Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0742-051X/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.tat
�CorrespondiE-mail addre
kimjaxon@berk
(J.L. Russell), m
Jeanette.bicais@
Please cite thi
inquiry comm
Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
www.elsevier.com/locate/tate
Examining the practice of beginning teachers’ micropoliticalliteracy within professional inquiry communities
Marnie Currya, Kim Jaxonb, Jennifer Lin Russellc,�,Mary Alice Callahand, Jeanette Bicaise
aProject IMPACT, University of California, Berkeley, 927 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501, USAbProject IMPACT, University of California, Berkeley, 7590 Lindsay Avenue, Orland, CA 95963, USA
cProject IMPACT, University of California, Berkeley, 6656 Charing Cross Road, Oakland, CA 94618, USAdProject IMPACT, University of California, Berkeley 747 14th Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94118, USAeProject IMPACT, California State University, East Bay, 7825 Burns Ct., El Cerrito, CA 94530, USA
Received 9 November 2005; received in revised form 19 September 2006; accepted 13 October 2006
Abstract
This paper investigates beginning teachers collaboratively making sense of and responding to the micropolitical
environments of their schools. Drawing on a qualitative multi-case study conducted within the context of a university-
sponsored, inquiry-based induction program, this research employs a community of practice frame to examine how novice
teachers came to practice ‘‘micropolitical literacy.’’ The paper identifies four dimensions of micropolitical discourse that
surfaced in the situated setting of the inquiry groups. The analysis further illustrates how beginning teachers, while
participating in inquiry groups, coconstructed understandings of the organizational structures and professional cultures of
their schools.
r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Beginning teachers; Induction; Inquiry; Micropolitics; Oraganization; Professional community; Teachers
1. Introduction
Over the last 15 years, a handful of teachereducators and researchers have convincingly arguedthat induction efforts for beginning teachers need toconcern themselves not only with matters of class-room instruction, but also with teachers’ organiza-tional socialization into schools (Blase, 1997;
e front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
e.2006.10.007
ng author. Tel.: +1510 549 3495.
sses: [email protected] (M. Curry),
eley.edu (K. Jaxon), [email protected]
[email protected] (M.A. Callahan),
csueastbay.edu (J. Bicais).
s article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
unities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
Goodman, 1988; Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002a,b;Kuzmic, 1994). Advancing the idea of organiza-tional or micropolitical literacy, defined by Kelch-termans and Ballet (2002a,b) as the capacity tounderstand, navigate and influence the micropoli-tical realities of schools, these writers contend thatwithout such literacy beginning teachers cannoteffectively contribute to school reform or advancetransformative, critical visions of education.
Attention to novice teachers’ micropolitical lit-eracy seems timely for two reasons. First, thecurrent conditions of schools (especially urbanones) pose incredible challenges to new teachers.Faced with ‘‘negative school cultures, inappropriate
.
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]2
or unfair assignments, inattentive or abusive princi-pals, misused time, inadequate supplies, lack ofoutreach programs for parents, ad hoc approachesto discipline, and insufficient student supportservices’’ (Johnson et al., 2004, p. 94), as well aswith the current policy climate of intensifiedstandards and accountability, beginning teachersmust contend with a bewildering organizationallandscape. For a novice to step into the role of aprofessional educator, then, the capacity to engageproactively with colleagues, administrators, parentsas well as the wider community is critical. Further-more, given that the organizational structures andprofessional cultures of schools exert a powerfulinfluence over beginning teachers’ decisions toremain in teaching (Ingersoll & Smith, 2003),equipping teachers to understand and maneuverthrough the organizational milieu of their schoolsmay help stem attrition and improve retention.
A second reason why fostering micropoliticalliteracy deserves explicit attention during inductionis that preservice teacher education programsincreasingly emphasize social justice and cultivatean expectation on the part of novices that they arecapable of transforming the status quo in schools. Ifinduction programs are to avoid placing ‘‘changedindividuals into unchanged institutions’’ (Fullan,2005), they must provide some means for beginningteachers to participate meaningfully in their schoolsas organizations. We believe that induction pro-grams bear some responsibility for promotingdiscourse and dispositions that position novices topursue social justice; to do so, induction providersmust help teachers understand and navigate theinstitutional and organizational space of theirschools.
This paper traces one induction program’s effortsto foster teachers’ micropolitical literacy. It analyzesthe situated discourse of beginning teachers withininquiry groups to highlight how micropoliticalliteracy develops through social practice, thusallowing novices to read and influence their micro-political environments.
2. The study
Little empirical work has investigated howbeginning teachers grapple with micropoliticalissues or how induction efforts might systematicallyhelp novices productively traverse their schools,districts, and communities. This paper makes acontribution toward this end by reporting on a
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
study of a university-sponsored induction programin which novices had the opportunity to examineand inquire into the micropolitical realities ofschools. It is important to emphasize that we didnot set out to study teachers’ micropolitical literacy,rather this focus emerged as we attempted tounderstand the distinctive features of collaborativeinquiry among new teachers and how the talk withininquiry communities illuminated the learning de-mands of novices. When micropolitics surfaced as arecurrent theme, we began to explore two researchquestions:
1.
f be
.101
How do beginning teachers discuss micropoliticsin the context of a professional inquiry group?
2.
How does participation in an inquiry groupinfluence beginning teachers’ micropoliticalawareness (their ability to recognize situationsin which personal/professional interests are atstake) and literacy (their capacity to act on thatawareness by influencing work conditions)?2.1. The theoretical framework
Literatures on micropolitics, literacy as socialpractice, and professional communities inform thiswork. We employ a micropolitical frame to empha-size how individuals within organizations confrontothers with differing interests, goals, status, power,and authority. We rely on Blase’s (1991) workingdefinition:
Micropolitics refers to the use of formal andinformal power by individuals and groups toachieve their goals in organizations. In large part,political actions result from perceived differencesbetween individuals and groups, coupled with themotivation to use power to influence and/orprotect. Although such actions are consciouslymotivated, any action, consciously or uncon-sciously motivated, may have political ‘‘signifi-cance’’ in a given situation. Both cooperative andconflictive actions and processes are part of therealm of micropolitics. Moreover, macro- andmicropolitical factors frequently interact (p. 11).
We contend that a micropolitical perspective isparticularly relevant to new teachers’ inductionbecause novices often leave their preservice institu-tions with idealism and/or educational theorieswhich conflict with the conservative tendencies ofschools (Zeichner & Tabachnik, 1981). In this sense,learning to teach is not simply a technical endeavor
ginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
6/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 3
involving the acquisition of classroom managementskills or pedagogical content knowledge, it is also apolitical endeavor entailing the negotiation ofcomplex organizations with multiple actors whomay resist the ideas of newcomers.
We borrow our conception of micropoliticalliteracy from Kelchtermans and Ballet (2002a,b),who define it as the ability to ‘‘read’’ and proactivelynavigate the complex landscape of roles, power,interests, and norms within an organization. Thesetheorists divide the construct into three compo-nents: the knowledge aspect, the instrumentalaspect, and the experiential aspect. With regardsto knowledge, the micropolitically literate teacherpossesses an understanding of how to identify andinterpret the power dynamics, roles, and interests atstake in a given micropolitical situation. Theinstrumental aspect requires that teachers possessthe capacity to apply strategies that leverage asituation toward their advantage. Finally, theexperiential aspect involves teachers’ emotionallevel of (dis) satisfaction with their facility withmicropolitical literacy.
Kelchtermans and Ballet (2002a) also identifycategories of professional interests (see Table 1),which characterize the kinds of micropoliticalconcerns influencing teachers’ pursuit of desirableworking conditions. They posit that these cate-gories, ‘‘allow a more analytical and differentiatedunderstanding of the complex phenomenon ofmicro-politics in schools and in beginning teachers’professional socialisation in particular’’ (2002a, p.109). They further argue that while multiplecategories may be represented in any given teacherexperience that these analytic categories provide aheuristic for identifying and understanding variousaspects in any given event.
Kelchtermans and Ballet’s theory suggests that ateacher’s professional interests and existing knowl-edge may inform or determine her choice of apolitical strategy, but once she undertakes thatstrategy she may generate new knowledge to inform
Table 1
Five categories of teachers’ professional interests
Material Availability & access to teachin
Organizational Issues concerning roles, positio
Socio-professional Issues on the quality of interpe
Cultural–ideological Normative values and ideals ab
Self-interest Issues of professional identity &
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
subsequent action. Likewise, a teacher’s experientialsense of satisfaction with his or her micropoliticalunderstandings and actions may shift in an instantgiven new knowledge, a challenge from a peer, or anunexpected outcome to a political tactic. Thus,micropolitical literacy is a dynamic phenomenonalways dependent on the particular contexts of agiven situation and setting.
Kelchtermans and Ballet (2002a) emphasize theimportance of context in understanding the successor failure of teachers’ micropolitical actions andrecommend the ‘‘explicit’’ and ‘‘systematic’’ teach-ing of micropolitical literacy in preservice andinduction programs (p. 118). In order to focusattention on the situated nature of micropoliticalliteracy, and build on Kelchtermans and Ballet’sunderstanding of the contextual importance ofmicropolitical practice, we draw upon the work ofliteracy theorists who argue that reading is a socialpractice. These theorists maintain that it is unlikelythat we come to understand reading practices bybuilding on separate, composite skills (Heath, 1983;Rodby & Winterowd, 2004; Russell, 1995; Scribner& Cole, 1981; Street, 1984). As opposed to learningthe skills of literacy, these theorists claim thatlearning to read begins with our purposes forreading in the first place; hence, we wish to frameteachers’ micropolitical literacy as a practice thatemerges from social interaction shaped by institu-tional structures, norms, and cultures. As JamesGee (1996) asserts, ‘‘It will not really do to defineliteracy as the ability to read’’ (emphasis ours, p.40). Instead, Gee argues, we must look at the wayreading is practiced within social groups andinstitutions. He states, ‘‘Literacy practices arealmost always fully integrated with, interwoveninto, constituted part of, the very texture of widerpractices that involve talk, interaction, values andbeliefs’’ (p. 41). As such, Gee points to the difficulty(if not impossibility) of pulling apart literacypractices from non-literacy (or social) practices.Hence, we contend that the beginning teachers we
g materials, funds, infrastructure, facilities & time
ns or formal tasks in the school as an organization
rsonal relations within the school
out ‘‘good’’ teaching in the school
social recognition
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS
1We approached our data from an ethnographic orientation,
relying on teachers’ emic perspectives to guide our analytic focus.
Our teachers were most concerned with how to navigate their
schools and districts as organizational entities and rarely raised
concerns about intra-group micropolitical dynamics within their
professional inquiry communities. Since our groups were
comprised of novices there tended to be a shared sense that they
M. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]4
studied are practicing micropolitical literacy, notmerely acquiring micropolitical skills—and they aredoing this work in the context of particular valuesand beliefs (and moving between perhaps differentvalues and beliefs as they move between the contextsof the inquiry group and their schools).
The distinction between merely acquiring micro-political skills and learning to participate in micro-political practice is important because, as Lave andWenger (1991) assert, the success and failure ofcollaborations (or in our case, of inquiry groupsdesigned in part to support novice teachers as theywork to understand and navigate their schools) isnot merely related to the acquisition of skills (i.e.learning how to identify the micropolitical interestsat stake or devising and enacting effective strategiesto achieve influence). Rather, the learning entails agradual taking-on of an identity—the identity of amicropolitical literate person. By practicing micro-political literacy, teachers are creating new selves asmembers or possible members of yet anothercommunity.
The third body of literature we rely on examinesprofessional communities. In particular, the theoriesof ‘‘community of practice’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991;Wenger, 1998) and ‘‘community of learners’’(Brown & Campione, 1994; Rogoff, 1994) illumi-nate how the dynamics within teacher inquirycommunities constitute strategic sites for transfor-mational learning. Common to each of thesetheories is the premise that teachers learn throughsituated and social interactions with colleagues whopossess distributed expertise and with whom theyhave ongoing conversations related to mutualinterests. For researchers interested in pursuingteachers’ professional development through profes-sional community, Stein, Silver, and Smith (1998)lay out the implications of these theoretical per-spectives:
The result of this new analytic viewpoint is thatthe unit of analysis shifts from the individualteacher to the social practice or the activities inwhich groups of teachers engagey This perspec-tive on learning suggests that teacher develop-ment should be examined in relationship to thecommunity of practice in which the teachersparticipate (p. 17–18).
Hence, this paper focuses on the experiences andmeanings that new teachers constructed within theirinduction support inquiry groups.
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
2.2. The context
This research arises from a privately fundedinitiative, housed within a California university,entitled ‘‘Project IMPACT: Inquiry Making Pro-gress Across Communities of Teachers.’’ Theproject aims to provide instructional and profes-sional support to beginning teachers, who volunta-rily participate in biweekly meetings. During theacademic year, IMPACT teachers convene on 18occasions, spending an average of 40 h engaged incollaborative inquiry activities. Each participantcrafts his/her own inquiry question and spends theyear collecting and analyzing data. The long-termgoal of these inquiry communities is to increase thecareer longevity and leadership contributions ofnovice teachers. The authors of this paper served asexternal facilitators, who assisted members of thesecommunities to investigate matters of teachingpractice, student learning, schooling, and otherprofessional concerns.
2.3. The data
The analysis and claims presented here are basedon our examination of data collected from 25K-12teachers from five separate school-based inquirycommunities. Collectively these teachers had anaverage of 2.5 years of teaching experience; 20% ofthem were in their first year of teaching, while 52%were in their second year of teaching. All but twowere credentialed teachers, all but two wereuntenured teachers holding probationary contracts,and finally, all but two were women. While roughly40% of the teachers conducted inquiry on topicsthat had micropolitical permutations, we selected asfocal cases the one teacher from each group (n ¼ 5)whose inquiry and/or school experiences mostsquarely located them in the arena of micropolitics(see Table 2). We then examined these teachers’developing micropolitical awareness in the contextof their inquiry peer group, tracking how theconversations of the group came to shape andinfluence the understanding and actions of the focalteachers.1 Our emphasis on the development of
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Overview of focal teachers’ inquiry and professional background
Focal teachera Inquiry question Size of
inquiry
group
Total yrs.
teaching
Yrs. at
2003–4
school
Grade level/
subject
Sabina How can I support sheltered students to read
literature outside of class for homework?
6 3 2 10–12 Sheltered
English
Katherineb How do educators and students view homework
and its role in both learning and assessment?
4 6 1 8 English
Anne How can I best support newcomer students with
limited prior schooling in making academic
progress?
6 2 2 4 Bilingual
Melissa How (and to what extent) do teachers maintain
high standards and rigorous expectations for
student performance within the context of an
underperforming school with a culture that
condones/tolerates failure?
6 2 2 10 &11 English
Lisa How can I teach kindergartners about race in an
age-appropriate and meaningful way?
3 2 1 K
aAll names of teachers and school sites are pseudonyms.bAt the time of our study Katherine was returning to teaching after having spent several years out of the classroom. This circumstance,
coupled with the fact that her new school was dramatically different from where she taught previously, led her to indicate that she felt like
a novice teacher.
M. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5
micropolitical literacy within the social contexts ofprofessional communities represents a departurefrom other researchers (Blase, 1985; Kelchtermans& Ballet, 2002a,b; Kuzmic, 1994; Schempp,Sparkes, & Templin, 1993), who have relied onretrospective, individual interviews as their primarydata.
Observation fieldnotes and transcripts of bi-weekly teacher inquiry meetings, capturing thedynamic and situational interaction of participants’conversation and learning constitute our principalbody of data. Individual and focus group exitinterviews, as well as documents collected fromparticipating teachers during their year-long inquiryprocess, supplement these data. As such, ouranalysis concentrates on teachers’ perspectives onmicropolitics.
2.4. Data analysis
Data analysis commenced with ‘‘open coding’’ offieldnotes and interview transcripts (Emerson et al.,1995). Through this process the research team
(footnote continued)
gathered as equals. For these reasons, we did not investigate
intra-community micropolitics. However, it is likely that there
were micropolitical dynamics at play within these communities
and thus, other researchers might consider this as a future line of
inquiry.
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
identified analytic themes and descriptive codes.These initial passes through the data revealed thesaliency of micropolitics as a theme running acrossall five groups. Team members then identified keyinstances where micropolitical issues surfaced inbiweekly meetings and these segments/meetingswere transcribed from audio records. Subsequently,we engaged in ‘‘focused coding’’ of transcripts,using analytic codes based on Kelchtermans andBallet’s (2002a,b) tripartite construct of micropoli-tical literacy (the knowledge, instrumental, andexperiential aspects), as well as their categories ofmicropolitical interests, which are summarized inTable 1. Through these analyses, we sought touncover patterns in how members communicatedand interpreted their micropolitical concerns.
Eventually, each member of our research teamspecialized in one focal case, writing a series ofanalytic memos aimed at elucidating: (1) the year-long trajectory of the focal teacher within thecontext of the inquiry group; (2) the centralmicropolitical interests operating in the teacher’sinquiry; (3) the degree to which the focal teacherdeveloped or exhibited micropolitical knowledge,strategies, and a sense of organizational efficacy;and (4) the ways in which the social practices of theinquiry community contributed to the focal tea-chers’ understanding of micropolitics. To enhancethe reliability of our analyses, one member of the
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]6
team also read and analyzed the entire data set toensure that memos accurately captured themes andpatterns. Once individual case memos were verifiedin this manner, memos were then compared in across-case analysis process (Miles & Huberman,1994), which allowed us to discern and prioritizecommon patterns from which to theorize. Finally,we triangulated our emerging claims with our otherdata sources looking for alternate interpretations ordisconfirming evidence.
3. Findings
In this paper we report findings gleaned from ourcross-case analysis. While evidence of all fivecategories of teachers’ professional interests (seeTable 1 above) surfaced across cases, cultural–ideo-logical interests emerged as the most salientleitmotif driving teachers’ inquiry. The fact thatfour of five focal teachers were graduates of socialjustice oriented pre-service programs may explainthe dominance of cultural–ideological interests, inthat each teachers’ inquiry project resonated with apursuit of equitable and inclusive education for allstudents. This orientation toward cultural–ideolo-gical interests sets the focal teachers apart fromother documented cases. For example, the begin-ning teachers reported in Blase (1985), Lacey (1977),Kelchtermans and Ballet (2002a) and Schempp,Sparkes, and Templin (1993), tended to comply withthe dominant values of their schools. In contrast,our focal teachers embraced and actively pursuedalternate/transformative visions of teaching and/orschooling through their inquiry. As such, theyembodied a critical ideological perspective, rootedin the tradition of social reconstructionists (Klie-bard, 1995). Each focal teacher in her own way sawherself as a change agent working to alter main-stream school and societal structures. As a group,these teachers departed dramatically from thepassive and conservative teachers chronicled byBlase (1985, 1988) and Schempp, Sparkes, andTemplin (1993), who avoided controversy as a wayto protect themselves and thus minimize theirvulnerability.
Rather than adopting a survivalist orientation,our focal teachers when faced with administrativedisapproval, collegial critique, or other challenges(disgruntled parents or flawed district policies)tended to persist in their critical ideological stancewhile also seeking ways to assert their views. Lisaadopted critical pedagogy in her kindergarten
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
classroom by focusing on students’ understandingof racial identities and resisting pressure to teachJudeo-Christian holiday crafts. Katherine advo-cated for a schoolwide conversation about home-work policy, using survey data she collected thatcritiqued the status quo, specifically a lack ofschoolwide consistency. Melissa initiated a surveydesigned to stimulate a departmental discussionabout the absence of academic rigor she perceived ather underperforming high school. Sabina pushedagainst her administration’s marginalization ofEnglish learners (ELs), as well as her colleagues’low expectations for sheltered English students.Similarly, Anne challenged district policies that didnot serve her ELs.
Given their common critical stance, our analysisconcentrates on how these teachers used the forumof their inquiry groups to make sense of andrespond to the micropolitical issues that arose asthey undertook inquiry, which demanded theircultural negotiation of their schools. Our datasuggest that the inquiry groups afforded a forumfor teachers to self-consciously practice micropoli-tical literacy and thereby sustain their willingnessand capacity to pursue their ideological commit-ments in their classrooms and schools.
We present our findings below by first high-lighting four dimensions of micropolitical discourse.These dimensions help to identify and explain thevarious practices we observed as teachers grappledwith a variety of school-related dilemmas. Afterlooking at a range of practices across the variousinquiry groups, we then turn to a close look at twocases in order to demonstrate in more detail how thestructure of our groups allowed for the possibility ofgrappling with micropolitical issues over the courseof a school year.
3.1. Collaborative inquiry groups as forums to
address micropolitical issues
We observed a range of ways in which beginningteachers raised and addressed micropolitical con-cerns in their biweekly inquiry group meetings.Groups varied in regards to whether the impetus fortheir micropolitical discussions were proactive orreactive, whether their discussions related centrallyor peripherally to a member’s inquiry question;whether their conversation processes were informalor formal, and whether group members’ responsesconverged to validate each other or diverged tochallenge each other. While these four dimensions
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Impetus for
Discussion
Proactive
Teachers identify a micropolitical
concern and seek to understand and
alter it through collective
interpretation.
Reactive
Teachers encounter a micropolitical
crisis or challenge and enlist group
members to help them respond.
Relationship
of Discussion
to Teacher
Inquiry
Central
Micropolitical issues explicitly
embedded in inquiry question.
Peripheral
Micropolitical issues arise in an arena
tangentially related to inquiry question
Conversation
Structures/
Processes
Informal
Micropolitical issues surface in
authentic, casual talk before or after
meetings or during the narrative
sharing time.
Formal
Micropolitical issues discussed
through oral inquiry structures/
protocols which stipulate speaker
order and/or sequence of topics.
Group
Members’
Responses
Validation / Consensus
Teachers concur with one another,
use forum as a means of soliciting
agreement, sympathy, and/or
support.
Challenge / Disagreement
Teachers question or critique one
another, use forum to debate or
express divergent views.
Fig. 1. Dimensions of beginning teachers’ micropolitical discourse in inquiry groups.
M. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 7
of inquiry group discourse are described in Fig. 1 aspaired opposites for heuristic purposes, in reality weoften witnessed instances where a given micropoli-tical discussion fell somewhere in between one ormore of these pairs.
Additionally, consistent with research demon-strating that social practice is context specific andcontingent, we saw virtually no overall consistentpattern of discourse across the groups (see valida-tion/challenge discussion for the one exception). Inother words, the discourse of groups was not static.Some groups oscillated from one end of thecontinuum to the other along all dimensions, whileother groups tended to gravitate fairly consistentlytoward one end of the spectrum along somedimensions, but oscillate along others. Finally, inpresenting these dimensions it is not our intention toprivilege one side over another. In fact, we arepersuaded that while these dimensions of discourseyielded qualitatively different kinds of micropoliti-cal conversations, the resulting differences do notlend themselves to claims that one form of discourseis more generative than another. As we will arguelater, what matters most is that teachers have the
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
opportunity to participate in these kinds of micro-political conversations.
3.1.1. Impetus for discussion: proactive and reactive
cases
Micropolitical discussions within the inquirygroups arose under two different conditions. In afew instances, teachers perceived some problem orinadequacy in current school structures, norms,and/or policy and proactively drew on that aware-ness to explore alternatives. Another kind ofproactive conversation (which happened very rarelyin practice) occurred when group facilitators in-itiated discussions as a means of either introducingthe construct of micropolitical literacy or acquaint-ing teachers with some micropolitical facet of theirschools (test score reports, students’ cumulativefolders, newspaper articles, etc.). More frequently,teachers encountered some crisis or challengeemanating from outside their classroom, whichprecipitated an impromptu discussion of micropo-litical issues. These reactive conversations presentedthemselves as ‘‘teachable moments’’ infused with anurgency that elicited a high level of emotional
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]8
engagement and interest on behalf of participants.In most cases, these reactive conversations includedexplicit attention to what kinds of political strate-gies teachers might employ to effectively resolvetheir particular situations. Interestingly, the issuesand dilemmas uncovered occasionally inspiredteachers to redirect their inquiry toward questionsthat thrust them more intensively into the arena ofmicropolitics.
One case of a teacher proactively initiatingconversations of a micropolitical nature with herinquiry group was Anne. At the second meeting ofthe year, Anne identified two issues she wanted toaddress: (1) how to support the academic and socialprogress of a pair of ‘‘newcomer’’ siblings fromMexico, who were reading at a K-1 level in her 4thgrade bilingual class and (2) how to advocate forthese students (and others like them) within a schoolsystem that was not offering adequate support tobilingual learners. At this meeting Anne shared herperception that the district bilingual programadministrator was well intended, but focused inthe wrong direction. With input from her group, shebegan designing an inquiry project that involvedcollecting school and district level documentsrelated to bilingual programs, as well as to thenewcomer students’ academic journeys. In addition,the group advised Anne to concentrate initially onher own school site before expanding her efforts tothe district level. Over the course of the year, Annebrought artifacts from her inquiry to four moremeetings for group consultation.
In contrast, Sabina’s inquiry group engaged in aseries of reactive micropolitical conversations whenseveral members of the group (including Sabina)were not re-hired to teach at their high school forthe upcoming school year. In the first inquirymeeting following this news, the members of thegroup commiserated with one another and began todiagnose through informal, open discussion thecauses behind the tenure denial. The teachersidentified two leading factors contributing to theirnon-reelection: their advocacy for ELs and theirvotes to unseat the English department chair. In thetwo subsequent meetings the facilitator (at theprompting of one group member) led an extendedtext-based discussion of Laurie Olsen’s book Made
in America (Olsen, 1997), which chronicles thechallenges that rookie teachers faced in a compre-hensive, urban high school. During these conversa-tions the group examined: their ideologicaldifferences with veteran colleagues and adminis-
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
trators; their possible responses to the non-hiringaction; their interest in initiating a dialogue withcolleagues to address perceived inequities in educa-tional opportunities for students, and their concep-tion of how teachers build credibility within aschool. Since the non-reelection notices amountedto a professional crisis for some members of thisinquiry group, the group opted to depart from theregular meeting routine of consulting on theirinquiry work-in-progress. As such, this scenariorepresents an instance where an inquiry groupspontaneously reacted to an event and then usedthe inquiry group as a place to interpret andrespond to the micropolitical issues embedded inthat event.
3.1.2. The role of inquiry: central and peripheral
cases
Micropolitical conversations also varied in thedegree to which they were grounded in a particularteacher’s year-long inquiry project. In Anne’s case,her inquiry into support services available tobilingual students meant that her group regularlyfound themselves engaged in conversations about:interrelationships between administrators, supportproviders, teachers, and parents; best practices andinterventions for bilingual students; as well as policyremedies. Thus, many of the micropolitical con-versations held in this group were centrally linked toa teacher’s inquiry project. In Sabina’s case,however, her classroom-based inquiry project,which focused on increasing sheltered Englishstudents’ completion of out of class reading, initiallygenerated pedagogical rather than micropoliticalconversations. But because Sabina’s interest inpromoting the academic growth of sheltered ELsrubbed against normative expectations that hercolleagues held for these kinds of students, herinquiry implicated her in a larger and long-standingideological dispute brewing at her site. Thus, whenher group engaged in the reactive micropoliticaldiscussions described in the previous section, herinquiry was peripheral, but still a contributoryfactor in their examination of why her principalopted to not promote her from probationary totenured status.
3.1.3. Conversation processes: informal and formal
cases
Micropolitical discussions also varied in terms ofthe degree to which conversations were formallystructured. As part of its approach to teacher
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9
inquiry, the IMPACT program encouraged groupsto use formal inquiry protocols to frame and guideconversations.2 Protocols were advanced as a meansof: creating safety, ensuring equitable participation;promoting systematic attention to issues; anchoringdiscussions in data/evidence; and opening upopportunities to share divergent perspectives.3 Thepreviously mentioned text-based discussion, whichSabina’s group held on chapters excerpted fromMade in America, was one example of a groupdiscussing micropolitics using a formal conversationstructure. Other groups modified protocols ordeveloped their own structures4 to conduct inquiryconsultations on members’ works-in-progress. Ty-pically, these conversations featured three phases:(1) an introductory presentation complete with aframing question from the consulting teacher; (2) aperiod of open discussion often held in conjunctionwith artifacts brought by the presenter; and (3) aclosing opportunity for the presenter to share finalreflections and plans for subsequent action. Acrossour sample, groups spent the bulk of their meetingtime (80–85%) engaged in inquiry consults. As such,formal inquiry consultations represented a uniqueand critical feature of groups’ micropolitical prac-tice.
For example, Katherine engaged in formalinquiry consults with her group on six occasions(almost every other meeting). In these sessions shereceived feedback on her inquiry question, datacollection strategies, her survey instruments, andanalysis of survey results. Over the course of theseconsultations, Katherine’s initial question, ‘‘Howcan I as a classroom teacher have an impact on thecompletion of homework and thereby increase thesuccess of my class?’’ shifted when members of herinquiry group suggested that she ask her colleaguesabout their homework policies and how her failingstudents performed on homework tasks in otherclasses. Based on their feedback, Katherine initiallyextended her inquiry into the homework practices ofjust her fellow language arts teachers, but after afaculty meeting where the principal drew attention
2Some of the protocols used by Project IMPACT can be
accessed electronically at: www.lasw.org and www.cesnorthwes-
t.org/text-based_protocols.htm.3For more on this latter element, see Achinstein’s (2002)
account of a teacher community that managed to create a space
and process for publicly and productively engaging conflict.4These structures were not reified in the form of a formal
document, but evolved as a normative practice within groups
over time.
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
to failing students and the role of homework instudents’ failure, Katherine, with encouragementand input from her group, designed a faculty-widesurvey to better understand homework policies.Eventually, Katherine restated her inquiry questionas ‘‘How do educators and students view homeworkand its role in both learning and assessment?’’ Boththe evolution of her question and the expandedscope of her data collection arose from thesystematic and artifact-based discourse of hergroup’s structured inquiry consult process.
Beyond inquiry protocols, micropolitics alsosurfaced during informal segments of the biweeklymeetings. Groups commenced their gatherings witha ‘‘whip around’’ during which teachers sharedhighlights and low points of their teaching weeks.Frequently these check-ins contained micropoliticalcontent. For example, in a January meeting Lisarecounted her recent collision with her principal anda parent over her refusal to incorporate holidaycrafts into her curriculum. In describing this‘‘traumatizing’’ situation to her inquiry peers, Lisabristled at the principal’s push for consistencyacross the kindergarten classes and stated her ‘‘hardline’’ position on the separation of church and stateand the absence of holidays in state standards. Inresponse, her two colleagues and facilitator asked afew clarifying questions to understand the situationand offered her moral support. Two meetings laterwhen the group revisited the holiday issue duringthe informal check-in, Lisa reported making someminor concessions (like serving pink lemonade toacknowledge Valentines’ Day) that had apparentlypacified the parent. Since the parent failed to attendtheir scheduled teacher–principal–parent confer-ence, she surmised that the conflict had passed.This series of relatively loose and organic conversa-tions about Lisa’s holiday craft predicament wasemblematic of the informal dimension of teachers’micropolitical discourse.
3.1.4. Groups’ response: cases of validation and
challenge
The final dimension of variation across beginningteachers’ micropolitical discussions involved theextent to which members responded to each otherin ways that validated or challenged an initiatingspeaker. The vast majority of micropolitical con-versations we analyzed were marked by validation.5
5Over time, there was some evidence within Anne’s group (one
of two groups that continued into a second year of IMPACT)
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]10
Given the vulnerability of novice teachers and theirheightened need for social and emotional support inthe face of perceived threats and/or micropoliticaldilemmas, this trend was not surprising. Teacherstended to unite around members through anassortment of affirmatory or protective discoursemoves. Affirmatory moves included: praise for amember’s inquiry or teaching practice; the exchangeof corroborating stories to build a consensual‘‘common reading’’ of a situation; encouragementand endorsement of a planned course of action; andthe universalization of experiences to a shared ‘‘we.’’Protective moves included efforts to deflect criticismaway from a member and disparage individuals orgroups who departed from the inquiry groups’collective view of best practice. Through thesevalidation efforts groups sought to mitigate theirsense of isolation and alienation.
Melissa’s group provides one example of thetendency toward validation. During the informalcheck-in phase of her group’s 11th meeting, Melissarecounted her confrontation in the lunchroom witha ‘‘self-righteous’’ colleague who accused her ofbeing a failure as a teacher when he learned that halfof her students were receiving D’s or F’s. Uponhearing of this encounter, a member of the groupconveyed both her sense of indignation and herdesire to condemn the judgmental colleague byasking in an outraged tone ‘‘WHO said this?’’ AsMelissa further elaborated on how her argumentwith this colleague prompted reflection on thedilemmas embedded in maintaining high standardswithin a school that tolerates academic mediocrity,the group concurred with the importance of thisdilemma indicating that they shared her predica-ment. When Melissa expressed an interest in shiftingher inquiry to address this issue, her peers suggestedthat she poll the staff to assess their views ofacademic rigor and whether or not they feltpressured to inflate grades. In this manner, thegroup sent Melissa the message that her interestswere worthy and deserving of attention. It wasthrough this conversation that Melissa received thevalidation necessary to launch her pursuit of themicropolitically risky inquiry question: How (and towhat extent) do teachers maintain high standardsand rigorous expectations for student performance
(footnote continued)
that discourse practices were shifting away from the strong
validation bias toward more challenge.
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
within the context of an underperforming schoolwith a culture that condones/tolerates failure?
While the overarching character of the micro-political discussions within the IMPACT inquirygroups was validating, there were periodic instancesof challenge. During the exchange recounted aboveinvolving Melissa, for instance, the facilitatorpushed members of the inquiry group to considerwhether the lunchroom colleague’s position had anymerit. Interestingly, the facilitator framed her twoturns of challenge with the pronouns ‘‘we’’ or ‘‘I’’ asa means of making her divergent view morepalatable. Specifically, she said in one turn, ‘‘I thinkwe might be too quick to judge what he was saying’’and in a subsequent turn, ‘‘ywhen I have a lot offailing kids, I always come back to what am I doingwrong?yI do think there are ways we can [takeresponsibility].’’ Importantly, these challenging re-marks were quickly dismissed and glossed over byMelissa and her peers, suggesting that the culture ofvalidation exerted much more influence in thisgroup. Most groups displayed minimal tolerancefor ‘‘constructive controversy’’ (Achinstein, 2002).Significantly, when challenge did occur in theinquiry groups, it most frequently arose from thefacilitator, an outsider accorded some status andauthority as an expert.
The validation trend, however, did not mean thatteachers never challenged or disagreed with oneanother. Lisa’s fellow inquiry partners regularlyquestioned her interest in examining kindergartners’racial identities. Commenting on this ideologicalsplit, Lisa recalled that ‘‘ywithin our group therewere such different ideasythe other two teacherswere completely like why would you ever teachkindergartners about race? Like what’s that about?’’Lisa acknowledged that receiving her peers’ criticalfeedback helped her to understand the norms ofboth her faculty and the broader community.Moreover, she claimed that responding to theircritiques helped her better communicate her posi-tion to others. Of this benefit, Lisa said, ‘‘I thinkthat having to justify is not the right word, but Ithink explaining to them why I felt so stronglyabout it [my inquiry] helped me clarify in [my] mindwhy I feel so strong about it and helped mearticulate why it is that I think this is so important,which in turn then helped me clarify it to theprincipal or to parents.’’ Hence, challenge did occurwithin some groups.
To summarize this section, we close by reiteratingthat the four dimensions of micropolitical discourse
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 11
outlined above are meant to provide descriptive andanalytical precision in order to capture the variednature of the practices we observed within begin-ning teachers’ inquiry groups. Our data (andanalysis to date) prevent us from arguing thatdiscourse aligned along certain dimensions yieldedbetter or worse outcomes for participants. We dobelieve, however, that teachers’ participation inmicropolitical discussions significantly influencedtheir organizational literacy and identities as in-stitutional players. As such, we turn now to a closelook at two beginning teachers’ emergent micro-political awareness and literacy. Through thesemore extended profiles of Katherine and Sabina,who were introduced in the foregoing sections, weseek to show how teachers, through their participa-tion in inquiry groups, socially constructed newmeanings of themselves as political actors and oftheir schools as organizations.
3.2. Beginning teachers’ emergent micropolitical
awareness & literacy
3.2.1. Katherine & her inquiry group: teachers
practicing micropolitical literacy
Katherine, described earlier as pursuing theinquiry question ‘‘How do educators and studentsview homework and its role in both learning andassessment?’’ arrived at this question because of hergroup’s suggestion during her initial consult that sheconsider how her students performed on homeworkassignments in their other classes, as well as howother teachers within the school weighted andstructured homework within their classrooms. Atthe close of her first consult, one member observed,‘‘I’m hearing us all kind of focus on how do webring the bottom end up, and how do we make thesestudents succeed and want to be a part of theschool? Which is an overbearing theme that I’mhearing in all of us.’’ (Mtg. 4, 12/15/2003). Thisstatement suggests how Katherine’s question heldimportance for the entire inquiry group. Further-more, the group together recognized how Kather-ine’s inquiry complemented their principal’s interestin remedying student failure and his suspicion thathomework policies factored as a major ingredient instudents’ failure.
Eventually, her inquiry peers’ shared interest inand validation of her inquiry bolstered Katherine’sconfidence and propelled her to initiate a school-wide examination of homework practices through afaculty survey. Remarking on her group’s feedback,
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
Katherine enthusiastically exclaimed: ‘‘This is soawesome. Every time we do these consultation Ithink I’ve racked my brain as much as I can to comeup with what I gotyand then I put it out there andyou guys always give me such great feedback I hadnever even thought of. Yeah!’’ (Mtg. 9, 3/8/2004).Part of the guidance she received from her peersregarding the survey focused on how to disseminatethe survey in a faculty meeting; how to entice buy-infrom the faculty; how to frame questions tomaximize honesty; and how to phrase potentiallycontroversial questions. In this manner, the teachersin the group pooled their understanding of theirschool and their colleagues to generate a survey,which they all felt would ultimately benefit students,especially those who had historically failed. ForKatherine, this collaborative process was particu-larly gratifying since it offered her a way to link toschool wide initiatives and meaningfully engagewith the broader school community, a significantdeparture from the outset of the academic yearwhen she felt under attack from the administrationbecause of parental complaints. Speaking to thisshift, Katherine reported, ‘‘yGiven the way Istarted out my year here this year, I’m kind ofexcited that what I want to look at is something thatthis school is looking at too, so then it could be likeI was looking to contribute into our school cultureand our school community, not just my ownresearch’’ (Mtg. 9, 3/8/2004).
At the close of the year, Katherine had conductedand comparatively analyzed homework surveys ofboth teachers and students. She disseminated herfindings and conclusion (that the variation inhomework policies throughout the school contrib-uted to student confusion and possibly failure)through informal conversations with colleagues andthe distribution of her final inquiry write-up to herprincipal and others, who had requested it. Sig-nificantly, the members of her group also made acollective effort to secure time to share their inquiryat an end-of the-year faculty meeting, but otherbusiness items displaced their presentations.Through her involvement in collaborative inquiryand the practice of micropolitical literacy, Kather-ine took on a new identity. Indeed, one of herinquiry partners noted, ‘‘What you’re doing isconnecting to what we’re focusing here at school.It makes you look like you’re professional.’’ In thisstatement we see how Katherine, as well as herinquiry peers, have through participation in micro-political discourse become political actors with
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]12
expanded conceptions of their professional rolesand power.
3.2.2. Sabina & her inquiry group: a second example
of teachers practicing micropolitical literacy
In contrast to the preceding example where thepractice of micropolitical literacy was embeddedwithin a teacher’s collaborative inquiry project,Sabina’s group’s practice of micropolitical literacysurfaced as a response to a contested hiringdecision. As described earlier, Sabina and two ofher inquiry peers were non-reelected to theirteaching positions due (according to them) to theiradvocacy for EL students and their votes to oust thechair in a contested departmental election6. Whenthe group convened the day after the delivery of thetenure denial news, members were able to build onthe rapport established over 6 months of inquirymeetings to share their immediate feelings, amongthem: shock, surprise, anger, confusion, sadness andloneliness. As they exchanged their emotionalreactions, they began also to articulate theiremergent understandings of what had transpired.One teacher said, ‘‘I understand [that] the politics ofinstitutions often work against the supposed aims ofthe institution.’’ Others attempted to characterizethe commitments and conditions influencing theadministration and faculty’s intransigence to re-form. Together these beginning teachers acknowl-edged how administrators’ excessive work demandsthwarted inspired instructional leadership. Theyalso began to speculate about possible avenues toaffect change given the constraints of their institu-tion. Along these lines, one teacher volunteered:
I believe that the top is resistant to change, but Ifeel like the staff as a whole isn’t. There arepeople on the staff that are, I mean, the peoplewho have stepped up and have spoken up andhave been like this [hiring decision] is notokayyyes, the institution is top down, but thenhow do you work within an institution to changethe top? You build bridges underneath them sothey can rise up and affect it. It’s just slow (Mtg10, 2/23/04).
As this 2-h meeting reached its end, one memberconfessed her bewilderment, ‘‘I don’t feel veryequipped to deal with all the politics that are
6The principal later rescinded his non-reelection decision for
these two members, leaving Sabina the lone member facing
contractual dismissal.
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
involved in teachingyall of the sudden, there’s thishuge political stretch that just doesn’t make anysense and I feel like I can’t navigate, and people canscream at you for no reason and you have to sort offind some way to react to it.’’ Echoing this member’sfrustration one of the non-reelected teachers shared,‘‘I feel like this whole year I’ve been compromising.I feel like I have been tiptoeing as quietly as I canwith a smile on my face around this campus and youknow, I’ve gotten nowhere.’’
In the subsequent two meetings, the groupengaged in protocol-guided discussions of severalchapters from Made in America and used the text asa springboard to examine in a dispassionate mannerthe question ‘‘How can rookies pursue theirpassions and mission to be warriors for socialjustice without being silent for 2 years before tenureor incurring the wrath of administrators and therebyjeopardizing job security?’’ Through the ensuingconversations the group co-constructed a widerange of understandings, including: how and whythey differed ideologically with the ‘‘old guard’’veteran faculty at their site; how teachers might bestteach and serve linguistically diverse and economic-ally disenfranchised students; how to initiate mean-ingful dialogue with resistant colleagues; how togain credibility as teachers; and how to conduct aneffective job search. In the more informal, inter-stitial talk of these meetings, members also re-counted their immediate efforts to reverse the hiringdecision. Some of the strategies employed by groupmembers were the circulation of a petition to otherfaculty members and the solicitation of veteraneducators from within the district, as well asparents, to attend board meetings and/or contactboard members.
In the end, Sabina and three other teachers fromthis group relocated to teach in different schools thefollowing year; each of these teachers consciouslyexited and reoriented. In her final reflection, Sabina,crediting the inquiry group with ushering herthrough the turmoil of the non-reelection, wrote,‘‘The relationships we developed in this group werecritical in helping me complete an exceptionallydifficult, disheartening year of teaching with most ofmy spirit intact and enthusiasm for this careerundiminished.’’ Over the course of the non-reelectcrisis, then, Sabina moved from a complete rejectionof personal responsibility to an understanding ofhow some of her choices may have contributed toher predicament. Clearly, the forum of this groupprovided the time, space, structure, and interaction
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 13
necessary for Sabina and her colleagues to forge acollective understanding and response to the dys-functional and unsupportive micropolitical realitiesof their site. Through their enactment of micro-political literacy practice, these teachers carved outa space on the margins of their school from which tocritically engage themselves in efforts to transformtheir school and sustain their ideological commit-ments.
4. Discussion
Previous research (Blase, 1997; Kuzmic, 1994;Kelchtermans & Ballet, 2002a,b; Schempp et al.,1993) has examined how beginning teachers devel-oped micropolitical awareness through individua-lized and fairly privatized processes. We examinedhow novices, engaged in ongoing collaboration, co-constructed meaning from their micropolitical land-scapes. By using their facilitators and each other assounding boards, these beginning teachers collec-tively examined their schools as organizations; inthe course of sharing their knowledge, they shiftedfrom an individualistic orientation toward aninstitutional orientation. While the content of theirco-constructed knowledge depended on the specificcontexts of their school sites, we saw our partici-pants helping each other to explore and understand:colleagues’ interests (material, ideological, profes-sional, organizational); schoolwide norms for publicdiscourse/dialogue; institutional traditions; powerrelationships and alliances; cues and warning signsin the environment that signaled danger; andleverage points to introduce proposals/changes.We also witnessed teachers using their inquirypractice and the solidarity garnered from theirparticipation in their inquiry group as a politicalplatform from which to take action. In this manner,our teachers were engaged in a practice with theirinquiry communities that apprenticed them intobecoming professionals, change agents, as well asnew teachers.
Given the situated, contextual nature of micro-political problems, we contend that ongoing forumsfor site-based discussion in the early stages ofteachers’ careers afford authentic and importantopportunities for micropolitical literacy to develop.We found that conversations within inquiry com-munities allowed novice teachers to give voice to theconflicts, challenges, and opportunities that theyencountered within their schools, hence supportingtheir practice of micropolitical literacy. The nature
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
of the inquiry communities allowed teachers to giveand receive feedback on their micropolitical prac-tices and provided the opportunity to rehearseissues within the group prior to acting upondecisions in a public forum. They could then reflecton the results in subsequent meetings, a practicewhich furthered everyone’s micropolitical aware-ness.
Additionally, our efforts to identify dimensions ofmicropolitical discourse (proactive or reactive,inquiry focused or not, informal or formal, andvalidating or challenging) provide a lens throughwhich to understand the highly variable nature ofthis social practice. Ultimately, our findings reveal arange of ways collaborative groups examinedmicropolitical issues; although varied, engagementin micropolitical practice consistently influenced theparticipants’ organizational literacy and institu-tional identities. Our hope is that future researchwould expand and continue to complicate the rangeof identified dimensions, thereby continuing touncover the practices and material conditions thatsupport teachers’ development of micropoliticalidentities. We also can imagine how our schema ofdiscourse dimensions might offer insight to mentorsand teacher educators seeking to integrate micro-political literacy into their agenda for teacherinduction; having a means to identify and categorizethe talk of teachers can help mentors and educatorsunderstand how interwoven these social practices,beliefs and values really are.
Finally, our findings highlight the complex andmicropolitically precarious process of teacher socia-lization, as well as how the provision of time, spaceand a structure for novice teachers to exploretogether their induction experiences and questionshelped mitigate the vulnerability, intensity andisolation traditionally associated with entry intoteaching. The solidarity and support fosteredthrough the social practice of micropolitical literacyenabled teachers to craft political action and in turnforge identities as change agents, advocates forsocial justice, and professionals.
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micro-
politics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record,
10(3), 421–455.
Blase, J. J. (1985). The socialization of teachers: An ethnographic
study of factors contributing to the rationalization of the
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
ARTICLE IN PRESSM. Curry et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]14
teacher’s instructional perspective. Urban Education, 20(3),
235–256.
Blase, J. J. (1988). The everyday political perspectives of teachers:
Vulnerability and conservatism. Qualitative Studies in Educa-
tion, 1(2), 125–142.
Blase, J. J. (Ed.). (1991). The politics of life in schools: Power,
conflict, and cooperation. Newbury Park: SAGE.
Blase, J. J. (1997). The micro-politics of teaching. In B. J. Biddle,
T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook
of teachers and teaching. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a
community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom
lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice
(pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing
ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to
the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in
discourses. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Goodman, J. (1988). The political tactics and teaching strategies
of reflective, active preservice teachers. The Elementary School
Journal, 89(1), 22–41.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in
communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to
the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30–33.
Johnson, S. M., & Colleagues (2004). Finders and keepers:
Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002a). The micropolitics of
teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher
socialization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 105–120.
Kelchtermans, G., & Ballet, K. (2002b). Micropolitical literacy:
Reconstructing a neglected dimension in teacher develop-
Please cite this article as: Curry, M., et al. Examining the practice o
inquiry communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, (2006), doi:10
ment. International Journal of Educational Research, 37,
755–767.
Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the american curriculum,
1893– 1958. New York: Routledge.
Kuzmic, J. (1994). A beginning teacher’s search for meaning:
Teacher socialization, organizational literacy, and empower-
ment. Teaching and teacher education, 10(1), 15–27.
Lacey, C. (1997). The socialization of teachers. London: Methuen.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our
public schools. New York: The New Press.
Rodby, J., & Winterowd, R. (2004). The uses of grammar.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of
communities. Mind Culture and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.
Russell, D. (1995). Activity theory and its implications for writing
instruction. In J. Petraglia (Ed.), Reconceiving writing,
rethinking writing instruction (pp. 51–77). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schempp, P. G., Sparkes, A. C., & Templin, T. J. (1993). The
micropolitics of teacher induction. American Educational
Research Journal, 30(33), 447–472.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stein, M., Silver, E., & Smith, M. (1998). Mathematics reform
and teacher development: A community of practice perspec-
tive. In J. Greeno, & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking Practices:
Mathematics and Science Learning (pp. 17–52). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Street, B. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnik, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of
university teacher education ‘washed out’ by school experi-
ence. Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7–11.
f beginning teachers’ micropolitical literacy within professional
.1016/j.tate.2006.10.007
