The Rhetoric of Care: Preservice Teacher Discourses that Depoliticize, Deflect, and Deceive

Abstract

How teachers ''care'' for students is a well-established line of inquiry in educational research, but the ways such ''care'' may function as symbolic violence have received scant attention. In this ethnographic investigation of classroom disciplinary interactions, the characteristics and functions of preservice teachers' care discourses are examined. By translating deficit discourses into expressions of praise for students' nonacademic talents, the participants' rhetoric of care effectively shifts blame for failure from teacher to student. The preservice teachers' expressions of care also function to veil the power being produced in such rhetoric, to frame the teacher as victim when said care is rejected, and to reverse the carer/cared-for dynamic when teachers' attempts to inspire academic progress are unsuccessful. Implications for teacher education and teacher development are provided as are suggestions for how to recognize and implement more authentic forms of care.

Accountable for Care: Cultivating Caring School Communities in Urban High Schools

“…These horizontal relationships place teachers as facilitators or partners in helping students work together to achieve shared goals (Ancess, 2003;AntropGonzález & De Jesús, 2006;Johnson, 2009). This is in contrast to hierarchical power relations in which the carer "may decide what those best interests are without listening to the expressed needs of the cared-for" (Noddings, 2005, p. xv), or a savior or colonialist mentality in which teachers, holding deficit views of students and the communities they come from, believe they have to "save" students from what they perceive to be uncaring family or community environments (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 2002;Rolón-Dow, 2005;Toshalis, 2012).…”

“…Sympathetic or "soft caring" teachers who take pity on students' social circumstances may have good intentions, but this may ultimately harm students as it lowers academic expectations. For example, in a study of preservice teachers interning in urban schools, Toshalis (2012) found that, in response to severe underperformance of students, interns would praise students' nonacademic qualities while ignoring the students' need for remediation. In contrast, "hard-caring" teachers hold high expectations coupled with supportive, instrumental relationships that facilitate academic and social development and orient students toward the future (Antrop-González & De Jesús, 2006).…”

“…As with caring teachers, a caring school community "constructs strong social and affective bonds between the students and adults as well as develops a strong pedagogical infrastructure for intellectual challenge and achievement" (Ancess, 2003, p. 9). School-wide organizational and institutional factors also help facilitate relationships that foster a sense of connectedness to others and belongingness and ownership of the school (Ancess, 2003;Ellerbrock & Kiefer, 2010;Knight-Diop, 2010;Schussler & Collins, 2006;Toshalis, 2012). The following school factors have been identified in a variety of qualitative studies examining the ethic of care in schools.…”

It's a Balancing Act: TheGoodTeacher andAllyIdentity

“…GayStraight Alliances and Safe Space programs are also reliant on the victim/savior construction, because they aim to raise the visibility of caring individuals in schools or other institutions. Despite good intentions, acts of care that rely on deficit or victim discourses to understand LGBTQ students' needs may ultimately do more for the educator than the student because they keep the good educator solidly in the privileged position as she offers compassion to the needy Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 07:49 01 July 2015 student (Toshalis, 2011). Educators are able to claim they are doing a good thing (and caring intervention is a good thing), but their visions for creating a safe and supportive school do not include addressing the multiple ways school cultures subtly yet systematically silence and exclude LGBTQ students.…”

Student, Teacher, and Administrator Perspectives on Harm: Implications for Implementing Safe and Caring School Initiatives

“…This study reveals that educators and institutional policies, either consciously or subconsciously work out of a position of control rather than engagement, though they articulate care and concern for the wellbeing of students. Toshalis (2012) identifies this as a rhetoric of care.…”