Resistance to System Mandates Among Early-Career Teachers

• In Event: 35.061 - Platforms of Resistance in the Lives of Teachers Past and Present

Abstract

1. Objectives or purposes
The objectives of this paper are to explore how and why early-career teachers increasingly resist system mandates and consider the implications of such resistance for the lives of teachers.

2. Perspective(s) or theoretical framework
The theoretical framework is broadly constructivist (Richardson, 1997). Inherent in constructivism is an emphasis on differentiation: individuals and subgroups must be able to construct knowledge differently (O’Meara, 2010; Stefanakis, 2011). From this perspective, teachers should to a significant degree resist the current trend toward standardization (Noddings, 2013; Ravitch, 2010, 2013). Some topics and approaches are more important than others for given individuals (Delpit, 2012; Gardner, 1999); student engagement is vital to learning (Dewey, 1938; Watt & Colyer, 2014), and teaching must be feasible if teachers are to survive and thrive in the profession (Day & Gu, 2010).

3. Methods, techniques
Our research approach was largely qualitative, as defined by Merriam (2009), Punch (2009), and Savin-Baden and Major (2013). Specifically, we used a modified grounded theory approach (Punch, 2009).

4. Data sources, evidence
The 42 participants teach K through early high school; 20 began teaching in 2004 and 22 in 2007. Originally there were 22 participants in the first cohort and 23 in the second; remarkably, only 3 teachers have left the study. The teachers were interviewed and observed annually from graduation. For purposes of this paper only data up to 2011-12 is used.

5. Results and/or substantiated conclusions
All the teachers showed some resistance to the mandates of their respective school systems.
1. Contexts and conditions of resistance. (a) Most of the resistance took place at an individual level in classrooms. (b) In some cases, small groups of teachers were involved. (c) School administrators were not usually involved. (d) Resistance typically increased over time as the teachers’ confidence grew.
2. Strategies of resistance. (a) The teachers largely kept their resistance to themselves. (b) They often modified a required approach, so they still implemented it to a degree.
3. Grounds for resistance. Reasons given included: (a) The system initiative was poor teaching. (b) It was not in the best interests of students. (c) The mandate was politically motivated and/or arbitrary. (d) Resistance was important for their own morale, making teaching effective and feasible.

6. Scientific or scholarly significance
1. The “quiet resistance” of teachers can result in improved teaching and enhanced professional lives. Such resistance should be addressed in ITE and in-service settings, with discussion of reasons and strategies. Of course, inappropriate forms of resistance should also be discussed.
2. Attention needs to be given to building teachers’ confidence and sense of expertise at an earlier stage, so their resistance also begins earlier.
3. Teachers should be encouraged to be more openly resistant to inappropriate mandates in ways that do not jeopardize their employment.
4. Teacher resistance needs to be researched and documented by those less vulnerable than teachers (e.g., academics), thus informing teachers, teacher educators, and policy developers about its form, rationale, and impact.

Authors

• Clive M. Beck, OISE/University of Toronto

• Judy A. Caulfield, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto

• Lydia Menna, OISE/University of Toronto

• Shelley Murphy, OISE/University of Toronto