When "Nice" Isn't "Just": Exploring Mentors' Decision Making Through the Framework of Niceness

• In Event: Reenvisioning Mentoring for Equitable Outcomes: Changing Philosophies, Practices, and Systems

Abstract

“Educative” mentoring can redress mentoring inequities in poverty-impacted schools (Feiman-Nemser, 2001a; 2001b; 2012; Gardiner, 2011; 2012; Schwille, 2008), through dual, interrelated aims: 1) a clear vision of and 2) an ability to foster ambitious teaching and learning. Educative mentoring is teacher-centered and collaborative. It is situated in new teachers’ classrooms and occurs “inside” the action of teaching, offering in-the-moment support through stepping in (providing planned or impromptu cues), collaborative teaching, and demonstration teaching. “Outside” practices occur before/after instruction, providing opportunities for problem solving, analysis, and reflection (e.g., debriefing, co-planning, etc.). While complementary, a majority of mentoring occurs “outside” (Gardiner, 2017; Schwille, 2008), suggesting a set of underutilized practices that could disrupt patterns of inequity.

Drawing upon two illustrative cases of experienced mentors--one using and one avoiding inside practices--we employ the analytical framework of “niceness” (Baptiste, 2008; Bissonnette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019; Galman, et al., 2010) to explore mentors’ decision-making.

Conceptual Framework

Niceness is a shared socio-emotional disposition, particularly amongst white females, that includes avoiding conflict or controversial topics; not owning one’s expertise; people pleasing; and upholding existing power structures (Baptiste, 2008; Bissonnette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019). Niceness prioritizes pleasantness, protecting educators from challenging biases, inequities, and oppressive systems, structures, and practices (Castagno, 2019).

Methods
“Kelsey” and “Lauren” (pseudonyms, see Table 1) were purposefully selected (Patton, 2000) due to their marked differences in their decision making and beliefs pertaining to “inside” practices. Both received extensive training in educative mentoring and inside/outside practices. Both mentored first- and second-year teachers serving students of color in poverty-impacted schools.
Data sources included three individual, semi-structured 45-60 minute interviews (Seidman, 2013) in fall, winter, and spring. We applied a case-oriented approach (Miles, Huberman & Saldana, 2013), treating each mentor as a separate case and conducted comparative analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2014).
Results/Discussion
Lauren and Kelsey both described the imperative of developing new teachers’ practice to better serve their students, using the full range of outside practices throughout the year. Both also noted the strengths of inside practices, specifically the potential to accelerate teacher and student learning. Yet, in practice, Lauren avoided inside practices in order not to “step on teacher’s toes,” create discomfort, or position herself as “expert”, reflecting operationalized niceness (Baptiste, 2008; Bissonette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019; Galman et al., 2010). Whereas Kelsey described actively negotiating these tensions, but found the “urgency” to improve teacher and student learning led her to push back against “niceness” and prevalent norms of teacher authority and independence (Britzman, 2003).
While both were experienced mentors who received the same training, their responses were markedly different, suggesting that factors, including niceness (Castagano, 2019), can supersede mentors’ training. If mentoring is to live up to its full potential in all communities, mentors and mentoring programs must recognize and disrupt socialization into niceness (i.e., collaboration does not equal comfort, nice does not equal just). Otherwise, inside practices, that foster learning but cause discomfort, will continue to be underutilized to the detriment of teacher and student learning.

Authors

• Wendy L. Gardiner, Pacific Lutheran University

• Nina F. Weisling, Carthage College