Cute Kid, Useless Kid: Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk in Pedagogical and Placement Committee Meetings

• In Event: 58.050 - Teacher Discussions of Problems of Practice: Conceptualizing and Investigating "Productive" Pedagogical Discourse

Abstract

Objectives
In this mixed methods study I investigate teacher talk about students in Pedagogical and Placement Committee Meetings (PPCM) in two Israeli schools. Detailed analysis of these committees, which are charged with promoting and tracking students, allows critical understanding of how students are classified and how their problems are framed and addressed. I ask: How are student classifications negotiated and reified in context? How do these classifications shape teachers' identities and sense of responsibility for student learning?

Theoretical framework
Classification or lexical labeling is the activity of distributing individuals into classes or groups. Formation and maintenance of classification systems is a continuous activity that takes place in social interaction (Siedel Horn, 2005). Classification practices both sort and constitute the individuals they classify (Foucault, 1972).
Classification practices likely assist teachers to function in the uncertain and changing realities of school life. On the other hand, they run the risk of simplifying complex problems (Georgiou, 2008), limiting teacher expression (Hjorne & Saljo, 2004), narrowing possible solutions (Siedel Horn, 2007) and limiting our ability to understand reality (Goodwin, 1994). Determining whether a student is "normal" or "special", "cute" or "irritating" can have crucial implications for their academic future (Mehan, 1996). Moreover, framing students as stupid, weak or lazy frames their failure at school as natural and even their own fault (see Peterson et al., 2011; Verkuyten, 2000). On the other hand, characterizing them for example as needing-explicit-instructions, or learns-best-when-challenged, frames their success as dependent on teachers' instruction. Hence, how teachers talk about students, and the sort of classification practices they engage in, are consequential not only for the students but for teachers' agency and learning.
Methods and data sources
During the 2014-2016 school years I observed and audio recorded teacher discussions of 281 students in PPCM meetings in two Israeli high schools. These discussions focused on students’ crucial transition into the highly stratified high school tracks (Resh & Erhard, 2002). Subsequently, I conducted playback interviews with some of the teachers and administrators.
I transcribed and coded the discussions according to multiple categories including duration, participation, students' gender, scores, character classifications, expected abilities, motivation, behavior and recommended track. I analyzed the definitions of students’ "problems" and suggested solutions. I used linguistic ethnographic tools to conduct detailed analyses of select case studies.
Results
Initial results suggest that, contrary to official policy, students' character and behavior play a major role in sorting and classification process (see table 1). Students' problems are commonly framed as natural and nonactionable, placing the blame for failure on students and absolving teaching practice. In some cases, it appears that teachers are motivated by "social justice" concerns (Lerner, 1977) – i.e. that students "get what’s coming to them”.
Scholarly significance
Research on student tracking has tended to focus on outcomes, rarely attending to the complex processes through which students are classified, and how those classifications lead to sorting and stratification. This study offers detailed understanding of the classification processes and highlights their implications for teacher professional discourse and learning.

Author

• Avner michael Cohen-Zamir, Ben Gurion University of the Negev