Abstract
IntroductIon Contemporary discourses about schooling and teachers are marked by a severe reductionism. Teaching has been operationalized and reduced to, in the best cases, a collection of indicators on checklists for principals, or even to merely a set of digits that should measure students’ learning and thus teachers’ effectiveness. Lorraine Code individuates an “instituted imaginary”1 according to which, in Clarence Joldersma’s words, teachers are viewed as “universal, interchangeable rational atoms, measurable against an impersonal standard, including guaranteed results.”2 A major consequence of this way of considering teachers is that individual differences are considered “deviations from the standard” and “blameworthy deficits.”3 The flattening brought about by this instituted imaginary is the necessary outcome of a reductionist mistake in conceiving what it is to teach and to be a teacher.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
