Recent scholarship on socioeconomically and racially integrated dual language bilingual schools has shown the need to focus on equity and better serving language-minoritized students, especially those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds (Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Palmer et al., 2019). Dual language programs, also known as Two-Way Immersion Bilingual Programs (TWBE), are those that bring together students from language minoritized backgrounds and students from language dominant backgrounds with the stated goals of bilingualism, biliteracy, and inter-cultural understanding for both groups of students. Equity has been at the forefront of critical scholarship in discussing these programs, particularly in relation to the different socio-political and economic standings of children of immigrant families versus those of well-resourced, privileged, English-speaking and white families (e.g., Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017; Flores et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2019; Valdés, 1997, 2018). The central role of teachers in ensuring equity in these programs at the classroom level is critical, particularly in contexts of rapid gentrification (García-Mateus, 2023; Heiman and Yanes, 2018; Palmer, 2009). The increase in TWBE programs across the United States has been associated not so much with a desire for more just schooling for language minoritized children, but with a desire for language as enrichment education for language majoritized families. Scholars have termed this the “gentrification of dual language education,” (Delavan et al., 2024) calling attention to the fact that bilingual programs have been couched in the neoliberal terms of language as capital and accumulation, as opposed to language as a right for minoritized families. (Flores and García 2017; Heller, 2006)

This article examines teachers’ perspectives on equity in the context of a Montessori dual language public school in a metropolitan area of the western U. S. Located in a historically Latinx, yet rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, Montessori Dual-Language School (MDLS, pseudonym) is a unique and generative context in which to explore questions of equity. The research questions we addressed in this analysis are: How do teachers understand equity, within their dual language Montessori context, in a gentrifying neighborhood? What actions do they describe as connected to equity? We explored these questions through a qualitative interview study with teachers and school leaders. We first delve into what the literature reveals regarding equity in integrated TWBE contexts and research in Montessori education.

Equity has been at the center of U.S.-based scholarship on TWBE over the past few decades. Despite being a highly acclaimed model of bilingual education, equitable outcomes for bilingual students, particularly racialized bilingual students from economically disadvantaged or working-class backgrounds, continue to be elusive (Dorner and Cervantes-Soon, 2020; Cervantes-Soon et al., 2017). Flores and García (2017) trace the rise in popularity of the TWBE model of bilingual education, which shifts the focus from teaching bilingual children to teaching two languages, to an increase in the commodification of language and the uptake of neoliberal and global human capital discourses (Heller, 2006). The authors argue this shift distances bilingual education from its civil rights origins. Instead, it emphasizes an instrumental, profit-driven economic value of bilingualism. Delavan et al. (2024) describe this as the gentrification of TWBE, which refers to “any literal or figurative pushing out of marginalized students and their interests amid the influx of more privileged students and their interests” (2024, p.13; see also Valdez et al., 2016). Research loosely grouped under this term has examined how middle-class English speaking students tend to dominate classroom interactions (Chaparro, 2019; Palmer, 2009); how white middle-class families and their interests obscure those of Spanish-speaking and immigrant families (Chaparro, 2020; Cervantes-Soon, 2014; Dorner, 2011; Flores et al., 2021; Martínez, 2017; Shannon, 2011); how program creation and implementation can be catered to and designed for English speakers (Freire et al., 2017; Sun and Wang, 2021) and how raciolinguistic ideologies impact ideas about students’ bilingual proficiencies and development (Chaparro, 2019; García-Mateus, 2023).

Teachers are central actors in the pursuit of equity, especially in terms of classroom dynamics, and particularly in TWBE classrooms (García-Mateus, 2023; Heiman and Yanes, 2018; Palmer, 2009). While there may be constraints and top-down policies that teachers have no control over, they do have a great deal of control over what happens within their classroom (Babino and Stewart, 2018; Menken and García, 2010). Researchers have shown how committed teachers do make a difference. For example, Palmer (2009) highlights how one teacher in a TWBE classroom, acutely aware of how English-dominant speakers tended to dominate the floor in classroom discussions, actively sought to create more equitable participation patterns. In contrast, her counterpart did not, and as a result, English speakers dominated the conversation. García-Mateus (2023) and Heiman and Yanes (2018) both show the impact of equity-oriented teachers in TWBE contexts. In their review of the literature, Cervantes-Soon et al. (2017) write: “To combat inequalities, TWI teachers should possess the necessary pedagogical skills, be bilingual, and have a critical understanding of what it means to serve students within TWI’s inherent diversity and complexity.” (p. 412).

In addition to teachers, school leaders are instrumental for the success and maintenance of bilingual education programs (Alanis and Rodriguez, 2008; Menken and Solorza, 2015). When school leaders participate in professional development that elevates bilingualism as an asset and resource, leaders have been shown to create changes in school structures that lead to ideological, pedagogical, and curricular choices that value, foster, and celebrate students’ bilingualism (Ascenzi-Moreno et al., 2016). English-only pressures impacting schools, stemming from accountability requirements and policies at the district, state, and federal levels, require school leaders to be committed to the goal of bilingual education in order to resist such pressures (Menken and Solorza, 2015). The way school leaders think about their bilingual programs has implications for students labeled “English Learners.” In an interview study of 19 principals of dual language bilingual programs, Bernstein et al. (2020) found that principals framed their programs in one of two ways: within a social justice frame or within a neoliberal/instrumentalist discourse. Indeed, school leaders, along with teachers, are critical in resisting the neoliberal, school choice, and gentrification pressures on their programs (Bernstein et al., 2021; Izquierdo et al., 2019) and can ensure to lead with political and ideological clarity in order to preserve the social justice aims of bilingual education (Izquierdo et al., 2023).

Montessori education is often described as a child-centered approach that emphasizes hands-on learning within a prepared environment and utilizes multi-age groupings in classrooms. This educational method was developed by Dr. Maria Montessori in Italy in the early 1900s. Maria Montessori was an Italian doctor, scientist, and educator who developed a school for children in one of the poorest sections of Rome. Through intense scientific observation and developmental study, Montessori created a method that is responsive to various stages of a child’s growth and prioritizes independence, self-sufficiency, and choice. In her later years, Montessori firmly believed in education for peace and delivered lectures worldwide on the subject (Montessori, 1992). The central pillars of Montessori implementation include mixed-age groupings, uninterrupted work time, freedom of choice, Montessori materials, Montessori-trained teachers, and adopting a Montessori philosophy (Debs et al., 2022). Given that there is no central regulatory association or trademark, there is wide variety in implementation of the Montessori method among schools (Debs et al., 2022). The 2022 Global Montessori Census counted close to 16,000 Montessori schools worldwide, and over 3,000 in the United States (Debs et al., 2022). Only 9% of the schools worldwide appear to be government funded. In the United States, there are estimated to be 500–600 public Montessori schools (Debs et al., 2022).

Select Montessori organizations stress the essential role of equity and inclusivity in the educational method. For example, the American Montessori Society lists four key underpinnings of a Montessori education, one of which is that it is “based on ideals of equity, inclusion, and social justice” (American Montessori Society, n.d.). Similarly, the National Center for Montessori in the Public Center, a US based organization, is founded on the guiding principle that “sustainable, just, and humanizing public Montessori programs have the power to break down barriers and transform lives and societies for peace and justice” (National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector, n.d.). There is a growing body of evidence that supports the benefits of a Montessori education particularly in the areas of executive function (Diamond and Lee, 2011; Lillard, 2012; Lillard and Heise, 2016), mathematics (Lillard, 2012), social development (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006), and overall achievement (Fleming and Culclasure, 2024; Snyder et al., 2021). Within this literature, several studies have found that Montessori is effective in closing the achievement gap for students of color (Fleming and Culclasure, 2024; Lillard et al., 2017; Snyder et al., 2021), although some results have been mixed (Ansari and Winsler, 2014). For example, in a study of South Carolina’s public Montessori schools, Black, female, and low-income students in Montessori schools demonstrated greater achievement growth in math and English Language arts (ELA) as compared to their traditional public school counterparts (Fleming and Culclasure, 2024). Similarly, Snyder et al. (2021) found that students of color and those from less-resourced homes outperformed district children in math and ELA for both grades tested (3rd and 8th grade).

Many of the aforementioned studies rarely delve into why a Montessori education might be more effective at closing equity gaps, or in what ways it better supports not only children of color, but also the ideals of equity and inclusion. The deep respect for children’s autonomy and their intrinsic motivation to learn, and the core principles of peace and respect for one’s environment, suggest a direct connection to promoting inclusivity and equity within the classroom. Moreover, the structure of multi-age classrooms allow children to reach mastery at their own pace, particularly important in order to differentiate learning. As our findings illustrate, these guiding principles were frequently highlighted by practicing teachers when discussing their perspectives on equity.

Taken together, the literature on public Montessori schools and on TWBE programs point to both opportunities and challenges to equity within these systems. Rarely have these systems been examined in conjunction. As such, this study addresses this gap and sheds light on the commitments to equity of the educators at one public Montessori dual language school. And, while the setting of a public school that combines both Montessori and a Two-Way Bilingual Education program is quite unique, its location within a gentrifying community is not. As such, the inequities existing between children in this school according to various axes of difference are also those that exist in other schools within similar contexts.

With equity at the center of this work, we were guided by Bartolomé’s theorizing of teachers’ political and ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 1994; Bartolomé, 2004). Bartolomé (2004) defines political clarity as:

Ideological clarity, then, is the ability to engage in ideological analysis, to question the status quo and one’s own beliefs and ideologies. Alfaro and Bartolomé (2017) explain that ideological clarity:

Based on an interview study of four exemplary teachers in one high school, Bartolomé (2004) distilled the ways in which these teachers exhibited ideological and political clarity through: (1) an awareness of power relations in society, (2) questioning the status quo and belief in meritocracy, (3) rejecting deficit views of students, and (4) interrogating white dominant culture. Additionally, Bartolomé found that all teachers had either personally experienced their own subordination or witnessed that of others, and, as such, understood their role as “cultural brokers.” This framework guided our analysis as we delved deeper into teachers’ interviews, looking specifically for ways in which teachers expressed one or more of these beliefs, and/or clearly described their actions and beliefs with political and ideological clarity. In what follows, we describe the context where this research took place, followed by a description of our methodology as well as our major findings.

Montessori Dual-Language School (MDLS) is located in a part of the city that was historically home to Italian American and Mexican American families. In fact, MDLS was founded with the explicit mission of educating second-generation Mexican Americans bilingually to counter the language loss experienced by many families. Yet, in the past decade, this area of the city has rapidly gentrified—with property values rising astronomically and new construction replacing older homes. From 2010 to 2020, the area declined from 37% Hispanic/Latinx to 16%. As such, MDLS serves children and families from diverse ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. In 2018 to 2019 (the year the data was collected), the school enrolled 422 students, of whom 64% were Hispanic/Latinx, 31% were white, and 0–2% were Asian American, African American, American Indian/Alaskan Native or identifying as two or more races. Furthermore, 35% of students qualified for free and reduced priced lunch.

The students at MDLS have different linguistic profiles. Some children are learning Spanish as an additional language, some are learning English, and others are being raised learning both as simultaneous bilinguals (children learning both English and Spanish at home). Each group presents different linguistic strengths and needs which must be addressed through differentiated instruction. Efforts to address the “achievement gap” between white students, students of color, and students labeled “English Learners” at MDLS have led to a school-wide focus on equity that guides Data Driven Instruction (DDI) times.

Importantly, Montessori Dual-Language School (MDLS) operates at the crux of three different systems: it is a public school, a Montessori school, and a dual language school (see Figure 1).

Each system requires a different set of priorities and policies. As a Montessori school, MDLS structures teaching and learning following the model developed by Dr. Maria Montessori in Italy and includes creating comfortable, well-designed, multi-age learning environments that facilitate student discovery, sustained work, and independent learning. To reflect this model, MDLS has three multi-age classrooms: Primary, which includes three-, four-, and five-year-olds; Lower Elementary, which includes first, second, and third graders; and Upper Elementary, which includes fourth, fifth, and sixth graders. As a dual language school, MDLS also has the goal of achieving high levels of bilingualism and biliteracy in all students. In order to meet both the goals of a dual language bilingual and Montessori program, at the lower and upper elementary levels, the school divides students and instructional time in three ways: L1, L2, and integrated. “L1” refers to students and instructional time that occurs in students’ “first language”; “L2” refers to students and instructional time that occurs in students’ “second language”; and “Integrated Montessori Block” refers to heterogeneous groups of students that include various language proficiencies. The Montessori three-hour block occurs during Integrated time. However, because not all teachers are bilingual, the structure of the program is designed to match teachers’ linguistic abilities. As a result, for Lower and Upper elementary grades, Integrated Montessori time necessarily occurs only in one language environment. Therefore, integrated groups must periodically switch in order to receive bilingual Montessori time throughout the school year. At the time of the interviews, the school had recently shifted to a 90/10 model in Primary classrooms. This means that all Primary classrooms became Spanish learning environments, where all learning takes place in Spanish, around 90% of the time. The remaining 10% of English time is provided through art and physical education (see Figure 2 for a visual representation of the language model).

Finally, as a public school, MDLS is also subject to district, state, and federal policies. These include using district mandated curriculum and assessments as well as federal and state policies on teaching students who are labeled English Learners (ELs or ELLs). These regulations specifically impact accountability measures for students designated English Learners and influence how teachers divide their instructional time. In sum, these policies are often at odds with the philosophies of both a Montessori school and a dual language model.

The research questions that guided this analysis were: (1) How do teachers understand equity within their dual language Montessori context, in a gentrifying neighborhood? and (2) What actions do they describe as connected to equity? In order to answer these questions, we analyzed 15 semi-structured interviews with teachers and administrators, that ranged in duration from 25 to 75 min. The majority of the interviews were conducted by the first author, with the help of a research assistant who conducted four interviews. All interviews were conducted from May 2018 to October 2019. We invited teachers to participate on a voluntary basis and recruited through email. The principal allowed us to use teachers’ planning time, and for the most part the interviews took place in teachers’ classrooms. We gave teachers a choice on whether to conduct the interview individually or with their partner teacher, and eight teachers (four pairs) chose to do their interview jointly. Thus, there were four interviews conducted with two individuals present, plus 11 individual interviews, for a total of 19 individual participants and 15 total interviews. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish, and participants were able to choose the language they answered questions in, with the exception of four teachers who were interviewed by a research assistant who was not fluent in Spanish (See Appendix A for teacher interview protocol).

As a qualitative study, the main approach to analysis was through inductive initial coding, followed by several rounds of more focused coding as themes began emerging in the data. The first round of coding was conducted by the first author, with four key interviews coded inductively in order to generate an initial set of codes. These codes were sensitive to the two main research questions driving the overall study: (1) What ideas about language and speakers did the participants express in this interview? and (2) What ideas about equity did the participants express? To narrow the scope of our analysis, we concentrated on the second question.

At this point, the research team expanded to include the second and third authors. The three authors conducted a second round of analysis focusing exclusively on the data excerpts that connected to the idea of equity. After each coding session, each author wrote a research memo describing the main insights from the interview, focusing on the question: What ideas about equity did the participants express? During the discussion of findings, we identified two prominent themes: many teachers’ views of equity were influenced by a Montessorian perspective, and many teachers expressed strong convictions with clear ideological and political clarity. Using Bartolomé’s framework as discussed above, we identified more specifically the beliefs that teachers expressed, whether they could be characterized by a ‘Montessorian view,’ defined by political and ideological clarity, or by both, and how they described actions they took as connected to equity. We refined our research memos to include this information, and created a synthesis matrix where we sought to further elaborate on teachers’ views of equity to find connections, patterns, and trends among the data. This method allowed us to confirm our interpretations and to reach thematic saturation in our analysis. In this final step of the analysis process we verified our interpretations of the data by checking our categories against the data, making explicit connections between the data and our literature, and extracting specific quotes to illustrate each theme.

This qualitative study was motivated by the first author’s interest in bilingual education in gentrifying contexts and her experience in Montessori education from PK-6th grade in Mexico. Her unique background and experience in both systems became a point of connection with the then-principal when they were introduced by a university colleague. Informal visits to the school and conversations with the principal led to the conceptualization of this study. In particular, Sofia (first author) established rapport with teachers and staff through her identities as a Spanish-speaking Latina, a former dual language teacher, and/or a former Montessori student.

The second author joined the study during the second round of coding, extracting themes of equity through constant-comparative analysis. As an instructor of teacher candidates across Colorado, her work is shaped by the realities educators face while navigating race, privilege, and systemic inequities in their classrooms. Kathryn’s (second author) background as a bilingual educator in both domestic and international settings, along with being a parent of a bilingual, bicultural child, deepens her understanding of how language, identity, and belonging are shaped by the contexts in which students are situated. As a white, cisgender woman, she recognizes that her own experiences and values influence this work and holds a deep responsibility to engage with these communities through a justice-oriented lens.

Along with the second author, the third author joined the study during the analysis phase. At the time of writing this article, Elena (third author) is a doctoral student with a concentration in Leadership for Education Equity in Early Childhood Education. As the daughter of a Spanish immigrant mother and an American father, she has experienced privilege in her life as a cisgender, white woman, and also been afforded the benefits of growing up in a bilingual, bicultural home. She currently supports Latinx home child care educators and center-based educators in her community as a bilingual coach and instructor with the local Early Childhood Council. Her previous experience working in family services at Head Start allowed her to see the wealth of knowledge that families and children bring into early learning spaces, even though they face ongoing systemic challenges and barriers.

We present our findings in three sections: (1) political and ideological clarity, (2) the Montessorian view of equity, and (3) school leaders’ views of equity. These three sections capture the salient themes that came out of the analysis: teachers demonstrated political and ideological clarity in varying ways, expressed a Montessorian view of equity, and, in some cases, described being guided by both perspectives. Given the unique position of school leaders, and their similar perspectives on equity, as expressed in their interviews, we devote one section to analyzing their views within the complex ecology of MDLS.

Overall, we characterized nine of the educators we interviewed as displaying political and ideological clarity in their teaching context, six as describing their views of equity in line with a Montessorian perspective, and three as exemplifying a mix of both perspectives. Table 1 displays basic descriptive information about each participant along with our interpretation of their view of equity (see Table 1). We first turn to how teachers expressed political and ideological clarity in their interviews and the actions they described as connected to these perspectives.

This analysis focused on what equity means to teachers and school leaders within an ethnically and socioeconomically integrated dual language Montessori school in a gentrifying neighborhood. The findings shed light on the everyday ideological commitments of teachers in this setting. The teachers who exhibited political and ideological clarity understood the inequities inherent in Two-Way Immersion Bilingual Education in the United States: English is a requirement for Spanish dominant students, while Spanish is an elective for English-dominant students. In that sense, it is already an “uneven playing field.” Furthermore, the fact that the school was located in a gentrifying neighborhood with a shrinking Latinx/Hispanic population made teachers acutely aware of these disparities, both in and out of their classrooms. Teachers identified a clear dominance of white, English-speaking students in the classroom, prompting them to implement strategies to mitigate this imbalance. These efforts included the switch to a Spanish-language environment in the Primary grades, lunchtime small-group meetings with Spanish-dominant Latinx students, and special home-school partnerships involving Latina Spanish-speaking mothers. Moreover, this also meant that teachers understood where their priority, focus, and energy should be: on serving Latinx students who were labeled “English Learners.” Importantly, teachers who expressed political and ideological clarity provided more specific examples and actions they took toward equity, while teachers with a Montessorian perspective mentioned more general examples, such as differentiation in the classroom or meeting with small groups.

Another finding from this study is how Montessori philosophy greatly influenced how teachers spoke about equity, in terms of meeting students where they were developmentally and academically. The unique structure of a Montessori classroom enabled for differentiated learning that allowed students to learn and grow at their own pace, something many teachers strongly believed in and mentioned as part of how they worked toward equity. At the same time, this freedom was something that concerned Adriana, the principal, in how it could allow teachers to use it as an excuse not to challenge students. In other words, teachers could unknowingly limit their expectations for students’ learning under the guise of “meeting them where they are.” In particular, she worried about boys of color who were falling through the cracks, as evidenced by their lower performance on standardized tests and her classroom observations.

It is important to note that what we have described as the Montessorian view of equity is not necessarily in conflict with a politically and ideologically clear view of equity. The Montessori method and Bartolomé’s framework for political and ideological clarity are both rooted in humanistic principles that position the individual as the driver of learning; however, the educator’s approach to equity is different. In Montessori education, the teacher primarily functions as an observer and facilitator, ensuring the classroom environment supports individual growth, but they may inadvertently overlook systemic barriers to access learning. In contrast, Bartolome’s framework emphasizes the educator’s critical consciousness when understanding the larger socio-political landscape students are positioned within. This critical role extends beyond access, actively challenging dominant narratives and affirming students’ cultural and linguistic abilities, thus transforming the educational system. When combined, these two frameworks provide a robust equity stance that honors the autonomy of the child while simultaneously critically responding to systemic limitations that shape learning. We found that three teachers, Carla (Primary, 4 years experience), Diana (Primary, 6 years experience) and Julieta (Upper Elementary, 11 years experience) drew from both frameworks to discuss equity, what it meant to them, and how they achieved it in the classroom.

Finally, while 12 out of the 19 teachers interviewed expressed political and ideological clarity, there were also teachers who were reluctant to name systemic inequalities and racism in their school, as previously discussed, specifically in terms of student achievement and dynamics of the school community. Robert, the Assistant principal, directly addressed how as a school community, they continued to work towards a shared definition of equity, with intense disagreement and discomfort as part of the process.

As an interview study, an important limitation is the inability to show deeper connections between beliefs and practices. While we sought examples of concrete actions that teachers could share about their work toward equity, and many teachers provided them, these accounts were self-reported. The day-to-day practices in which teachers enact their pedagogical philosophies and equity beliefs remain an important area for further examination. Additionally, establishing rapport can sometimes be a challenge and a limiting factor in one-time interviews. Limited familiarity with the interviewer, for example, may constrain how teachers talked about topics they found uncomfortable—particularly race, class, privilege, and discrimination. Yet this very discomfort can be revealing, as naming specific problems and inequities is part of developing ideological and political clarity. In this study, teachers were interviewed either by the first author or a research assistant who was a former teacher and a doctoral student at the time. In some cases, the first author already had a relationship with the participant or had established rapport by being a Spanish-speaking Latina, a former dual language teacher, and/or a former Montessori student.

While focusing on a unique model of a bilingual Montessori public school, this study highlights the tensions and contradictions that all bilingual schools grapple with in making decisions about language of instruction, program structure, and student class placement. For example, having monolingual teachers who are not able to teach bilingually requires organizing students into groups and sharing instructional time, making it necessary to switch groups of students between language environments so they can receive bilingual instruction. That poses challenges not only for scheduling, but also for organizing students into class groups. Moreover, having to group students according to language dominance is not a simple, clear-cut process, given the complex nature of language development. This is especially true for the bilingual language development of simultaneous bilinguals, students who come from Latinx bilingual households who may use both languages flexibly and may not always exhibit a dominance of one language over the other. This, in turn, has implications for equity: Who has a right to access instruction in English? Who should be prioritized for instruction in Spanish? Often, teachers were responsible for deciding which content to teach in students’ first or second language, but their choices were often constrained by logistical factors such as language proficiency and scheduling, rather than being fully empowered to make equitable decisions for their students. Given the prevalence of simultaneous English-Spanish bilinguals in the U. S., this case study illustrates the commitment of teachers to equity while underscoring the urgency of creating bilingual programs that reflect the fluidity and complexity of children’s bilingual development.

This case study highlights how, in such a complex model of schooling that aims to provide students with a public bilingual Montessori experience, questions of equity arise at every level. Furthermore, it illustrates the different ways teachers conceptualized equity and how a Montessorian philosophy influenced how teachers talked about equity. Notably, teachers who expressed political and ideological clarity detailed more specific examples and actions they took toward equity, while teachers with a Montessorian perspective mentioned more general examples, such as differentiation in the classroom or the ability to meet with small groups. Our findings suggest that a focus on equity with ideological and political clarity is a critical component of socioeconomically, racially, and linguistically integrated dual language bilingual schools. At the same time, we concur with Bartolomé in recognizing the limits to what teachers—and, indeed, schools—are able to do in an already unequal society:

In this sense, political and ideological clarity is fundamental to promoting equity in dual language settings. Furthermore, the ongoing exploration of how these concepts shape critical pedagogy remains crucial.

One year after the last interview was conducted, the world experienced the COVID-19 pandemic, which was particularly difficult for students, teachers, and schools. After the pandemic, both school leaders and the majority of the teachers interviewed had moved on to other schools or educational positions. These findings highlight the work of teachers who strive for equity everyday in their classrooms within systems that at times make it impossible for students, and their teachers, to succeed.