Between curriculum complexity and stereotypes: exploring stereotypes of teachers and education in media as a question of structural violence

Abstract

Between curriculum complexity and stereotypes: exploring stereotypes of teachers and education in media as a question of structural violence SILVIA EDLING The paper highlights four tendencies in the media reporting of teachers and education: (a) recurring patterns of defining education in crisis, (b) mantling responsibility as exterior spokespersons for education and teachers, (c) excluding teachers' and educational researchers' knowledge and experiences in the media and (d) simplifying the notion of a good and bad teacher through stereotypes and dualistic frameworks that overlook task and relational complexity. In this paper, I explore how the simplifications of teachers and education that are often presented in the media can be interpreted as structural violence. In the light of these tendencies, research on structural violence helps to remind us that: (a) teachers are unwillingly forced into a paradoxical (in)visibility, (b) they are squeezed in-between two pressuring external demands, namely the complexities in their professional assignment that are politically steered and stereotypes of the good and bad teacher produced by, in this case, the media, (c) they risk wasting time and energy on addressing prejudices that have nothing to do with the specific work they are expected to do and (d) the logic of binary stereotypes is a power issue that brands teachers into a position of permanent failure.

Mapping the field of education research and media

“…In Australia, Keogh and Garrick (2011) found media discourses contributed towards negative public opinion about teacher quality. In Sweden, Edling (2015) found that the press generally spoke about teachers in over-simplified stereotypes such as the 'good' or 'bad' teacher, ignoring the relational and job complexity of teachers' work. Zemke (2007) found a similar situation in the UK where the press exaggerated the positive and negative aspects of teachers' work.…”

The sophisticated literacy practitioner and the global pandemic

“…Negative discourses about professional teachers and their performance are repeatedly, but not always, reported by actors external to education and within the media (Edling, 2015;Mockler, 2020). These negative discourses are problematised by the media as viewing education in a permanent state of crisis; as acting as spokesperson for teachers but excluding teachers'/educators'/educational researchers' knowledge and experiences and stereotyping the 'good teacher' while overlooking the task and relational complexities that go along with the roles (Edling, 2015). Media in this instance refers to various channels through which public information is 1 At the outset and as caveat the authors are not taking the stance that all teachers are perfect; in addition, the authors acknowledge that media commentary is often politically motivated by interests separate from education and its stakeholders.…”

“…Negative discourses about professional teachers and their performance are repeatedly, but not always, reported by actors external to education and within the media (Edling, 2015 ; Mockler, 2020 ). These negative discourses are problematised by the media as viewing education in a permanent state of crisis; as acting as spokesperson for teachers but excluding teachers’/educators’/educational researchers’ knowledge and experiences and stereotyping the ‘good teacher’ while overlooking the task and relational complexities that go along with the roles (Edling, 2015 ).…”

The Future of the Science of Reading

“…On the one hand, in the education context, teachers are most often portrayed as unknowing, unempowered, and lacking in both the knowledge and the resources to do their job well (e.g., Edling, 2015). On the other hand, many (but not all) popular trade books about reading are written by men who are cognitive scientists with no classroom experience or experience researching in classrooms.…”