short presentations of findings that they made to Philip, the Healthy Cities representative, who minimally engaged with the students and, according to Isabel, ?looked like he didn?t want to be here.? Several of the GPCS-based groups combined their workshops to make one presentation to the GPCS administrators. The administrators questioned students about the validity of their food waste data, the opportunity costs associated with paying for a new cafeteria, and the veracity of their cost estimates. Administrators seemed to value student perspectives; one told students that ?Feeding you is really important, we really want to have you in the conversation [about what happens next for the kitchen].? Finally, the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group presented its findings, recommendations, and ideas for expansion to Susan, who thanked them for their work and said that the MFP staff members were ?really happy to have you all there.? A closing celebration. On May 4th, following the last stakeholder presentations, the 11th grade team held a celebration in the auditorium, the site of the FJP kick-off only a few months prior. The documentation group played the video they made chronicling students? FJP experiences, Danielle praised the students? hard work and flexibility, and then everyone enjoyed some ice cream before heading back to class. 119 RQ1c. What factors supported or constrained the enactment of PBE? The FJP, a three-month long place-based project with multiple moving parts, required significant extra work for all teachers involved, especially the project leaders Danielle (the Environmental Science teacher) and Lizzie (the English teacher). This section describes both the supports provided by GPCS that helped buffer the impact of this workload and the sets of consistent, novel and unexpected constraints and challenges that the FJP faced throughout the project?s history and the iteration covered by this study. Supports. Several teachers mentioned that, in the five years since its inception, administrators and teachers had come to view the FJP as an essential feature of the GPCS curriculum. For example, Danielle pointed out that ?[Tanya, the principal] is a full- throated supporter of the expedition,? a statement confirmed by my interviews with Tanya and other administrators. Teachers reported that other teachers and staff at the school, from the librarian to the art teacher to the development department, support the expedition and contribute ?as they have the capacity to do so.? Generally speaking, the school culture and resources available for teachers at GPCS contributed to a favorable, supportive environment for the FJP. Administrators encouraged and maintained this supportive environment and provided specific logistical and programmatic supports to the FJP throughout implementation and in response to crisis. ?GPCS? is really this sweet spot.? Interviews and observations indicated that teacher autonomy, the lack of ?red tape,? the school?s financial resources, and the flexibility and adaptability of the 11th grade student body were features of the school culture that helped support implementation of the FJP. As earlier noted, teachers reported that at GPCS they have ?lots of freedom? and ?autonomy in terms of curriculum 120 creation? that allow them to follow their ?passion? and be ?creative.? This freedom created space for the creation of the FJP five years ago, and has continued to support its development ever since. Generally speaking, Danielle (the Environmental Science teacher) and Amelia (a former English teacher), the co-founders of the FJP, were free to shape it to reflect their interests, although occasionally, Tanya (the principal) might ?rein [teacher vision] in some times ? in terms of what?s within our school?s realm.? Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher), at least, found that the administration placing these ?parameters? around changes and expansions to the FJP to be helpful in ensuring that teachers didn?t take on more than they could handle. Danielle reported that at GPCS, teachers were largely exempt from the obstacles that might make it hard for teachers in other schools to implement a big project such as the FJP. As she explained: I feel like the fact that we are a stand-alone charter, and therefore can like make our own rules and there?s little red tape within our institution for projects like this, like there?s very few hard and fast rules in that way. Public schools, on the other hand, had ?a lot of rules in place? that might make it harder for teachers to implement a project like the FJP. The combination of teacher autonomy, lack of strict rules and regulations, and both administrators and other teachers? acknowledgement of the value of the FJP, perhaps unique to their school, made it easier for teachers to execute key parts of the FJP, such as fieldwork days and pulling students from other classes to complete work on the FJP. Additionally, the relatively small size of the high school (approximately 350 students) provided some flexibility that might not exist elsewhere. As Danielle 121 explained, ?I think GPCS is this really sweet spot of having size, and autonomy, and the nurturing pieces ? that just don?t exist within larger systems.? The school was also able to support the expedition with financial resources, in part from a $5,000 grant they had received from a partner organization. According to Jessica (the instructional coach), who managed the grant, this money was ?going towards buses, paying for [the kick-off] lunch ? so paying for logistics that were coming out of [principal?s] and my pocket.? Even before the grant, however, the school was willing to provide the financial resources necessary to make key parts of the expedition happen. As Amelia (a former English teacher) explained, ?the school?s incredibly, like, go on fieldwork, we?ll pay for fieldwork.? In general, GPCS provided the logistical, financial, and ideational (e.g., they bought into the value of the FJP) supports needed to help ensure smooth implementation of the FJP. Even amidst the disruptive events ? namely Lizzie?s (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) absence due to illness and the postponement of the final conference ? that happened throughout the course of the FJP, nearly all teachers credited the 11th grade students? ?adaptability and flexibility? as being crucial to pulling off the final conference without any major disruptions. A group of students even mentioned to me, during an informational meeting prior to the final conference, that their class was ?more motivated? than others and that they had a positive reputation within the broader school community. The FJP lead teachers concurred with students? self-assessments. Lizzie articulated the students? amenable attitudes and dispositions in an interview when she stated ?[our kids] still push through all the time and even if they were confused and even if they were lost, [they] tried and they worked together and they helped [and encouraged] 122 one another.? Danielle (the Environmental Science teacher) often praised the students directly for their willingness to roll with the punches. On the day before the re-scheduled conference, she said to her classes: This is a flexible, intelligent class that?s ready for anything. Give yourselves a round of applause. You take the changes, you take things that are unexpected and you say, ?Okay, I can deal with that, we can keep going, we?re going to make it work.? Not every class can do that, but you make it work. Later, in our final interview, Danielle shared how students? flexibility and perseverance helped buoy the FJP through the rough patches and buffer her own personal struggles with making the expedition work: These kids are amazing, like, they?re curious, and they pick things up quickly? like I can?t imagine if it was with another group of kids that were going through this, cause kids were like, ?Okay, I?m hearing this from this teacher, I?m hearing this from you, like, what should I do?? And like weren?t trying to skirt things, and were just genuinely trying to be like, we?re all in it together. And so those things that I said to them about, ?You guys are amazing, you?re persevering,? like, that?s so true. And I?m also wondering, so in terms of the toll [on me as a teacher] I feel like it was much less because the class was so good. ? Like the fact that there weren?t so many other pieces that I was having to balance with the students helped it feel more sustainable. Essentially, teachers were especially grateful for students? adaptability, flexibility, integrity, and perseverance given the unexpected challenges that this year?s FJP faced. Students? attitudes and dispositions contributed to an already favorable school culture, which, combined with ample resources and lack of bureaucratic constraints, helped support teachers do the work required to implement the many moving parts of the FJP. ?They made things happen.? Since the beginning of the FJP, administrators have provided support for the expedition in terms of logistics, moral support and responding to, according to Jessica (the instructional coach), ?what teachers need.? In the past, 123 administrators have worked directly to support student groups, reviewed research papers, and assisted with logistics on the day of the final conference. Over the years, Tanya (the principal) has provided professional development opportunities that have exposed other 11th grade teachers to relevant Environmental Science content (e.g., sustainability, local food, organic versus non-organic food) so that information ?doesn?t just sit in [Danielle?s] brain? but allows all teachers to respond to students? questions. Generally speaking, Amelia (a former English teacher) noted, from the beginning Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) and she could rely on the administrators to ?[really] problem-solve anything ? they?re just really supportive.? During this particular iteration of the FJP, Tanya and Jessica (the instructional coach) provided both planned and unexpected supports. ?Having an outside person ...was really important.? In addition to the usual slate of logistical support and professional development, administrators offered planned supports to help teachers create and maintain community partnerships and plan the final conference. Administrators tasked staff from the development office with promoting the conference and they hired a volunteer project manager to coordinate conference logistics. The project manager, Susan, helped connect GPCS with community partners, handled communication with University of Great Bay, the original site for the conference, and recruited schools to attend the conference. However, having Susan in that role ?[was] sometimes great and sometimes [seemed] like more work? in part because she wasn?t always ?philosophically aligned? with the goals of the FJP. Several teachers expressed that essentially ?what none of us anticipated ? was the fact that the person for logistical 124 support would also need managing. And so a piece of the coordination with that person [is also] challenging.? As Jessica explained, [Susan] was supposed to make things easier, but um, it seems to have actually not made things much easier, ?I think in a real world situation, like the person would know the project intimately so that they ? would know who to report back to and how to check in and how to do that work. In the end, teachers conceded that her work was crucial to pulling off an organized, well- attended final conference. Danielle pointed out that ?it was challenging to have [Susan] in that role, but ? she did a ton of work that previously either [Amelia] or I had done. That was huge.? ?Okay, lets figure this out together.? In response to personnel shortages, Tanya (the principal) and Jessica (the instructional coach) provided crucial unexpected supports that buffered the impact of an otherwise potentially debilitating disruption. When, as previously noted, two of the five 11th grade team members (Lizzie and James) became seriously ill and were on medical leave for significant amounts of time, the administration responded quickly and, as Aja (the US History teacher) explained, ?jumped in and were like, ?Okay... What do we need??? Teacher interviews and field notes all spoke to the key role that the administrators played in helping fill in the big gaps created by teachers? absence. Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) explained how Jessica and Tanya put structures into place to help support the FJP and were more hands on than in previous years: What felt like this 11th hour meeting of like, us all coming together and being like, ?Okay, these things aren?t done, this needs to happen,? and then [Jessica] like, writing a curriculum and stepping up ? it?s a huge investment of institutional support, and [Jessica and Tanya] were like, ?We?ve never had to work so hard on an expedition before.? 125 Jessica reiterated this point when she reflected that she was ?much more involved than I had been in the past in terms of lessons and structures and expectations.? Administrators maintained these logistic and moral supports even once Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) returned to work. The backlog created by her absence left teachers ?feeling a little panicked? so Jessica and Tanya continued to ?step in and help delegate, and help set aside specific chunks of time to allow the project to happen and to mediate a little bit ? in that critical, ?We?re at a loss,? overwhelmed phase I thought it was beneficial to have that support.? To illustrate, in early March, Danielle, Lizzie, Tanya and Jessica met for two hours and made a plan for the rest of the FJP. Much of the time students spent in English class while Lizzie was out went underutilized, so Tanya and Jessica carved three FJP ?work days? into the schedule for students to complete work on their products and workshops ? something that Heather (the Algebra II teacher) commented ?we?ve never done ?[for food justice] before.? Administrators also navigated scheduling, helped problem-solve logistical challenges, and created curricular materials, including rubrics, check lists, presentation guides and lesson plans, for teachers to use during those work days. Field notes from an 11th grade team meeting provide an example of the multi-pronged supports that administrators provided: At the end of the meeting, Jessica came in and answered a long list of questions that teachers had about an upcoming FJP work day. She offered to help create a rubric and a checklist for students to use and provided lots of verbal encouragement, commenting to Danielle and Lizzie that ?the kids are really focused, it?s going to be a really productive day, I think it?s going to be great.? 126 These unexpected supports went above and beyond what administrators had provided the FJP in the past. Ultimately, Aja (the US History teacher) said, the expectations of the project itself and the crises created by Lizzie and James?s illnesses required ?a lot of work between the administration and ourselves to try and keep the experience for the students good.? Danielle was impressed by the dedication the administration showed to ensuring that students were able to create and present quality workshops for the conference: [Jessica and Tanya] invested in the success of the expedition and the kids and the teachers. Like their actions all come back to that ? so each of them had like their own roles, in making things happen, which is huge. And like, those things would not have happened ... like on top of their regular administration jobs, [that they did these extra tasks] was incredible. Challenges and Constraints. Since its inception, the FJP has grappled with consistent challenges related to the project?s workload on teachers and coordination across classes. This year?s particular iteration faced both novel-but-expected obstacles related to personnel turnover, partnerships with community organizations and a constrained time line and unexpected challenges caused by teacher illness and snowstorms that resulted in a postponed final conference. The layering on of these challenges and constraints had a cumulative effect that severely strained teacher capacity to the point at which some teachers were left wondering if the extra work was worthwhile. As Aja (the US History teacher) reflected, ?the whole experience to me is a delicate balance between our capacity as educators ? and student benefit. At what point does the level of tax on our capacity justify the level of benefit?? This section will outline the consistent, novel-but-expected, and unexpected challenges faced by the FJP as well as their cumulative effect on teachers. 127 Consistent challenges. According to nearly every teacher and administrator I interviewed, the FJP has always created an ?enormous? workload for teachers39 and navigated challenges related to the high school curriculum. Generally speaking, teachers reported a lot of ?hidden work? within the FJP, such as helping students navigate working in groups. As Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) explained, ?it?s hard to communicate clearly about how much time it takes to make a project like this happen.? The lead teachers often took on ?event planning? tasks related to the final conference, and struggled to get, according to Amelia (a former English teacher), ?everybody on the 11th grade team [to] really own [the FJP].? By the end of the FJP, which always occurred right before the GPCS spring break, teachers were so burnt out that they usually failed to ensure that students followed up on the plans or action items that they had developed through their project; a pattern of behavior at GPCS noted in both teacher and student interviews. Amelia explained how fatigue from the project, combined with other demands of teaching at GPCS, was a major challenge. She contrasted a rhetorical question with reality: ?How do we get the [students] petition to the place it needs to go to? Its like, ?Yeah, I?m going to sleep through spring break, and then I need to start my fourth quarter, and probably get grades in, and a million other things.?? The additional tasks (beyond usual teacher responsibilities) required to plan the final conference and the work involved in supporting students and rallying the team all contributed to the significant work load incurred by the FJP since its inception. 39 Amelia, in fact, went on sabbatical prior to the 2017-2018 school year in part because her job at GPCS and the FJP in particular ?just consumed every waking moment of my life.? 128 The project also faced consistent curricular challenges. Danielle articulated challenge within the FJP curriculum when she commented that ?it?s [tricky] to get to the biggest stuff? amidst the nuts and bolts of students? projects. As she explained further: ?Even though we don?t always get to that addressing that fundamental kind of, societal oppression and marginalization piece, like it?s important to me that be present in the projects that kids are working on.? Additionally, the learning targets embedded in her Environmental Science curriculum didn?t always align with what food justice topics students were interested, which she thought might impact student buy-in. As she explained: I think one of the biggest challenges I?ve been thinking about ? like my learning targets are around sustainability, organic versus conventional, meat consumption, those things. And what kids really want to talk about is like food access, and the cafeteria, and hunger? so like food access is absolutely an environmental justice issue, but that wasn?t coming out in my learning targets for this semester, so the alignment of things that are hot for kids weren?t always coming up in the curriculum ?so, I think that was another sticking point for kids, ?Yeah I?m interested in food, yeah I?m interested in food justice, but I really don?t care about this piece of it.? This observation ? that students might not care about the aspects of food justice that align with her curriculum ? is echoed by students? responses to the FJP, which will be explored further in Chapter Five. Teachers and administrators found it tricky to navigate the logistics of an interdisciplinary project that involved all 11th graders, especially when they are taking other demanding classes. For example, Jessica (the instructional coach) explained how missing class time for food justice was particularly problematic for students in upper- level math and science classes: They?re going to be gone for two or three days between now and spring break, and its like but, those kids ? need to have [pre-calculus] ? I know 129 that sometimes teachers are like, ?Ughh, so great they?re learning [in the FJP], but they?re not in [pre-calculus].? Additionally, over the past several years, enrollment in Environmental Science (ES) has decreased. With this change, fewer students have access to the food justice content and background information taught in ES, and so the FJP has become less relevant for many students as well as being more logistically challenging to implement as administrators have to coordinate across more teachers when scheduling fieldwork or work days. Jessica summed up the curricular tensions that can arise when a school tries to implement PBE: In high school I feel like the challenge is like how do you make something interdisciplinary but then how do you also respect [students? preferences] ? [what if a student] had to present on a food justice assignment, but [was] really interested in becoming an electrical engineer? I think that?s an on-going constant conversation [about place]-based learning: How do you do it in an effective way that all kids still get fundamental knowledge and skills, but also have an interest? Administrators anticipated that enrollment in ES would be even lower in the future, which would likely make the FJP ?even messier? next year. Novel-but-expected challenges. During the 2018 iteration of the FJP, 11th grade teachers and administrators at GPCS faced a set of novel-but-expected challenges related to personnel changes and program expansion that amplified the consistent challenges that the project always faced. The team?s capacity was diminished and workloads intensified by the introduction of a new team member, additional logistic constraints created by partnerships with community organizations, and a shortened time frame within which to complete the FJP. ?Having a new team member ? was definitely a challenge.? The 11th grade team faced a major loss when one of the teachers who founded the FJP, Amelia (a former English teacher), went on sabbatical for the 2017-2018 school year. Danielle and Amelia 130 had always operated as ?thought partners? in their leadership of the FJP; as a result the Environmental Science and English curricula had been ?well aligned? throughout the first years of the FJP. Teacher interviews indicated that Amelia had played an integral part in the FJP, both in terms of the skills and expertise she brought to leading and managing the expedition as well as the amount of time that students spent working on FJP in her class. For example, several teachers and administrators reported that Amelia brought institutional knowledge and key skills to the project, such as organizational skills and pre- existing relationships with community members. As Aja (the US History teacher) explained, ?You know different people bring different strengths and I think like in terms of keeping organized and keeping things in a certain time ? that I think was more [Amelia?s] purview.? Amelia?s absence impacted the implementation of the FJP. According to Danielle, ?80% [of the FJP] was anchored in English [class]? where students learned how to conduct background research and write a research paper. Lizzie, the new English teacher and FJP co-leader who took Amelia?s place, had a steep learning curve that sometimes felt overwhelming; running an expedition on top of adjusting to the expectations of teaching at GPCS was, according to a few teachers, perhaps too much to expect from a new teacher. As Aja explained: When [Lizzie] started it was clear that she did not have the background knowledge or skills to run an expedition [on top] of being a first-year teacher at [GPCS] which is a very different environment ... So that was definitely the first like, ?Okay this is going to be difficult?. This year the burden for running the expedition fell more heavily on Danielle in part because of Lizzie?s lack of experience. As Lizzie herself explained, ?So having me, who was completely clueless but supposed to be one of the leaders, kind of ended up putting 131 double the work onto [Danielle] which was not fair.? Danielle emphasized several times how this shift in leadership structure was a challenge: ?It?s a very different energy to onboard and uh, [it?s hard to] bring a whole team together as a single person as opposed to part of a partnership.? Quite simply, replacing one English teacher with another English teacher was insufficient; Amelia had brought a specific set of connections, skills and dispositions to the FJP that were not easily replaceable. As Aja explained, ?When you?re reconfiguring a team then you have to understand what role that person was playing beyond like ?Oh she was the English teacher.?? On top of that, teachers reported that the administrators didn?t always realize, for example, how much of the FJP was anchored in English class, which had implications for how administrators staffed the 11th grade team and responded to unexpected challenges. ?We?re in a crunch ? to accomplish some miracles.? On top of these personnel challenges, the FJP faced two new logistical constraints this year: the additional behind- the-scenes work required to develop and maintain relationships with community partner organizations and a shorter time frame within which to complete the FJP. Every teacher and administrator commented that the involvement of community partners created extra work for teachers, even with the addition of Susan (the project manager) to help with logistics and planning. As Jessica (the instructional coach) explained, ?I think it puts a lot of work on teachers, ... because the kids cannot go out and ask [Healthy Cities] what they need... So it automatically becomes on the teacher.? Working with community partners required both additional time and a particular set of skills, including, according to Aja (the US History teacher), ?the ability to develop 132 relationships with people in the community ? like we had to call all those people, and like establish that bond and make sure that it?s safe, or that students will be well-received when we go there so we?re setting them up for success.? These additional tasks required by working with community partners, as a couple of teachers said, ?may have been biting off a little bit more than we could chew with a short amount of time.? The challenges of extra tasks and expectations created by the community partnerships were compounded by the constraints of a shorter time frame. All teachers commented on both the lack of time to both plan and implement the FJP; according to Aja the time allotted by the school, including teacher-only planning days, for teachers to prepare for the expedition ?was definitely not enough.? While, according to Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher), ?time is [always] our biggest enemy? when it came to the FJP, this year students had three fewer weeks than usual to complete the FJP due to the timing of spring break. Both teachers and students experienced the constraints imposed by a limited time frame, as Lizzie (the English teacher) said to her classes in the during data analysis, ?We are in the crunch to try to accomplish some miracles the next few weeks with this project.? One impact of the shorter time frame was that teachers weren?t able to adequately teach the skills needed to create high-quality products. As Lizzie explained: I mean I don?t think the teaching of [how to write an executive summary or proposal] was effective. It was very minimal, here?s a really quick mini- lesson and a model, and then just go. But that?s because [we had] to get this done in three days. [Sighs] Yeah. Essentially, the need to accomplish additional tasks related to community partnerships within a shortened time frame increased teachers? workload and pressure of an already challenging project. 133 Unexpected challenges. The strain on teacher capacity created by the consistent and novel challenges described above intensified with Lizzie and James? absences, which made teachers ?move into crisis mode? and amplified the impact of the constrained timeline as essentially three weeks of time in English class was underutilized. Heather (the Algebra II teacher) explained how Lizzie?s absence ?created a very big challenge in terms of having a long-term sub come in, and having to catch them up on what students needed to do.? While other teachers did provide the substitute teacher with some direction, students often heard conflicting messages from teachers about what work they were supposed to do during their English class. The timing of Lizzie?s absence was particularly problematic because, according to Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher): It was a really pivotal two weeks in terms of kids building that background knowledge, and so to not have explicit and consistent instruction about what are our expectations for those things ? because that was shaky, so many other things couldn?t build off that. The lack of instructional consistency meant that students didn?t end up making the best use of their work time in English class. Lizzie reflected on the impact of her absence on students? experience: ?I still think there?s something in having an adult that you have a relationship with in the classroom while you?re doing that and helping contextualize that all for you and make it purposeful.? Interviews and focus groups with students confirm this concern; they reported a lack of clarity about project expectations and that teachers often gave conflicting, confusing directions about what they were supposed to do during the background research phase of the FJP.40 40 See Chapter Five for an in-depth analysis of students? responses to the FJP. 134 As earlier noted, another unexpected challenge arose when the final conference was postponed. While the extra time provided students a chance to practice and refine their presentations and workshops, the delay also meant teachers had give up even more class time for the FJP. Two weeks of the school year that teachers had planned to devote to their particular content area were disrupted by the delay of the conference. Some teachers acknowledged that as the end of the project dragged out, students? amenable dispositions began to fade. Lizzie, for example, observed that ?[students had] a lot of negativity about the project itself and [were] just kind of doing things just to get them done.? Cumulative effect. The consistent, novel but expected and unexpected challenges that the FJP faced all had a cumulative effect that exceeded Danielle?s capacity to lead the expedition, placed an extra burden on other 11th grade teachers and their curriculum and in doing so strained relationships amongst 11th grade team members. Most teachers and administrators reflected that lack of both long-term and short-term planning on the part of the expedition leaders exacerbated some of these challenges. According to Jessica (the instructional coach), running the FJP required skills similar to those of a project manager, which is ?not a thing that I think a teacher necessarily thinks they have to have to be a good teacher.? In both formal interviews and informal conversations, Danielle shared that this year?s FJP pushed her far out of her comfort zone in terms of project management and leadership. For example, during our final interview in early June, Danielle explained how she ?felt like the buck always [stopped] with her,? due primarily to the loss of her co-leader Amelia (a former English teacher) and Lizzie?s (the current English and FJP co-lead teacher) difficulty filling those 135 shoes because of her newness to the school and illness. The intensified workload and set of leadership responsibilities required skills that didn?t align with Danielle?s strengths. She explained her struggle: How do you build a sense of shared leadership so that everyone one feels equal stake of agency in supporting the project? ? kind of being in a driver?s seat, which is not a place I like to be. [Kristin: So you had to take on more of a direct leadership role that?s unfamiliar and uncomfortable to you.] Yeah. Both. It?s nothing that I have experience doing at all. Yeah. It?s difficult. In years past, all five people on the 11th grade team threw their full support behind the FJP, which ?[made] all the difference? for Danielle?s leadership and ability to successfully execute the project. This year, however, Danielle ?[perceived] a lack of support from other team members? and struggled to get her team fully on board with the extra expedition work required of the FJP, in part both because of what she perceived as ?people?s own unwillingness to like either jump in or ask when they needed help,? and because of her own discomfort with asking for help herself. As she explained, ?it?s really hard to ask for help with things when things are hard, and it?s like ultimately I had a feeling that like, this is this thing I created I?m inflicting on the other people.? The intensified workload created by the consistent, novel, and unexpected challenges lead Danielle to lean more heavily on other teachers in a way that didn?t reflect their expectations, which amplified the challenges of getting everyone ?on board.? Nearly every teacher referred to the added strain that this year?s FJP put on teachers. At one point, during the period when Lizzie and James were out sick, Danielle mentioned in passing that she felt like the project was ?in shambles? and that there ?weren?t shambles to pick up.? Tanya (the principal) corroborated teachers? statements when she observed that the team was ?overwhelmed? and that ?when you spread your 136 wings out this far? adding extra components such as the community partners, ?like, [the] teacher capacity [required] to do the work that still needs to happen in school and this project becomes a lot.? Aja (the US History teacher) and Heather (the Algebra II teacher), in particular, ended up taking on more work related to the FJP than they had expected. Working through these challenges as a team required ?some tough conversations.? Some teachers thought that the team was able to navigate these conversations in part due to the level of trust that had been built amongst teachers over the years. These challenges also had a cumulative effect on teachers? curriculum. Every 11th grade teacher reported that their non-food justice curriculum took a serious hit this year both in terms of content coverage and teachers? own ability to dedicate time to grading and planning. Food justice interfered with students? 11th grade core courses (for example, students didn?t do a research paper in English as planned) and in other classes; according to Aja, students ?didn?t do work in any of their other [elective] classes.? The shortened time line and underutilized English classes intensified an already jam-packed project and pressured Heather and Aja to cede more of their class time than expected to food justice work. As Heather explained, ?for Algebra II we took on more [time for FJP] than I would necessarily like to in the future. Because [FJP] takes away from our actual Algebra II class time ? we missed out on an entire unit.? The impact on US History was even more intense, and impacted the curriculum through the remainder of the school year. Aja ?lost a whole month of [her] curriculum,? which prevented her from covering topics that she thought were deeply relevant to her students. Aja expressed concerns about this missed opportunity and questioned the importance of food justice: [Students] lost their momentum for history [and] we didn?t get to the place that I wanted to. And its not like I think history is the most important thing 137 in the world, but I do think that particularly with what?s going on right now with immigration and these kids? personal lives, I was like, ? generally that part of the curriculum is a space where students are able to make sense of their own experiences better, and I think this year more than any year they really needed to. And that opposed to like, hey everybody, let?s teach [about organic food], I don?t know. Most teachers and administrators stated that lack of both long-term and short-term planning on the part of the expedition leaders exacerbated some of these novel-but- expected and unexpected challenges. For example, Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) described how working with community partners, in retrospect, required extra planning that perhaps teachers and administrators had not anticipated. Lack of advance planning over the summer meant that, according to Lizzie, key steps of [trying to figure out who were going to be the final community partners and what they needed] definitely did not happen at the beginning. Which probably would have helped, in the timeline of things, but ? the product was kind of developing at [Kristin: Build the plane as you?re flying it?] Yeah. This lack of advanced planning also meant that, once teachers hit crisis mode when Lizzie and James got sick, the remaining teachers had to put in late hours and scramble to make accommodations. Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) attributed some of the difficulties that students faced in the first weeks of the FJP to ?a lack of planning before hand.? Similarly, Jessica (the instructional coach) was frustrated and thought that if Danielle and Lizzie had been more ?plan-full? in advance, the team would have been in better shape to navigate the unexpected challenges. As she explained, ?like things shouldn?t fall apart because you have a substitute in an English class for two weeks, [they] just shouldn?t.? Lizzie reflected the sentiments of many teachers when she said that ?I don?t think any project can be done successfully when you?re still kind of figuring out the pieces as you go unless its like really small pieces.? The lack of advanced 138 planning described here also hindered the ability of administrators to support the FJP. As Jessica explained: ?[one of the] biggest challenges that as an administrator made it really tough to be able to support and be present because, um, I don?t feel like every morning everybody knew the plan going in.? Throughout the remainder of the FJP, teachers struggled to stay on top of the coordination required at the pace necessitated by the timeline of the FJP, such that often schedules and expectations for students weren?t clear until the last minute. While the team managed to pull off the expedition, it came at a high expense in terms of teachers? capacity and workload, and some of that expense might have been spared by more advanced planning. Summary. These findings suggest several elements of the opportunity structure that shaped implementation of the FJP. While teachers certainly had access to financial resources, in the form of a well-funded school and a $5,000 grant, the project also benefited from supportive administrators, easy to navigate logistics, and a school and faculty culture that allowed for flexibility and freedom. For example, few if any bureaucratic roadblocks existed to scheduling community-based fieldwork and students seemed to suffer few if any consequences for missing any class time. The fact that administrators and other teachers were willing to completely re-vamp the school schedule to allow students to spend several full school days working on food justice was also significant. These components of the opportunity structure ? access to financial resources, personnel resources in the form of supportive administrators, fieldwork chaperones, as well as logistic and curricular flexibility ? gave the 11th grade teachers a firm footing from which to implement the project. 139 The challenges and successes of the community partnerships provide some insight about the opportunity structure. First, interviews with teachers suggested that managing community partnerships required both a specific set of skills that may be distinct from the skills required of a classroom teacher and connections to local organizations. As noted above, Danielle talked at length about how her personal ?capacity? was overloaded by the project; other teachers identified potentially unique sets of skills required to successfully manage a complex, multi-faceted PBE project like the FJP. These sets of skills included those of a ?project manager,? including attention to detail, the ability to keep track of multiple moving pieces, manage a team and build shared leadership. Teachers? pre- existing connections to local community organizations or the nature of their available networks to establish those connections may also be important resources. This study suggests that, in many ways, GPCS was a favorable environment for PBE to enact civic engagement. The school had the resources and bureaucratic flexibility to moderate setbacks created by the substantial consistent, novel-but-unexpected, and unexpected challenges and constraints. Regardless, outcomes of the FJP were modest, mixed, and disappointing. Student responses suggest that the FJP didn?t always meet teachers? goals, especially those related to students becoming ?agents of social change.? Chapter Five uses the categories in the conceptual framework to unpack students? sense of agency and views of their communities throughout the FJP and whether and how those components shaped students? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills. 140 Chapter 5: Findings Part Two RQ2: How did students respond to these place-based experiences and what do their responses suggest about how PBE affected their civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills? This chapter draws primarily on student interview and focus group data, observations, student work products and survey responses to unpack students? responses to the food justice project (FJP) and the place-based experiences therein. This chapter focuses primarily on evidence that can be linked to students? FJP experiences. Using each component of the conceptual framework to organize the data, I unpack findings related to students? sense of agency, their views of community, and civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills.41 I conclude this section with a discussion of missed opportunities with the FJP, that is, moments during the conceptualization, development and implementation of the FJP where teachers could have tapped into students? interests or centered their voices toward potentially more meaningful outcomes. Students? sense of agency As described in the conceptual framework, sense of agency has two components: Experience of agency and political efficacy. I describe findings related to each in turn. Experience of agency. Experience of agency includes a person?s control over a project, the ability to make meaningful choices and decisions regarding the design and implementation of a project (Bandura, 2001; Watts & Gessous, 2006). Interview and observation data suggest that the range of topics teachers provided students and the 41 I explored the nature of the opportunity structure in Chapter Four when I described the place-based experiences embedded in the food justice project and how teachers enacted these experiences. 141 curricular structures in place constrained students? experience of agency within the FJP. Students whose project topic aligned with their interests and had more freedom during data collection had a greater experience of agency than those who did not. Constrained topic choice and misalignment of topics with student interests. Generally speaking, students? responses to and assessment of the eleven available food justice project topics indicate that the range of topics offered constrained their ability to make choices and contribute to the planning of the project. The mismatch between most of the topics offered and students? interests was pronounced. ?Topics were really chosen for us.? Prior to the start of the project, teachers divided students into groups based on their English classes. Following the FJP kick-off, groups submitted their top three choices and teachers assigned topics with the goal of giving as many groups their first choices as possible. Interviews, focus groups, field notes, and survey responses all indicate that while the majority of students got their first or second choice topic, many were ultimately dissatisfied with the range of topics provided. Curricular and logistic constraints limited which options, within the available topics, students could select. Specifically, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) and Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) had decided that students enrolled in Environmental Science [ES] could not be assigned to the My Friend?s Place (MFP) or documentation group, which took pictures and videos of other students? food justice experiences, because these topics didn?t have clear curricular connections to ES. Some students were frustrated by these limitations and thought that ?topics were really chosen for us.? As Leona explained, ?[People in ES are] limited in their options. What if they didn?t want to do any of [those projects]? ?I was just like, they should have more 142 options because I just didn?t like that.? Others reiterated that it ?just did not seem fair? that students in ES were limited in their options, especially because, in their view, the MFP project was the only one that ?focused on real food justice.? Within these constraints, about two thirds of the students I interviewed reported that their assigned topic had been their top choice. Of those who didn?t get their top choice ? and some that did ? most reported that either the documentation or MFP project had been their first choice. The MFP project appealed to students in part because it offered them a chance to conduct interviews, learn more about homelessness, and help homeless people. Reina, Lilac and Eddie explained why MFP was their first choice: We wanted to do the [MFP] ? like that one sounded the most interesting?. [Kristin: What appealed to you about [MFP]?] It was the fact that we would be able to talk with the guests at [MFP], you?re basically like interviewing them and [asking questions that] are kind of personal, ? I just thought it would be interesting just to simply talk to them and see the things they go through during the day and how they survive without like a home, yeah. (Reina) [The MFP project] would have required us to talk to people, it would have required us to interview people and get us out of our comfort zone. And, me and my group we?re all kind of like people who want to help people so getting to talk to people who were in like situations of need it, it would have benefited us, we just would have liked that one. (Lilac) We wanted to do the homeless one where we interviewed homeless people ? I always see homeless people like everywhere, and I wanted to know how did they become homeless because it?s kind of sad. (Eddie) In the end, Reina and Lilac, who were both in the Evermore Farms group, found their assigned topic ?actually like really interesting? and ended up enjoying it while others remained unsatisfied. Luna, for example, commented several times when I was observing classes and food justice work time that she wasn?t interested in her topic, and wished she was doing MFP because ?you get to help homeless people ? they are human too.? 143 Both reflection responses and interviews indicate that many students ?didn?t like the topics? provided by teachers. Clarisa, for example, pointed out that ?choosing what topics of food justice we could have focused on ? would have felt more empowering.? Some students, including Cyril, thought that ?the [topics] that were provided [by the teachers] were ?good? but not what they really wanted. Cyril went on to explain how he was surprised and ultimately disappointed by the ?menu? of topics that teachers provided students at the FJP kick-off: Like, say you want this ice cream, right, you?re going to the ice cream store and you know you want chocolate or vanilla and you get to the ice cream store and there?s only cookies and cream, there?s nothing you would expect, there?s still ice cream but its not what you wanted, so its just like, yeah sure I?ll take it but it?s like, not really what I expected. Generally speaking, students wanted ?more options? and ?better topics;? food waste, food accessibility and food affordability were the most commonly mentioned alternatives. Overall, students? ability to chose a topic that reflected their interests was limited both by teachers? curricular constraints and the range of topics offered. Most students, it seemed, indicated a desire to complete food justice projects that helped people, whether through the My Friend?s Place project or another topic altogether. Control over the project. In addition to having constrained project topic choices, students? experience of agency was also limited by the teacher-directed nature of project implementation. In other words, teachers told students how to proceed with researching their project instead of giving them freedom to create their own plan. Both Jessica (the instructional coach) and Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) acknowledged that they struggled to identify how to increase student leadership in and control over the FJP: 144 So I think its very teacher-driven right now, and I do want it to be more of a project that?s student [driven], so I don?t know, I don?t know how that happens. (Jessica) There?s still a piece of [the FJP] that feels like, what are the things youth can do and what are the things that youth are doing and like what?s important to youth. Like there?s a piece, a foundational piece of it being a youth-centered [project] that feels like its still missing, and I don?t know how to do that. (Danielle) Students also readily identified the lack of control and leadership they had over the FJP. One conversation during a focus group echoes comments made in other interviews and observations: Alphonso: I personally feel like this project was kind of imposed on us. [Kristin: Say more about that.] [Clarisa: I?d say forceful.] Forced, I just feel, I don?t know - Clarisa: Like GPCS expects, I know from the GPCS curriculum they expect to have like four expeditions of things on your transcripts or something, so like - Cyril: And then also do the same thing every year, which is kind of boring, like every year 11th graders have to do food justice, ? so it like the same thing so it?d be cool to change it up, but like if not make it similar to the previous year like it would be good to just change it completely, but then it might be too much work, so that?s probably why they chose to like um do the same kind of project every year. Kristin: Can you say more what you mean too about it feeling like its imposed on you? Alphonso: So, you know, I get it, I get that maybe they?re trying to prep us for college and you know they?re trying to you know help us look good for college, and get into college, college college college, everything?s about college, ? [here at GPCS] just like a lot of the projects you did, you know they?re really cool, but I feel like as if we don?t want to have kind of, we can?t freely move around, we don?t really have that much choice Cyril: Yeah you just get thrown on a project - Clarisa: You have to follow their standards Alphonso: Follow, follow, follow their standards. 145 Clarisa: You don?t get to lead, you always have to follow. This frustration with always ?having to follow? teachers? directions was also evident in students? complaints about project implementation. Students reported being at the mercy of teachers? changing, unpredictable expectations and a ?rushed? time frame to complete the project. Observations indicated that at many points students were ?stressed,? seemed unenthusiastic about their project, and reported ?confusion.? In interviews, focus groups and reflections, students shared their frustrations, particularly what they perceived as a ?lack of time? to complete the project and teachers? disorganization. ?It was kind of rushed I think.? Students wanted more time for all aspects of the project; this desire was intensified for students who weren?t in Environmental Science (ES) because they had less in-class time to spend on the project. As Cyril explained: It was kind of rushed I think. ? and also harder maybe for some people [who] don?t take [ES], so they don?t have time that other people do ? so it?s like you?re limited to time in school to get help from teachers, like some people might get two hours during the day and others just one. Students were aware that the timeline for completing this year?s FJP was shorter than in previous years, and mentioned feeling like ?guinea pigs? because their teachers always changed project expectations for their class and only their class. Both Mari and Serenity explain this common perception: Give us more time, because our class is always behind, like, not behind but like they always give us less time. ? We always have less time to do things compared to the other classes. (Mari) I feel like we?re the guinea pigs of this school. Only our class because every year they change it from what it was last year. (Serenity) 146 ?Everything was kind of disorganized.? Students? most common compliant was that teachers gave conflicting, confusing instructions about project tasks and expectations. Observations supported this complaint; during Environmental Science or English classes teachers often spent time clarifying directions, helping students understand their research question, or responding to students who felt ?lost.? Several students? comments illuminate how an overall lack of clarity about project expectations and conflicting directions from teachers and other adult mentors often contributed to their confusion: How like some teachers were saying something different and then the [long-term substitute teacher in English class when Lizzie was out sick] ?said another thing, so it was just stressful. Because everyone was just asking for different things, and I?m just like, what the heck, what am I even supposed to do. (Luna) The organization of the teachers, not like they?re bad, but in the beginning, everyone was confused on what to do, one teacher was telling us to do something else, and another teacher was telling us something way different. (Mari) [The project] was a little confusing at first. [Kristin: What was confusing about it?] I didn?t really know what to focus on at first. Like to start. And, it kind of just got more clear as we went on. (Seth) I didn?t know what I was doing for like a good two weeks. Like I had no clue, because they didn?t really describe what we [were supposed to do], I got super confused, me and my group. (Nathan) While my group did receive help from two different people, they both kind of contradicted each other in what they wanted us to research. [Kristin: Mmmm, that?s frustrating.] So that ?was one of the things that was very frustrating, because we would do research on this work, and one [teacher] would say, oh that?s not what you?re supposed to do at all. Or they would tell us, do this, but in the end that thing that they told us to do didn?t matter. (Francisco) Students reported that, because of what they perceived as teachers? disorganization, they spent the first weeks of the project ?doing busy work? and background research that was 147 ultimately ?useless.? For some students, this confusion continued throughout the course of the project as teachers ?constantly switched [presentation schedules] around? which felt like ?chaos.? In-class debriefs of the FJP as well as student responses on the online reflection reiterate the claims made during interviews and focus groups. Students said they ?would like to get more clarification about what we [were] doing from the start instead of getting [it] near the end [of the project],? they reported that even ?teachers seemed kind of confused? about what was happening and that they received ?conflicting? directions about, for example, how much background information to include in their final presentation. Arguably, some confusion is likely if not inevitable when groups of students take on complex, unfamiliar tasks such as those required of the FJP. But the consistency and intensity of students? comments, coupled with teachers? own acknowledgements of their struggles facilitating student leadership within the FJP, insufficient planning and inconsistent direction to students, provide convincing evidence that the degree and duration of confusion surrounding the FJP limited students? experience of agency within the project. Political efficacy. Political efficacy is a person?s belief in their ability ? alone or in collaboration with others ? to impact community, social, or political change (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2007; Watts et al., 2011). Throughout the FJP, GPCS teachers, administrators, and guest speakers at FJP-events consistently drove home messages that seemed to be designed to nurture students? political efficacy. During several classes that I observed teachers validated students? opinions about their school lunch and encouraged students to identify specific, achievable goals for creating change through their projects. 148 Heather (the Algebra II teacher), for example, pushed one group to think more critically about what was wrong with their school lunch and reminded them that they were ?not just being angsty teenagers who don?t want to eat their lunch.? Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) frequently reminded students that the purpose of the expedition was to ?make a difference? in their city or school; she also emphasized students? collective efficacy in comments such as ?we know that we are better together.? Similarly, the two speakers at both the FJP kick-off event and the final youth conference emphasized young peoples? political efficacy: One finished her speech telling students that there?s ?so much you can do? you are here and you are powerful? and the other reminded them that ?What you do matters.? While several students mentioned that they found these speeches and presentations ?inspiring,? the extent to which students internalized these messages of political efficacy ? both from teachers and speakers ? is unclear. Observations, focus groups, and interviews suggest that students? expressed political efficacy differed depending on the tasks required by their projects and their access to relevant decision-makers. Some students who worked with community partners had little confidence that the data they collected and work they produced would have an impact; communication between these students and their community partners was limited and inconsistent. Students who did GPCS-based projects and had easy access to decision- makers seemed more optimistic that they could actually make a change through their projects. Ultimately, however, students? broader sense of political efficacy remained fairly low at the culmination of the FJP. 149 ?I don?t know if this is going to help them.? Students who worked with Evermore Farms and Healthy Cities seemed to have low political efficacy related to their project. Reina, for example, recognized that ?so the purpose of this was actually to like help [Evermore Farms] out? but seemed uncertain about how their data would foster meaningful change: ?I guess like, how, I don?t know exactly what they?re going to do with our data just yet.? Both Eddie and Cyril, who worked on Healthy Cities projects, didn?t fully understand how, if at all, Healthy Cities would use the data they collected. Eddie?s comment in particular explains the disconnect he saw between the mission of Healthy Cities and the work that he was doing on his food justice project: I feel like that?s what food justice is about too, like making a difference, like [Healthy Cities], on their website, like their mission and all of this stuff, they really want to change things about food and school lunch ?But we really aren?t. ? I don?t know if this is going to help them. I feel like they are good [on] their own, you know, they know what they?re doing. (Eddie) So our information I guess was supposed to be sent to [Healthy Cities], I don?t know if it was, but like it?d be helpful to know like, oh yeah, we?re most definitely going to use like this ? like the school decided to change based on your information. But instead we?re just like doing this project that we present to just like ourselves, our classmates, and teachers and just like a couple of guests from just like other schools so it would be good and helpful to know that your information is actually making a change. (Cyril) While communication between GPCS and community partners was challenging throughout the project, it fell off completely following the final youth conference,42 so students were left uncertain whether or not the work they completed for their community partner was useful or if the partners ever received their products. 42 Notably, representatives from the CBOs had yet to receive any student projects from GPCS at the time of my interviews with them in July and August 2018. 150 ?But I feel like it will happen.? Students who worked on GPCS-based projects were more optimistic about the potential of their work to impact change at their school. They also had a clearer understanding about the practical challenges and barriers that the desired change might face. Most students in the GPCS groups thought that the school would eventually complete some renovations and alterations to the kitchen based on their recommendations. Pablo, Laura, and Clarisa, all explained that they thought their projects might come to fruition after they graduated: I think because this is the first time that students are actually [making proposals for improving the kitchen], so if we actually propose they may say no at first, but if we give them reasons to, then maybe, ?I think it?s more so for like people that are coming up ?, so like [the lunch will improve] for the 10th grade and 9th grade. (Pablo) I talked to [a member of the school?s board of directors], ? he actually said that yes, they?re going to make a change but it?s going to take time. ?But they said that they?re going to do, uh half pre-packaged and half cooked, so we?re going to have like more fresher foods and stuff, and like better cooked stuff, so, yeah, it did make a difference. (Laura) Um I think it will happen but it will take a while because first [School CFO]?s big concern is the money? and so like, it?s going, it?s gonna happen but it?s going to take a while because you have to apply for grants, ?So like it?s going to take a while. And I know their goal is to have it like when they?re close to graduating which isn?t far ? but like, pretty much gonna take a while. But I feel like it will happen. (Clarisa) Some students were less confident that their food justice projects alone could affect the school, but expressed some belief in collective efficacy when they acknowledged that they, as Alphonso said, ?need the community, we need people to be on board with the plan in order to be able to implement.? Similarly, Oliver explained how students could put pressure on administrators if they came together as a whole: I feel like if enough students complain, I feel like if we get the whole high school to complain about the lunch, you could probably get another contract when this contract expires, ? but, ultimately, you gotta get like 151 the whole school to actually complain about the food, and that?s when you get the administrators to focus. Other students thought that improving school lunches was ?not a priority? for GPCS; they were skeptical that their food justice projects would make a difference. Eve explained her frustrations with school administrators: ?it?s like everything we have a problem with, they have an answer for, and it?s just not going to be changed. Like I tried showing food that was uncooked but supposedly they said that the food is cooked.? Unlike students in some of the other community-based groups, students in the GPCS- based groups had an opportunity to make presentations directly to decision makers, including the head of school and chief financial officer, who had the formal power to put student?s proposals into action. During these presentations, administrators took notes, asked questions, and ultimately agreed to form a committee to look at putting students proposals into action; the head of the school concluded the presentations by telling students ?feeding you is really important? and that ?we really want to have you in the conversation.? ?It?s not impossible [to make change].? A handful of students expressed increased confidence in their ability to influence social change outside of the specific opportunities provided by their food justice projects. Pablo, for example, learned that collecting data on a problem and presenting alternatives could be an effective strategy for convincing relevant stakeholders to alter policy. Other students shared that they learned the importance of persistence, advocacy and speaking up. Serenity and Seth explain further: I learned that sometimes we have to speak up if we want a change to happen. Because before this, ? no one would like know how we feel, how other students in other schools feel as well, ? Because so many things are 152 happening inside the school that no one really knows about, and even the staff, ?Yeah I just feel like you should just really like push your voice out there. (Serenity) [I learned] that it?s really complicated to make changes, it?s not impossible but it?s a lot of work that you have to put in, and usually you gotta be like consistent, and talk to the right people. (Seth) Despite these promising statements, survey data suggest that students? political efficacy may not have transcended the FJP. While both Seth and Pablo agreed with the statement ?I believe I can make a positive difference in my community? they were neutral in response to other political efficacy measures, such as ?I can use what I know to solve real-life problems in my community? and ?by working with others in the community I can help make things better,? suggesting that any FJP-related gains in efficacy may have been shallow and short-lived. In interviews conducted after completing the food justice project, students expressed fairly low levels of individual political efficacy, which suggests that participation in the FJP didn?t have a notable positive impact on students? overall political efficacy. The most common rationales that students gave for low political efficacy is their perception that no one will listen, they have no power because of their age, they don?t know how to get involved, or that the forms of activism and involvement they?ve been exposed to are ?not for them.? ?Me as a 16 year old ?I can?t even do nothing for real.? Nearly all students I interviewed said it was important for them to be active in their community or that they wanted to be more active in their community. However, many of them mentioned that they had no power to do anything about the issues they cared about, or, if they did, they 153 would be ignored because of their age. Luna and Michelle?s comments reflect this common sentiment: I mean, I feel like they do all these marches and stuff but we?re not getting heard. But I feel like even if we do try to do something, it?s just like, ? I mean, they?re not about to listen to me (Luna) I can?t say no one ever listens to us, because we are the youth and we do have our voices heard, but I don?t know how to submit the ideas to them, and they probably wouldn?t take it serious because I?m a child, and they?ll think it?s a joke. (Michelle) Some exceptions to this prominent pattern surfaced. Amy, for example, thought that ?no one would take me seriously because of my age? but added that ?once I put out my views, someone would take me seriously.? Some students had ideas for social change but thought that they needed voting power and the additional credibility that comes with age in order to put those ideas into action. Leona describes how, if she could vote, she would hold local officials accountable while Matteo explains how, if he had more power, he would advocate for his community: I wish I was older because then I could vote. I feel as though that?s the biggest thing that you can do for your community. ? if you?re voting for the people who are kind of looking for the same thing you are looking at, they can actually make change and you can actually suggest things to them. You can email them, go up there and see if you can have a talk with them, so you might even be able to help them but the biggest thing you need to is get them in office first or get them in position to have authority first. (Leona) I personally don?t feel like I can, or I don?t have enough power to do, but if I did have enough power, I would like stand up you know ? and share my ideas, help like other people with the same mindset as me, trying to fight for what I want, and what I believe is correct for the community. (Matteo) ?I can do stuff but I just don?t know what to do.? While Leona and Matteo could articulate some civic engagement strategies that they might use in the future, many 154 students simply didn?t know where to begin. As Eddie explained, ?I feel like, there?s a lot going on, but I?m not involved in anything at the moment. Like I feel like I should be, but I don?t know how to get involved in things you know, like nobody?s introducing me to stuff.? Some students were able to identify pressing problems in their communities but didn?t have the tools to address those problems. Natalia clearly articulated the city?s disinvestment in her neighborhood and tensions between police and residents, but ?[couldn?t] think of any ideas? for what she could do about it. Similarly, Reina was passionate about the impact of gentrification on her community but wasn?t sure how to translate talk into action: Like of course I have my opinion about it, and like I talk to my family and stuff about it, but I guess, I don?t know what I would be able to do, like of course like we can protest and like do things like that but I don?t really know, because this has been happening for a while, so like how do you like stop like these companies or like these realtors and stuff from doing things like that, like I?ve never really, I wouldn?t know where to start myself, with how to deal with a situation like that. Here, Reina demonstrates some understanding of the complexities of an issue like gentrification and suggests that her set of civic engagement tools is inadequate for tackling her concerns. ?I would rather stay away from it.? A handful of students were clear that they cared about issues in their community but felt uncomfortable or unsafe participating in public forms of engagement such as protest or activism. Tallulah and Lilac displayed this attitude in response to questions about being active in their community: It?s not that I don?t care, it?s just I can?t see myself doing that type of work, like, it?s just, it?s not for me, like I?m not fit for that. (Talulah) I?m kind of shy, and stand-offish so it?s not easy for me to just go out into the community and do things and communicate and stuff like that. (Lilac) 155 Some students didn?t want to engage in activism because they were concerned about their personal safety. One student, for example, was ?scared to share who I am or what I have to say? for fear of attracting the unwanted attention of immigration officials, while mass shootings had made Coco afraid of crowds. She explained her hesitancy to attend protests: ?They?re just out there, it?s like I can?t, I want to be for it though it?s just I?m also worried about my safety.? Overall, students demonstrated moderate political efficacy during their participation in the FJP. Although students in GPCS-based groups largely felt confident in their ability to ?make a difference? in their school, they did not feel equipped or able to do so in their neighborhood or city. Taken together, the expressions of low political efficacy reported here suggest that students may have not translated any potential benefits from the food justice project into a broader sense of political efficacy in their community or city. FJP had little if any immediate let alone long-term effect on their political efficacy. Summary. The findings from this study indicate that students? sense of agency was largely constrained. Much like other examples of PBE in the empirical literature (e.g., Azano, 2010; Donovan, 2016; Rubel et al., 2016a), the projects in the FJP were largely teacher-driven. Generally speaking, community partners? expressed interests and teachers? interpretations of school-based concerns articulated by students during previous ES projects determined what options made it on the ?menu? of topics available to students. That is, instead of students driving the problem-identification process, teachers often picked the topic and guided the activities. As will become clear later in this chapter, 156 those students who got their first choice project (e.g., students in the My Friend?s Place group) seemed to have more powerful outcomes than others who didn?t. Students? views of community Students? views of community include two components: their sense of place and their critical social analysis. This section first explains how engagement with community- based fieldwork broadened students? perspectives on and understanding of their project topic and their communities. Second, it arrays students? descriptions of their neighborhoods in order to demonstrate the gaps between their existing place attachments and the place-based experiences43 in the FJP. In short, the first two sections describe how the FJP developed students? sense of place through community-based fieldwork as well as where the FJP may have fallen short. The third section describes when and where FJP experiences developed students? critical social analysis skills. Community-based fieldwork. The community-based fieldwork embedded in the food justice project resonated with students? desires to learn more about their communities but largely failed to tap into or take advantage of students? existing emotional bonds to their neighborhoods. The place-based experiences embedded within the food justice project deepened students? sense of place in that they provided a largely enjoyable and illuminating opportunity to learn more about their community and city and helped students identify connections between their own and others? experiences. ?To me it was just fun.? Interviews, focus groups and observations all suggest that students found their community-based fieldwork experiences ?fun,? ?useful,? ?interesting,? and ?different than I expected.? An extended quote from my field notes 43 As discussed in Chapter Four, place-based experiences fell into three categories: community-based fieldwork, school-based fieldwork, and other connections to local places. 157 taken during fieldwork at Berwick Public Charter School demonstrates their enjoyment and engagement: An empty, quiet, brightly lit lunchroom full of round blue tables instantly comes alive with energy and loud voices as sixth graders burst in for their lunch period. GPCS students line the back of the lunch room, and some filter out amongst the younger students as they hand out brief surveys and strike up conversations about their school lunches. In one corner of the room, Luna sits side by side with the middle school students, laughing and smiling as she asks them questions and playfully prods them to share more. Eddie stands behind her, watching intently and taking notes.44 Interviews suggest that students particularly enjoyed their interactions with the people they met during community-based fieldwork. Mari, who did fieldwork at Berwick Public Charter School, commented that ?it was fun ? we did a survey [with] the kids during lunch time, so we engaged with them, and the middle schoolers were pretty funny;? Luna and Matteo were surprised that these students ?had a lot to say,? more than either of them had expected. Similarly, Natalia and Tallulah both liked the opportunity to ?interact with [other] students? at the schools they visited and thought it was ?nice hearing their opinions.? The young women in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group, whose fieldwork spanned four consecutive weekends, also found fieldwork to be enjoyable and rewarding. For example, Jane said that her ?favorite part? of the FJP was ?interacting with some of the guests ?that I talked to on fieldwork,? and Mallory thought that ?after talking to all of [the MFP guests], it was nice and I got a lot of information out of it, and I felt good about talking to them, it was fun actually.? Notably, the MFP fieldwork was unique within the context of the FJP in that it required the most time interacting with community members; approximately 12-15 hours over four weekends as opposed to the three hours that other groups completed during the community-based fieldwork day. Overall, these 44 This scene essentially repeated for two other rounds of school lunch, with other GPCS students taking turns as interviewers and note-takers. 158 quotes suggest that these interpersonal interactions during community-based fieldwork were engaging, enjoyable and meaningful for students. ?I wanted to learn more about my environment.? The place-based experiences embedded in the FJP tapped into students? desire to learn more about their communities, and specifically the experiences of other high school students and the inequities that existed across schools or within their communities. About half of the students who chose the Healthy Cities case study group did so because they were dissatisfied with their own school lunch and wanted to learn more about how other high school students viewed their school lunch and about other school lunch options in general. Serenity, Stephanie and Tallulah all explain their reasoning for choosing Healthy Cities case study projects: We wanted to like see what other students thought about their lunch and compare like their lunch to ours, ? because we felt like, are we the only ones that actually like feeling this type of way towards our ?school and the lunch, but we realized that we wasn?t the only ones who felt that way. So that was a pro, because we got to see other people?s experience, not just us. (Serenity) Because I wanted to know more perspectives on school lunch, and I wanted to see like other [school lunch] vendors and research about them. (Stephanie) [Philip from Healthy Cities] was explaining to us that we would be going to a different schools and we?ll check out their lunches and we?ll see how the students feel about it and I thought that was interesting, so, I chose it. (Tallulah) Taken together, students? comments on their projects suggest a desire to learn more about their communities outside of school and to interact with other young people and adults. The young women in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group explained how the set of place-based experiences specifically associated with their topic was appealing, allowed them to learn something new about their community, and challenged the stereotypes that 159 they had about homeless people. Jane and Leona, for example, both picked MFP because they ?thought it?d be cool to do something outside of school and interact with different people.? Similarly, Coco, Emma, and Michelle all mentioned that they wanted to ?know more about [their] environment? and that MFP would expose them to new experiences related to not just food but people as well. They picked the MFP group in part because it would broaden their perspectives and challenge their stereotypes about homeless people: But the [MFP project] I think the other thing that was really different, because it wasn?t into looking into food specifically, so it was looking into people and food, ?they said that you had to interview people and stuff and I thought that was pretty interesting, and it?s like around homeless people, because you know not a lot of people are surrounded by them, it?s like everyone have these stereotypes of what they are, and it?s like, I thought it would be a great way to know more about my environment, so that?s why I picked it too. (Coco) I chose the topic mainly because I haven?t been involved with like the homeless community before so this was like an experience for me, especially like getting to know the homeless, I?ve never really interacted with them. (Emma) [MFP stood] out because it was about the homeless, and we never focus on homeless people in general, so getting to know homeless people for who they are and how did they get there, was interesting to me and my partner ? I just wanted to get to know homeless people better than what my understandings were from other perspectives. (Michelle) Students found that the experience of spending time in new places in their communities ? whether other charter schools, grocery stores, or a soup kitchen (MFP) ? was educative. As Reina explained, these fieldwork experiences ?always had a purpose.? In some cases, students began to see familiar environments in a different light through their fieldwork. Both Lilac and Matteo did their fieldwork at locations familiar to them, but found the experience of engaging with those places through data collection to be illuminating: 160 My favorite part of the research, I guess would be collecting the data about the produce like going to stores and looking at what they had, because it was like you got to see, and really stopped to read the ingredients things like that. (Lilac) It was actually a great experience, like you know seeing a new environment, I actually saw, the school [Berwick PCS] was actually close to my neighborhood and I mean I?ve always seen it but I never been inside that building, so that was a great experience. (Matteo) Students who visited other charter schools with the purpose of observing lunch time or touring their kitchens appreciated the opportunity to see first hand the lunch systems that other schools had in place. Cyril, for example, found it ?really interesting seeing how other schools are during their lunch period, I liked that part of the research process.? Similarly, Isabel clearly identified the benefit of vising a school in person as opposed to relying on a website or phone call: ?We had an opportunity to go to that school and witness how the environment is, how it?s not like just a phone call where anybody could tell you anything, so we really did get there and to see how the students are being effected by the food.? Some students found it ?shocking? at how much better the food was at the school they visited than it was at GPCS, while others, such as Stephanie and Tallulah, found it comforting to realize that students at other schools also disliked their lunch. Several students reported that visiting other charter schools? lunches provided comparative data that allowed them to identify specific similarities and differences between GPCS? lunch and kitchen and other schools? lunches and kitchens. Eve, Laura, Pablo and Isabel all enjoyed going into ?different parts of [the city] where the environments were different,? because it allowed them to gather ideas about, as Pablo said, ?what other schools do and what are things we could implement in our school to actually make a change.? Similarly, Eve ?liked when we went and visited the three 161 different schools and ? [I] was able to get information of what other schools were doing or if like they were going through the same process as us.? Those students who only visited one site for their fieldwork, however, thought that they missed out on the opportunity to gather comparative data. They were eager to have a wider range of perspectives on their topic at hand and thought that additional fieldwork would strengthen their project findings. Luna and Stephanie both wanted to visit more charter school lunchrooms to see what other vendors? food looked like; as Luna said, particular places and people ?have their biases,? meaning that visiting only one school might not provide a fulsome picture of students? perceptions of school lunch. Jane reiterated how the chance to compare other homeless-serving organizations? services and features with My Friend?s Place?s (MFP) services and features would have given them more ideas and strengthened their final product: I feel like we should have had like another fieldwork day. I think that would have been helpful, I really wish we would have got to visit another organization, ? if we could have interviewed people from other organizations we probably could have compared and like contrasted or something? Like with the data like, how this organization is doing this and the impacts on their clients or guests, compared to [MFP] clients and guests? I think that would help [MFP] a bit more. Not all students, however, found observing new environments through fieldwork to be useful. For example, those in the Healthy Cities overview groups, whose projects looked at trends in school lunches and wellness policies across all charter schools, didn?t see the relevance of community-based fieldwork. As Nathan explained, ??we were looking up wellness policies so I didn?t really understand why we were giving kids surveys [during the fieldwork day]. This didn?t really have a lot to do with what we were doing.? These 162 students reactions to fieldwork seem to be less about the fieldwork per se and more about it?s disconnect from their research questions. Sense of place. Sense of place includes the personal and cultural meaning people make of their places and an understanding of places as political entities that embody and produce systems of power (Agnew, 1987; Casey, 1996; Cresswell, 2004). The place- based experiences embedded in the FJP, while engaging and educative, left students? existing connections to their neighborhoods and communities, including the meaning they made of those places, largely untouched. Students? descriptions of their neighborhoods suggested a sense of place that valued the physical and cultural components and the social relationships therein. While students? descriptions of their places aren?t necessarily linked to their food justice experience, they suggest particular bonds and meanings that may or may not overlap with the goals and purposes of the FJP. ?I have a pretty good neighborhood.? Most students provided descriptions of their neighborhoods that suggested a positive attachment to these places. Students were ?proud of being from here.? They used phrases such as ?nice,? ?peaceful,? ?clean,? and ?quiet? to describe where they lived and pointed to the accessibility of amenities such as parks, corner stores, museums and tourist attractions as other benefits of their neighborhood locations. Other students, however, saw their neighborhoods in a different light. A handful described their neighborhoods as ?dangerous,? ?risky,? and ?unsafe.? Serenity, for example, shared that her parents ?didn?t like the people around my neighborhood? and had strict rules and curfews to prevent her from hanging out with those people. A few students identified stark differences within their neighborhoods, with their side of the street being ?clean, it?s not loud? and ?nice? while describing the next 163 block as ?not good? and ?really bad over there, it?s like people just walking around looking for trouble.? Many students, like Tallulah, who identified negative aspects of their neighborhood ultimately had a positive assessment: ?I have a pretty good neighborhood, um,? it?s a lot of bad stuff that happens around there, but now that they put a police station like right down the street it?s really good, I think it?s a good neighborhood.? ?I like living in diverse settings.? Another theme that emerged from students? descriptions of their neighborhoods was the presence of racial diversity, a feature that they also appreciated about GPCS. Students were often proud of this racial diversity, both in their neighborhoods and in their school. Emma, for example, immediately identified diversity as a strength of her neighborhood: ?You?ll see a lot of diversity, you?ll see, you?ll see Asian stores, Asian supermarket, you?ll also see Hispanic supermarkets, um, yeah, it?s just full of culture and diversity and you can never get enough of it.? Coco and Mallory?s comments demonstrate how the racial diversity in their school and neighborhood communities provided opportunities for cross-cultural learning: I?m always surrounded by diversity, ? I love being in a diverse environment, you know, because it?s like, I like diversity, I like learning more about different cultures and stuff. So this school is really diverse, ? it?s like there?s Hispanics, Latinos, there?s like African Americans, there?s Asians, it?s just like there?s everyone. And I thought, I think that?s great, and then as for my like [neighborhood], yeah just, I?m also surrounded by diversity. (Coco) I like it, I like living in diverse settings. [Kristin: You like living in diverse settings? What do you like about that?] ?Cause like, there?s Hispanics, I can like ?cause my sister she?s friends with like a little Hispanic girl, and she speaks Spanish, and like I could like learn from her, and it?s just fun and more welcoming, like I don?t want to just stay in once place and seeing like the same people or people that look like me. (Mallory) 164 ?Everybody have each other?s back.? Nearly every student I interviewed referenced the strength of the social bonds amongst residents as one of the strengths of their neighborhood. Some characterized these relationships as being ?comfortable? with their neighbors, while others described a community dynamic in which people knew each and looked out for each other. Students described ?a tight-knit? community and ?pretty intimate relationships? with their neighbors where people were friendly, social, kind, and ?care about the others in the community.? Leona described how her neighbors responded when her family moved to the neighborhood: ?I remember when we first went there, had a house warming, our neighbors ? came, spoke to us, and introduced themselves, and it just really made me feel welcome, welcoming. I like that about them.? Several students also attributed these relationships to their elders? ? usually a grandmother?s ? presence and reputation in the community. Reina?s story of her grandmother was also present in other students? stories: Everyone there is really friendly because my grandmother, ? she?s grown up on that street, she knows everyone, and everyone knows her kids, ? everyone just kind of like knows everyone? It?s just like, really friendly. In most cases, these social ties translated to community members looking out for each other and providing support in times of crisis. As Amy said, ?We all know everyone ?we?re like a neighborhood watch community that just doesn?t have a neighborhood watch sign up.? A few people provided examples of how neighbors kept an eye on elderly or physically disabled residents; most students provided accounts of community solidarity and reliability. Four students comments illustrate how this theme presented in students? descriptions of their neighborhood?s strengths: That?s what I like, like if something was to happen to somebody like the whole community just comes together. That?s what I like. (Luna) 165 But like I feel like our neighborhood, we?re really good, looking out for others, because when it comes time, if something?s really happening? we lean on each other more, and we can come together, ? we can support each other. (Serenity) Like if my whole neighborhood is out of power, we will all go outside and just talk about it. That happened one time, yeah, my lights and stuff cut off, I just went outside and everybody else was outside and I was just like, okay, it?s not me. So we have like good communicating skills. ? if something were to happen, our next-door neighbor would know so we would run to them and tell them, so I feel like our neighbors are the best thing that happened to us. (Michelle) Like if something bad happens we all come together, and we like find out what?s going on, you know? (Stephanie) Students? descriptions suggest that they found social solidarity and comfort in their neighborhoods and that they valued the strong interpersonal bonds and racial and cultural diversity that characterize these places. While the place-based experiences in the FJP seemed to help students develop new social relationships with other students or adults in their cities through community-based fieldwork, the FJP didn?t seem to deepen or expand up existing relationships or students? sense of place in their neighborhoods. With the exception of the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group, these FJP-related relationships, while enjoyable and engaging for students, were short-term and shallow. Critical social analysis. The extent of students? critical social analysis skills ? or lack thereof ? is evident in their ability to identify and discuss perceived inequalities and injustices from a structural or systematic perspective (Watts et al., 2011; Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015). With the exception of the students in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group, the FJP largely failed to develop students? critical social analysis. This section discusses when and to what extent students demonstrated critical social analysis within the FJP. 166 ?Help us see the ?inequalities.? Both students? and teachers? descriptions of the GPCS curriculum, as well as classroom observations, suggest that students had ample opportunities to practice critical consciousness through small group discussions throughout their time at GPCS. For example, at least twice a school year GPCS temporarily put regular classes on hold for ?Youth-led Social Justice Days.? During these days students small-group discussions about justice and equity-related issues chosen by the students. Other students referenced conversations about violence and gun control in US History and ?Youth Justice Class;? student work adorning both Environmental Science and US History classroom walls featured students? observations of racism or classism. The evidence of opportunities to practice small-group discussions focused on critical consciousness during the FJP specifically, however, was less pronounced. A few students from a variety of groups thought that the research they conducted for their food justice projects allowed them to identify inequalities across other schools or in their broader community. As one student said in their reflection, the FJP was ?a perfect way to grow as a person and to get to know what?s really goin? on.? Mari, who participated in the Healthy Cities overview group, explained how looking at data on school lunches and wellness policies at different charter schools could ?help us see like the difference or inequalities between each school and the number of [meal] offerings.? Several of the young women who worked on the My Friend?s Place (MFP) project spoke about the social class inequities they discovered while interviewing guests. Coco explained that she observed: Some of these people are walking or talking the bus for one hour or more just to get a meal? [this] is something that shouldn?t be right, because for us we can just like walk anywhere that we have the money to, but some of 167 them are also unemployed or economically unstable so they have to be smart with their money. Others in the MFP group observed that their project helped them better understand inequities related to public transportation and connections between homelessness and the rising housing costs due in part to gentrification. Every young woman in the MFP group talked at length ? both during classes or activities I observed and during our interviews ? about how their experience interviewing homeless deepened their critical consciousness by challenging their stereotypes and helping them learn more about homelessness. Through learning homeless peoples? stories, these young women were able to relate more to their experiences and were more empathetic to their plight. Quotes from three students illustrate this common theme: It?s surprising because again I was born and raised here and so to know, I?ve never really been around those type of people, or been surrounded by so many, and it?s just like putting myself and trying to go understand, it?s really different, because again I got to learn more about my environment, since I used to be part of those people that had a certain stereotype, but then when I was there I got to learn that these were people that actually live in DC and they?re not just, they?re just like us, again with different problems. (Coco) Um, well there was this one guy that I interviewed, he was a fashion photographer back in Ethiopia but he?s homeless now. I?ve also met other people who have degrees from like all these prestigious schools, and I learned that just because you like went to these schools and stuff that doesn?t mean you?re going to end up where you want to be in the future. ? you can?t really judge a person by their cover. ? I had stereotypes on [homeless people] ? [but] I kind of had an open mind after this project. (Emma) Okay, at first, like, when I looked at homeless people I like thought of them as drug addicts or people who were like, not bad people but like, they were not like smart or something? So like I wasn?t expecting to get like information, like hold a conversation with them ? but once like I conversed with them and like talked to them like normal people, because they are normal people, um, it was actually like a nice feeling, like I changed how I looked at, [homeless people]. (Mallory) 168 Their comments also suggest a shift in their explanation for homelessness. While all six students came into the project with a framework of individual, personal responsibility for homelessness (i.e., people are homeless because they chose to use drugs or didn?t finish school), they developed a more complex, systemic understanding of the reasons for homelessness. Students reported that the MFP project made them ?more aware of the problems? that homeless people face, such as access to ?food and transportation.? They realized that homeless people ?aren?t as privileged as other people? and have experienced ?different circumstances.? While these young women didn?t necessarily make any ties to specific systems of oppression such as racism or classism, they shifted their thinking about homelessness to a more critical, structural perspective. Emma, Mallory and Michelle?s comments below demonstrate the range of explanations these young people developed and how having their stereotypes challenged led them to develop more complex explanations for homelessness. Emma and Mallory?s comments reveal how their perspectives on homeless people shifted as they learned about the role of forces beyond an individual?s control: When I was younger I was told that they were homeless because they didn?t? do really well in school ?[this project] changed that prior knowledge, so I can?t really look at everyone and think, oh, they didn?t go to school, that?s why they?re homeless, there?s just certain circumstances that [they] go through. (Emma) First, I was like scared to talk, scared to walk like outside my neighborhood and go to the store because like a lot of people like, hung around the corner store, and I was scared because I thought they might steal my money or bother me or something, but after food justice I realized that they are probably just hungry or they just don?t have anywhere to go, and they?re not just standing outside for nothing, they?re probably just waiting for someone to help them. (Mallory) 169 Michelle, on the other hand, demonstrated a more nuanced understanding of reasons for homelessness when she explained both the connection she identified between the cost of housing in Barryville, homelessness and her own struggles: I learned a lot from them in general ? so instead of saying they were old crack heads and stuff like that I thought of them as people that were struggling in [Barryville] as much as we are. [Kristin: So you could relate to them.] Yeah, because [Barryville] is very expensive, like, expensive. And we could understand that because we are [Residents of Barryville] and we understand the same thing. (Michelle) ?What?s the point of this?? Students in other groups struggled to develop connections between the work that they were doing for their food justice project and issues of social inequality. The primary connection that several students made was the environmental impact of food waste. Most presentations by GPCS-based groups, and the Evermore Farms group, argued for the importance of their project for addressing climate change and protecting the natural environment. Most common was the argument that increased food or agricultural waste produces more methane and more methane can lead to global warming and climate change. As Alphonso explained: I didn?t know that food waste was such a large um, uh producer of methane, you know, and um, and also how terrible we kind of take for granted our food and we eat it and we just throw it away like noting, and if we didn?t we probably couldn?t, just based on statistical information, that we could feed the world three times over. While his comment hints at social inequalities related to the distribution of food, few students? final presentations or discussions that I observed included connections to broader social or environmental inequalities or the role of systems of oppression in perpetuating these inequalities. During conversations with each other and teachers during work time, students mentioned concepts such as ?environmental racism? but were rarely 170 able to articulate connections between their projects and ?food justice.? For example, Stephanie lamented ?What?s the point of this?? during a work session. Observations of class discussions and work time suggest that students had concerns about the impact of kitchen changes on people who worked there, were curious about the role of racism in school lunch disparities, and identified social class differences across the schools they visited; but, in no case did these threads of curiosity translate into final projects, classwork, or group discussions of inequality. One Healthy Cities overview group, for example, looked at several variables, such as school location, size, and school level, and concluded that length of school lunch ?is a school?s individual choice, [it] has nothing to do with where it?s located.? This statement suggests that students weren?t equipped with the tools to think broadly or critically about the different structural factors that may impact a school?s lunch time. Teachers? reflections also confirmed this finding; for example, Aja (the US History teacher) mentioned during the day of the FJP youth conference that students ?don?t really see the big picture? in terms of the broader social and environmental ramifications of their projects. Students? omission of the ?big picture? may be in part because, as previously mentioned in Chapter Four, the FJP curriculum didn?t prioritize, as Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher) readily admitted, ?getting to that addressing that fundamental kind of, societal oppression and marginalization piece.? Danielle?s perspective that ?surveying charter schools may not feel like it?s part of [societal oppression and marginalization], that?s going to inform policy that?s going to make a difference on a different scale? didn?t seem to translate. 171 Students? experiences with their food justice projects, as evidenced by observations of student work and focus group interviews, suggest that they didn?t see the role of their projects in addressing social injustice. Even after the FJP was over, most students, as Nathan said, ?still [didn?t] understand what food justice means.? The day after the final youth conference was supposed to occur, Danielle, as earlier noted, engaged her Environmental Science students in a gallery-walk type activity that asked them to read and reflect upon several different definitions of food justice.45 Observations and review of worksheets completed during these class sessions suggest that students began to develop a more critical understanding of food justice and began to link to issues of social injustice. Laura, for example, on her worksheet listed that at first she defined food justice as ?the right to have good food,? but after the activity she expanded her definition to include the right to have good food ?no matter someone?s race, gender etc. and that it doesn?t hurt the environment.? Similarly, other students began to include considerations of race, gender, sexuality, social class in food accessibility and affordability in their explanations of food justice after the activity. Some also explained how gentrification in their own neighborhoods intersected with food justice, in that grocery stores with fresh, healthy food were opening but these stores were too expensive for long-term residents. Some students began to draw connections between these new definitions and their projects, but such connections were incidental and fleeting, due in part, perhaps, to the limited and delayed introduction of critical notions of food justice into the curriculum. 45 Only students who were enrolled in environmental science participated in this activity. 172 Generally speaking, students in some groups, particularly the Healthy Cities overview and GPCS-based groups, were skeptical that their projects reflected food justice at all. As an example of this skepticism, during a focus group Francisco, Nathan, and Eve engaged in a passionate discussion about the missed opportunity to do what they called ?actual food justice.? They all said that the topics they had to pick from were only ?remotely related to food justice? and that they?d have preferred to complete projects related to food accessibility and food affordability. During their discussion they reported interest in studying these topics because of their own personal struggles. Their conversation revealed how food accessibility and food affordability were deeply relevant to their experiences outside of school: Nathan: If I were to choose any topic I would choose helping low-income families to get healthy food since I was kind of in that situation in 2009 when we were completely broke and we had mac and cheese for dinner like every single day, so I would choose that topic. Francisco: Yeah, I can relate to all of that, like [Eve: Same] when we actually focus on stuff that actually like is a part of our lives we will probably put effort into it because we care about it. Eve: Because we?ve been through it so we?ve had the experience of it. Francisco: Like, food justice is actually an important thing to me, because I understand what it?s like not like having healthy food around, I was in the same position as [Nathan] in the past. Like I understand, like food justice is honestly very important to me. But this wasn?t food justice. It?s hard to like put effort into something that you know doesn?t matter, or like ? Nathan: It doesn?t personally affect you, or you don?t care about it. Francisco: Or it doesn?t affect like the majority of the people at this school. [Kristin: What do you think, Eve?] 173 Eve: I agree with the group, not saying that I?ve been through that before but like before my mom got another job it wasn?t like we had everything we wanted, so like she went out and like she was able to like get food from different places, like have you ever heard of [organization]? I mean she still gets food from there up until today, I don?t know, I?d rather just focus on that topic and help people. Despite the fact that two of them (Francisco and Eve) were working on projects directly related to improving their school lunch, something that arguably could impact their daily life and their peers? lives, they still found food accessibility and affordability more interesting and relevant to the broader theme of food justice. This conversation suggests that students had some critical social analysis of the inequalities involved with food justice; however, the specific topics that teachers provided through the FJP didn?t resonate with that analysis. Civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills This section describes what students learned from the FJP and organizes these outcomes using the categories of civic engagement outlined in the conceptual framework: personally responsible, participatory, and critical action. I include here both changes to attitudes that suggest a particular understanding of civic engagement, behaviors that students engaged in during or after the food justice project, the articulation of any commitments to take action that were inspired by the FJP, and skills students learned that may support any of these attitudes, behaviors, or commitments. I draw on student interview data, students? final food justice projects, and both open-ended and survey responses on the final food justice reflection. Personally responsible citizenship. As discussed in the conceptual framework, personally responsible citizenship is an individual?s contribution to the public good. Attitudes, behaviors and commitments in this category can include environmental 174 stewardship, where students adopt behaviors such as recycling, picking up trash, conserving water, reducing energy usage, and traditional community service that provides aid to individuals (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Development of personally responsible citizenship was one of the least commonly found responses to the FJP and consisted of either change in attitudes related to food consumption or professed commitment to volunteer more. The students in the Evermore Farms group in particular discussed how they learned the importance of ?changing the way you buy your food? and became more aware of how food is produced, marketed, and sold. These young women gained knowledge that helped inform more responsible food purchasing decisions such as ?when packages like food packages say natural, natural can mean like legit anything? and the impact of reduced meat consumption on the environment. Nearly all of the young women in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group talked about how they were now ?more determined to help? homeless people. Their plans to help included what Westheimer and Kahne (2014) would consider ?personally responsible citizenship? behaviors such as being more likely to give money to homeless people they encounter on a street and continuing to volunteer at MFP after the conclusion of the FJP (see also Westheimer, 2015). While not necessarily specific to the FJP, students also indicated that they would be ?likely? or ?very likely? to ?do volunteer work to help others? after high school. Leona, for example, explained how ?us as people who are doing better than them it?s kind of our job to help them get on a better level than they are? through volunteering. Michelle described how her personal interactions with the guests at MFP motivated her to stay engaged with the organization and try to ?give back:? 175 The biggest thing I learned is that not all homeless people are bad people?. I also know that getting to know a homeless person isn?t that bad, even though sometimes you get attached to them, like they?re your family now, and you kind of feel bad because you?re leaving them and not seeing them again, but I might volunteer with them again to keep up with them. [Kristin: You might volunteer with [MFP]?] Yeah, because meeting them and getting to know them and then leaving them afterwards I feel like that?s kind of like rude in a way, but keeping up with them, knowing what they?re doing and making sure they?re OK is a good thing to me. Mallory also professed a desire to volunteer with MFP, and thought that the experience encouraged her to identify and volunteer with other organizations. As she explained: I learned that I shouldn?t be afraid to speak out to other people who are like dealing with like problems, and I should like go out to organizations that are helping people because like, [I have] lots of things that I want to help people with, and like I never knew how to like start. And [MFP] is like an organization that even if I wasn?t doing food justice, and I was like really passionate about helping the homeless, I would be able to like, like this project helped me like be able to research places I could go to help homeless people. For these young women, the positive experience that they had with this aspect of the FJP nurtured a newfound commitment to helping homeless people through volunteering. Participatory citizenship. Participatory citizenship includes collective engagement with community issues such as volunteering with local, state, or national organizations and dominant political parties or organizing community efforts to care for those in need (Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). This category also includes efforts made to advocate for change within students? schools or raise the public?s awareness about issues or problems by making presentations to local decision makers, community organizations, and/or school community or by creating an online resource such as a website or wiki page. This section describes opportunities to engage in participatory citizenship behaviors through students? food justice projects, students? newfound commitments to advocate on 176 behalf of others, and skills related to participatory citizenship that students gained through the FJP. ?We can actually make a change.? During the FJP, students in the GPCS-based and some Healthy Cities groups demonstrated participatory citizenship behaviors when they worked with decision-makers to advocate for concrete changes to their school?s cafeteria and lunch. Students who were in both the GPCS-based groups (i.e., food waste, compost, present and possible, funding) and some of the Healthy Cities groups thought their projects would present them with a chance to improve the quality of the school lunches at GPCS, a concern that was top on the minds of most, if not all, of the 11th grade students. My field notes are rife with student complaints about soggy bread, frozen noodles, undercooked chicken, moldy bread, and other unappetizing descriptions of school lunches. Students saw the FJP as a chance to formally and forcefully advocate for change at GPCS. Both Christy and Pablo, for example, thought that their projects could potentially lead to improvements in their own school lunches: Basically I wanted to chose the topic because um, no one likes the lunch, I don?t like the lunch, I don?t eat the lunch, ? so it?s just like, I don?t know, like the school lunch is so bad here so like why not propose something. (Laura) I thought that um food waste was a big topic and that since it really impacts our school, even though like the administration don?t like know about it you can still make an impact, or we can pitch an idea towards them. (Pablo) Focus group data indicate that the students in the school-based food justice groups had opportunities to advocate for changes within their school through their projects, a form of civic action that is common in the PBE literature. As their final product, each group was required to put together a proposal to give to GPCS administrators that suggested changes 177 to school infrastructure or operating procedures related to school lunch or food waste. Pablo and Laura both describe what they proposed in their final products: And we noticed that it was more people who actually wasting pre- packaged because there was packaging, all of that packaging would later go to a landfill, and that would create more methane and litter would create even more global warming. So we?re going to try to find a way to reduce that. ? an idea was actually implement like dishes and have like a place where, in the cafeteria, have like dishes where you can re-use actual dishes, like the plates, forks, spoons where you can minimize actual waste (Pablo) Waste is being um, thrown away I guess so we can implement re-usable trays that will reduce the waste. (Laura) The Present and Possible groups drew up a proposal for GPCS administrators that included recommendations for (a) remodeling GPCS? kitchen into a ?semi-prep? kitchen with new kitchen equipment that could serve meals family style instead of pre-packaged, (b) switching commercial food vendors, and (c) introducing a salad bar with ?good dressings.? The text from one group?s final proposal describes their proposed changes in greater detail: We propose that [GPCS] not break their partnership with [Sustenance] Foods, but rather keep this partnership and choose a different food arrangement with the company, while simultaneously transitioning to a school that has their own self-preparing kitchen. Furthermore, we?d like [GPCS] to order food ingredients from [Sustenance] Foods, in place of packaged lunches, and make their own food, using these items, so that the [GPCS] is functioning as a hybrid. If this proposal were to be implemented, employing more staff, having and having a set budget are factors that have to be accounted for. Similarly, the compost group drew up a detailed plan for how GPCS could transition to composting their food waste instead of throwing it away. This group researched composting companies, potential grants for funding, and designed composting bins for students to separate food and also learn how they might compost at home. 178 Working within the confines of their school, the students in the GPCS-based groups had an opportunity to practice participatory civic engagement skills such as identifying problems and drafting a proposal for organizational change. Because students across Barryville and the country all have the common experience of school lunches, some students also thought that their projects could potentially have an impact beyond GPCS. While the commitment that these students demonstrated extended outside the boundary of an organization (in this case, a school), it does not rise to the level of critical action because their explanations do not include a systemic understanding of the many potential reasons for inequitable access to healthy school lunches. Cyril explained how school lunch could be a global food justice issue: Making sure that, not only are [school lunches] healthy but ?people like them, connecting to food justice, making sure they?re affordable, healthy, accessible and sustainable ... So I think it?s pretty important for every school, not just in [Barryville] but around the world. Both Clarisa and Laura took this assessment of school lunch as a universal issue a step further. They both recognized the potential of their projects to inspire other schools to improve their school lunches, in part because GPCS had a particular reputation that meant others in the city might look to them as an example: I think that my topic is important because ? people are always looking to like what?s [GPCS] doing, so like, if like we try to make changes here that support the community positively then people are going to try to do that outside and it?s just going to like, like make a bigger impact. (Clarisa) Well, my topic is important because well obviously no one likes the school lunch and we can actually make a change in the school lunch and then we can actually influence other schools that eat [Sustenance Foods46] or don?t like their lunch to change their school lunch, so it?d make them happy, yeah. (Laura) 46 Sustenance Foods (a pseudonym) was the vendor that provided pre-packaged school lunches to GPCS and was the primary provider of lunches to other charter schools in the city. 179 ?They need someone to hear them.? Students also demonstrated an interest in and commitment to advocacy and raising awareness through the food justice project. Most of the students who participated in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group and some who participated in the Healthy Cities case study groups reported that their projects allowed them to amplify the voices of people who were otherwise ignored by society. The young women in the MFP group recognized that homeless people faced significant barriers to overcoming the challenges they faced, that they had an important perspective on their own situation, and that homeless people were often shunned or dismissed by wider society. These students stated that ?we need to help these people.? They thought that, through their MFP project, they could help shed light on homeless peoples? perspectives and voices and in doing so tap into necessary resources. The comments of Mallory, Michelle, and Emma all demonstrate this theme: Homeless people, they need a voice, like they need someone to hear them. And like, there?s going to be homeless people, and if you don?t speak to them about like their needs and like what they need, what they need to like improve on their life, then nothing?s going to change, and it?s going to get even worse. (Mallory) We as Americans don?t really care about homeless people, once you?re homeless you?re somewhat dead to the world. And many people ignore them, so getting to know homeless people as a child, and trying to help them out [as] soon be adults with this information we can take it to [our] future jobs and work something out to help them. (Michelle) The homeless, they are ignored every single day, and by giving them a voice, as in by researching what we can do for them gives them that voice, it gives them that identity, and it makes them known. We always ignore them in the streets, we don?t really give them what they want or what they need. (Emma) This theme ? of amplifying otherwise unheard voices ? also came through in the responses of some students who did the Healthy Cities case study projects. These 180 students saw their projects as bringing attention to young peoples? perspectives on their school lunches. As Matteo explained, ?We?re trying to show out like, the voice of the children, ? I feel like kids should? have a mic, and be able to express themselves and speak out about what they?re eating.? Students from several different groups saw their project as a chance to raise awareness of food justice issues amongst their school and local community. Seth, who was in the documentation group, observed that his project was important because it provided an opportunity to let others know about all the work students put into the FJP. He explained, ?If you don?t document it, nobody, somebody that wasn?t there isn?t going to know?.Getting everybody?s perspective and getting like an actual like first person point of view on it? it gives you a good idea of what was happening.? Pablo thought that his project on food waste at GPCS would help people ? especially audience members at the final conference ? become more aware of food waste in general and provide tools to understand and measure food waste: People need to know, like food waste at their own community or location or school and that if you actually conduct an experiment on a certain topic like food waste that people could actually make a change. But now a days people don?t really know. Similarly, both Jane and Reina thought that people in their city didn?t know very much about homelessness or regenerative farming, respectively, and their projects would help them ?pass the word around.? By raising awareness they?d be able to positively influence others? behaviors or attitudes. Reina explained her reasoning: I think that [my topic is] important because many people don?t know about it. Like when someone sees like, regenerative farming, or something like that, I feel like that can be kind of intimidating. So if people were to know more about it they wouldn?t be so, oh, ?I don?t want to know what that is?, you know? ?So like if we have the information, don?t keep it to yourself, 181 like you should share it with people so that they can then ? go and like start reading labels and start like doing more research about it and stuff like that. Some students perceived that raising awareness about their topic would impact others? health and the environment. Lilac and Eddie both thought that increasing others? awareness of ?knowing where your food comes from,? as well as the quality of school lunches, was important because it would lead to healthier choices both by students and by other schools when it came to their school lunch policies. Similarly, both Alphonso and Amy thought that their topics were ?environmentally very important? and that the knowledge their topics produced would help make others more aware of the impact of food waste and industrial farming, respectively, on CO2 levels and climate change. Participatory civic engagement skills. Students also reported gaining three specific sets of skills from participation in the FJP; these findings were consistent across and within project groups. Students reported gaining a deeper understanding of leadership and their own capabilities as leaders, improved presentation and communication skills, and new research and interview skills. These sets of skills might not usually be thought of as civic engagement skills. However, given both teachers? goals for the FJP ? that students become change agents ? and the context in which students were practicing these skills, this analysis suggests that these skills give students the tools to more effectively advocate for improvements within an organization as opposed to within their neighborhoods or communities. ?I learned that I can be a leader.? While students often complete group work at GPCS, both students and teachers confirmed that the FJP was by far the biggest group project they had ever completed. Several students reported that they expanded their 182 understanding of what it means to be a leader, as well as their own leadership capabilities, through the FJP. Luna mentioned that taking charge of her group, along with Tallulah, made her ?realize that she could be a leader.? Isabel and Reina had similar experiences: I feel like I learned that I can be a leader in my group, I feel like when one of my teammates are down I can help them and give them motivation. (Isabel) One of the main things [I] learned is that being a leader doesn?t have to be scary. Because you can like be a leader in small ways, whether it?s just making sure that someone understands something, or it could be like, you simply directing everyone in a certain [way], because like I said earlier I never really saw myself, like I?m kind of the one that?s being leaded, so it?s kind of nice to [be a leader] for a change. (Reina) As these quotes suggest, students indicated that navigating group dynamics as part of completing a big, multifaceted project ? not necessarily the content of the project itself or any of the place-based experiences ? was what contributed to their leadership development. ?[Presenting]? that?s a new skill I learned.? Crafting and delivering presentations is a set of skills that GPCS requires students to practice frequently. That being said, many students still reported that the FJP helped them improve those skills and increase their confidence and comfort with public speaking and presenting; several felt that they were now a ?strong presenter? where they had previously struggled before. As Laura reflected, ?Well a skill that I got better on was my presenting skills. ? I wasn?t really a strong presenter [before] so that?s a new skill that I learned.? Similarly, Stephanie explained how she ?used to be shy presenting,? but through her FJP experience she learned how to persevere through mistakes: ?I used to be shy presenting, and I would like mess up, but now I didn?t. Well I did at first, I messed up [during her presentation], but then I just continued.? Those who had been at GCPS for many years, however, more 183 often said that they ?didn?t really learn any new? presentation skills, but instead, as Natalia said, worked towards ?perfecting my craft.? Along with improving or perfecting their presentation skills, students also talked about honing their communication with group members and outside audiences. Amy, for example, explained how she became more adept at using scientific language in presentations: ?I can be more specific ? especially when there was actually some people in my audience that didn?t know what certain words meant ? I could explain [scientific words] way better.? Similar to the leadership skills described above, students could have developed these skills through the process of preparing a presentation of any type for a large audience, not necessarily a presentation based on a place-based research project. Nonetheless, FJP seems to have honed these skills. ?I learned I?m capable of interviewing someone?and listening to their life story.? Given that the structure of the FJP required students to follow the basic steps of a formal research project (research question, background research, data collection, analysis, and presentation), it follows that students could have learned ?basic researching skills? such as conducting interviews, developing coding schemes for their interviews, and graphing various kinds of data. In their FJP reflections, students emphasized the importance of providing ?back up information? and ?gathering as much data and more? to support their arguments. As earlier noted, while students could have learned leadership, presentation, and communication skills through any large group project that required a final presentation, students attributed the research and interviewing skills they gained to the experience of conducting place-based research. Observations and interviews suggested that students found the experience of interviewing others ? whether middle 184 school students, produce managers, or homeless people ? to be challenging, engaging, but ultimately interesting and a source of personal growth. Generally speaking, students found the experience of interviewing strangers pushed them out of their comfort zones and forced them to practice new and unfamiliar skills. Students, especially those who interviewed guests at the My Friend?s Place soup kitchen, initially found interviewing to be awkward, nerve-wracking, and difficult. Jane even mentioned during class one day that a person had ?cussed her out? and refused outright when she approached him for an interview. Specifically, these students struggled to figure out whom to approach for an interview, what questions to ask, and how to phrase the questions in a respectful fashion. Coco, Emma, Jane and Michelle all describe their reactions to navigating the interview process: I?ve never really experienced that kind of work, like interviewing people,? it was a bit nerve-wracking because when you go in there, it?s not like everyone?s friendly, they?re not like smiling, waving, and ready to talk, some of them are sitting down, everyone just kind of looks serious ? It was pretty difficult, just trying to be able to pick people out and see like who you can talk to ? so it was pretty intense. (Coco) At first, it was nerve wracking because I?ve never really gone up to someone that I don?t have some type of experiences with, and so I was scared. (Emma) It was kind of nerve-wracking, ? I felt like it was kind of personal to like really ask them questions, and I know they didn?t feel comfortable with me cause I?m just a stranger. (Jane) It was kind of nerve-wracking, because you have to figure out what type of people would like to be interviewed, ? going up to someone and saying ?Hey can you get interviewed?? and asking some type of question ?was hard. (Michelle) These young women were required to talk to complete strangers, about whom they held certain stereotypes and with whom they had little experience, about potentially tricky 185 topics. As they returned to MFP subsequent weekends and conducted more interviews they began to ?[feel] comfortable? and more confident with the interview process. As Jane explained, ?Yeah [interviewing] was kind of weird at first but I felt like the more I started going each weekend I kind of felt a little more comfortable in knowing what would the right things to say.? Reina and Lilac reported similar obstacles and successes interviewing produce managers; they were intimidated at first but quickly grew more confident: Um, it was kind of ? challenging because I?m not a really outspoken person and I?m not the type of person that?s just like, hey, this is who I am and I?m going to aks you questions. So it was a little scary at first, ? But the good thing about it is, after you get over the first jump it gets easier from there. Like once you start because if you?re timid and you?re not really asking questions you?re not going to get the data that you need. So after you start and you like and after they like respond and then you kind of have like this conversation going then it gets easier, and they?re more open to talk to you too. Yeah. (Reina) Talking to the managers, it was difficult because it was like, talking to strangers and interviewing them, but after the first one were just like okay, we got this, down pat, and yeah. (Lilac) Ultimately, students thought that interviewing people during their community-based fieldwork was ?a good experience? and that interviewing was one of the most important skills they learned from the whole FJP experience. Notably, the experience of going out into the community and interviewing people they didn?t know ? as opposed to perhaps practicing interviewing skills with peers or family members ? was key. Reina, Emma, Michelle, and Coco explain what they learned about themselves and their capabilities from these experiences: Like for me, I said, I?m not really a take-charge kind of person. It kind of forced me to take charge, because if I didn?t then who knows how much data we would have gotten? You have to like learn how to step outside of your comfort zone. [Interviewing strangers] is kind of scary but it?s not 186 like going to ruin your life scary, like, it?s going to make you a better person. (Reina) I learned that I, I used to be really shy so it was kind of hard for me going up to a person asking them like questions, or making conversation with them so this whole experience, especially interviewing someone I do not know completely, um, I learned that I?m capable of interviewing someone and also listening to them, with their life story. (Emma) [I learned about] asking questions the right way and not like hurting the other person?s feelings in a way that you don?t know about, uh, letting the person open up to you even though it?s unexpected and just go with it and try to be understanding. (Michelle) So it was really like a good experience to know that I am able to do that, like I can like talk to different audiences, and such a sensitive one too, so I thought that was really interesting. (Coco) Critical action and justice-oriented citizenship. As explained in greater detail in the conceptual framework, critical or sociopolitical action can encompass personally responsible or participatory attitudes, behaviors and commitments as well as social movement activism. What sets critical or sociopolitical action apart, however, is that people engage in such behaviors in order to address areas of injustice and with an understanding of the systemic roots of that injustice (Chawla & Cushing, 2007; Schild, 2016; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Westheimer & Kahne, 2004). Only one set of students, the young women in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group, provided a systemic analysis and understanding of inequality along with the development of new civic engagement attitudes and commitments, including those that fell into the personally responsible or participatory category. They demonstrated a critical understanding of systemic explanations for the challenges homeless people face, had ideas for policy remedies, and reported an increased commitment to fighting injustice in their community. 187 ?The whole system is not sustainable.? During one of their small-group work sessions, the MFP group brainstormed a possible activity for their final presentation that demonstrated their understanding of the systemic reasons for hunger and homelessness. They wanted to conduct a mock meeting amongst various stakeholders, including the mayor of the city, the director of public transportation, local business owners, and homeless people themselves, where they would discuss potential solutions to hunger and homelessness. They discussed systemic explanations for homelessness such as the lack of access to affordable housing, transportation, and food deserts; they rejected personal responsibility explanations such as laziness or vice. They also shared these explanations during our interviews. Every student in the MFP group articulated the connection between high housing costs and homelessness. Jane explained what she learned: Um, I learned about [pause] I mostly learned about my community and like what?s going on in my community and like basically with like housing and like, traveling, and like how that could be a challenge for some people in [Barryville] and learning how expensive it is to live in [Barryville] and how that?s really like the cause for homelessness. (Jane) These students put some of the blame for homelessness ? as well as the responsibility for addressing related problems ? on the local government. Coco and Mallory both mentioned recent city-wide budget cuts for homeless shelters and other service organizations: I know in [City] the living expenses ?is why so many people are homeless because it?s so high. I?m pretty sure each state has their own different problems going on, because again for us, we talk about shelters and the budget cuts because of [Mayor]. (Coco) We learned a lot of stuff, for example we learned that the whole situation with [MFP] and other organizations kind of decreasing [their funding] is connected to the government and like the [public transportation] too. We found out that the [public transportation] is too expensive for them because obviously they don?t receive like consistent income, and we also 188 found out that the mayor cut the funding, and that decreased the money that goes to organizations for the homeless, so, like the whole system is not sustainable. (Emma) ?Some people in the government should change that.? The young women in this group also had ideas for policy remedies that would help address homelessness, either regulating housing costs or providing transportation subsidies to homeless or low-income people. Mallory and Michelle both held the local government accountable for rising housing prices. Notably, in the quote below Michelle also speaks about using the group?s research to advocate directly to local political officials: After the [food justice] project I realized that some of the reasons that people are [homeless], they don?t have a place to live, it?s because the rent in [Barryville] is high, and I feel like that should be changed, some people in the government should change that and make rent less expensive. (Mallory) I just thought food justice should be a public thing where we could submit our stuff to important people that can make change in the community? I would try to give [our research] to [Mayor] ?or someone that could do something about, like real estate in [Barryville], because if we had cheaper housing that is affordable to everyone, the homeless rate would go down, so I figured, send it to someone that can help with the real estate in [Barryville], that is in the government. (Michelle) Emma and Jane both spoke about how the cost of transportation was a barrier for homeless people to access food and services, and called for the implementation of policies that would provide free public transportation: Even though food justice is done, I was trying to find a way to provide [homeless people] with free transportation. So I know [the subway] offers coins, they could just put in the bus and you could just ride, so my group was thinking of finding a way to provide them with those coins, so they can travel for free. (Emma) [Food justice] made me think about how like we don?t really put much thought into, I mean we do, but I felt like it could be more action toward homelessness in [Barryville]. [Kristin: Did you have any ideas from your project about like what could be done about it?] I feel like ? because 189 some of the guests talked about how it?s hard to transfer from one place to another, so I feel like there should be some kind of arrangement done for like people who like are homeless and can?t afford to like get on public transportation, maybe like bus tokens or a pass or something to transfer around, get around from place to place. (Jane) Both young women spoke at other times in their interview about advocating for their ideas directly to local city officials, including the mayor. ?I just need to do more.? In addition to deepening their understanding of structural reasons for homelessness and generating ideas for policy solutions, these young women also developed a sense of responsibility to people in their community and a commitment to make a difference that was not evident in other students? responses to the FJP. This sense of responsibility was rooted in both the emotional bond that students developed with homeless people throughout the interviewing experience and a sense of the injustices underlying homelessness. As Emma said in reference to the struggles that homeless people face, ?if you know something isn?t right you can?t just stand there and let it happen.? Coco, Mallory and Michelle all describe how their experiences with the food justice project instilled in them a commitment to become involved in instigating improvements in their neighborhoods and communities: [I learned that] I need to be more active in my community. I feel like that?s a big thing because when I was [interviewing guests at MFP], a lot of people were just like, ?Thank you for doing this, people don?t listen to us,? they had a lot of hopes for us ?and they believed that we could do something to help change what they?re going through. And then listening to them talk and stuff, and knowing that there?s other problems other than homelessness that is also happening in [Barryville], it just makes me think, oh man I really should do something in my community, I should be more active and try to participate ? I just need to do more. (Coco) Because after going to [MFP] and interviewing the guests, and seeing how it?s hard for them? to get food, and then they?re worried about how they?re going to get back home, and then other things, and like, being scared that they?re not going to be able to pay their rent, I just felt bad, and 190 I wanted my work to be the best so it could actually like help them. (Mallory) My [FJP] experience was hard at first. ? I should've been more serious at the beginning but now I want change for the homeless in [Barryville] ... I feel bad all these years because what I was raised to believe was that they were drug addicts and crazy people. Now I see that they are struggling like everyone in [Barryville] ... I want this project to get published somewhere and make [a] change. (Michelle) Teacher interviews, final presentations, and observations of group work confirmed this sentiment. Some teachers pointed specifically to the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group as an example of students who learned the most from the FJP. Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) explained how the nature of these students? field work and the relationships formed through that field work may have contributed to what they learned: ?I think them kind of doing that work on the weekends gave them a different connection that not all of the other groups have.? During the MFP group?s final conference presentation, for example, Coco drove the point home when she said to the audience: ?A lot of people just ignore [homeless people] ? [we tried] to learn their stories and what they?re going through and what they need from us and from our communities, because it?s also our responsibility to take care of others where we live.? Emma articulated how the advocacy skills that she learned through the FJP helped motivate her to speak up for other issues that she cared about: [The FJP] gave me the opportunity to speak up to my community, since I?ve been trying to get involved with them this year, the food justice was like another opportunity to get involved, especially with the homeless, because I?ve never thought about speaking up about or standing up for the homeless so it?s my first time kind of opening up my mind about other things that I could stand up for. (Emma) 191 The extent to which these young women followed through on their commitments and put their critical awareness into action was outside the scope of this study and an important topic for future research. During one food justice work day, however, Michelle expressed some frustrations with the FJP and GPCS when she noted that projects at the school often times seemed to fall short of really solving social problems. During our exchange, captured soon after in field notes, Michelle spoke passionately and emotionally about wanting to help homeless people but not getting the support and follow-through from GPCS to do so: Michelle: Homeless people are really nice. We went and talked to them and they were like, you?re really into this project and you?re going to do something to make a difference and make our lives better. But we?re not doing anything, we?re just doing all this work and making a presentation and then we?re done and that?s it. I was talking to [Aja, the US History teacher] and they were saying that we could do donation drives and community events and stuff. Kristin: Does that [making a presentation and being done with it] happen often in this school? Michelle: Yes. We?ve been doing food justice since 2016. Every year we get people in the community all hyped up about what we?re doing and then we give the presentations and it?s done. That?s it. Kristin: You sound really frustrated. Michelle: Yeah, I am! These people are counting on us to do something about it. And we?re not doing anything about it, we?re just presenting problems to another group of people and that?s it. And then we?re done. While this perspective on the FJP was not common across other students? interviews, observations about the lack of follow through via community partners and some of the confusion that other students described about not knowing what happens with their data, along with teachers? own admission that they often drop the ball in terms of follow-up on students? ideas after the project, suggest that Michelle?s critique may have merit. 192 Missed opportunities for student voice Observations, teachers interviews, and students? responses to the FJP indicate several decision-making moments during development, enactment, and implementation of the FJP where teachers could have drawn upon student interests and centered student voice more authentically. Three prominent decision-making moments include when teachers 1) chose the overall project theme of food justice, 2) identified community organizations to partner with, and 3) selected specific project topics under the umbrella of food justice. Generally speaking, the impact of these missed opportunities seems to stem from and reflect the lack of alignment between the injustices and issues students cared about and teachers? own interests, priorities, social networks, and perspectives. Race and class differences between a majority white teaching team and predominately low-income students of color, as well as organizational pressures for a ?successful? FJP, may have contributed to this misalignment. Food justice as an overarching theme. As discussed previously, teachers chose food justice as the 11th grade project theme because they, specifically Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher), had an interest in the topic ? not, according to my interviews, because students expressed a desire to study food justice. As the FJP evolved and expanded over time, food justice remained a familiar, comfortable, non- contentious theme that GPCS administrators, especially the principal, had bought into. By the time of the 2018 iteration of the FJP, the project had become ?institutionalized? and part of the school?s public image. A few comments indicated that some teachers and administrators, however, thought that the theme of food justice might not be the best fit for students. Jessica (the instructional coach), for example, noted that she didn?t ?care 193 about the content. I think what I do care about is kids finding something that they are passionate about that they can authentically present about.? Aja (the history teacher), who was the only active person of color on the 11th grade teaching team,47 expressed concern that by sticking with the theme of food justice teachers were missing a valuable opportunity to give students space to process and address more relevant, personal and pressing issues such as economic injustice or immigration.48 As she explained: There?s also a quality of the value [of the FJP], is it like externally imposed or is it student-led? Like yes, food justice is important, but most of these kids work in food service, are we talking about their wages, ? or are we just talking about food that most of these kids can?t afford, you know? Issues that are not necessarily ? intrinsic to their experiences. Not that they have to be, but like, given that they have such intense experiences that they need space for exploration or at least processing right now, it just feels really weird to be like, well, don?t eat high-fructose corn syrup, but yeah your parents might get deported. It just seems really to me, in terms of value to students that seems like a very different value. Student interviews mirror Aja?s concern and indicate that students cared deeply about a range of social injustices, any one of which could have been fodder for an experiential, interdisciplinary place-based project like the FJP. While, as previously discussed, some students brought a shallow critical social analysis to their food justice projects, interviews with students reveal that, in fact, students could easily identify issues of inequality and injustice in their communities, and sometimes their schools. When asked to describe issues or injustices in their community or city that they cared about, all students had something to say. The most commonly mentioned problems in their responses were gentrification, gun violence, police brutality, and forms of discrimination such as sexism 47 Notably, the other person of color on the 11th grade teaching team was James, the special education co- teacher who was ill and absent from school throughout nearly the entire food justice project. 48 Certainly, the overall theme of food justice is rife with opportunity to address local issues of racism, classism and other forms of systemic oppression (e.g., Reese, 2019). However, the FJP, at least in the iteration covered by this study, didn?t explicitly tackle these aspects of food justice. 194 and racism. Generally speaking, their observations of these injustices were rooted in specific experiences in their neighborhoods or, in a few cases, their school. ?They were changing a lot of things.? About half the students I interviewed expressed concern about the changes that gentrification had brought to their neighborhood. Gentrification was as a problem because it resulted in an influx of white people that ?pushes people [of color] out,? and contributes to increased housing costs. Every student mentioned the personal impact of gentrification, either through changes to the cultural fabric of their neighborhoods and/or because they or their families had been displaced due to increased housing costs. Many students lamented the gentrification-related changes that had taken place in their neighborhoods and were nostalgic for ?the way it used to be.? Several students commented on the same neighborhood, where they had all lived. That neighborhood had undergone noticeable transformation and gentrification over the past ten years. Some were nostalgic for when the neighborhood used to be ?laid back? and quiet prior to the building of a big shopping center. Even though these students perceived that this neighborhood had become safer and cleaner, through the public investments in their neighborhoods that came along with gentrification, they also described how changes in the racial make up and social fabric of their neighborhood left them feeling like an outsider. The words of Eddie and Isabel convey this sentiment: Well like right now, there?s a lot of white people. When I first moved here, like a lot of white people started moving here, like gentrification and stuff, they were changing a lot of things. Before I moved here, like my dad used to tell me it was really bad, the neighborhood was bad ?I feel like it?s gotten better ?[but] I don?t really go out much any more. (Eddie) Like I remember I used to go to school there in that area so it used to be dirty, and like there were more people of color there, ?but you know it 195 was where I grew up so it was okay, I didn?t mind, but throughout the years I noticed that their streets are like nicer, it looks more fancy in that place but I also noticed the people of color population has gone down. There?s more white people there now, so there?s like I don?t know what?s going on. (Isabel) Similarly, Amy and Emma observed an influx of condominium housing and white people in their neighborhoods that was ?weird? and left them ?[feeling] like they?re pushing us out.? Cultural features of the neighborhood, such as community parties, had fizzled out as gentrification increased. Emma observed how gentrification ?takes away culture? across the city: There?s a lot of gentrification. [Kristin: Yeah. Why do you care about that?] It takes away culture, and I?m very heavy in embracing [culture], and so the fact that it?s being taken away it?s disappointing. ? so there?s this one [neighborhood], before it was just, it was just like a whole community, but then they took away the community and built a Nike store and a Harris Teeter. (Emma) In addition to the changes to the cultural and social fabric of their neighborhoods, students also identified how before gentrification ?the neighborhood never cost so much? as it did now. The increased costs of housing, which by their analysis was driven by the influx of white residents and increased commercial investment in these neighborhoods, had forced their families or extended family members to move. As Jane said, gentrification has ?[made] it harder for people to find housing ? and for some people to survive in [city].? This displacement, and the social inequality and injustice that it created, was both personally relevant and concerning to these students. Isabel and Michelle share similar versions of how gentrification had impacted their families: Well my family ?they all moved more down to [other parts of the city], and like I guess it?s, the rent went higher I guess because it?s more classy ? when [things like grocery stores] are closer to you like that, the price of the rent in the house goes higher, so. (Isabel) 196 Uh, no, not much, but real estate is a problem. ? So, I feel like buying a house is really expensive than where it is in other places ? but to people that were born here and raised here, housing was cheap at first, and then it gets expensive throughout the years, and it?s hard to keep up with that, if you?re on a, if you?re somewhat on a budget to get from like to job to job and it?s just hard. [Kristin: Yeah, absolutely. Have you experienced any of that in your life?] Yeah, switching houses multiple times, and trying to find the right place. And once you have that right place, everything just shoots up out the roof throughout the years, and it?s hard to keep up. (Michelle) Reina?s story was similar to Isabel and Michelle?s, in that her family members had been displaced by gentrification, but she demonstrated an even more complex understanding of the issue and how it connected to social inequality when she explained how gentrification lead to the closing of local businesses and loss of jobs for long-term residents: Gentrification is one, because like that?s one of the reasons why my dad moved so far. ? So, like, that one is interesting because like my mom is also trying to find like a new house and stuff but because like the property values like increasing, it?s like harder for her and so and then like then there?s like the fact that there?s like new stores, so that causes other business to go out, to close and stuff like that, so then it puts a stress on jobs, so, yeah. I guess jobs, like the amount of jobs opening and gentrification [are two problems that I care about] specifically like in my neighborhood, and like the property value thing, that?s something that?s like directly affecting my parents, so that?s why that one is important to me to. Essentially, students cared about gentrification for personal, cultural and economic reasons and gave explanations that suggested a critical social analysis of the role of race and economics. ?Like no one was ready for it.? Gun violence was another issue that came up in about two-thirds of my interviews with students. While a few students referenced mass school shootings49 that were prominent in the news, for the most part students? concerns were localized. They referred to exposure to gun violence in their neighborhoods and, 49 The mass murder of 17 high school students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida happened on February 14th, 2018, in the middle of the FJP. 197 more specifically, to the death of a classmate only a few months ago.50 Students mentioned that ?a lot of people near me have been shot ? just a couple blocks from our house? or that ?there?s been a lot of like gun violence, like down the street? from where they live. This ?high crime rate? was frightening for most students, and they ?didn?t go out as much as we used to.? As Jane said, ?I just feel now I?m not even really in my community ?teens are kind of like scared to go out and to hang out, and I?m a little frightened too because you just like never know, so, I don?t know.? By far the most common reason that students gave for caring about gun violence was the loss of one of their classmates, Santiago, who was shot and killed about a mile from GPCS. Students were ?heart-shattered? by his death, even those who didn?t know him well. Although some students said that ?nothing like that ever happened at this school,? others, like Luna and Tallulah, reported that they?d ?lost a lot of people? to gun violence outside of school and observed that ?it?s a lot of teenagers really that?s like, every other day that gets killed like lately in [City].? Students who spoke about gun violence agreed that it was ?an issue that needs to be resolved.? Several had ideas for 50 Santiago?s death came up only occasionally in conversations with teachers. Some made vague references that it?d been a ?hard year.? Lizzie (the English and FJP co-lead teacher) elaborated further when she speculated that the impact of his death was beginning to manifest in some students? behaviors and attitudes and might have compounded the other unexpected interruptions during the FJP. When I asked for her perspective on students? experience of the FJP, she mentioned they seemed stressed and confused through much of it and commented further: It?s been a tough year for a lot of the kids. For everybody. ? A lot of loss in terms of, staff members have lost people, staff members have been sick. We lost [Santiago]. Which I think really had this, I mean obviously a loss like that has an immediate impact and I think everybody saw that, but I don?t, I think everybody deals with a loss like that differently. ? I don?t think we always realize just how much something like that is going to affect the kids and it effects them in totally different ways. Just because a child isn?t sitting in a corner crying and depressed doesn?t mean that something like that is not weighing on them, has not effected or changed the way they think about the world or think about themselves. So I think we have, we are starting to see a lot of that, but I don?t know that, yeah, I don?t know. ? And just, there?s a need for more, more emotional and social support and I just don?t know that anybody really knows how to do that or that we?ve as a school, as a system have fully faced that our kids need more than maybe what we as teachers and administrators can provide, or how just one counselor can provide. 198 social and policy changes that might help, such as getting more media exposure for not only mass school shootings but other types of gun violence and creating stricter laws. Isabel, Natalia and Michelle noted how gun violence against African American youth specifically was a problem that didn?t get the media attention it should. As Michelle, who identifies as Black, explained: I feel like there should be stricter [gun] laws so far. If that gets passed, and background checks, and all that, but I feel like there would be less violence, ? most of the teens you hear and see get shot, are mostly my skin tone or around my age. And for knowing that we have a lot of Black males that go [to GPCS], it would have been hard and hurtful if we see one of them go through [a shooting]. (Michelle) ?I feel like police are weird.? Another less common but still prominent theme in about a third of student interviews was police mistreatment of communities of color, either in the form of police brutality or racial profiling. Two students, Natalia and Eddie, had specific examples of personal experiences with these issues in their immediate neighborhoods with both of these issues. Natalia described tense relations between residents and police in her neighborhood as a result of a recent police shooting of a teenager: It?s like a situation where, um, how police officers assume that like [teenagers are] doing like illegal activity.... hopefully police officers they improve on like how they approach like African-Americans or people of color in general. Because I feel like they need to take more classes on how to approach them ?. Mmmm-hm, cause like you know because of all the police brutality going on, and I guess that?s how it is in my neighborhood, it?s kind of like, it?s like sandpaper, kind of rough [imitates sandpaper rubbing together with hands]. Similarly, Eddie?s story of being profiled for a robbery he didn?t commit drove his concern about racial profiling: I feel like police are weird. .. they just profile people, you know. Like one time I just finished playing soccer, and ? the police car just pulled up to me and they just come up to me and they take my bag, and my bike, and I?m like ?What are 199 you guys doing?? I?m like, ?Am I in trouble? Did I do anything?? and they were like, ?There?s been a robbery in the area.? ? And that?s not the first time that?s happened, like that?s happened a couple of times already, they stopped me last time. ?It?s kind of sexist.? Several young women that I interviewed also cared about sexism as a broad social issue and specifically within the context of GPCS. Luna and Natalia spoke about ?equal pay no matter like the gender,? and the high cost of feminine products, especially for female prisoners, as examples of sexism in the broader society. Emma and Serenity both had concerns about sexism at school, and gave examples of the dress code and the types of extracurricular opportunities offered to students: The dress codes here at school, like a lot of people don?t know about it but it?s kind of sexist because the staff only kind of enforced the rules on the women rather than guys, and so not everybody realizes that?s sexist but it is. (Emma) I know like the boys in this school they have like a lot of opportunities, more than the girls do, so like the boys they have [access to a scholarship program]? the girls don?t really have anything except we have like the girls retreat, like it?s a good way to talk, but we don?t really have anything behind us financially. (Serenity) Students were clearly able to identify injustices in and engage in critical social analysis about their neighborhoods and communities, as evidenced by their discussions of food affordability and accessibility, gentrification, gun violence, and police brutality. But this level of analysis was not a distinctive feature of FJP projects and curricula or the discourse that surrounded that work. Generally speaking, these findings suggest that the FJP may have been an opportunity to design projects that tapped into and sharpened students? ability to engage in critical social analysis but they by and large failed to do so. The disconnect between the theme of food justice and what students actually cared about 200 suggests a clear missed opportunity to pick a project theme that related to issues more, to use Aja?s words, ?intrinsic to [students] experiences.? Community partnerships. A second moment of missed opportunity stems from teachers? reliance on community partnerships to dictate topics for about half of the projects in this year?s iteration of the FJP. Generally speaking, much like the choice of food justice as a theme, the community partnerships teachers used for the FJP were dependent upon teachers? own connections and networks and, ultimately, interviews and observations indicate that these partnerships seemed to help uphold the image of the school more than provide a meaningful learning opportunity for students. Both the types of community organizations that teachers partnered with, and the function that community partnerships served in the greater context of the school, shifted the focus away from students and further constrained their voice in the project. ?This is the pool you?re drawing from.? Teachers and other project organizers relied on their existing personal and professional networks and connections to identify and develop community partnerships. As is often the case with one?s social networks (e.g., Putnam, 2000), the community organizations that fell within teachers? networks reflected their own race and class postionality. Thus, the organizations that the predominately white, middle-class FJP leadership partnered with may not have reflected the interests and priorities of their predominately low-income, immigrant students of color. Danielle explained how food justice organizations in Barryville tended to reflect a range of priorities and perspectives related to race and class and the implications for the FJP: There?s a lot of political conversations in the city right about like, um, there?s kind of an older, um, whiter, component of people who are doing 201 [food justice] work who are very much in like the, like a service model, and kind of like, serving the individuals who are the most marginalized, and then there?s like a much younger, also a lot of white folks but also a lot more people of color saying like, let?s look at this systemically and lets think about like what are the legal aspects that need to be addressed or the policy aspects that need to be addressed ? but our project manager?s networks are much more in the other camp, and so even the connections that we got to other organizations ? this is the pool you?re drawing from. Similarly, Aja expressed concern that the teaching team?s connections were to organizations within what Danielle called the ?older, whiter? networks and thus removed from students? neighborhoods and experiences. Aja theorized that such connections would weaken the impact of the FJP: My push in last year was?to move beyond just an academic presentation, to really connecting with who are the stakeholders that need to hear this message and what action can I take to like connect to those people. ? So this year its been, uh, focusing on specifically connecting students to local [Barryville] organizations, and I like that focus a lot, that?s one of the ways I?ve wanted to see it go, ? [but] I think if you don?t have teachers who are actually connected to the place they?re teaching in, or they?re trying to focus on, I think it could lead to a very superficial interaction with place. Again, students themselves echoed Aja?s concerns about the types of organizations that were FJP community partners. They readily shared that, with the exception of My Friend?s Place, they found these community organizations largely uninspiring and irrelevant to their lives. From students? perspectives, completing projects for organizations more clearly connected to their lives would have made the FJP more relevant, engaging, and meaningful. Both Nathan and Francisco?s comments reflect this theme: Helping organizations that actually help us, like that personally effect us, would be better than this, like, [Healthy Cities] lunch food, okay, that?s good I guess, providing good lunch and healthy lunch food, but like if we?re helping an organization that can actually help people, not like everybody in the city, I feel like it would be better. ?Like if we?re just 202 trying to help an organization that?s near and dear to our hearts, and helps actual people like us, that would be better, I think. (Nathan) When I first heard that [only some students could do the MFP project], that I was actually very angry about that because it just did not seem fair. It didn?t ? make sense to me, and three, you could?ve found more, there?s so many places in [Barryville] that you could have [Eve: That provides food] yes, that provides food, that the school could have worked with. These organizations want the help of schools and students, because they actually help people and need help with that. (Francisco) ?I also want ? their project to be heard.? Interviews with teachers, administrators, and students suggest that, over time, the partnerships GPCS formed through the FJP became integral to the school?s image and organizational reputation. As the FJP became more tightly woven into the fabric of the school and gained a larger public profile (for example, over 300 people planned to attend the original final conference), the FJP began to serve the interests of the school as an organization more so than reflect the interests of the students. As Lizzie explained: I also get worried sometimes with all these neat projects, who they?re for. If they?re still for kids or if they?re just eventually become for the school. [Kristin: Can you say more about that?] Uh, just to show that this is the school that we are and these are all the neat things our kids are doing, and looking more for recognition which I think is important in terms of getting yourself attention and getting more funding and all of that. But, I just don?t want to forget about the kids and what?s meaningful for them. As potential additional evidence in support of Lizzie?s concern, teachers and administrators spoke proudly of the number of community partnerships that the school had made through the FJP, coverage of the FJP in the local newspaper, and the presence of board members and other local leaders at the final conference. As the project?s public profile increased, the stakes for the school itself also got higher which increased pressure on teachers that students to produce ?high-quality? work for outside audiences and community partners. Danielle, for example, pointed to the tension between leaving room 203 for student voice and satisfying community partners when she said that ?I want it to be student-driven but I also want it to be successful, for their project to be heard [by external stakeholders].? Other contradictions emerged between Tanya?s (the principal) public- facing descriptions of the FJP as being one of the ?most treasured? experiences at GPCS, and some teachers? own recognition of the ?PR problem? that the project had amongst the students. Students themselves pointed to these tensions when they reflected that perhaps the FJP was all about ?helping [students] look good for college.? Generally speaking, both the nature of the organizations that the FJP partnered with and the function that these partnerships came to play within the school, suggest a missed opportunity to center student voices and build a deeper, more relevant connection to students? lives and a more authentic connection to place. ?Menu? of project topics. Finally, the ?menu? of specific topic choices that teachers provided to students represents a third missed opportunity for the project to tap into student interest and center student voice. Students expressed interest in other food justice topics, such as food accessibility and affordability that weren?t options within the FJP. Students? interest in these topics tied to their broader concerns about hunger and climate change or their personal experiences. A common theme tying together all of these explanations was students? desire to be ?helpful,? either to people in their community or to family members. ?I?m more like a helpful person.? Some students expressed interest in studying food waste outside of the boundaries of the school ?because you can actually use that in the outside world and ?do something about food waste.? Several students wanted to study food waste because it connected to hunger and homelessness. Three students 204 explained how studying food waste in the broader community would provide them an opportunity to help other people: I think food waste is a good option because like we do waste a lot of food that people could like eat because people are starving, a lot of people are hungry because they don?t have anything to eat, and most people just throw away a lot of the food because we?re full, and we don?t give it to anybody that needs it. (Eddie) I would like to study how to not waste food but like share food with others like for example homeless people or people who aren?t able to get food. (Matteo) I?m more like a helpful person so I would have [wanted to do a project on] ? how can you prevent food waste and help others cause it?s like, a million something people that goes hungry every day, and ?I want to help everybody. ?I guess I probably would have done it on homeless, feeding them. (Serenity) These students? comments reflect the sentiment of those who had preferred the My Friend?s Place project; that is, they express a desire to do something useful and helpful for people in need through their food justice projects. ?He?s not able to get a lot of things that he needs.? A larger proportion of students ? in interviews, focus groups, and reflections ? expressed interest in studying food accessibility and affordability including how these topics connected to other forms of injustice. Francisco, for example, wanted to study ?whether or not people of different races are getting the food that they need, whether or not people can afford the food that?s actually like being provided.? Nearly all of these students had deeply personal reasons for their interest in this topic. Amy and Clarisa both explain how their own first-hand experiences, or family members? experiences, with food insecurity or food inaccessibility spurred their interest in studying these topics: [I?d be interested in studying] like how people are able to reach the organic foods that they need or like how they?re able to meet their needs 205 because there?s people who have like certain health issues and people can?t have sugar or salt so how?re they able to get to those things that they need. [Kristin: Why would you have picked that?] Because my dad has diabetes, ? and he?s not able to get a lot of things that [he] needs, he lives like in [the city], and there are places that he can go [to get the food he needs] but they are really far. (Clarisa) I think I would have [chosen] food accessibility ? like, there?s a wide range of people that I know in [Barryville] that doesn?t have a lot of food. Take my family, for example, we have a very big amount of family. We have a big house, and, only a little bit of money, and we try our best to feed everyone every day. Sometimes my parents will skip a meal so we can eat, and sometimes my mother has to ?collect coupons out of every magazine, newspaper, or anything we can get, we just need a coupon so we can make [purchasing food] more affordable. (Amy) Taken together, these three moments of teacher decision-making ? picking the theme, identifying community partners, and choosing specific topic options ? all represent missed opportunities for teachers to tap into students? interests and center student voice. Arguably, given the considerable challenges that the FJP faced and the strain that those challenges placed on teacher capacity, it may be understandable that teachers were hesitant to take on the additional work required to capitalize on opportunities to align the FJP more closely to students? interests. Summary All students who participated in focus groups or interviews for this study seemed to demonstrate some level of civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments. Their responses provide evidence of personally responsible, participatory, or justice- oriented citizenship (Westheimer & Khane, 2004). Many, if not all, students also seemed to gain skills associated with ?civic capacity? (Gallay et al., 2016) such as leadership, research, and interview skills. However, my findings suggest that only some students, those young women in the My Friend?s Place (MFP) group, experienced the outcomes 206 related to critical or sociopolitical action that this study hypothesized. The extent to which addressing the ?missed opportunities? described here may have lead to more favorable outcomes for the other students is an open question and an important area for future research. Generally speaking the outcomes of the FJP are mixed, modest, and disappointing. Though implementation strained the capacity of educators responsible for the FJP, they along with school administrators invested heavily in creating potentially promising PBE projects for students. The race and class differences between teachers and students, as well as the school?s need to maintain its public image as a community- engaged school, also may have contributed to the disappointing outcomes. The findings of this study raise questions about whether the financial and human costs, along with the curricular and instructional trade-offs are, as Aja (the US History teacher) said, ?worth it.? The final chapter addresses the promise of PBE and the conditions under which it might serve as a robust mechanism fostering civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills, particularly those associated with critical or sociopolitical action. 207 Chapter 6: Discussion and Directions for Future Research (RQ3): What, if anything, does this case suggest about PBE?s theory of change and the conditions under which PBE might foster students? civic engagement? Upon first glance, GPCS was a promising, hospitable setting for PBE: The school?s culture, mission, and vision embraced experiential learning and social justice; administrators provided the project significant resources, logistic supports, and curricular flexibility; students readily adapted to unexpected obstacles and last-minute changes; and teachers invested considerable class time and personal energy into the FJP. However, even in a favorable setting, with the supports to buoy the FJP through substantial challenges and constraints, the results were disappointing. To be sure, students gained some research and presentation skills, including those skills associated with ?civic capacity? (Gallay et al., 2016); however, many of these skills could have been acquired in other ways. Generally speaking the civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments hypothesized by PBE?s theory of change and the conceptual framework were, with rare exception, not enhanced. The missed opportunities highlighted in Chapter Five suggest that disappointing findings may be due both to a weak, fragile theory of action and a failure to sufficiently tap into students? interests and center student voices during the design, enactment and implementation. Simply put, even in favorable conditions, this case suggests that PBE is not a dependable mechanism for enhancing young peoples? civic engagement. This chapter identifies factors that seemed to have a real impact on what students gained from participating in the FJP. Given the nature of case study research, the 208 conclusions I draw here have limitations. While I have attempted to triangulate interview data through observations and student work, I rely primarily on self-reported data that may be susceptible to social desirability biases. Because this study features a single-site case chosen in part due to its potentially favorable conditions, I do not attempt to generalize my findings to populations or settings (Yin, 2014). Instead, I focus on analytic generalizations, refine the conceptual framework, and offer theoretical propositions that warrant future research.51 This study suggests four conclusions about the factors shaping the impact of PBE on civic engagement: First, place was the container for the FJP projects but not always the context and content; when projects embraced multiple dimensions of place, PBE seemed to be more authentic, more aligned with students? interests, and more powerful. Second, students operate in multiple arenas, including their schools, neighborhoods, and cities. The arena in which PBE projects or curricula are situated, and by extension the arena in which students might advocate for change, may have implications for the nature of civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments that students develop. Third, findings indicate that the spatial context of PBE ? which I define as both the arena in which PBE projects or curricula occur, and the meanings of place invoked by a project or curriculum (e.g., place-as-container or place-as-context and content) ? may mediate the nature of the resulting students? civic engagement behaviors. Fourth, my findings suggest that the modest, mixed responses to PBE may be attributed in part to the interactions among and between key components of the conceptual framework and challenges with 51 The conceptual framework used here ultimately guided and constrained this study in terms of the research questions asked, the nature of the data collected, and the coding scheme used for data analysis. The single site-character nature of the project and relatively short-term data collection limit the ability of the study to generalize to populations and to speak to whether any of the outcomes discussed here persisted beyond the culmination of the project. 209 project development, enactment and implementation. Thus, this claim suggests several potential refinements to the conceptual framework. Place as container versus place as context and content. Findings suggest that the FJP projects invoked different meanings of place. As discussed in Chapter Two, the theoretical and conceptual literature suggests that place has multiple dimensions: location, locale, and sense of place, which includes both the meaning people make of place and an understanding of place as a political entity and site of oppression and resistance (Agnew, 1987; Cresswell, 2004, Haymes 1996; Sutton & Kemp, 2011). The literature also argues that how teachers define place, particularly whether or not teachers attend to or incorporate both aspects of sense of place, and make space for students? own senses of place, can influence PBE?s impact on students (Dentzau, 2014; McInerney et al., 2010; Nespor, 2008; Rubel et al., 2016a, Ruitenberg, 2005). The literature also suggests that teachers? own biases and privileges related to race, class, and gender ? along with other aspects of identity ? may cause them to center particular narratives of place over others, which can be particularly problematic when teachers? identities reflect the dominant culture and students are from historically marginalized backgrounds. For example, Rubel et al. (2016a) found that teachers? failure to center race as an essential spatial variable and collaborate with students during early stages of place-based curriculum design and implementation perpetuated deficit narratives of students? neighborhoods and was a clear missed opportunity for critical student engagement. This study confirms and elaborates on those findings by illustrating that place-based curricula or projects that consider place as both context and content may be more authentic, 210 powerful, and more likely to develop young peoples? civic engagement than projects that only use place as container. Generally speaking, topics that emphasized place-as-location treated place as the ?container? for the study and, thus, reflected shallow meanings of place. The research questions for the Healthy Cities and Evermore Farms projects, for example, all included topics and organizations that were physically located in or near Barryville. For example, Healthy Cities? offices are located in the downtown area, and the charter schools students studied through these projects were scattered across the city. However, the scope of the research questions, and students? final projects paid little, if any, attention to the implications of Barryville as the place in which these projects were situated. Some of the Healthy Cities? overview projects attempted to identify relationships between charter schools? wellness policies and school lunch options and contextual factors (e.g., school racial demographics, socioeconomic status, school rating). However, students? projects addressed these contextual factors at a distance from the unique culture and history of Barryville and from students? raced, classed, and gendered experiences of the city; crucial relationships between race and place (e.g., Delaney, 2002) went unexplored. The city of Barryville, then, served as a geographically-bounded container for these projects, but little else. When projects focused on location, locale, and the meanings students made of their places as well as the role of place in shaping or resisting systems of oppression, place was both context and content and took on a deeper meaning. Only one project, the My Friend?s Place (MFP) project, embraced place as context and content. The research questions and data collected through this project meaningfully incorporated all three 211 aspects of place: students developed social relationships with guests at the soup kitchen through their fieldwork, investigated the connections between homelessness and their neighborhoods and cities, and identified the role of politics and policy making in shaping what happened to guests at MFP. These students also had the most authentic, sustained, and meaningful fieldwork experiences. Their research was not just located in a place (the MFP soup kitchen), but it was about the place, the homeless people who navigated through the place, and the place?s relationship to its neighborhood and city understood, in part, as a result of race- and class-based processes of gentrification. The extended time that these students spent on their fieldwork also may have strengthened their attachment to the project. Additionally, this project resonated with students? sense of place in their neighborhoods, especially the value they placed on social relationships with their neighbors (i.e., ?having each others? backs?) as well as their awareness of critical social issues such as the impact of gentrification on homelessness. Generally speaking, student responses suggested that they resisted ?place-as- container? projects and had a stronger interest in ?place-as-context and content? projects. For example, students in the Healthy Cities groups complained that their projects weren?t ?real food justice,? and that they ?[wanted] to do other projects because they actually help people.? These projects were disconnected from students? sense of place ? both the meanings they made of places, the critical social issues they cared about, and their raced, classed, and gendered experiences of those places. On the other hand, when picking topics for their projects most students preferred the MFP project and/or reported being interested in topics that would allow them to learn about their communities and help 212 others.52 Similarly, students? interest in food justice lay primarily in issues more relevant to their families, neighborhoods and communities, such as food accessibility and affordability. Teachers? limited attention to critical social analysis within the FJP curriculum may have contributed to the shallow place meanings most projects invoked. For example, teachers offered some explanations of environmental racism, and Aja (the US History teacher) taught students about broader food justice movements during her lesson on multiple perspectives. But, teachers did not consistently incorporate take-aways from these lessons into the food justice curriculum. As earlier noted, Danielle (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher,) readily acknowledged that she emphasized ensuring the ?nuts and bolts? of students projects were completed over ?getting to the big stuff,? meaning how social structures and systems of racism, classism, and other forms of oppression play a role in furthering food justice and injustice. Both the race and class differences between the 11th grade teachers and students, along with the organizational pressure to ensure students? projects were ?successful? and ?high quality,? may have shaped the teaching team?s choice to de-prioritize in-depth discussions of systemic injustice. For example, Danielle?s discussion of the role of systems of oppression in food justice came on the day of the postponed final conference, after projects were nearly completed. While students? descriptions of issues in their neighborhood suggest that they had the skills and abilities to identify injustice, a lack of critical social analysis was evident in most students? food justice projects. For example, students? discussions of the 52 While some might argue that self-selection bias was the reason the young women in the MFP had different outcomes, I argue that other students? reported preference for the MFP project suggests that an element of the project topic and research tasks itself may contribute to the perceived outcomes. 213 environmental impact of food waste were vague and abstract and not rooted in local context, the differential effects food waste might have on poor people or people of color, or other concerns raised by the environmental justice movement (e.g., Bullard, 1993). Without a tie between project topics and the social issues, relationships, or cultural features students already cared about (as was the case in the MFP project), on top of the absence of explicit curricular connections to critical social analysis and systems of injustice, place took on shallow meanings and ended up being merely a container for most projects as opposed to the context and content, and thus less meaningful or engaging for students. As a result, most of the projects ended up in practice reflecting liberal humanist traditions of PBE that tend to reinforce the status quo (e.g., Smith, 2002b; Sobel, 2004) as opposed to a transformative critical pedagogy of place approach (e.g., Gruenewald, 2003a) that teachers? goals for the program suggested. The findings here also echo empirical literature on PBE which suggests that increased attachment to students? natural and physical places doesn?t necessarily translate to students taking action to protect those places (e.g., Schindel Dimick, 2016). At the same time, the outcomes for the young women in the MFP project echo findings from some studies that were exceptions to this pattern; these studies investigated projects that focused on human or social issues and found positive impacts on students? engagement in social action (e.g., Owens et al., 2011; Trinidad, 2011). In the case of the FJP, the project with the deepest connection to other people and the social and political aspects of students? places (the MFP project) ? and with the least connection to the natural environment ? was the one that spurred the deepest change to civic engagement. Additionally, Aja, the only active teacher of color on the 11th grade teaching team, 214 worked closely with the MFP group; given Aja?s other concerns about the FJP and curricular focus on broader food justice movements, it is possible that she may have emphasized the social and political aspects of and the role of racism and other systems of oppression within the MFP project The discrepancy between place-as-container and place-as-context and content projects also points to the role of individual relationships ? both between teachers and students and students and community members ? in shaping outcomes. This finding suggests that interpersonal relationships developed through place-as-context and content projects and the emotional bonds formed therein might play an important role in developing young peoples? civic engagement. This finding also adds credence to positions of other scholars who argue for the role of emotions (e.g., Nussbaum, 2013) and social relationships in developing a sense of civic identity. In her study of how young people develop their theories of citizenship, Flanagan (2013), for example, argued that ?concepts of ?the rights and responsibilities associated with belonging to that community are rooted in the relationships teens form in the settings of everyday life? (p. 2). It also emphasizes the importance of teachers? ability to center students? worldviews and teach effectively across lines of race and class. Students? distinct arenas have implications for civic engagement. While the first claim described above emphasized that PBE should consider multiple components of one particular place, this second claim draws our attention to students? multiple places, or arenas. The broad edict undergirding PBE ? that teachers should engage in study of students? places ? fails to recognize that students operate in multiple, distinct arenas. Students in this study operated in multiple arenas; three ? the school, neighorhood, and 215 the city ? were prominent in this study as possible locations for engaging in social change.53 The arenas of school (a concrete setting in which they could create observable change) and neighborhood (a personally relevant setting that connected to students? own critical social analysis) seemed most important to students. On the other hand, most teachers tended to emphasize abstract notions of the city as the ideal arena for social change. While lines between what counts as school, neighborhood, and city are certainly open for debate, the distinction between arenas may be particularly significant for students, such as those in this study, who attend a charter school or a school within a choice system in which their school is located in a different neighborhood than their home. Similarly, studies of other cities with a strong school choice system have documented the ?border crossing? that students have to do when travelling between home and school (e.g., Shedd, 2015). Such findings suggest that home neighborhood and school may be distinct arenas for many low-income students of color attending urban schools. Some of the assumptions underlying PBE provide insight as to why and how each arena might be distinct for students and the implications of these arenas for the outcomes of PBE. Scholars and advocates argue that PBE can be effective because focusing teaching and learning on the local provides a concrete, readily observable context for learning, which stands in stark contrast to what advocates claim is the abstract and 53 Students likely operate in more arenas than the three listed here. Notably, other scholars argue that civic education and engagement research should focus on young peoples? ?digital citizenship? and their engagement in ?virtual places? (e.g., Cohen, 2010; Jenkins et al., 2016; Mirra & Garcia, 2017). For example, a social media platform such as Twitter may function as another distinct arena for young people, with its own set of meanings and opportunities to advocate for change. What place-based education might look like when conceptions of place encompass what McKenzie (2008) calls ?intersubjective experiences? of virtual spaces as well as art, literature, or friendship, and how such manifestations of place-based education might impact students? civic engagement, is an open question and a potentially fruitful line of future research (see also Stevenson, 2008). 216 disconnected knowledge typical of schooling (Smith, 2002a; Orr, 1994; Theobald & Curtiss, 2000). Sobel (1996), for example, argued that the focus of PBE should be the ?scope of the child?s significant world? (p. 23). The findings from this study suggest that the arenas of school and neighborhood were both ?significant worlds? for students, albeit in different ways: While the school was the most concrete, readily observable arena, the arena of the neighborhood seemed more relevant in terms of social and political issues. However, teachers? rhetoric throughout the FJP seemed to emphasize the city, more so than school or neighborhood, as the arena in which students should advocate for change. As earlier noted, comments such as Danielle?s (the Environmental Science and FJP lead teacher), refrain that ?you can ? make a difference in your city? were common during class time, food justice work days, and celebratory events related to the FJP. However, this framing of place didn?t seem to connect with students. The concept of ?city,? while at times invoking pride in students, seemed perhaps too abstract to elicit the type of attachment, care, and subsequent action theorized by PBE. This lack of engagement with abstract notions of ?the city? was evident in students? projects. For example, the Healthy Cities projects, which investigated the wellness and lunchroom policies of other charter schools, were situated in the city of Barryville, but these projects didn?t seem to engage students meaningfully. These students ?didn?t really enjoy? the FJP and wondered ?what?s the point of this?? The MFP project, on the other hand, was situated in a specific neighborhood near where the young women in that group lived; this neighborhood was also a popular spot for shopping, recreation, and leisure. These young women were excited to learn ?more about [their] environment? through their project. These examples illustrate that teachers? assumptions 217 about what arenas students cared about didn?t align with what arenas were actually most meaningful for students. Notably, as young men and women of color from primarily low-income and immigrant families, the students in this study may have been understandably hesitant to respond to teachers? urging them to make a difference in their city. Students? identification of injustices such as gentrification, police brutality, and gun violence suggest that they may have experienced their city as racist and oppressive. Place, after all, is shaped by race and systems of oppression (Delaney, 2002; Haymes, 1995). On the other hand, projects rooted in the arena of their neighborhoods may have allowed students to connect to the multiple strengths and cultural wealth of their communities (e.g., Yosso, 2005). That is, these students may have had a distinct understanding and experience of the arenas of neighborhood and city as spaces of resistance or oppression. The extent to which this distinction is true, and the role such a distinction may play in place-based education?s potential effectiveness is an open question and an important area for future research. The findings here also suggest that students associated a distinct set of social relationships and cultural meanings, senses of political efficacy, and critical social analysis with each of the three arenas. Students articulated a distinct community, sense of place, and importance that they tied to their school and neighborhood, the two arenas that seemed most personally meaningful. For example, they valued the social and emotional support the school provided students, the trust teachers had in them and the resulting freedoms they enjoyed; they also valued the social relationships they had with their neighbors as well the quiet and peaceful nature of many neighborhoods. Students 218 identified some features they valued that were common to both arenas, namely the presence of racial and cultural diversity. Students also had distinct sense of political efficacy and critical social analysis within each arena. For example, students who did GPCS-based projects had a fairly strong sense of political efficacy within their school, for example, they felt that their proposed changes to school lunch ?would happen? at GPCS. However, students? sense of efficacy was generally weaker when asked to consider their ability to impact change in their neighborhoods or cities; students ?just didn?t know what to do? and thought that people in their community were ?not about to listen to me.? Similarly, students? critical social analysis also seemed to vary by arena. For example, students could identify distinct sets of issues that they cared about, and provide some analysis as to the systemic reasons behind those issues, in school and in their communities. Students talked at length about the impact of gentrification, gun violence and police brutality on their neighborhoods, their city, and their own lives and families. Students? articulation of issues they cared about at school, (e.g., the poor quality of their school lunches) were valid complaints but not tied to systemic explanations.54 Even students? discussions and understandings of food justice reflected a spatial disconnect. They had knowledge and experiences of food injustice in their neighborhoods and communities, specifically related to food accessibility and affordability, but these understandings didn?t align with the school-based food justice topics in the FJP. Again, this lack of alignment may be due in part to teachers? lack of attention to critical social analysis and systems of oppression within the curriculum. 54 One exception to this pattern was the group of young women who talked about sexism as an issue they cared about. They discussed manifestations of sexism both in their school and out in the community. Future research might benefit from identifying more ?bridge? issues that connect young peoples? multiple place experiences. 219 Much like Soja (2010) argues that social justice is spatial, this study suggests that the path by which young people become actively engaged citizens who work to address injustice may also be spatial. The components of the conceptual framework, namely students? sense of place, political efficacy, and critical social analysis, seem to be spatialized, that is, they vary by arena. This claim extends the work of critical consciousness scholars who argue that critical social analysis varies within an individual across different domains depending on the kinds of marginalization or oppression that people experience. That is, they argue that young people have ?silos? of critical consciousness and critical social analysis (e.g., Diemer et al., 2015; Diemer et al., 2017). For example, youth of color may be more aware of racism than their white peers, while young women may be more aware of sexism than their male counterparts. I argue that we should expand this notion of ?silos? to include the spatial. That is, critical social analysis, as well as other components of the conceptual framework, may vary within an individual across the different arenas in which he or she operates. Spatial context as mediator for civic engagement. Broadly speaking, the findings from this case affirm other empirical research that suggests place-based education can nurture students? ?civic capacity.? Gallay et al. (2016), in their study of place-based stewardship education, defined ?civic capacity? as a specific set of skills including the ability to gather data and describe a problem, getting other people to care about a problem, ability to express views in front of other people, and identifying individuals or groups who could help with a problem (p. 164; see also Rote at al., 2015). Expanding civic capacity is particularly important for young people of color because this set of skills helps prepare them to engage fully in the political system and the debates 220 about inequalities (Cohen, 2010). In the case of the FJP, students learned research and presentation skills that gave them tools to potentially advocate more effectively on behalf of a particular problem that they care about.55 While interview and survey data suggest that nearly all students developed these civic capacity skills, findings related to young people?s civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments were less consistent. As noted in the conceptual framework, such ?civic capacity? skills could fall under either personally responsible, participatory or justice-oriented conceptions of citizenship depending on whether these skills are used in the context of individual behaviors or within organizations and whether students have a critical understanding of systemic explanations for injustice when using these skills to enact change (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015; Westheimer, 2015). The opportunity for students to learn these ?civic capacity? skills while also developing other civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments related to either participatory or justice-oriented conceptions of citizenship sheds liked on the potential unique contributions of PBE to young peoples? civic engagement. Given the spatialized nature of students? sense of place, political efficacy and critical social analysis, this study suggests that the spatial context in which the curricular content of place-based curriculum unfolds might mediate the nature of the resulting civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments. I define spatial context as the combination of the two sets of factors discussed thus far: Spatial context includes both the arena in which a PBE project occurs (i.e., school, neighborhood or city), and what place meanings (i.e. container or context and content) of that particular arena a project 55 As previously mentioned, the ?civic capacity? skills discussed here could likely be developed by any number of curriculum or interventions. 221 evokes. Agnew (1987) argues that political behavior is inherently geographical: ?The social contexts provided by [places] are viewed as crucial in defining distinctive political identities and subsequent political activities? (p. 6). Yes, place shapes political behavior, but I also argue that engagement in different spatial contexts might shape different types of political behaviors. School, neighborhood, and city may serve as distinct ?mini- polities,? that is, mediating institutions that develop a particular civic identity and behavior (Flanagan, 2013). In this study, for example, students in the GPCS-based groups studied issues based in the arena of the school (e.g., poor school lunch and food waste), had access to decision makers at school, demonstrated political efficacy around their ability to impact change, and developed participatory behaviors and skills. However, although students briefly mentioned the potential broader impact of their projects, these skills didn?t necessarily translate to commitments or attitudes toward engagement in their community or beyond school. These projects also lacked a critical social analysis. The MFP project, on the other hand, unfolded in the arena of students? neighborhoods. These projects focused on community-based issues, such as homelessness and hunger, that connected to students? existing sense of injustice. Students in this project developed critical action and justice-oriented attitudes and commitments both within (e.g., students? stereotypes of homeless people were challenged and they were committed to advocacy on behalf of homeless people) and beyond (e.g., ?I just need to be more active in my community?) the boundaries of the project. This suggests that the spatial context within which teachers implement PBE might matter for the types of civic engagement behaviors students develop and that they may 222 have efficacy and agency and critical analysis in one spatial context of their lives but not others. This theoretical proposition ? that spatial context mediates PBE?s impact on civic engagement ? has implications for practice and research. First, teachers must be aware of ? and account for through choice of project topics and other curricular elements ? how race, class, gender, and other systems of oppression shape students? experiences of these spatial contexts. Second, teachers might benefit from being strategic about the spatial contexts in which they implement PBE depending on what types of civic engagement behaviors they hope students develop. PBE that is located in students? schools, and focuses on issues and topics central to the school itself, may be engaging, help develop participatory skills, and give students a chance to practice participatory behaviors. PBE that is located in students? neighborhoods and incorporates the social relationships, cultural meanings, and students? raced and classed experiences within those neighborhoods as well as the political nature of those neighborhoods, may be the most authentic, meaningful, and likely to produce justice-oriented or critical civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments.56 Figure 5 suggests a matrix of possible spatial contexts in which place-based education could happen. This matrix includes shallow (place-as-container) and deep (place-as context and content) meanings of place juxtaposed with the arenas of school, neighborhood, and city on a continuum of concrete to relevant to abstract in terms of how proximate these arenas are to students? daily lives, interests, and raced, classed and gendered experiences. Projects in this study provide examples of some of these spatial 56 Given the amount of time, personnel resources, and logistics required to develop and maintain community partnerships, as well as the connections teachers need to have to community organizations, school-based PBE projects may be easier for teachers to implement than those situated in students? neighborhoods (see also Anderson, 2017; Epstein, 2019; Smith & Sobel, 2010; Sobel, 2004) 223 contexts, as indicated by the gray boxes on the matrix: Concrete and shallow spatial contexts (school and place as container; GPCS-based groups), abstract and shallow spatial contexts (city and place as container; Healthy City and Evermore Farms groups), and relevant and deep spatial contexts (neighborhood and place as context and content; MFP group). Figure 5. Matrix of Possible Spatial Contexts Arena in which project is situated Concrete------------> Relevant -----------> Abstract School City Place-as- Neighborhood Place-as-container container Place-as- (e.g., GPCS container (e.g., Healthy Cities & Evermore projects) Farms projects) Neighborhood School Place-as-context City Place-as-context and content Place-as-context and content (e.g., MFP and content project) The findings of this study argue that relevant and deep spatial contexts may provide the most powerful and meaningful experiences for students and, thus, elicit the types of civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments associated with critical or sociopolitical action and justice-oriented citizenship. However, an important area for future research would be to explore what happens when PBE plays out in the other boxes on the matrix. That is, what happens if projects are situated at school or in the city but invoke deeper meanings of place? What happens if neighborhood is treated merely as a Meanings of place invoked by project Deep <------- Shallow 224 container? Studies that explore these questions through single or comparative case studies may yield additional key insights as to the conditions under which place-based education fosters young peoples? civic engagement. Refined conceptual framework. Given the theoretical proposition that spatial context is a mediator of place-based education?s impact on young peoples? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, this study indicates that the relationships between components of conceptual framework may be more complex than originally hypothesized. The original YSPD model, and the conceptual framework built upon that model, suggests that opportunity structure and sense of agency might moderate how young peoples? critical social analysis becomes critical action. The findings from this study suggest that the relationships between the various components of the conceptual framework may be dialectical and interconnected. First, the study suggests that the opportunity structure, meaning, in this case, teachers? guidelines, rules, and expectations for the project itself, can shape students? sense of agency. For example, the range of project topic choices that teachers provided students and the teacher-directed nature of the project?s implementation constrained students? experience of agency and represent potential missed opportunities for more authentic learning and engagement. That is, when students have fewer project choices and a more minor role in project development and implementation, they may have a weaker sense of agency. One implication of this claim for practice is that PBE projects may be more powerful when they center students? voices and perspectives during the problem definition and project development stages. The missed opportunities discussed in Chapter 225 Five suggest that the tensions inherent in balancing the priorities of school, teachers, community organizations, and students may lead to the interests of those groups with the most power (in this case, the school or perhaps the community organizations) winning out over those with less power (in this case, students). Race, class, and privilege differences between a mostly white, middle class teaching team and students from historically marginalized backgrounds may have exacerbated these power dynamics. These findings also echo critiques of PBE which argue that teachers should develop project topics in dialogue with students and community members (e.g., Ball & Lai, 2006; Coughlin & Krich, 2010; van Ejick & Roth, 2010). In this case, for example, teachers developed topics for community-based projects in dialogue with representatives from community organizations but not students. The findings of this research also suggest that conceptualizations of students? experience of agency (e.g., young peoples? opportunities to contribute to the development and implementation of a program) should attend not only to students? ability to make choices but whether or not the nature of those choices reflects their interests and identities. That is, projects that conceptualize PBE as the result of ?youth in collaborative partnerships with allied adults? (Sutton & Kemp, 2010, p. 121) may have more powerful outcomes for young people than those projects that are teacher-driven, particularly when, as is often the case, teachers are from more privileged backgrounds than their students. Second, findings also suggest that the distinction political efficacy may have both contributed to the development of students? civic engagement through the FJP, as the conceptual framework suggests, and also been an outcome in and of itself. That is, some students developed greater political efficacy through participation in the project. For 226 example, the young women in the MFP group reported a greater sense of responsibility to their community and a desire to ?do something? following the FJP. This newfound commitment reflects the political efficacy expressed by other students, especially those in GPCS-based groups during their FJP projects when they said that ?they could make a change.? Thus, political efficacy might be both an important contributor to and outcome of the conceptual framework. Third, as already noted, the place meanings invoked by projects didn?t always correspond with students? views of community, either their sense of place or critical social analysis. Students? critical social analysis, then, may result in critical action only if the types of experiences embedded in the opportunity structure tap into students? deep place meanings, which, as Aja foreshadowed, was rarely the case. The findings suggest that students did have the ability to identify injustice, as they clearly articulated neighborhood-based issues, but that ability didn?t always translate to the FJP. In situations where students had a critical framework already ? for example, in the MFP group when young women were able to use their understanding of gentrification to deepen their understanding of homelessness ? students brought critical social analysis to their food justice projects. These findings suggest that the extent to which students? views of community inform or align with the place meanings invoked by the spatial context may matter for the resulting civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments. Simply calling a project ?food justice? was not sufficient to foster or tap into students? critical social analysis; projects inconsistently incorporated or touched on issues of injustice. Gruenewald (2003a) reminds us of the importance of centering this critical perspective when he says that place-based educators ?must identify and confront the 227 ways that power works through places to limit the possibilities for human and non-human others? Their place-based pedagogy must, in other words, be critical? (p. 7). These findings also extend to Schindel Dimick?s (2016) and Rubel et al.?s (2016a) research that suggests that the practice of using critical consciousness to challenge social inequities must be deliberately fostered. Similarly to how the missed opportunities described in this study contributed to the disappointing outcomes of the FJP, these examples of PBE also faltered when they failed to incorporate student voice. This study suggests that the spatial context within which PBE is situated ? both the nature of the arenas chosen and place meanings PBE invokes - needs to reflect students? existing critical social analysis and sense of place. See Figure 6 for a revised conceptual framework. To summarize the key elements of this framework: As described previously, the spatial context of the place-based project mediates the impact of students? sense of agency and views of community on the nature of the civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments that students develop. Additionally, the civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments that students develop can in turn impact students? sense of agency and views of community. That is, their political efficacy might increase, their critical social analysis might sharpen, and their sense of place might deepen. The proposed logical links in this revised conceptual framework would benefit from further research and development. 228 Figure 6. Revised Conceptual Framework. Figure 6. This diagram represents an alternative model for how place-based education can develop youth civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments. In this model, the ?opportunity structure? is the guidelines, rules, and expectations of a place- based project or curriculum, sense of agency encompasses both experience of agency and political efficacy, and critical social analysis is young peoples? ability to identify and discuss perceived injustices from a structural or systematic perspective. Adapted from Watts and Flanagan (2007) and Watts and Hipolito-Delgado (2015). Summary. This dissertation set out to explore if places had civic potential. That is, whether and how PBE could provide an opportunity for young people from marginalized backgrounds to practice civic engagement in a school-based setting and thus potentailly contribtue to reducing the civic engagement gap (e.g., Flanagan & Levine, 2010; Kahne & Middaugh, 2008; Levinson, 2010, 2012). The findings presented offer some insights into the conditions under which PBE might meet this potential and 229 emphasize the potential importance of tapping into student interest and centering student voice in the development, enactment, and implementation of PBE. This study suggests that PBE may be one of many avenues for developing students? civic capacity, but it also suggests that PBE within particular spatial contexts might nurture different sets of civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and skills, including but not limited to critical or sociopolitical action and those associated with participatory citizenship. Much like other theoretical and empirical literature, this study draws our attention to the importance of students? voices, their own sense of place and understandings of the political meanings of their places, and the multiple arenas that students navigate on a daily basis. As McInerney, Smith and Down (2010) remind us: ?Place? is a lens through which ... people begin to make sense of themselves and their surroundings. It is where they form relationships and social networks, develop a sense of community and learn to live with others. (p. 5) What students see when they look through the lenses of their own places, then, may be where the pedagogical potential of places lies. More attention to the missed opportunities and other factors discussed in this study, both in research and teaching, may help us identify, develop, and refine new ?civic pathways? (Mirra & Garcia, 2017, p. 153) for youth civic engagement (see also Tuck & McKenzie, 2015, for an argument as to the importance of centering place in research). If anything, this study supports the argument that, indeed, places can be pedagogical, and that places are important for young people. In the words of Casey (1996), ?To live is to live locally, and to know is first of all to know the places one is in? (p. 18). 230 APPENDIX A: Summary of Sources Table A.1 Summary of Sources Citation Description of Study Data Findings Azano Qualitative case study of a rural Class PBE made curriculum more (2011)** 8th grade English teacher?s observations, relevant to students? lives place-based unit in one teacher and and allowed students to classroom. The teacher used student articulate own sense of place. place-centered poetry and interviews, Teacher?s personal classroom discussions to connect students? written understanding of place and commonly used aspects of the work and other biases drove the process and local context to bridge gaps in documents. as a result cultural norms students? understanding of texts. went unchallenged. Buck, Cook Instrumental case study Pre- and post- Students became more & Weiland investigating students? and teacher engaged in class and (2016)** teacher?s beliefs, experiences, interviews, focus connected to their place. understandings and practices group student PBE activities were poorly that emerged from an 8th grade interviews, connected to the content of science unit that centered on a written artifacts, the curriculum. Teacher popular swimming spot in an recordings of struggled to get community urban area. Students collected classroom members to respond to water samples to test for activities. students and the project. pollution and shared findings Students ?stopped short? of with local agencies and thinking through solutions to community members. the problems they identified. Buxton Mixed methods study of a one- Pre-and post- Participants generated more (2010)** week summer camp ?Social interviews with scientifically complete and Problem Solving through students, video correct responses to Science (SPSS)? curriculum recordings of questions related to with urban middle school lessons, environmental health topics students. Investigates whether documents and with medium to high effect SPSS improves students? other artifacts. sizes. Interview data revealed science content knowledge and Data was that students ?made if it pushes students to take analyzed using progress? in decolonizing actions to decolonize and quantitative and and reinhabiting their reinhabit their environment. qualitative thinking; this progress did Students collected water quality methods. not necessarily translate into data and created public service action. announcements. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 231 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Comber & This design-based experimental Used data from a Improvement in measurable Nixon study explored the ability of series of small literacy skills, positive shift (2013)* PBE to develop recent studies. Data in students? dispositions immigrant primary school included student towards learning and sense students? literacy skills and and teacher of belonging. sense of place. The project produced artifacts Place builds common engaged students in discussions and students? oral ground. Children?s memories about places in their school and histories. of former places are rich local community (near Sydney, resources for literacy Australia) they would like to practices. research and/or change. Conkey & This mixed-methods study Pre- and post- Drawings were scored Green investigates the impact of an drawings of a according to a rubric, and a (2018)* interdisciplinary place-based rattlesnake and its paired-samples t-test environmental art project on food web and revealed statistically rural elementary school focus groups that significant increases in students? knowledge about gauged parents? students? knowledge about snakes and related food webs and teachers? food webs. Analyses of focus and ecosystems. This three- perceptions of group data revealed that this week project included visits to a student learning. was a highly engaging local university. project and could transfer learning to new environments. Donovan This descriptive case study Weekly work Students? writing skills (2016)* investigated the impact of place- samples, teacher improved; wrote longer based writing practices on rural and student pieces and fewer issues with middle school students? ability interviews, grammatical conventions and to build connections to their classroom sentence structures. Students community. During the 8-week observations. writing indicated they curriculum students learned became more connected to about home community, and learned to value their explored and described their places. Students indicated school environment, wrote being aware of needed about significant places in their changes in their community town, and were exposed to state- and showed signs of wide issues relevant to home changing their environmental community. stewardship behavior. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 232 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Duffin The purpose of this mixed- Written surveys Adults reported increases in (2004)? methods, multi-case study with 113 student engagement, evaluation is to determine the community academic achievement, and effectiveness of a whole-school members, 254 environmental learning. PBE model, CO-SEED, in terms educators/staff, Student data indicated that of both program implementation 1271 students. participation is associated and outcomes. This evaluation Interviews with with environmental includes data from eight CO- 84 teachers, 28 stewardship behavior and SEED schools including three admins/school place attachment. Some sites urban middle schools, two rural based staff, 19 increased interdisciplinary elementary schools, and three community collaboration and school- rural K-12 districts. members, 22 community connection. students. Impacts on the community tended to be weak and rare. Duffin Utilization-focused evaluation Data from all four PBE became embedded in (2007)? of four schools that had sites includes: school culture at some sites. completed three years of a Surveys with 207 Strong evidence of increased whole-school PBE model, CO- educators/staff, student participation, SEED. Four questions guide this 795 students, 104 confidence in ability to be report: To what extent did PBE community change agents and become part of the cultural members; environmental responsibility. fabric of school?, What site- Interviews with Moderate evidence students specific evidence of the impact 164 educators, 36 value natural, cultural on students, educators and/or students, and 33 community, identify local community?, What aspects of other adults, problems, increased PBE are likely to stay after CO- monthly achievement. Limited SEED ends?, Does dosage of reflection forms, evidence of increases in CO-SEED correlate with other relevant environmental quality, reported changes in educator documents solving community and practice and/or student environmental issues, and performance? prompting policy changes. Duffin, The purpose of this quantitative Standardized test Percentile state rank Phillips & report is to evaluate the scores on improved after introduction Tremblay relationship between students? Language Arts of CO-SEED. Percentage of (2006)? exposure to the CO-SEED and math subject students scoring "novice" curriculum and academic tests for 3rd, 6th, decreased and "passing" achievement in a rural school and 10th graders increased on Math and district (Gorham, NH). The CO- from various Language Arts. Data SEED curriculum is a whole- points in time. suggests a local factor school PBE intervention model. Also used data contributed to improvements comparing the but can't directly attribute to district to state- CO-SEED. Doesn?t detract wide scores. from student performance. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 233 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Duffin, This quantitative program Data collected Outcomes significantly Powers & evaluation uses a ?dose- from 838 teacher correlated with educator's Tremblay response? measurement strategy surveys and 721 program dose. Largest effect (2004)? to test whether participating in student surveys. sizes for use of local places, one of four PBE programs student academic and civic (Community Mapping Program engagement and community (CMP), CO-SEED, Sustainable civic engagement. Smaller schools project (SSP), Forest for effect sizes for place Every Classroom (FFEC)) attachment, stewardship increases the occurrence of behavior and learning intended program outcomes. through local resources. The ?dose? (a number from 0-4) ?Tipping point?: Teacher quantifies how much of the PBE level dose of PBE has most program a teacher implemented influence first year; school and thus how much a student level dose stronger predictor was exposed to. as PBE becomes part of school culture. Endreny This case study investigated Science PBE may have influenced (2010)** how urban 5th grade students? notebooks, students? conceptions of conceptions of watersheds observations, watershed; students changed during a place-based pre/post unit knowledge of watersheds science unit. Students visited watershed increased during the unit. local watershed, conducted concept maps, Most students did not learn water pollution tests, observed post-unit student concepts that were only human and environmental interviews. taught in classroom setting. impacts on watershed, created Students? connection to place maps. Teacher incorporated increased as they expressed a student questions about desire to keep their watershed into the curriculum. watershed clean. Emekauwa Reports changes in test scores Scores on Percentage of 4th grade (2004a)? after implementation of Project Louisiana students scoring Connect (PC), place-based math Educational unsatisfactory on state math and science teacher professional Assessment tests decreased every year (at development, in a rural school Program for the a faster rate than state-wide) district. Following participation 21st Century following the introduction of in PC, teachers engaged students (LEAP 21) tests PC. Similar improvements in in study of local ecology, starting with scores on state science and topography, weather and water 1998-99 school social studies tests between quality. Program has expanded year (prior to 1999-00 and 2001-02. to include local geography and introduction of Findings varied for history, built alliances with local PC) through the individual schools. community partners and 2001-2002 school universities. year. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 234 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Emekauwa Reports on changes in academic Collected Percentage of 8th graders (2004b)? achievement and student standardized scoring in top quartile on engagement following the math tests drop- math test increased and gap implementation of the Alaska out rates, and between AKRSI and non- Rural Systemic Initiative first-time college AKRSI schools narrowed. (AKRSI), a five-phase school- entrance data 10th and 11th grade students wide place-based Indigenous from 1995-96 showed increases in percent education program in Alaska. through 1999-00 scoring advanced or The curriculum incorporated for 20 districts proficient but not different Indigenous knowledge systems that participated from non-AKRSI gains. into Western schooling by in AKRSI as well Dropout rates decreased at a building an indigenous science as 28 non-AKRSI higher rate than decreases in knowledge base, implementing districts. Used non-AKRSI schools. an elders-in-residence program, quantitative Number of first-time and hosting subsistence camps methods to students enrolled at that engaged students and compare data University of Alaska teachers with local experts as from two sets of increased by 19% first year, well as village based science schools. and then increased years camps. after surpassing enrollment from non-AKRSI schools. Flanagan, This qualitative study assesses Responses to Students articulated Gallay, what urban adolescents learn reflective awareness of natural Pykett & about the environmental prompts by 205 resources that support life, Smallwood commons from participation in a 4th ? 12th grade noting that they now (2019)** place-based stewardship students. Prompt attached greater value to the education program. Participants asked what natural world. Their include students of color in three students learned responses also demonstrated urban communities. Students about that students now identified participated in a range of communities, with their local community school-based projects collective and had a ?stake? in the local responsive to local conditions efficacy, and environment. Additionally, that shared practices including behaviors. students developed an ecological observations, data understanding of their own collection and analysis, and capacity to act, due in part presentations of findings. perhaps to projects? emphasis on problem- solving skills. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 235 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Friedel Qualitative study of the effects Participant Found disconnect between (2011)* of a Western, place-based observation, Indigenous youths? summer camp program in rural interviews, photo motivations and the aims of Canada on Indigenous elicitation, the program. Western adolescents. Program aimed to informal notions of nature/place and reconnect Indigenous youth with conversations ways of engaging with their ancestral territories and with program nature/place didn?t resonate incorporated Indigenous cultural aids, outdoor with youth; didn?t reflect liaisons. Western outdoor and educators, tribal their understanding of or environmental education elders and relationship to nature. Need activities contracted to non- Indigenous to search for a more genuine native groups. cultural liaisons. approach to Indigenous PBE. Gallay, This mixed-methods study Pre- and post- Found statistically Marckini- investigates whether place- surveys including significant gains in Polk, based stewardship education Likert-style and environmental sensitivity, Schroeder (PBSE) has a positive impact on open-ended responsible environmental & Flanagan rural students? environmental questions from behavior, place/community (2016)** sensitivity, identification with 240 sixth grade attachment, and civic the rural community, propensity students. Also capacity after participating in for environmentally responsible used survey data PBSE program. Correlations behavior, and sense of civic from urban, weak to moderate. capacity. Study covers multiple suburban students Qualitative analysis PBSE projects (including clean as a comparison supported these findings and up and monitoring of local group. Analyzed also indicated that students beaches, and trail maintenance, data using saw selves as agents of school campus projects, and statistical and change and intended to invasive species projects). qualitative participate in long-term methods. stewardship. Gannon This qualitative study looks at Discourse Students constructed their (2009)* the impact of place on 8th grade analysis of place as filled with amenities students in Australia as they student-produced and opportunities and created engage in critiquing negative images and representations of place that representations of their twelve texts that countered negative images in community. Students were included in the media. Students didn?t documented their places using the final class take social action or directly photography and written book. question social structures. reflection and made a class book. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 236 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Gautreau & This mixed-methods study Pre- and post- Achievement improved for Binns measured if 9th grade Biology tests that all classes but no significant (2017)* students participating in a PBE mimicked differences between PBE and curriculum differed in standardized traditional honors classes. achievement or attitudes toward tests, open-ended Some differences between science compared to those assessments, tracking levels. Students in participating in a traditional surveys, PBE classes made more curriculum. Also investigated classroom gains in critical thinking interaction with student tracking observations, skills such as understanding (honors vs. traditional student work environmental problems and classroom). The curriculum had artifacts. coming up with solutions. students study a local watershed Analyzed data and answer questions related to using quantitative watershed management. and qualitative methods. Heffez & This qualitative study Field notes, Students were very Bornstein investigates whether PBE, informal enthusiastic about the PBE (2016)* integrated over two years into a interviews with projects. PBE engaged geography class, can improve teachers, student students in learning and student engagement, facilitate surveys, student developed their sense of youth civic participation, work products belonging (can be a improve community design, and and presentations. determinant of school support school perseverance. perseverance). Students Students did mapping exercises understood civic processes in their community, chose local and participation better as a sites for fieldwork, and result of this project but were generated ideas for unable to ultimately effect improvement of one site. Took change. photos, collected data, made presentations about recommendations to local decision-making groups. Herbert & This qualitative report offers Interviews with Program built necessary Lewandows insight into community representatives collaborations between ki (2017)* stakeholders? perspectives on a from community teachers and community K12 science PBE program that groups. members by focusing on aimed to facilitate partnerships reciprocity, sharing between teachers and authority, and developing community organizations. mutual trust and respect. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 237 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Herman This purpose of this mixed- Pre- and post The study found that place- (2018)** method study is to investigate survey including based SSI impacted the the impact of a place-based Likert-style and accuracy of students? nature socio-scientific instruction (SSI) open-ended of science views, encouraged on secondary students? nature of response students to be more science views, compassion for questions; compassionate about nature, and pro-environmental qualitative data environmental issues, and intent. The place-based was coded on a 0- promoted higher levels of experience was a week-long 5 scale. pro-environmental intent (as school sponsored trip to measured by students? Yellowstone National Park expressed willingness to where students learned about change behavior) and action wolf re-introduction through (choice to donate a $10 documentaries, wolf-watching, honorarium to Yellowstone hiking, and park ecologists. environmental causes). Howley et This cross-case analysis of Gathered 85 Teachers incorporated local al. seven rural sites explored what interviews with to make math more relevant (2011a)** educators at these sites were administrators, to students. Data suggest doing to connect math community PBE increased students? instruction and curricula with members, math motivation to learn math. the local community. teachers, and Teachers thought PBE was students from more appropriate for lower across the seven than upper level math sites. Observed classes. Strength of PBE math lessons, champion, ease of program collected implementation, teachers? documents, and students? positive views prepared field of the community?s future all notes. supported PBE. Howley, This in-depth case study Interviews with Conditions that supported Howley, explored the dynamics of PBE principal, several PBE: Leadership by Camper, & in one small rural island school teachers, principal dedicated to PBE, Perko district. Investigated what community financial support from (2011b)** school and community members, student seasonal residents, range of dynamics support, sustain, focus groups and experience and pedagogical and/or constrain PBE. School- a place-based approaches amongst wide programs included outdoor educator. Field teachers, and school culture expeditions, parent and notes, participant invested in student inquiry community engagement observation, Found that most PBE took programs, long- and short-term relevant place in HS grades, students projects such as recycling, boat- documents and reported that they enjoyed building, developing woodland work artifacts. and benefited from PBE and trails, and aquaculture. connection to community. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 238 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Isogai et al. This qualitative pilot study of Semi-directed Students reported that they (2012)* two environmental outreach interviews with enjoyed and were camps in rural Canada examined 18 indigenous enthusiastic about the if PBE could engage Indigenous youth on the final activities and trip to local youth by using a ?collaborative- day of camp. sites. They also liked using geomatics informatics tool.? Other data GPS and, once they became The camp included outdoor PBE included familiar with it, the activities such as using local participant collaborative-geomatics tool. plants and fossils to demonstrate observation and This tool had the potential to negative impact of human field notes. help students learn more activity on environment. Used about the community. tool, GPS and other technology to organize and store data. Jennings, This historical case study Interviews with Teachers used over 35 terms Swidler & explored how PBE and state 12 key players in to describe a curriculum Koliba standards may be in conflict or developing state grounded in local issues and (2005)** could be complementary. It standards, used a wide range of constructed a history of the relevant activities in these development of place-based documents; curriculum. Teachers standards and implementation of surveys with 226 believed PBE had academic those standards in Vermont, teachers from 125 and social value and that it examined what PBE looked like schools and strengthened connections to in teachers? classrooms, and interviews with community, taught students studied the relationship between 10 teachers from to be responsible citizens and standards and teachers? PBE 4 schools. engaged students in learning. practice. PBE emerged in two specific state educational standards. Standards did little to increase use of PBE; also did not impede use of PBE. Very few teachers were familiar with the PBE standards. Johnson, This quantitative study gathered 45-min telephone 76% of the programs that Duffin & data from educational programs surveys with 54 reported significant AQ Murphy focused on improving air quality classroom improvements were (2012)** and attempted to identify a teachers or AQ classified as higher PBE. relationship between PBE education Strongest predictor was the practices and improvements in program reps. degree to which a program air quality (AQ) as measured by Calculated incorporated principles of either physical or proxy (i.e. relationships PBE. Other practices were establishment of anti-car idling between program strong predictors and may be policies) indicators. factors and air more important than PBE quality. itself. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 239 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Kermish- This quantitative study Collected data Students increased their Allen, documents how Energy for over three years: knowledge of the energy Peterman, Maine (ME) uses PBE and real- pre- and post- content strands featured in MacDonald world electricity data to impact content & project, environmental , Thompson students? energy consumption. performance awareness, and energy- & Winner Energy for ME was a school- assessments of saving behaviors. Energy (2015)* based program, implemented in energy-related competitions reduced energy 10 middle and high schools in content strands, usage at schools. rural Maine, that used five interviews, lessons and school-wide energy surveys, saving competitions to increase environmental awareness of how one?s actions stewardship and effect energy usage. Students behavior brainstormed how to decrease knowledge. energy use in their schools. Kuwahara This comparative case study In-class student Data indicate that the place- (2013)* investigates how a place-based assignments from based experiences students science curriculum might various points in had contributed to a positive influence place attachment, and the semester, place attachment, subsequently, environmentally including poems particularly towards the local responsible behaviors. This and reflections environment. Both Hawaiian study examined students at an about the and non-Hawaiian students urban Hawaiian high school and environment, also reported navigating their responses to a 19-week their identity, and insider/outsider perspectives science curriculum implemented their community. in their community-based in both the classroom and three Other data work. different local field sites. Data included field was coded and analyzed for notes and focus place attachment and group transcripts. environmentally responsible behavior. Leonard, This mixed-methods study Administered Found a significant Chamberlin, examined the impact of PBE pre-and post-tests improvement between pre- Johnson & field experiences in informal of science content and post-content tests for Verma camp settings in Denver, knowledge. Saturday academy and (2016)* Colorado on African American Collected summer camp. Qualitative and Latin@ 3rd to 5th-graders? qualitative data data indicated that some of content knowledge and interest including field the activities engaged and in science. Field-based activities notes, work stimulated student interest in included simulated dinosaur samples, science, students had some digs, emergency preparedness questionnaires, fear and anxiety at being exercises, and composting and focus group outside but eventually ?liked lessons. interviews. or enjoyed? the activities. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 240 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Lewicki This quantitative study of a Observations of Composite score increased (2000)? small rural high school and informal almost three grade levels investigates if students conversations over the course of the year. participating in a whole-school with students. Biggest gains in evaluating, PBE program meet or exceed Administered the analyzing and interpreting statewide standards as measured Iowa Test of information, using sources of by a nationally recognized test. Educational information. Attributed The school?s PBE programming Development observed changes to the spanned multiple disciplines and (ITED) to 14 small size of learning included 100 days a year spent freshman before community, first hand learning in the community and after the experiences, and projects conducting a wide range of school year relevant to the community. projects including building (September and Experiences and projects picnic tables for a local park, June). became ?anchors of restoring wetlands, and memory? students could researching local history. easily access during a test. Mannion & This comparative case study Interviews and The project made the school- Adey uses an example of a community focus groups with community boundary more (2011)* garden project at a primary community permeable. The garden space school in rural Scotland to argue members was used to engage parents that PBE must be about (parents), school in the life of the school and intergenerational education. administrators, various practices (i.e. Explores opportunities and students, and an working on manual challenges associated with ?eco-committee? tasks/projects) in the garden intergenerational PBE as well as at the school. produced and changed the role of place, context, and Other data intergenerational potential for learning. Parents, included field relationships. Some evidence students and teachers all worked notes and video that PBE made education together to improve a recordings of more relevant and increased community garden space intergenerational their math skills. Concluded adjacent to the school and and PBE events. places and people change teachers often used the space in through multi-directional their classes. inputs and effects. Muthersbau This descriptive case study Classroom Students expressed pride and gh, Kern & examined changes in rural 4th observations, empowerment when Charvoz grade students? perceptions of student reflective participating; demonstrated (2014)* environment and environmental journals and critical thinking about the science concepts after a 6-week paintings, 20-30 place they lived, expressed PBE curriculum. Curriculum minute interviews care for their environment integrated lessons about Lewis with 5 of 24 and a desire for it to remain and Clark with environmental students, and one unspoiled. Students had quality issues and students drew interview with some misconceptions about pictures of their environment. the teacher. science topics. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 241 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Ngai & This mixed-methods study of a Collected survey Overall, study school Koehn rural elementary school data (fifteen students had gains in (2010a)* investigated learning outcomes questions knowledge of place and of the Indian Education For All including an development of positive (IEFA) program and students? open-ended attitudes toward AI. attitudes toward American prompt) from 400 Comparison of specific Indians (AI). IEFA brought students at study teachers? practices found that tribal elders into the classroom school and 100 generic, historical to share stories and teach students at a approaches to teaching about Indigenous knowledge. control school AI less effective than Teachers integrated AI that did not approaches that focused on perspective and students implement IEFA. contemporary local AI. exchanged visits with a nearby AI school. Ngai & This mixed-methods study Collected survey Students? knowledge about Koehn investigated whether rural data (fifteen local tribes and attitudes (2010b)* elementary school students who questions toward AI improved over the participated in IEFA knowledge including an course of the two-year of and attitudes toward AI open-ended program. Sustained increases differed from a control group. prompt) from 400 in ability to identify local IEFA brought tribal elders into students at study and non-local AI tribes. classroom to share stories teach school and 100 Increased interest in learning Indigenous knowledge. students at a about local AI tribes. All Teachers integrated local AI control school gains were significantly perspective and students that did not greater at study school than exchanged visits with a nearby implement IEFA. at control school. AI school. Owens, La This study used youth Observations of All three projects resulted in Rochelle, participatory action research three project sites concrete policy change in Nelson, & (YPAR) with urban high-school with 75 youth, local communities. Found Montgomer students to explore the youth-produced that engaging youth can y-Block contributions of a PBE initiative media such as contribute to community (2011)** to local and regional decision- photos, videos, development on local and making processes. The maps, and comic regional levels. However, initiative, ?Healthy books. chain of effect is unclear as youth/healthy regions? focuses policy changes may have on youth development and civic happened independently of engagement by engaging youth youth advocacy. PBE plus with community partner youth-lead media projects organizations to recommend can be effective tools for solutions to problems in their change. communities. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 242 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Perkins, This quantitative study Pre- and post-test Students? spatial literacy Hazelton, investigated whether GIS within memory maps increased; statistically Erickson & a PBE context would increase from eight middle significant improvements in Allan middle school students? spatial schools. map accuracy between pre- (2010)* literacy. Three-day unit included Compared maps and post-test maps. lessons related to Maine-specific to reality, tested animal formation, inventories of for differences in trees in schoolyard, data accuracy between analysis with GIS. maps. Plumb, This methods utilization- Teacher, student, Students found hands-on Powers & focused evaluation assessed the community activities more valuable than Wither outcomes of a PBE teacher partner learning from books. Most (2003)? professional development interviews, teachers said PBE helped program focused on community participant students gain stronger sense mapping in mostly rural middle observations, of place, half of students said and high schools. The program classroom they gained deeper trains teachers to use maps, observations, pre- appreciation for community compasses, GPS and/or GIS in and post- student and increased place their classrooms to explore and teacher attachment. Community ecological, cultural or economic surveys partners reported final systems, as a tool to investigate projects were useful and high their community, or in the quality. Most useful projects development of the final product occurred when community for their community partner. partners and teachers worked Students presented data to local together to identify a real officials or town committees. community need. Powers This utilization-focused mixed- Semi-structured Program had strong (2004)** methods study evaluated four interviews and relationships with PBE programs to assess focus groups with community partners and high strengths and challenges, how teachers, quality program staff. programs can learn from each students, Lacked time for teachers, other, and to measure changes in administrators, needed curriculum teacher practice. Two were community guidelines for integrating whole-school PBE models, and partners, parents PBE. Teachers used local two were teacher professional and program staff places more and made more development models. members. Also interdisciplinary collected connections. Students observations of expressed increased trainings, motivation, enthusiasm, and classroom engagement for learning, and teaching, and special education students fieldwork. performed better in PBE. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 243 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Rote, This report provides an Interviews with Teachers reported that PBE Schroeder evaluation, from the student and surveys of increased teamwork, taught & perspective, of Northeast several teachers, responsibility and life skills, D?Augustin Michigan Great Lakes 197 student gave students ownership o (2015)? Stewardship Initiative?s surveys (both over their education and (NMGLSI) PBE programming. closed- and open- increased interest, motivation The evaluation includes for case ended questions), for learning. Students studies of PBE programming in student focus reported that PBE was fun, one rural Michigan school groups, they gained career-oriented district?s middle and high school classroom knowledge, learned more math and science classes. PBE observations. and were more engaged activities include watershed because of the hands-on project, beach clean ups, water learning. Students also quality testing, and reported a greater desire to presentations to city council. be involved in their community. Rubel, This reflective essay analyzed See Rubel et. al. Authors failed to make race Hall- data from studies of two PBE (2016b) and explicit as they constructed Wieckert & curricula, Cash City and Local Rubel et. al. maps to support their Lim Lotto, to further develop the (2016c) for narrative; maps hid some (2016a)** heuristic supporting these descriptions of complexities of inequities curricula and outline areas for data collected. and may have perpetuated a improvement. This essay used deficit view of low-income theories of place, space, and neighborhoods; students spatial justice to support related didn't call for changing arguments. lottery or personal finance systems nor jump to action. Spatial perspectives are powerful tools. Could benefit from collaboration with students in earlier stages of design, connections to activism, and attention to race as an essential spatial variable. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 244 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Rubel, Lim, This design-based qualitative Descriptive field Students learned relevant Hall- research project studies a critical notes of each math concepts, including the Wieckert & math PBE curriculum, Local class session, ability to correctly reported Sullivan Lotto, a participatory mapping student written probability. Students were (2016b)** module, in four sections of an work, five written engaged by contextualization urban high school remedial tasks including in something familiar and math course. Students pre- and post- meaningful from outside of interviewed local residents and assessments with school. Some students lottery retailers, uploaded data more than half of thought critically about to maps, and synthesized and the students, and lottery while others defended presented their findings. The two focus group it. This study was a ?proof of study attempted to address how sessions with concept? for the use of CPP the module's spatial focus students focal in math classes; this supported learning of math class before and approach showed promise concepts and supported after the module. for students who had opportunities for students to struggled in traditional math think critically about the lottery. classrooms. Rubel, Lim, This qualitative study Narrative field This PM PBE module Hall- investigated the impact of a notes, audio of motivated students? Wieckert & participatory mapping (PM) whole-class engagement in mathematical Katz PBE module, Cash City, on debrief, students' learning; students? functional (2016c)** students in an urban high school reflections about mathematical literacy financial mathematics course. impact of Cash increased. Interviews with The study asked how PM City, and student- local residents added engaged and complicated produced artifacts complexity to students? sense students? sense of place and such as photos, of place and thinking about contributed to and complicated videos, and maps. the spatial justice issues at students? learning. Students hand. Students reported learned mathematical concepts feeling empowered with related to predatory lending, newfound mathematical investigated spatial patterns in agency but did not readily distribution of financial engage with a social critique institutions, conducted field or push for social change. research in their community, and presented findings. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 245 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Schindel This qualitative case study of Five interviews Youth developed Dimick the CPP curriculum of an urban with teacher, knowledgeable care and (2016)** AP environmental science class weekly classroom deepened understandings of explores how a teacher observations over place, expressed connection facilitates reinhabitation and one year, in-depth to places and a belief they critical consciousness through observation of could affect change in the urban environmental restoration one unit and park and local community. learning and what performances significant They demonstrated deeper of reinhabitation and critical activities, student critical consciousness by consciousness youth convey as a work samples, interrogating the ecological result. The teacher integrated and 10 group impact of dominant cultural local environmental science interviews with knowledge and using science issues and concerns into every students. knowledge to question lesson via an ongoing park dominant practices. Through restoration project as well as their work, they transformed news stories and students? dominant narrative of their experiences. community as failing. Showalter This qualitative study examines Two semi- PBE was difficult to practice (2013)** how a group of undergraduate structured at higher levels. Teachers and high school math educators interviews, valued integrity of math with substantial exposure to the conducted a week above integration of place. theory of PBE translate PBE apart, with fifteen Teaching PBE in statistics into practice. The study looks teachers. easier and more common. for commonalities among math Transcribed and Also found that teachers activities that connect students coded using a must have strong familiarity with place and asks how math priori codes and with their students? place in educators engage the tension grounded theory order to ensure deep between local context and for emergent connections between math abstract math. codes. and place. Smith This study examines the Five multi-day PBE projects provided (2011)* challenges and opportunities visits to school to students with experiences afforded by PBE in an shadow principal that lead them to care more alternative high school and its and observe about their community and impact on students and the classrooms and natural world. Projects had community. Whole-school PBE field sites. real value for community. model addresses five domains Interviews with After introduction of PBE, across multiple subjects: principal, nine students were more engaged, architecture, energy, water, students, three expressed plans for future, forests, and agriculture. teachers, a district and saw themselves as Dedicated principal developed administrator, capable of addressing relationships with local community problems. Standardized test government and community partners, and a scores increased. partners to support PBE efforts. parent. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 246 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Somerville This ethnographic place- Study 1: Semi- Theorized a ?pedagogy of & Green oriented research project structured organized chaos? within PBE (2011)* attempts to understand the interviews with at both sites. Teachers were ?pedagogical exchanges? that teacher, principal, open to the uncertainty and occur within PBE through an 15 students; unpredictability of place, examination of two separate observations, worked across boundaries of studies, a whole-school photos, videos, subject areas and sought sustainability program called journals. Study 2: expertise of community ?land care? and a wetland Interviews with members. Students? different analysis, monitoring, and frog teacher, students, ways of knowing helped census program, both located at websites and field them develop a deeper sense rural Australian middle schools. notes. of and attachment to places. Takano, This longitudinal, mixed- Participant Students? disconnection from Higgins, & methods case study of a rural observation environment was threating McLaughli Alaskan middle and high school primary source of identify, self-esteem, and n (2009)** for Yup?ik youth examined why data. Collected sustenance of Yup?ik culture. Indigenous people felt a need to semi-structured Integrating subsistence restore a connection to land and interviews with activities reaffirmed lifestyle what effects PBE programming three school staff, and values of village. Data had on students. Supported 11 students, suggested increased student through AKRSI, PBE seven parents and attendance, positive programming positioned three community attitudes, improvement in Indigenous peoples? subsistence members. Initial academic skills, relationship activities at the center of the interviews in between community and school curriculum, and included 2002, follow-up school. Follow-up in 2007 outdoor activities, overnight in 2007 with most confirmed outcomes. trips and research projects all of the same Standardized test scores had connected to multiple subjects. participants. improved since start of PBE. Trinidad Qualitative case study of a rural Interviews with 8 Youth gained sociopolitical (2011)** youth program that uses critical young adults, 4 knowledge and skills. Indigenous pedagogy of place staff members, 5 Increased ability to identify (CIPP) to foster sociopolitical non-program disparities in community, development of Hawaiian young adults (parents, critically explore oppression adults. The program?s goal is to board members, and systemic inequalities, promote self-sufficiency and etc.) Other data more connected to food security and provides included communities and committed youth opportunities to run an newspaper to serving them, participation organic farm, leadership articles and in political-action activities training, and to organize a online materials such as testifying at political community organic agricultural about the events and implementing center. program. food sovereignty campaigns and conferences. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 247 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Tsevreni This qualitative study of nine to Observations and Children articulated (2014)* twelve year old children in 250 children?s experiences with city and an Athens, Greece explores the role responses to pre- alternative vision for city?s of art in a critical pedagogy of and post-program improvement. Brainstormed place. Specifically, it analyzes survey, and ideas and proposed actions to the ability of a one-day program improve school environment. community-based PBE art evaluation Students? self-confidence program to build students? self- questionnaire. about ideas for their confidence and ability to Collected student environment strengthened; express their ideas for their poems and program formed the ?basis? environment and community. artwork. for civic participation. Waite This independent evaluation Collected data PBCS children acquired (2013)** uses a cross-sectional design to from place-based knowledge about local park, explore how schools can use school, a built cultural capital relevant places to nurture environmental comparison to their community, and awareness and fulfill broader school and a became more attached to curricular goals. Using the community their places. The cultural theory of cultural density, this college. Sampled density transmitted through study approaches place as full of students from PBE was ?layered, complex, cultural activity and meaning. three different and deep.? However, distant Specifically, it examines impact age groups. places were ?othered? and of PBE at a primary and middle Conducted focus made few connections to school in England on students? groups with all broader national or global knowledge of the local students. communities or other places. environment, practical skills, Observations of PBE knowledge not always and environmental awareness. students and useful at community college The four-year PBE program interviews with level. Concluded that place included weekly 2-hr activities teachers at PBCS. was a socially mediated at a nearby national park. Used thematic artifact with cultural analysis. implications for education. Wason- Based in theories of social Participant Students developed new, Ellam constructivism, this auto- observation, empathetic connections with (2010)* ethnography documents how reflective writing, the river as it became ?our students in one teacher?s third student artifacts, river? over the course of the grade urban Canadian classroom and in-depth curriculum. Students began come to learn about the conversations to identify personally with sociocultural meaning of a with students. local places and gained new place. Students took walking perspectives on place. trips to a nearby river, Opportunities for embodied documented their experiences learning in place ? chance using stories, photos, art, poetry for students to ?touch, view, and writing journals. small and listen? to places are particularly important. ? Evaluative reports (continued) * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 248 TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Citation Description of Study Data Findings Wilson & This qualitative study assessed Little information Students had higher than Stemp the ability of PBE to engage about data. usual attendance rates. (2010)* young Indigenous Australian Students? digital Despite initial reluctance to high school students in science photographs and participate in fieldwork, education activities and bridge attendance data. students? attitudes changed disconnect between dominant and began to realize the culture and Indigenous youth. impact of their work and The 8-week outreach program positive contributions to incorporated Indigenous community. perspectives and included a wetlands maintenance project. Yamauchi The purpose of this qualitative Participant One community organization & Purcell case study is to describe the observation over initiated the program and got (2009)** development of community three years: others on board. Community involvement in a school-wide Observed organizations provided PBE program at a Hawaiian students, teachers funding, program high school, how and why and community development, coordination of community members became members service-learning projects, involved in the program, and participating in cultural consultation, and what sustained and/or projects. political support. Open diminished their participation. Interviews and communication, common set The program integrated learning focus groups with of values, flexibility helped about the local community with 4 teachers, 15 sustain involvement. Lack of science, social studies, and members of 7 support from school system, English coursework. community teacher burnout (not enough organizations. time) amongst challenges. Zimmerma Drawing on sociocultural Pre- and post-unit Quantity of information and n & Weible theories of learning, this mixed mind maps of sophistication of ecological (2016)** methods study of a three-week watershed, concepts increased in post- long PBE watershed unit in a student-produced unit mind maps. Enhanced rural high school biology class artifacts such as understanding of physical, investigated how students? photographs from biological, chemical, and knowledge of watershed field study and human impacts on ecology changed over the course reflective essays. environmental health. Nearly of the unit. The study also Video recordings all students developed new investigated how students used of science meanings of place and place- their personal experiences to instruction and human relationships; saw support their learning. Unit small group community?s natural areas included a stream study, work. and bodies of water creation of an online wiki page, differently. Students said and discussed environmental they?d change future and economic impacts of behaviors, but didn?t take watershed use. action. ? Evaluative reports * Empirical studies ** Gold star studies 249 APPENDIX B: Administrator Interview Protocols Administrator Initial Interview Protocol February, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. This consent form defines your rights as a study participant and our responsibilities as researchers. Please review and sign this copy of the consent form; you may keep the other copy for your files. I would like to talk to you today about your experience with the Food Justice expedition, your goals for the project, and your assessment of its strengths and challenges. First, however, I have some questions about your professional background to help put the Food Justice expedition and your work with it into broader context. Professional background 1) Tell me a little bit about your experience working in education. a. Listen/probe for: i. Length of time at Greenfields Public Charter School ii. Roles held 2) Describe your core beliefs about education. What assumptions and/or values drive your work as an educator and (position title)? 3) Tell me about GPCS?s approach to education. a. Listen/probe for: i. Mission and vision of school ii. Goals for school 4) What do you hope students will know and be able to do when they graduate from GPCS? a. Listen/probe for: i. Goals related to academic skills (critical thinking, etc.) ii. Goals related to student engagement broadly defined. iii. Goals tied to subject-specific curriculum iv. Goals related to civic engagement v. Goals related to social change vi. Goals related to students? worldview vii. Goals related to students? personal/social development 250 Food Justice project 5) Tell me about the nature of your involvement in the food justice project. a. Listen/probe for: i. History of involvement ii. Goals for the project iii. Supports provided to help teachers implement project iv. Challenges in implementing and how they are handled 6) What skills, attitudes, and knowledge do you hope that students gain from participation in the expedition? 7) What role does the local community or do local places play in the expedition? Please give examples. a. Listen/probe for: i. How do you involve the local community ii. What community resources do you draw upon iii. How s/he defines ?place? iv. How s/he defines ?community? 8) How does the food justice project fit in to the broader curriculum at GPCS? 9) What have you found to be most beneficial about the food justice project? Most challenging? 10) What are your long-term goals for the food justice project? What do you hope it might look like in the future? 11) Is there anything else I should know about the food justice project or your role in it? 12) If I have any more questions as my research proceeds, I may reach out by email for clarification. Would that be okay with you? 251 Administrator Follow-up Interview Protocol May, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. I would like to talk to you today about your assessment of this year?s food justice project and your recommendations for the future. Assessment of FJP 1) Looking back on this year?s food justice project, how would you describe your involvement? Did this involvement differ from your involvement in previous years? a. Previous years ? ?time and space and logistics? 2) Describe the challenges that the FJP faced this year. How did they impact the project? a. Listen/probe: i. Supports provided to teachers ii. Assessment of how the team handled the challenges. iii. Other teachers? responses ? missing class time. iv. What happened with the research paper? v. Concerns about the added burden on the teachers with the community partners. vi. [Susan]?s role ? to what extent, if at all, did she end up being helpful? 3) During our first interview, you talked about the challenges balancing academic rigor with project-based learning. What?s your assessment of how the FJ project managed that balance this time around? Do you think the academic rigor you were hoping for was maintained? 4) To your knowledge, what kinds of content area connections did the 11th grade team make to the FJ project? 5) Do you think this was an authentic experience for students? Why/why not? a. Listen/probe: i. Impact of the change of venue/timing for the summit 6) What were some of the successes of the FJP this year? What went well? 7) You mentioned that students might ?See the benefits of it? ? and I sat in on some presentations that students made to the HOS and other high level 252 administrators. Any insight as to what the administrators thought about the FJP? The potential for students? visions to become reality? 8) What skills, attitudes, and knowledge do you think students gained from their participation in the expedition? Please give examples. a. Listen/probe for: i. Differences between student groups based on topics ii. Changes in students? awareness of social issues iii. Changes in students? sense of agency iv. Changes in students? willingness to take action v. Role of local communities and places vi. Skills? vii. Connections to social justice? viii. Mentioned that you saw students being engaged who weren?t usually engaged. 9) In our first interview, you mentioned two major sets of skills and/or dispositions that you hoped students would take away from the FJP: a. ?To have a way to articulate using information, personal experience, and data, and understanding of what is unjust about [local food justice issues]? b. ?think about how their choices impact others? c. To what extent do you think students walked away from the FJP with those skills/dispositions? 10) If you could have a re-do on this year?s FJP, what would you change or add? What would you keep the same? a. You mentioned that you want the FJP to be more consistent over time and that this would be a conversation you?d have with the team in May ? have you had that conversation yet? What do you think you?ll discuss with them during this conversation? 11) Given everything that?s happened this year, and your concerns/the successes, what do you think the FJP will look like next year? 253 APPENDIX C: Teacher Interview Protocols FJ Founding Teacher Initial Interview Protocol February, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. This consent form defines your rights as a study participant and our responsibilities as researchers. Please review and sign this copy of the consent form; you may keep the other copy for your files. I would like to talk to you today about your experience with the Food Justice project, your goals for the project, how it connects to your curriculum, and your assessment of its strengths and challenges. First, however, I have some questions about your professional background to help put the Food Justice project and your work with it into broader context. Professional Background 1) Tell me a little bit about your experience working in education. a. Listen/probe for: i. Length of time at Greenfields Public Charter School ii. What appealed to him/her about working at GPCS iii. Roles held iv. Subjects/classes taught 2) Describe your core beliefs about teaching ? How do you approach teaching? What assumptions and/or values drive your teaching? 3) Have you been involved in any other place- or community-based education initiatives in the past? Background on food justice project 4) I know that you and another teacher were instrumental in starting the food justice project. Can you tell me a little bit about how you got the idea for the project and how it began? 5) How, if at all, has the food justice project evolved or changed over time? 6) Give me a sense of the obstacles you?ve faced with this program and some of the successes you?ve had since the food justice project began. a. Listen/probe i. How school has supported the program ii. Constraints placed by school 254 7) Tell me about the nature of your involvement in the food justice project as it currently stands. a. Listen/probe for: i. Roles played in the project ii. How courses taught tie to the project Goals for Food Justice project 8) How do you introduce the food justice project to the students? a. Listen/probe for: i. Definition of food justice ii. Connections to social change/social justice iii. How they define social change/social justice, how they talk about it with students. 9) What are your overall goals for the project this year? a. Listen/probe for: i. Goals related to academic skills (critical thinking, etc.) ii. Goals related to student engagement broadly defined. iii. Goals tied to subject-specific curriculum iv. Goals related to civic engagement v. Goals related to social change vi. Goals related to students? worldview vii. Goals related to students? personal/social development 10) What skills, attitudes, and knowledge do you hope that students gain from participation in the project? 11) What role does the local community or do local places play in the project? Please give examples. a. Listen/probe for: i. How do you involve the local community ii. What community resources do you draw upon iii. How s/he defines ?place? iv. How s/he defines ?community? 12) What have you found to be most beneficial about the food justice project? Most challenging? a. Listen/probe for: i. Benefits to the school ii. Benefits to other teachers 255 13) Can you characterize how students have responded to the food justice project in the past? a. Listen/probe for: i. Skills gained ii. Challenges for students 14) What are your long-term goals for the food justice project? What do you hope it might look like in the future? 15) Is there anything else I should know about the food justice project or your role in it? 16) I may ask you to participate in a follow-up interview after the project is over; this interview will ask you to assess the successes and challenges of this project and ask you to share your perspective on what students learned. Would that be okay with you? 256 11th Grade Teacher Initial Interview Protocol February, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. This consent form defines your rights as a study participant and our responsibilities as researchers. Please review and sign this copy of the consent form; you may keep the other copy for your files. I would like to talk to you today about your experience with the food justice project, your goals for the project, how it connects to your curriculum, and your assessment of its strengths and challenges. First, however, I have some questions about your professional background to help put the food justice project and your work with it into broader context. Professional Background 1) Tell me a little bit about your experience working in education. a. Listen/probe for: i. Length of time at Greenfields Public Charter School ii. What appealed to him/her about working at GPCS iii. Roles held iv. Subjects/classes taught 2) Describe your core beliefs about teaching ? How do you approach teaching? What assumptions and/or values drive your teaching? Food justice project 3) Tell me about the nature of your involvement in the food justice project. a. Listen/probe for: i. History of involvement ii. Roles played iii. How courses taught tie to the project 4) Can you describe how the project is carried out and how you introduce it to your students? 5) What are your overall goals for the project? a. Listen/probe for: i. Goals related to academic skills (critical thinking, etc.) ii. Goals related to student engagement broadly defined. iii. Goals tied to subject-specific curriculum iv. Goals related to civic engagement v. Goals related to social change 257 vi. Goals related to students? worldview vii. Goals related to students? personal/social development 6) What skills, attitudes, and knowledge do you hope that students gain from participation in the project? 7) What role does the local community or do local places play in the project? Please give examples. a. Listen/probe for: i. How do you involve the local community ii. What community resources do you draw upon iii. How s/he defines ?place? iv. How s/he defines ?community? 8) (If applicable) What have you found to be most beneficial about the food justice project? Most challenging? a. Listen/probe for: i. Benefits to the school ii. Benefits to other teachers 9) (If applicable) Can you characterize how students have responded to the food justice project in the past? b. Listen/probe for: i. Skills gained ii. Challenges for students 10) What are your long-term goals for the food justice project? What do you hope it might look like in the future? 11) Is there anything else I should know about the food justice project or your role in it? 12) I may ask you to participate in a follow-up interview after the project is over; this interview will ask you to assess the successes and challenges of this project and ask you to share your perspective on what students learned. Would that be okay with you? 258 11th Grade Teacher Follow-up Interview Protocol May, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. I would like to talk to you today about your assessment of this year?s food justice project and your recommendations for the future. Assessment of FJP 1) Looking back on this year?s food justice project, how would you describe your involvement? Did this involvement differ from your involvement in previous years? 2) To what extent did you meet your curricular goals? 3) I know that the FJP faced several challenges, such as sick staff members and a re-scheduled summit. Can you describe how those challenges impacted the project? How did you respond to these challenges? a. Listen/probe: i. Other challenges ii. Supports/constraints from the admin 4) What were some of the successes of the FJP this year? What went well? 5) What skills, attitudes, and knowledge do you think your students gained from their participation in the project? Please give examples. a. Listen/probe for: i. Differences between student groups based on topics ii. Changes in students? awareness of social issues iii. Changes in students? sense of agency iv. Changes in students? willingness to take action v. Role of local communities and places 6) If you could have a re-do on this year?s FJP, what would you change or add? What would you keep the same? 259 APPENDIX D: Community Partners Interview Protocol Community-based Organization Representative Interview Protocol July, 2018 Introduction Thank you for your willingness to talk with me, particularly given the many pressing demands on your time. This consent form defines your rights as a study participant and our responsibilities as researchers. Please review and sign this copy of the consent form; you may keep the other copy for your files. All of your responses will remain confidential and anonymous; I will give you a pseudonym and change the name and identifying characteristics of your organization in my final report. I would like to talk to you today about your organization?s partnership with Greenfields Public Charter School and the food justice project, your goals for this partnership, and your assessment of the challenges and benefits of this partnership. First, however, I have some questions about you and your organization to help put your work with it into broader context. Professional/Organizational Background 1) Tell me a little bit about your professional background and how you became involved in this organization. 2) Can you describe to me your organization?s mission and overall goals? Partnership with GPCS 3) How did your organization?s partnership with GPCS begin? a. Listen/probe for: i. Which organization initiated partnership ii. When it began/Length of partnership iii. Which individuals from GPCS they worked with iv. Personal role in the partnership v. Partnerships with other K12 schools 4) From your perspective, what was the purpose of this partnership? a. Listen/probe for: i. Organizational goals ii. Characterization of partnership 5) Why did you and your organization become involved in the food justice project specifically? Can you describe that involvement? a. Listen/probe for: 260 i. Time devoted to partnership ii. Roles assumed iii. Relationship with GPCS students iv. Relationship with GPCS staff 6) Can you describe what, if any, involvement or contact you had with students during the food justice project? 7) [If yes] Can you describe students? responses to the food justice project? What, if any, changes did you observe in students during their participation in the food justice project? a. Listen/probe for: i. Ability to work with community organization ii. Stronger presentation skills iii. Greater awareness of social issues iv. Increased sense of agency v. Greater willingness to take action on issues they care about 8) What, if anything, did your organization gain from partnering with GPCS? a. Listen/probe for: i. Whether or not goals of partnership were met ii. If outcome of food justice project was different than expected iii. If you were satisfied with the research students produced. 9) What were some of the challenges and benefits of this partnership? 10) Would you be a community partner for the GPCS food justice project in the future? Why/why not? 11) Is there anything else I should know about your organization or its partnership with GPCS and the food justice project? 261 APPENDIX E: Student Interview and Focus Group Protocols Student Interview Protocol April 2018 Introduction Thank you for being willing to talk to me! As a reminder, you signed an assent form a few months ago ? you have the right to stop participating in this interview at any time. Also, everything we talk about today stays confidential between us; any recordings or notes of this interview will be kept on my password protected computer and I will give you a pseudonym if I quote you directly in anything I write about this project. I would like to talk to you today about your time here at GPCS, your experience with the food justice project, your views on your community and potential ways you might want to change it, and your thoughts on what kind of citizen you are now and might be after high school. Personal background 1. Tell me a little bit about yourself. a. Listen/probe for: i. Age ii. Racial identity iii. How long at GPCS iv. What appealed to him/her about GPCS v. Activities and interests in and outside of school. Experience with food justice project 2. Describe the topic that your group chose for your food justice project. Was this choice your first preference? a. Listen/probe for: i. Where the issue is situated geographically ii. Why they chose the issue iii. Academic rationale for choice iv. Personal rationale for choice v. Level of input in choice 3. Tell me about the research you did for this project. a. Listen/probe for: i. Where they did their fieldwork ii. What they thought of their fieldwork iii. Favorite/least favorite parts of research 4. Why, if at all, do you think your topic is important? 262 a. Listen/probe for: i. Reasons related to food justice ii. Reasons related to community iii. Reasons related to school iv. Reasons related to broader issues of social justice 5. What role did you play in your presentation for the final youth summit? a. Listen/probe for: i. Role in preparation ii. Role in making the presentation iii. Assessment of the quality and effectiveness of the presentation. 6. What did you learn from participating in the food justice project? a. Listen/probe for: i. Knowledge related to place ii. Academic skills iii. Public speaking skills iv. Knowledge or dispositions related to social change 7. Is there anything else you?d like me to know about your experience with the Food Justice expedition project? a. Listen/probe for: i. What s/he liked about the project ii. Recommendations for changing the project in the future Views of community 8. How would you define your community and your neighborhood? Can you describe to me? What do these places mean to you? a. Listen/probe for: i. Where in the city they live ii. Identification of injustices/inequities in their communities and feelings about those injustices. iii. Racial/ethnic make up of community 9. What do you like about where you live? a. Listen/probe for: i. Desire to leave/stay in community after high school ii. Strength of attachment to community iii. Identification of strengths and assets in their communities 10. Is it important for you to be active in your community and neighborhood? Why/why not? a. Listen/probe for: i. Specific examples of what ?being active? looks like ii. How, if at all, they?ve been active in their communities in the past. 263 iii. How, if at all, they plan to be active in their communities in the future. 11. What, if any, other issues relevant to your local community do you care about? What, if any, other issues in the city do you care about? 12. What, if anything, do you think you could do about those issues? a. Listen/probe for: i. Identification of specific action steps ii. Nature of action steps ? ie., work with a group to solve a problem, engage in social protest, iii. Identification of other people who could help iv. Confidence in ability to effect change ? ie., will people listen to me and/or will I be effective? 13. Is there anything else you think I should know about you? 14. Do you have any questions for me? 264 Focus group protocol April 2018 Thank you for being willing to talk to me! As a reminder, you signed an assent form a few months ago ? you have the right to stop participating in this interview at any time. Also, I?d like to ask that everything we talk about today stays confidential between this group; any recordings or notes I make of our conversation will be for my eyes only; I will not share what you say with your teachers or peers. I will give you a pseudonym if I quote you directly in anything I write. I?d like to ask about your opinions on the food justice project. You are welcome to respond to each other or ask each other questions as we talk. 1. But first, even though I know most of you already, please briefly introduce yourself ? your age, racial identity, where in the city you live, how long you?ve been at GPCS, and your favorite thing to do when you?re not in school. 2. Describe the topic that you chose for your food justice project. Was this your first choice? a. Listen/probe for: i. Where the issue is situated geographically ii. Why they chose the issue iii. Academic rationale for choice iv. Personal rationale for choice v. Level of input in choice 3. Tell me about the research you did for this project. a. Listen/probe for: i. Where they did their fieldwork ii. What they thought of their fieldwork iii. Most favorite/least favorite parts of research 4. Do you think your topic is important? Why/why not? a. Listen/probe for: i. Reasons related to food justice ii. Reasons related to community iii. Reasons related to school iv. Reasons related to broader issues of social justice 5. What did you learn from participating in the food justice project? a. Listen/probe for: i. Knowledge related to place ii. Academic skills iii. Public speaking skills iv. Knowledge or dispositions related to social change 265 6. What role did you play in your presentation for the final youth conference? a. Listen/probe for: i. Role in preparation ii. Role in making the presentation iii. Assessment of the quality and effectiveness of the presentation. iv. What it was like having the last minute change 7. Is there anything else you?d like me to know about your experience with the Food Justice project? a. Listen/probe for: i. What s/he liked about the project ii. Recommendations for changing the project in the future 266 APPENDIX F: Survey Items and In-class Reflection Survey items for food justice reflection 1) Competence for civic action (Flanagan et al., 2007) If you found out about a problem in your community that you wanted to do something about, how well do you think you would be able to do each of the following? (I definitely can?t, I probably can?t, maybe, I probably can, I definitely can) - Create a plan to address the problem - Get other people to care about the problem - Organize and run a meeting - Express your views in front of a group of people - Identify individuals or groups who could help you with the problem. - Write an opinion letter to a local newspaper - Call someone on the phone that you had never met before to get their help with the problem - Contact an elected official about the problem - Organize a petition 2) Political efficacy (Adapted from Flanagan et al., 2007) Please respond to the following statements by indicating how much you agree or disagree with each statement (Strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree). - I believe I can make a positive difference in my community - Even though I am a teenager, there are ways for me to get involved in my community. - I can use what I know to solve ?real-life? problems in my community - By working with others in the community I can help make things better 3) Critical motivation scale (Diemer et al., 2015) Please respond to the following statements by indicating how much you agree or disagree with each statement. (Strongly disagree, mostly disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, mostly agree, strongly agree). - It is important for young people to speak out when an injustice has occurred - Young people have an important role to play in making the world a better place - It is important for young people to know what is going on in the world Political issues are not relevant to people who are not old enough to vote. - It is important to be an active and informed citizen - It is important to correct social and economic inequality - It is important to confront someone who says something that you think is racist or prejudiced - It is my responsibility to get involved and make things better for society 267 - People like me should participate in the political activity and decision making of our country - It does not matter whether I participate in local organizations or political activity because many other people are involved. 4) Critical action ? sociopolitical participation (Diemer et al., 2017) In your life, how often have you.... (Never did this, once or twice last year, once every few moths, at least once a month, at least once a week) - Participated in a civil rights group or organization - Participated in a political party, club or organization - Wrote a letter to a school, community newspaper, or publication about a social or political issue - Contacted a public official by phone, mail, or email to tell him or her how you felt about a social or political issue - Joined in a protest march, political demonstration, or political meeting - Worked on a political campaign - Participated in a discussion about a social or political issue - Signed an email or written petition about a social or political issue - Participated in a racial justice, human rights, LGBTQ+ rights, or women's rights organization or group 5) Expectations for political and civic engagement (Adapted from Flanagan et al., 2007) When you think about your life after high school, how likely is it that you will? (Extremely unlikely, unlikely, neutral, likely, extremely likely) [Expectations for engagement in electoral politics] - Vote on a regular basis - Wear a campaign button to support a candidate - Volunteer for a candidate or a political party [Expectations for unconventional political engagement] - Participate in a boycott against a company - Participate in political activities such as protests, marches, or demonstrations. [Alternative ways of expressing political voice] - Express your political views on a website or blog - Participate in a poetry slam, youth forum, or other event where young people express their political views [Expectations for engagement in community issues] - Do volunteer work to help others - Get involved in issues like health or safety that affect your community - Work with a group to solve a problem in the community where you live. [Expectation for engagement in justice-oriented citizenship] - Work with others to change unjust laws 268 In-class Food Justice reflection Food?Justice?Reflection *?Required 1.? What?is?your?name? 2.? What?is?your?food?justice?group?topic? Check?all?that?apply. ?Capital?City:?Food?waste ?Capital?City:?Funding ?Capital?City:?Present?and?Possible ?Capital?City:?Compost ?DC?Greens:?Overview ?DC?Greens:?Case?Study ?Loaves?&?Fishes ?Documenting?the?Road?to?Food?Justice ?Rockland?Farms Section?1 3.? Think?about?the?process?you?went?through?when?conducting?research?for?your?topic.?What would?you?do?differently?if?you?could?do?it?over?again??What?did?you?learn?that?might?influence how?you?approach?your?senior?expedition? ? ? ? ? ? Section?2 269 4.?If?you?found?out?about?a?problem?in?your?community?that?you?wanted?to?do?something?about, how?well?do?you?think?you?would?be?able?to?do?each?of?the?following? Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. I?defnitely I?probably I?probably I?definitely Maybe can't can't can can Create?a?plan?to?address?the problem Get?other?people?to?care?about the?problem Organize?and?run?a?meeting Express?your?views?in?front?of a?group?of?people Identify?individuals?or?groups who?could?help?you?with?the problem. Write?an?opinion?letter?to?a local?newspaper Call?someone?on?the?phone that?you?had?never?met?before to?get?their?help?with?the problem Contact?an?elected?official about?the?problem Organize?a?petition Section?3 5.? Please?respond?to?the?following?statements?by?indicating?how?much?you?agree?or?disagree with?each?statement?* Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. Strongly Neither?agree?nor Strongly Disagree Agree disagree disagree agree I?believe?I?can?make?a positive?difference?in?my community Even?though?I?am?a teenager,?there?are?ways?for me?to?get?involved?in?my community. I?can?use?what?I?know?to solve?"real?life"?problems?in my?community By?working?with?others?in the?community?I?can?help make?things?better Section?4 270 6.?Describe?your?group?dynamics.?What?kind?of?role?did?you?take?on??What?challenges?did?you face?as?a?group?and?how?did?you?overcome?them??What?successes?did?you?experience? ? ? ? ? ? Section?5 7.? Please?respond?to?the?following?statements?by?indicating?how?much?you?agree?or?disagree with?each?statement.?* Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. Strongly Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly Strongly disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree It?is?important?for?young people?to?speak?out when?an?injustice?has occurred Young?people?have?an important?role?to?play?in making?the?world?a better?place It?is?important?for?young people?to?know?what?is going?on?in?the?world Political?issues?are?not relevant?to?people?who are?not?old?enough?to vote. It?is?important?to?be?an active?and?informed citizen Section?6 271 8.?Please?respond?to?the?follow ing?statements?by?indicating?how?much?you?agree?or?disagree with?each?statement.?* Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. Strongly Mostly Slightly Slightly Mostly Strongly disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree It?is?important?to?correct social?and?economic inequality It?is?important?to confront?someone?who says?something?that you?think?is?racist?or prejudiced It?is?my?responsibility?to get?involved?and?make things?better?for?society People?like?me?should participate?in?the political?activity?and decsion?making?of?our country It?does?not?matter whether?I?participate?in local?organizations?or political?activity because?many?other people?are?involved. Section?7 272 9.?In?your?life,?how?often?have?you....?* Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. Never Once?or?twice Once?every At?least?once At?least?once did?this last?year few?months a?month a?week Participated?in?a?civil rights?group?or organization Participated?in?a political?party,?club?or organization Wrote?a?letter?to?a school,?community newspaper,?or publication?about?a social?or?political issue Contacted?a?public official?by?phone,?mail, or?email?to?tell?him?or her?how?you?felt?about a?social?or?political issue Joined?in?a?protest march,?political demonstration,?or political?meeting Worked?on?a?political campaign Participated?in?a discussion?about?a social?or?political issue Signed?an?email?or written?petition?about a?social?or?political issue Participated?in?a?racial justice,?human?rights, LGBTQ+?rights,?or women's?rights organization?or?group. 10.? Please?share?any?examples?of?things?from?this?list?you?did?that?were?particularly?important?to you. ? ? ? ? ? Section?8 273 11.?When?you?think?about?your?life?after?high?school,?how?likely?is?it?that?you?will....?* Mark?only?one?oval?per?row. Extremely unlikely Unlikely Neutral Likely Extremely likely Vote?on?a?regular?basis Wear?a?campaign?button?to support?a?candidate Volunteer?for?a?candidate?or?a political?party Participate?in?a?boycott?against?a company?participate?in?political activities?such?as?protests, marches,?or?demonstrations. Express?your?political?views?on?a website?or?blog Participate?in?a?poetry?slam,?youth forum,?or?other?event?where young?p? eople?express?their political?views Do?volunteer?work?to?help?others Get?involved?in?issues?like?health or?safety?that?affect?your community Work?with?others?to?change?unjust laws Work?with?a?group?to?solve?a problem?in?the?community?where you?live. 12.? Have?you?done?any?of?these?in?the?past?year??If?so,?what?have?you?done??* ? ? ? ? ? Section?9 13.? What?advice?would?you?give?to?next?year's?11th?grade?students?about?the?Food?Justice project??* ? ? ? ? ? 274 14.?Is?there?anything?else?you?think?we?should?know?about?your?Food?Justice?experience??* ? ? ? ? ? Powered?by 275 APPENDIX G: Initial First-round Codes for RQ1 and RQ Initial codes for RQ1 What sorts of place-based opportunities were provided to students? - Data used: o Teacher & Admin interviews o Observations of fieldwork and classes o Portions of student interviews and focus groups where they describe the research they did for their FJ project o Curricular maps/lesson plans. - Codes: o Grounded in local o Experiential o Interdisciplinary o Students address and/or solve local problems How did teachers conceptualize PBE and how did they enact it? - Data used: o Curriculum maps/lesson plans o Teacher & Admin interviews o Observations of classes and fieldwork - Codes o Educators perceptions of project o Educator goals for project o Teacher-directed activities or lessons related to PBE. o Future of project o History of project What factors supported or constrained the implementation of PBE? - Data used o Teacher & Admin interviews o CBO interviews o Observations o Field notes - Codes o Supports/Constraints (used all of the following codes for both supports and constraints) ? Internal ? Personal capacity ? Skills and priorities ? External ? Other teachers ? Students ? Administrators ? Other circumstances 276 ? Other stakeholders ? Other teachers o Role of community partners. - Codes ? Case description o Descriptions of classrooms o Mission and values of school o Physical description of school o Staff culture at school o Student culture o Teachers? educational philosophy 277 Initial Codes for RQ2 How did students respond to these experiences? - Responses to and assessments of: o Assignment of groups o Choice of topics o Specific PBE experiences ? Opportunity to solve local problems. ? Community-based fieldwork ? School-based fieldwork ? Other connections to local places ? Relationships with community partners o In-class academic work that supported PBE. o Change in attitudes o Final youth conference o What they learned from the FJP as a whole ? Academic skills ? Research skills ? Change in perspective ? Change in attitude What do these responses suggest about how PBE affected students? civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, commitments and skills? - Sense of agency o Experience of agency ? Participation in planning or designing project ? Control over project ? Frustration or lack of control o Political efficacy ? I can make a difference ? Barriers to influence ? Collective efficacy (I can make a change with others) - Views of community o Sense of place: Descriptions of community and neighborhood ? Physical characteristics ? Cultural characteristics ? Social relationships ? Place as cultural and political construct o Critical social analysis ? Identification of injustice ? Explanation of injustice ? Articulation of systemic explanations for injustice (ie., government, economic systems, racism, sexism, etc.) 278 - Civic engagement attitudes, behaviors, and commitments o Personally responsible ? Volunteering ? Recycling, picking up trash, reducing energy usage ? Adoption of new food consumption attitudes, behaviors, and commitments o Participatory ? Change school policies ? Advocacy ? Change in attitudes ? Emails or petitions ? Involvement in political campaigns ? Participation in local organizations o Critical action ? Participation in protests ? Participation in social justice groups ? Use of social media ? Use of critical social analysis to explain or support attitudes, behaviors, or commitments. 279 References Agnew, J. (1987). Place and politics: The geographical meditation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin. Alkon, A. H., & Norgaard, K. M. (2009). Breaking the food chains: An investigation of food justice activism. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 289-305. Anderson, S. (2017). Bringing school to life: Place-based education across the curriculum. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Arenas, A. (2001). ?If we all go global, what happens to the local??: In defense of a pedagogy of place. Educational Practice and Theory, 23(2), 29-47. Ault, C. R. (2008). Achieving Querencia: Integrating a sense of place with disciplined thinking. Curriculum Inquiry, 38(5), 605-637. Azano, A. (2011). The possibility of place: One teacher's use of place-based instruction for English students in a rural high school. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 26(10), 1-12. Ball, E. L., & Lai, A. (2006). Place-based pedagogy for the arts and humanities. Pedagogy, 6(2), 261-287. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. Bang, M., Curley, L., Kessel, A., Marin, A., Suzukovich III, E. S., & Strack, G. (2014). Muskrat theories, tobacco in the streets, and living Chicago as Indigenous land. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 37-55. Barnhardt, R. & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23. 280 Barnhardt, R. (2008). Creating a place for indigenous knowledge in education: The Alaska Native Knowledge Network. In D. Gruenewald & G. Smith (Eds.), Place- based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 113-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Basso, K. H. (1996). Wisdom sits in places: Landscape and language among the Western Apache. UNM Press. Beaumont, E. (2010). Political agency and empowerment: Pathways for developing a sense of political efficacy in young adults. In L. Sherrod, C. Flanagan, & J. Torney-Purta (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 525-558). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Berry, W. (1993). Sex, economy, community and freedom. New York, NY: Pantheon Bowers, C. A. (1987) Elements of a post-liberal theory of education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Bowers, C. A. (2001). Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens: The University of Georgia Press. Bowers, C. A. (2002). Toward an eco-justice pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 8(1), 21-34. Buck, G. A., Cook, K., & Weiland, C. I. (2016). Attempting to make place-based pedagogy on environmental sustainability integral to teaching and learning in middle school: An instrumental case study. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 20(2), 32-47. Bullard, R. (Ed.). (1993). Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots. Boston, MA: South End Press. 281 Buxton, C. A. (2010). Social problem solving through science: An approach to critical, place-based, science teaching and learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 120?135. Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Durango, CO: Kivaki Press. Cajete, G. (1999). Reclaiming biophilia: Lessons from indigenous peoples. In G. Smith & D. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, environment, and culture (pp. 189-206). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Calderon, D. (2014). Speaking back to Manifest Destinies: a land education-based approach to critical curriculum inquiry. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 24-36. Casey, E. (1996). How to get from space to place in a fairly short stretch of time. In S. Feld & K. H. Basso (Eds.), Senses of place (p. 13-52). Santa Fe, New Mexico: School of American Research Press. Casey, E. (1997). The fate of place: A philosophical history. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Chawla, L., & Cushing, D. (2007). Education for strategic environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 13(4), 437-452. Cohen, C. J. (2010). Democracy remixed: Black youth and the future of American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 282 Comber, B., & Nixon, H. (2013). Urban renewal, migration, and memories: The affordances of place-based pedagogies for developing immigrant students' literate repertoires. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 42-68. Conkey, A. & Green, M. (2018). Using place-based art education to engage students in learning about food webs. Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, 21, (1-17). Conner, J. & Rosen, S. M. (Eds.) (2016). Contemporary youth activism: Advancing social justice in the United States. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Coughlin, C., & Kirch, S. (2010). Place-based education: a transformative activist stance. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 911-921. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing. Crosley, K. L. (2013). Advancing the boundaries of urban environmental education through the food justice movement. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 18, 46-58. Delaney, D. (2002). The space that race makes. The Professional Geographer, 54(1), 6- 14. Delgado, M. (2016). Community practice and urban youth: Social justice service- learning and civic engagement. New York, NY: Routledge. Deloria, V. & Wildcat, D. R. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. Dentzau, M. W. (2014). The value of place. Cultural studies of science education, 9(1), 165-171. Dewey, J. (1915). The school and society and the child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 283 Diemer, M. A., McWhirter, E. H., Ozer, E. J., & Rapa, L. J. (2015). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of critical consciousness. Urban Review, 47, 809-823. Diemer, M. A. & Rapa, L. J. (2015). Unraveling the complexity of critical consciousness, political efficacy, and political action among marginalized adolescents. Child Development, 87(1), 221-238. Diemer, M. A., Rapa, L. J., Park, C. J., & Perry, J. C. (2017). Development and validation of the critical consciousness scale. Youth & Society, 49(4), 461-483. Donovan, E. (2016). Learning the language of home: Using place-based writing practice to help. Rural Educator, 37(2), 1-12. Duffin, M. (2004). An evaluation of Project CO-SEED: 2003-2004 final report. Keene, NH: PEER Associates. Duffin, M. (2007). An evaluation of Project CO-SEED: 2006 cross-site report. Keene, NH: PEER Associates. Duffin, M., Murphy, M., & Johnson, B. (2008). Quantifying a relationship between place-based learning and environmental quality: Final report. Woodstock, VT: NPS Conservation Study Institute in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency and Shelburne Farms. Duffin, M., Phillips, M., & Tremblay, G. (2006). Supplemental evaluation report: 2005- 2006 quantitative results Gorham School District. Keene, NH: PEER Associates. Duffin, M., Powers, A., & Tremblay, G. (2004). Place-based Education Evaluation Collaborative (PEEC): Report on cross-program research and other program evaluation activities 2003?2004. Gorham, NH: PEER Associates. 284 Edelglass, W. (2009). Philosophy and place-based pedagogies. In A. Kenkmann (Ed.), Teaching Philosophy (pp. 69-80). Continuum Books. Elder, J. (Ed.). (1998). Stories in the land: A place-based environmental education anthology. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society. Emekauwa, E. (2004a). They remember what they touch: The impact of place-based learning in East Feliciana Parish. Rural School and Community Trust. Emekauwa, E. (2004b). The star with my name: The Alaska Rural Systemic Initiative and the impact of place-based education on Native student achievement. Rural School and Community Trust. Endreny, A. H. (2010). Urban 5th graders conceptions during a place-based inquiry unit on watersheds. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(5), 501-517. Epstein, J. (2019). School, family and community partnerships: Your handbook for action (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Feld, S. & Basso, K. (Eds.). (1996). Senses of place. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70- 82). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2(2), 209-230. Flanagan, C. A. (2013). Teenage citizens: The political theories of the young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 285 Flanagan, C. A., Gallay, E., Pykett, A. A., & Smallwood, M. (2019). The environmental commons in urban communities: The potential of place-based education. Frontiers in psychology, 10(226). Flanagan, C., & Levine, P. (2010). Civic engagement and the transition to adulthood. The Future of Children, 20, 159?179. Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A. K., & Stout, M. D. (2007). Civic Measurement Models: Tapping Adolescents' Civic Engagement: CIRCLE Working Paper 55. Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Friedel, T. L. (2011). Looking for learning in all the wrong places: Urban Native youths? cultured response to Western-oriented place-based learning. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 24(5), 531-546. Furman, G., & Gruenewald, D. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47-76. Gaby, S. (2016). The civic engagement gap(s): Youth participation and inequality from 1976 to 2009. Youth & Society, 49(7), 923 ? 946. Gallay, E., Marckini-Polk, L., Schroeder, B., & Flanagan, C. (2016). Place-based stewardship education: Nurturing aspirations to protect the rural commons. Peabody Journal of Education, 91, 155-175. Gannon, S. (2009). Rewriting ?The road to nowhere?: Place pedagogies in Western Sydney. Urban Education, 44(5), 608-624. 286 Gautreau, B. T., & Binns, I. C. (2017). Investigating student attitudes and achievements in an environmental place-based inquiry in secondary classrooms. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 7(2), 167-195. Geertz, C. (1996). Afterword. In S. Feld & K. Basso (Eds.), Senses of place (pp. 259- 262). Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press. Gibbs, T., & Howley, A. (2000). ?World-class standards? and local pedagogies: Can we do both? (ERIC Digest). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED448014) Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2007). Youth activism in the urban community: Learning critical civic praxis within community organizations. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(6), 693-710. Ginwright, S., Cammarota, J., & Noguera, P. (2005). Youth, social justice, communities: Toward a theory of urban youth policy. Social Justice, 32(3), 24-40. Ginwright, S., Noguera, P., & Cammarota, J. (2006). Beyond resistance: Youth activism and community change. NY: Routledge. Glesne, C. (2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson. Greenwood, D. A. (2009). Place, survivance, and White remembrance: A decolonizing challenge to rural education in mobile modernity. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 24(10), 1-6. Greenwood, D. A. (2012). A critical theory of place-conscious education. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 93-100). New York: Routledge. 287 Gruenewald, D. (2003a). The best of both worlds: A critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3-12. Gruenewald, D. (2003b). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place- conscious education. American Educational Research Journal. 40(3), 619-654. Gruenewald, D. (2005). Accountability and collaboration: Institutional barriers and strategic pathways for place-based education. Ethics, Place and Environment. 8(3), 261-283. Gruenewald, D., & Smith, G. (Eds.). (2008). Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity. New York, NY: Routledge. Haas, T., & Nachtigal, P. (1998). Place value. Charleston, WV: ERIC Press. Hart, D., & Youniss, J. (2018). Renewing democracy in young America. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Blackwell Publishing. Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. New Left Review, 53, p. 23-40. Hayes-Conroy, J. (2008). [Place-based education in the global age]. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(2), 1-4. Haymes, S. N. (1995). Race, culture, and the city: A pedagogy for Black urban struggle. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Heffez, A., & Bornstein, L. (2011) Youth Fusion's urban environment project: Increasing youth participation in urban planning through place-based environmental education. Children, Youth and Environments, 26(2), 110-127. 288 Herman, B. C. (2018). Students? environmental NOS views, compassion, intent, and action: Impact of place-based socio-scientific issues instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 600-638. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press Howley, A., Howley, M., Camper, C., & Perko, H. (2011a). Place-based education at island community school. The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 216- 236. Howley, A., Showalter, D., Howley, M. D., Howley, C. B., Klein, R., & Johnson, J. (2011b). Challenges for place-based mathematics pedagogy in rural schools and communities in the United States. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(1), 101- 127. Isogai, A. D., McCarthy, D. D., Karagatzides, J. D., Vandenberg, S., Gardner, H., Edwards, V., Cowan, D., & Tsuji, L. J. S. (2012). The collaborative-geomatics informatics tool: Engaging youth using place-based education. International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society, 8(1), 131-142. Jayanandhan, S. R. (2009). John Dewey and a pedagogy of place. Philosophical Studies In Education, 40, 104-112. Jenkins, H., Shresthova, S., Gamber-Thompson, L., Kligler-Vilenchik, N. & Zimmerman, A. (2016). By any media necessary: The new youth activism. New York, NY: New York University Press. 289 Jennings, N., Swidler, S., & Koliba, C. (2005). Place-based education in the standards- based reform era?conflict or complement? American Journal of Education, 112(1), 44-65. Johnson, J. (2012). Place-based learning and knowing: critical pedagogies grounded in Indigeneity. GeoJournal, 77(6), 829-836. Johnson, B., Duffin, M., & Murphy, M. (2012). Quantifying a relationship between place- based learning and environmental quality. Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 609?624. Kahne, J., & Middaugh, E. (2008). Democracy for some: The civic opportunity gap in high school. Medford, MA: The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Kawagley, A. O. & Barnhardt, R. (1999). Education indigenous to place: Western science meets native reality. In G. Smith & D. R. Williams (Eds.), Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment (pp. 117-140). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Keith, M., & Pile, S. (Eds.). (1993). Place and the politics of identity. New York: Routledge. Kermish-Allen, R., Peterman, K., MacDonald, S., Thompson, R., & Winner, B. (2015). Student and teacher teams using high resolution electricity monitoring to create local change. Journal of Sustainability Education, 8. Kirschner, B. (2015). Youth activism in an era of educational inequality. New York, NY: New York University Press. 290 Knapp, C. E. (2005). The "I - Thou" relationship, place-based education, and Aldo Leopold. Journal Of Experiential Education, 27(3), 277-285. Knapp, C. E. (2008). Place-based curricular and pedagogical models: My adventures in teaching through community contexts. In D. Gruenewald & G. Smth (Eds.), Place-based education in the global age: Local diversity (pp. 5-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kuwahara, J. L. (2013). Impacts of a place-based science curriculum on student place attachment in Hawaiian and Western cultural institutions at an urban high school in Hawai?i. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(1), 191-212. Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (Eds.). (2006). Education research in the public interest: Social justice, action, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Lefebvre, H. (1974). The production of space. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Lefebvre, H., (1996). Writings on cities. Oxford: Blackwell. Leonard, J., Chamberlin, S. A., Johnson, J. B., & Verma, G. (2016). Social justice, place, and equitable science education: Broadening urban students? opportunities to learn. The Urban Review, 48, 355-379. Levinson, M. (2010). The civic empowerment gap: Defining the problem and locating solutions. In L. Sherrod, C. Flanagan, & J. Torney-Purta (Eds.), Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth (pp. 331?362). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 291 Levkoe, C. Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 89-98. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207-230. Lewicki, J. (2000). 100 days of learning in place: How a small school utilized p"lace- based" learning to master state academic standards. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED459023) Lim, M. (2010). Historical consideration of place: Inviting multiple histories and narratives in place-based education. Cultural Studies Of Science Education, 5(4), 899-909. Littenberg-Tobias, J. & Cohen, A. (2016). Diverging paths: Understanding racial differences in civic engagement among white, African American, and Latina/o adolescents using structural equation modeling. American Journal of Community Psychology, 57, 102-117. Mannion, G., & Adey, C. (2011). Place-based education is an intergenerational practice. Children, Youth & Environments, 21(1), 35-58. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. McInerney, P., Smyth, J., & Down, B. (2011). ?Coming to a place near you?? The politics and possibilities of a critical pedagogy of place-based education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 3-16. McKenzie, M. (2008). The places of pedagogy: or, what we can do with culture through intersubjective experiences. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 361-373. 292 McKittrick, K. (2006). Demonic grounds: Black women and the cartographies of struggle. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Merriam, S., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2001). Power and positionaility: Negotiating insider/outsider status within and across cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405-416. Miles, M., Huberman, A. & Saldana. J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Mirra, N. & Garcia, A. (2017). Civic participation reimagined: Youth interrogation and innovation in the multimodal public sphere. Review of Research in Education, 41, 136-158. Muthersbaugh, D., Kern, A. L., & Charvoz, R. (2014). Impact through images: Exploring student understanding of environmental science through integrated place-based lessons in the elementary classroom. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 28(3), 313-326. Nespor, J. (2008). Education and place: A review essay. Educational Theory, 58(4), 475- 489. Ngai, P., & Koehn, P. (2010a). Implementing Montana's Indian-education-for-all initiative in a K-5 public school: Implications for classroom teaching, education policy, and native communities. Journal of American Indian Education, 49(1/2), 50-68. Ngai, P., & Koehn, P. (2010b). Indigenous studies and intercultural education: The impact of a place-based primary school program. Intercultural Education, 21(6), 597- 606. 293 Noddings, N. (2005). Place-based education to preserve the earth and its people. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating citizens for global awareness (pp. 57-68). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2013). Political emotions: Why love matters for justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Ogawa, R. T., & Malen, B. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multi-vocal literatures: Applying the exploratory case study method. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 265-286. Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological literacy: Education and the transition to a postmodern world. SUNY Press. Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in mind: On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press. Owens, P. E., Rochelle, M. L., Nelson, A. A., & Montgomery-Block, K. (2011). Youth voices influencing local and regional change. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(1), 253-274. Perkins, N., Hazelton, E., Erickson, J., & Allan, W. (2010). Place-based education and geographic information systems: Enhancing the spatial awareness of middle school students in Maine. Journal of Geography, 109(5), 213-218. Peterson, N., Peterson, C., Agre, L., Christens, B., Morton, C. (2011). Measuring youth empowerment: Validation of a sociopolitical control scale for youth in an urban community context. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(5), 529-605. 294 Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175-196. Plumb, S., Powers, A., & Wither, S. (2003). An evaluation of the Northeast Community Mapping Program. Keene, NH: PEEC. Powers, A. L. (2004). An evaluation of four place-based education programs. Journal of Environmental Education, 35(4), 17-32. Price, C., Williams, J., Simpson, L., Jastrazab, J., and Markovitz, C. (2011). National evaluation of youth corps: Findings at follow-up. Prepared for the corporation for National and Community Service. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Reese, A. M. (2019). Black food geographies: Race, self-reliance, and food access in Washington, DC. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion Limited. Resor, C. (2010). Place-based education: What is its place in the social studies classroom? The Social Studies. 101(5), 185-188. Rote, Z., Schroeder, B., & D'Augustino, T. (2015). Place-based education: Engagement from the student perspective. Northeast Michigan Great Lakes Stewardship Initiative. Rubel, L. H., Hall-Wieckert, M., & Lim, V. Y. (2016a). Teaching mathematics for spatial justice: Beyond a victory narrative. Harvard Educational Review, 86(4), 556-579. 295 Rubel, L. H., Lim, V., Hall-Wieckert, M., & Katz, S. (2016b). Cash across the city: Participatory mapping and teaching for spatial justice. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 12, 4-14. Rubel, L. H., Lim, V. Y., Hall-Wieckert, M., & Sullivan, M. (2016c). Teaching mathematics for spatial justice: An investigation of the lottery. Cognition and Instruction, 34(1), 1-26. Ruitenberg, C. (2005). Deconstructing the experience of the local: Toward a radical pedagogy of place. Philosophy of Education, 212-220. Schild, R. (2016). Environmental citizenship: What can political theory contribute to environmental education practice? The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(1), 19-34. Schindel Dimick, A. (2016). Exploring the potential and complexity of a critical pedagogy of place in urban science education. Science Education, 100(5), 814- 836. Seawright, G. (2014). Settler traditions of place: Making explicit the epistemological legacy of white supremacy and settler colonialism for place-based education. Educational Studies, 50(6), 554?572. Semken, S., & Brandt, E. (2010). Implications of sense of place and place-based education for ecological integrity and cultural sustainability in diverse places. In D.J. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J.D. Adams (Eds.), Cultural Studies and Environmentalism (pp. 287-302). Springer Netherlands. Shavelson, R. & Towne, L. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 296 Shedd, C. (2015). Unequal city: Race, schools, and perceptions of injustice. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Sherrod, L., Torney-Purta, J. & Flanagan, C. (2010). Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Showalter, D. A. (2013). Place-based mathematics education: A conflated pedagogy? Journal of Research in Rural Education, 28(6), 1-13. Sinclair, K. (2017a). Places are pedagogical: A theoretical and conceptual review of place-based education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park. Sinclair, K. (2017b). Exploring the potential of places: An integrative literature review of place-based education. Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park. Smith, G. (2002a). Going local. Educational Leadership, 60(1), 30-33. Smith, G. (2002b). Place-based education: Learning to be where we are. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(3), 584?594. Smith, G. (2007). Place-based education: Breaking through the constraining regularities of public school. Environmental Education Research. 13(2), 189-207. Smith, G. A. (2011). Linking place-based and sustainability education at Al Kennedy High School. Children Youth and Environments, 21(1), 59-78. Smith, G. (2012). Place-based education: Practice and impacts. In R. B. Stevenson, M. Brody, J. Dillon, & A. E. J. Wals (Eds.), International handbook of research on environmental education (pp. 213-220). New York: Routledge. 297 Smith, G., & Sobel, D. (2010). Place- and community-based education in schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Smith, G. A., & Williams, D. R. (Eds.) (1999). Ecological education in action: On weaving education, culture, and the environment. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Sobel, D. (1996). Beyond ecophobia: Reclaiming the heart in nature education. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society and The Myrin Institute. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classroom and community. Great Barrington, MA: The Orion Society. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Somerville, M. (2010). A place pedagogy for ?global contemporaneity.? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42(3), 326-344. Somerville, M. & Green, M. (2011). A pedagogy of ?organized chaos?: Ecological learning in primary schools. Children, Youth and Environments, 21(1), 14-34. Stevenson, R. B. (2008). A critical pedagogy of place and the critical place(s) of pedagogy. Environmental Education Research, 14(3), 353-360. Sutton, S. E. & Kemp, S. P. (Eds.) (2011). The paradox of urban space: Inequality and transformation in marginalized communities. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Styres, S., Haig-Brown, C., & Blimkie, M. (2013). Towards a pedagogy of Land: The urban context. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(2), 34-67. Syvertsen, A., Wray-Lake, L., & Metzger, A. (2015). Youth civic and character measures toolkit. Minneapolis, MN: Search Institute. 298 Takano, T., Higgins, P., & McLaughlin, P. (2009). Connecting with place: Implications of integrating cultural values into the school curriculum in Alaska. Environmental Education Research, 15(3), 343-370. Taylor, D. E. (1993). Environmentalism and the politics of inclusion. In R. Bullard, (Ed.), Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots (pp. 53-61). Boston, MA: South End Press. Theobald, P. (1997). Teaching the commons: Place, pride, and the renewal of community. Theobald, P., & Curtiss, J. (2000). Communities as curricula. FORUM For Applied Research And Public Policy, 15(1), 106-11. Theobald, P., & Siskar, J. (2008). Place: Where diversity and community can converge. In D. Gruenewald & G. Smith (Eds.), Place-based education in an era of globalization: local diversity (pp. 197 ? 220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trinidad, A. (2011). Sociopolitical development through critical Indigenous pedagogy of Place: Preparing native Hawaiian young adults to become change agents. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 7, 185-221. Trinidad, A. (2012). Critical Indigenous pedagogy of place: A framework to Indigenize a youth food justice movement. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 1(1), 1- 17. Tsevreni, I. (2014). The empowering role of art in a critical pedagogy of place. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(1), 138-157. Tuan, Y. (1977). Space and place: The perspective of experience. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 299 Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409-427. Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2015). Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods. New York, NY: Routledge. Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post- colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1?23. van Eijck, M. (2010). Place-based (science) education: Something is happening here. In D.J. Tippins, M. P. Mueller, M. van Eijck, & J.D. Adams (Eds.), Cultural Studies and Environmentalism (pp. 187-191). Springer Netherlands. van Eijck, M., & Roth, W. M. (2010). Towards a chronotopic theory of ?place? in place- based education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 869-898. Villegas, M., Neugebauer, S. R., & Venegas, K. R. (Eds.). (2008). Indigenous knowledge and education: Sites of struggle, strength, and survivance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group. Waite, S. (2013). ?Knowing your place in the world?: how place and culture support and obstruct educational aims. Cambridge Journal Of Education, 43(4), 413-433. Wason-Ellam, L. (2010). Children's literature as a springboard to place-based embodied learning. Environmental Education Research, 16(3/4), 279-294. Watts, R. J., Diemer, M.A., & Voight, A.M. (2011). Critical consciousness: Current status and future directions. In C. A. Flanagan & B. D. Christens (Eds.), Youth civic development: Work at the cutting edge. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 134, 43-57. 300 Watts, R. & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779-792. Watts, R., Griffith, D., & Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression: Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255?272. Watts, R., & Guessous, O. (2006). Sociopolitical development: The missing link in research and policy on adolescents. In S. Ginwright, P. Noguera, & J. Cammarota (Eds.), Beyond Resistance!: Youth activism and community change. NY: Routledge. Watts, R.J., & Hipolito-Delgado, C.P. (2015). Thinking ourselves to liberation?: Advancing sociopolitical action in critical consciousness. Urban Review, 47(5), 847-867. Watts, R., Williams, N., & Jagers, R. (2003). Sociopolitical development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1?2), 185?194. Westheimer, J. (2015). What kind of citizen?: Educating our children for the common good. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). What kind of citizen?: The politics of educating for democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 41(2), 237?269. Whittemore, R. and Knafl, K. (2005), The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546?553. Wheeler-Bell, Q. (2014). Educating the spirit of activism: A ?critical? civic education. Educational Policy, 28(3), 463-486. 301 Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, K., & Stemp, K. (2010). Science education in a 'classroom without walls': Connecting young people via place. Teaching Science: The Journal of the Australian Science Teachers Association, 56(1), 6-10. Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork. Walnut Creek, CA: Rowman Altamira. Woodhouse, J. (2001). Over the river & through the 'hood: Re-viewing "place" as focus of pedagogy. An Introduction. Thresholds in Education, 27, 1-5. Woodhouse, J. L., & Knapp, C. E. (2000). Place-Based curriculum and instruction: Outdoor and environmental education approaches. (ERIC Digest). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED448012) Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Yamauchi, L. A., & Purcell, A. K. (2009). Community involvement in a place-based program for Hawaiian high school students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(2), 170-188. Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91. Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2017). Learning in and about rural places: Connections and tensions between students? everyday experiences and environmental quality issues in their community. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 7-31.