From disciplined to disciplinarian: the reproduction of symbolic violence in pre‐service teacher education

Abstract

This study examines how pre‐service teachers experience being disciplined by their training and trainers, and how that discipline is reproduced in their relationships with students. Using Foucauldian and Bourdieuian frameworks to explore pre‐service teachers’ disciplinary experiences in a US teacher‐education programme, this study explores how participants recreate and resist in their teaching four mechanisms of discipline: surveillance, classification, examination, and initiation. With only nascent skills in instructional design and little opportunity to develop culturally responsive modes of interaction, these teachers often default to discipline as a way of coping with what they deem to be ‘rude’ and ‘off‐task’ students. Increasingly obsessed with the necessity to maintain class control more than inspire achievement, participants often fixate on discouraging misbehaviour more than promoting learning, a practice that produces symbolic violence.

Keywords:

• behaviour problems
• classroom discipline
• classroom management
• teacher discipline
• teacher education
• teacher–student relationships

Acknowledgements

I thank Robert Boostrom, Rubén Gaztambide‐Fernández, Heather Harding‐Jones, Tiina Itkonen, Elis Kanner, Wendy Luttrell, Michael J. Nakkula, Janie V. Ward, and an anonymous reviewer at JCS for their invaluable assistance in developing this research or for their help in editing and refining successive drafts of this paper.

Notes

1. The programme within which this study’s data were collected commonly refers to pre‐service teachers as ‘interns’. Hereafter, the terms ‘pre‐service teacher’ and ‘intern’ are used interchangeably.

2. See e.g. Emmer (1995), Fish et al. (2005), Johnson (2005), Macciomei and Ruben (1999), Milner (2006a), Oberski et al. (1999), Richardson and Fallona (2001), Tobin and Johnson (1995), Veenman (1984), and Weiner (2003).

3. See Friedman (1995), Good and Bennett (2005), and Kardos and Johnson (2007).

4. See e.g. Akom (2001), Boostrom (1998), McCarthy and Hoge (1987), Ruck and Wortley (2002), Sherin et al. (2004), Skiba et al. (2002), Townsend (2000), and Tyson (2003).

5. See e.g. Burden (2000), Canter and Canter (2001), Dreikurs et al. (1998), Jones and Jones (1986), and McEwan (2000).

6. See e.g. Brantlinger (1991), Brown (2004), Carter (2003), Connell (1993), Kimmel (1994), Metz (1998), Milner (2006b), Rist (1970), Rosenbloom and Way (2004), and Waters (1996).

7. See e.g. Ainsworth‐Darnell and Downey (1998), Carter (2005), Chin and Phillips (2005), Davidson (1996), Fordham and Ogbu (1986), Horvat and O’Connor (2006), Kohl (1991), Sheets and Gay (1996), Singh (2001), Steele (1997), and Ward (1996).

8. See Gore (1998), Orner (1998), Schaafsma (1998), Schrag (1999), and Zipin (1998).

9. As quoted from Bourdieu (1990: 127).

10. Paraphrased from the editor’s introduction to Bourdieu (1990) (Thompson 1991: 24).

11. All names of schools, students, and teachers are pseudonyms.

12. Over the course of 8 weeks from February to April 2005, I observed and videotaped five pre‐service teachers’ classrooms each for 3 consecutive days.

13. For semi‐structured protocols, see Kvale (1996) and Seidman (1998); for stimulated‐recall interviewing techniques, see Clark and Peterson (1986), DiPardo (1994), and Gass and Mackey (2000).

14. Outlined by Emerson et al. (1995), Maxwell (1996), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Strauss (1987).

15. I assumed many roles within NETEP in the 4 years prior to when these data were gathered and analysed, including: advisor to interns (none of whom was a participant in this study), teaching fellow, curriculum developer, and instructor (though none of the participants was my student during the time of this study). Thus, I have an ‘insider’s knowledge’ of NETEP and its operating procedures.

16. i.e. doctoral candidates who each assume the role of supervisor for two‐to‐five interns from September through May.

17. It also speaks to the fact that mentors are often difficult to come by: those who do agree to take an intern often possess less than ideal abilities as an ‘urban’ teacher. It was well known by both NETEP and Powell officials that several mentors in this year’s cohort had poor records of success with their students and with previous interns, but were retained as mentors simply because there were no others available or willing. In fact, in the 4 years that I worked within NETEP and at Powell, it became increasingly difficult to recruit experienced and successful teachers to serve as mentors. Many of the better teachers at Powell (as identified by other teachers, students, parents, administrators, university faculty, and supervisors) refused to serve as a mentor for a variety of reasons, including an unwillingness to expose ‘their kids’ to a novice teacher, a reluctance to work with NETEP because of previous conflicts with officials or procedures in the programme, and an aversion to devote the increased attention and time an intern requires.

18. All citations of data excerpts begin either with a ‘TN’, indicating the source was a transcript, or ‘FN’, indicating the source was a field note. The letter and number combination after the hyphen indicates the pre‐service teacher and/or the student who were the subjects of that observation or interview (letters denote the intern and numbers the student), and the number or range of numbers after the slash indicate on which lines of the transcript that data may be found. Quoted passages that appear upper case are the words of the author spoken during the interview.

19. Application materials make it clear that NETEP’s ‘mission is to prepare teachers who can effectively teach in urban schools’, and that it ‘seeks candidates with a commitment to working with urban adolescents’. Applicants to the programme must describe as part of their statement of purpose their ‘decision to be an urban public school teacher’, and when admitted, they compete for financial aid awards including the ‘Urban Scholars Fellowship Programme for practitioners committed to working in urban schools’.

20. See the ‘Direct Instruction’ titles produced by SRA/McGraw Hill (2009).

21. It is important to note here that ‘IMP’, an acronym with naughty, mischievous, and demonic valences when pronounced ‘imp’, was the term commonly employed at Powell and NETEP to classify students in the Integrated Math Programme. Shatika, however, pronounced each letter of ‘I.M.P’. separately.

22. See e.g. Carroll (2005), Easter et al. (1999), and Middleton (2002).

23. All interns participate in 6 weeks of supervised summer school team‐teaching before their fall practicum.

24. In the US, students with disabilities are guaranteed an ‘individualized education programme’ (IEP) written by a team typically comprised of teachers, parent(s), education specialists, and administrators. Written annually, such a plan includes goals, objectives, and specific accommodations for students with special needs. IEPs are mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which became law in 1975 and was most recently re‐authorized in 2004 (Yell 1998: 69–93). Similar to IEPs, 504 Plans are written to specify needed acccommodations for students with specific impairments (e.g. asthma, diabetes, allergies) not covered by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Required under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 504 Plans stipulate the modifications and accommodations a student will need to perform at the same level as their peers (Yell 1998: 95–124).

25. See e.g. Downs (2006).