Piezunka, Anne; Ma ysiak, Jose ine
A icle — Published Ve sion
Disc imina ion by Teache s Agains S uden s:
Sensemaking in Ligh o a Repo ing Obliga ion
On Educa ion. Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
WZB Be lin Social Science Cen e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Piezunka, Anne; Ma ysiak, Jose ine (2025) : Disc imina ion by Teache s Agains
S uden s: Sensemaking in Ligh o a Repo ing Obliga ion, On Educa ion. Jou nal o Resea ch and
Deba e, ISSN 2571-7855, Uni e si y o Zu ich, Ins i u e o Educa ion, Zü ich, Vol. 8, Iss. 21, pp. 1-13,
h ps://doi.o g/10.17899/on_ed.2025.21.1
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/319716
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 1
on_educa ion
Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e
disc imina ion by eache s agains s uden s:
sensemaking in ligh o a epo ing obliga ion
Anne Piezunka and Josefine Ma ysiak
In he Ge man ci y o Munich, he e is an obliga ion o epo inciden s o disc imina ion in
schools o a public complain s office since 2022. Agains his backg ound, he p esen s udy
analyzes how eache s make sense o si ua ions in which hei own o colleagues’ ac ions could be
conside ed disc imina o y agains s uden s. We a e in e es ed in he indi idual and s uc u al
dimensions ha define eache s’ sensemaking (e.g., biog aphical expe iences o exis ing
hie a chies). In e iews wi h eache s (N=6) we e analyzed using K use’s da a analysis p ocedu e
(In eg a i es Basis e ah en). The esul s show ha he in e iewees o en pe cei ed
disc imina ion ambiguously. Th ee a eas o ension ega ding epo ing beha io eme ge: 1) he
need o a clea case o disc imina ion s. a lack o conside a ion o he si ua ional con ex , 2) he
ea ha admi ing misconduc in school migh ha e an impac on exis ing hie a chical
ela ionships, and 3) he in e dependence among eache s, s uden s, and he complain s office
when dealing wi h cases o disc imina ion.
Keywo ds: complain s, disc imina ion, emo ional iolence, sensemaking, eache -s uden ela ionship
1. In oduc ion
Since Feb ua y 2022, p incipals o 264 municipal schools in Munich a e obliga ed o epo when
disc imina ion occu s in hei schools. The co esponding con ac is he ci y’s complain s office
(Anlau s elle bei Disk iminie ung und ech em Hass) which encou ages all school communi y
membe s, such as eache s and s uden s, o epo cases o disc imina ion. In 2023, a o al o 109
complain s we e epo ed – double he numbe om he p e ious yea (Fachs elle ü Demok a ie,
2023, 2024). Rega ding da a on disc imina ion, howe e , mo e epo s do no necessa ily imply
mo e inciden s because epo ing beha io depends on a ious dimensions, which will be discussed
below (El-Ma aalani e al., 2017; An idisk iminie ungss elle des Bundes, 2024b, p. 36). Mo eo e ,
mos cases o disc imina ion a e likely un epo ed (ADAS LIFE e.V., 2021;
An idisk iminie ungss elle des Bundes, 2024b, p. 37).
In ou esea ch, we ocus on specific o ms o disc imina ion pe pe a ed by eache s agains
s uden s: hose done e bally o h ough mimicking ges u es. The eby, we seek o disce n which
condi ions lead eache s o ei he epo o no epo disc imina o y inciden s in he school con ex .
We a e in e es ed in he ole o s uc u al dimensions (e.g., schools’ epo ing obliga ion o
hie a chical s uc u es) and indi idual dimensions (e.g., eache s’ biog aphical expe iences). Thus,
ou a icle add esses wo ques ions: 1) How do eache s make sense o si ua ions ha could be
conside ed disc imina o y agains s uden s? 2) Which indi idual and s uc u al dimensions define
eache s’ sensemaking and hei decision o (no ) epo o he complain s office? Analyzing
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 2
eache s’ pe spec i es – especially hei eflec ions on hei own and hei colleagues’ beha io s –
can p o ide insigh in o he ex en o which hey sha e in o ma ion wi h hei school p incipal
and/o wi h he complain s office di ec ly.
Da a collec ed by he complain s office is necessa y o de e mine he ex en o disc imina ion and
he impac o poli ical an i-disc imina ion s a egies. Examining epo ing beha io is ele an o
unde s anding which expe iences o disc imina ion a e (in) isible in exis ing s udies (Ahyoud e al.,
2018). Such an analysis can also offe sugges ions o eache s’ ( u he ) aining. Finally,
unde s anding which s uc u al and indi idual dimensions define epo ing beha io will allow
complain s offices, o example, o adap hei communica ion s a egy o classi y epo ing da a
acco dingly.
2. Making Sense o and Repo ing Disc imina ion by Teache s Agains S uden s
2.1 Sensemaking App oach
To explain how eache s deal wi h si ua ions ha may be disc imina o y, we d aw on Weick’s
(1985) sensemaking app oach (see also Spillane e al., 2002): When i comes o making sense o
ambiguous o ambi alen si ua ions, sensemake s use hei exis ing cogni i e amewo k (e.g., hei
alues, belie s, ou ines, expe iences, and p e ious knowledge). Acco dingly, how si ua ions a e
unde s ood can a y om pe son o pe son. In ou case, we a e in e es ed in how eache s make
sense o ambiguous si ua ions ega ding disc imina ion and wha indi idual and s uc u al
dimensions define hese p ocesses. Because we ocus on ins ances o po en ial eache
disc imina ion agains s uden s, we mus conside s uc u al condi ions such as he hie a chical
ela ionship be ween hese wo g oups (Helspe & Humm ich, 2014) and o ms o ins i u ional
disc imina ion (Gomolla & Rad ke, 2009).
2.2 Disc imina ion in Schools
Va ious s udies make clea ha disc imina ion and simila phenomena, such as emo ional iolence
by eache s agains s uden s, ake place in e e yday school li e (Baie e al., 2009; Gus e e al.,
2023; Ka abulu , 2020; K umm & Weiß, 2001; Nguyen, 2013; P engel, 2019; Scha a how, 2017;
Scha p e al., 2023; Sche , 2025). Rega ding he defini ion o disc imina ion, we a e guided by he
a he b oad defini ion o he Munich complain s office, which no es ha disc imina ion occu s
when a pe son is ea ed diffe en ly o de alued because o his o he (pe cei ed) membe ship in a
s uc u ally disc imina ed g oup (Fachs elle ü Demok a ie, 2022; Re e a ü Bildung und Spo
München, 2022, p. 4). The office conside s se e al dimensions o disc imina ion, such as acism,
an i-Semi ism, an i-Muslim acism, an iziganism, hos ili y owa ds e ugees, homophobia, ans*
hos ili y, sexism, classism, de alua ion o homeless people, ableism, and ageism. The complain s
office also desc ibes diffe en o ms ha disc imina ion can ake, such as exclusion, aun ing, insul s,
o physical assaul .
By d awing om he li e a u e on phenomena simila o disc imina ion, like (emo ional) iolence
ha eache s pe pe a e agains s uden s (Piezunka 2023), we a gue ha sensemaking o po en ially
disc imina o y si ua ions can be challenging. Indeed, i migh depend on how he eache s’ in en ions
a e pe cei ed, how he ha m i caused o he s uden (s) is assessed, and whe he he eache s’
beha io s can be pedagogically jus ified (Heinemann & Meche il, 2023; Piezunka, 2023, Sch öd e ,
2007; Vo obej, 2019). In his ega d, Piezunka and Rich e (unde e iew) de eloped ou
dimensions o making sense o emo ional iolence:
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 3
epis emic, in he sense o pe cep ibili y and add essabili y o emo ional iolence o disc imina ion;
s uc u al and cul u al, e.g., social posi ioning as well as his o ical, cul u al, and egional
ci cums ances;
ela ionship, i.e., he (pe cei ed) ela ionship be ween eache s and s uden s;
pe sonal, e.g., he sensemake ’s p e ious his o y o ecogni ion and iolence.
The specifics o hese ou dimensions may be diffe en o indi idual sensemake s; hus,
indi iduals can make sense o he same si ua ion in a ious ways.
2.3 Complain s Offices and Da a Collec ion
Complain s offices ep esen a possible in e en ion o educe inciden s o disc imina ion (Ba el &
Kalpaka, 2022, p. 30), as hey can offe guidance o ins i u ions and people who expe ience
disc imina ion. This is especially impo an because eache s and school adminis a o s o en do no
ake s uden s’ complain s o such inciden s se iously (Ka akayalı e al., in p ess; see also S eine &
Ka akayalı, 2024; Yegane, 2019). Ano he benefi o complain s offices is ha hey publish
moni o ing epo s, which se e as ele an esou ces o educa ional policy and esea ch, since
o he empi ical da a on disc imina o y inciden s in schools is limi ed (Baumann e al., 2018; Yegane
e al., 2021). The Munich complain s office ecei ed 13 epo s o disc imina o y inciden s by
eache s agains s uden s in 2022 and 14 in 2023. Disc imina ion pe pe a ed by eache s accoun s
o app oxima ely 35 pe cen o all epo ed inciden s he e (Fachs elle ü Demok a ie, 2023,
2024). A ano he complain s office based in Be lin, a ound 40 pe cen o he 289 epo ed inciden s
o disc imina ion be ween 2018 and 2020 we e caused by eache s (ADAS LIFE e.V. 2021,
pp. 14-16).
As p e iously men ioned, he epo ing da a only show an exce p , as no e e y case is epo ed.
Obs acles o epo ing include a lack o knowledge abou he igh o non-disc imina o y educa ion,
inadequa e epo ing s uc u es a schools, and ea o nega i e consequences (ADAS LIFE e.V.,
2021, pp. 11-12; Fachs elle ü Demok a ie, 2024, p. 32; Ka akayalı e al., in p ess). Dependencies
play a majo ole in his. As Ka akayalı e al. (in p ess) no e, some eache s ea po en ial e alia ion
i hey epo hei colleagues o disc imina ion. Only one o he 14 epo s o he Munich
complain s office in 2023 came om affec ed s uden s (Fachs elle ü Demok a ie, 2024), which
migh be explained by hie a chical ela ionships. El Ma aalani e al. (2017, p. 53) ound ha people
wi h a highe le el o educa ion and be e pa icipa ion oppo uni ies in socie y who expe ience
acism epo expe iences o disc imina ion mo e equen ly.
3. Empi ical Design
To answe he esea ch ques ions, we conduc ed six guided in e iews wi h eache s om diffe en
schools in Munich (see Table 1). Two p ospec i e p incipals a e pa o he sample. The in e iews
we e conduc ed in Ge man ia ideo con e ence and las ed be ween 32 minu es and an hou and 14
minu es.
Table 1
In o ma ion on he In e iewees
IP1 IP2 IP3 IP4 IP5 IP6
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 4
Asc ibed gende male male emale emale emale male
Age 40 34 30 56 47 41
Wo k expe ience
since aineeship
in yea s
11 3 4 32 8 12
School ype Middle
school
Voca ional
high school
G amma
school
Elemen a y
school
Middle
school
Technical
college o
social wo k
Because public discou se po ays disc imina ion as a se ious and sensi i e issue, we assumed ha
eache s would be hesi an o eflec on hei beha io and would only add ess clea ly defined cases
o disc imina ion. To enable he in e iewees o e e o indi idual unde s andings and expe iences
and o p e en bias in he sample, he e m disc imina ion was no men ioned a he beginning o he
in e iew. Ins ead, we fi s e e ed o posi i e and nega i e in e ac ions in eache -s uden
ela ionships, hen bounda y-c ossings and emo ional iolence. Then, we asked ou in e iewees how
hey unde s and disc imina ion and in i ing hem o eflec on hei beha io while in he ole o a
eache .
The analysis me hod we employed is based on K use’s (2014) da a analysis p ocedu e (In eg a i es
Basis e ah en), which allows us o apply diffe en analysis heu is ics o he ma e ial. Due o a lack
o pe sonnel and ime capaci ies, he abb e ia ion p ocedu es named by K use (2014, p. 563) we e
used. We analyzed many in e iew passages oge he , bu we also independen ly assigned ex
passages o specific ca ego ies based on he heo e ical amewo k.
None heless, he e a e limi a ions o he s udy. I can be assumed ha he sample is sligh ly biased,
as eache s a e p esumably mo e likely o pa icipa e in a s udy on educa ional ela ionships i he
opic is impo an o hem. Addi ionally, ou analysis ocused on cen al hemes ha epea edly
eme ged du ing he in e iews. I is possible ha o he dimensions cha ac e ized he in e iewees’
sensemaking bu we e no made explici in he in e iews o a ious easons, e.g., social
desi abili y. Thus, we did no conside all possible dimensions in ou analysis. Fu he mo e, i is he
p incipals, no he eache s, who a e obliged o epo inciden s o disc imina ion o he complain s
office (Re e a ü Bildung und Spo München, 2022). Ye , no p incipals we e pa o he sample.
Howe e , p incipals depend on epo s om eache s and o he membe s o he school communi y.
Fu he mo e, eache s a e encou aged o epo cases.
4. Analysis
To s uc u e ou analysis, we apply he ou dimensions by Piezunka and Rich e (unde e iew)
men ioned abo e.
4.1 The Epis emic Dimension o Disc imina ion
Many in e iewees had difficul y defining disc imina ion: “Well, I hink ha ’s also a bi o a ague
e m, o cou se” (IP4, line 544-545; see also IP1, line 423-424; IP3, line 399-400; IP5,
line 234-235; IP6, line 341). They no ed ha indi iduals can ha e diffe en unde s andings o
si ua ions; indeed, “pe haps pa en s and child en see i diffe en ly han he eache s” (IP4, line 174;
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 5
see also IP1, line 421; IP1, line 431; IP2, line 451; IP3, line 291; IP3, line 255; IP4, line 563; IP6,
line 789). The eache s’ lack o cla i y while ying o make sense o si ua ions was also caused by
hei pe cep ions ha s uden s o en did no da e o sha e hei assessmen o a si ua ion (IP1,
line 751; IP2, line 372).
The in e iewees lis ed ce ain cha ac e is ics o emo ional iolence, which, we a gue, can be
applied o he phenomenon o disc imina ion. Fo example, he eache s dis inguished among
deg ees o se e i y: “My God, no , no e e y o m o emo ional iolence is, well, equally bad. I
hu s o say i like ha ” (IP6, line 910). The in e iewees explained ha he equency and/o
du a ion o a eache ’s beha io was impo an o conside (IP4, line 456; see also IP1, line 505; IP3,
line 235; IP4, line 547; IP5, line 423, 786; IP6, line 917-918). Addi ionally, in con as o Ge man
law, a eache ’s in en ion seemed o be ele an o hei unde s anding: “ - o he child i can be
MUCH as e MUCH mo e ansg essi e, which he eache may no ha e mean ha way a all”
(IP3, line 591). Fu he mo e, beha io may no be labeled emo ionally iolen , i he eache shows
eg e di ec ly a e wa d (IP1, line 787, IP5, line 791 .; IP3, line 437; IP2, line 355).
The in e iewees we e asked o poin ou he diffe ences be ween emo ional iolence and
disc imina ion. Se e al exp essed ha disc imina ion ela es o ce ain social g oups, e.g., membe s
o he LGBTQI* communi y, acialized s uden s, emale s uden s, s uden s wi h men al heal h
issues, people wi h ADHD o on he Au ism spec um (IP2, line 533-534; IP3, line 338; IP4,
line 442-443; IP5, line 333; IP3, line 263), while emo ional iolence can affec he whole lea ning
g oup (IP2, line 542-543; IP5, line 348-349). Emo ional iolence is, he e o e, unde s ood as a
gene ic e m, acco ding o which disc imina ion is a o m o emo ional iolence (IP1, line 475-476;
IP4, line 440; IP6, line 412).
When alking abou eache s who clea ly disc imina e, he in e iewees appea ed o ame hem as
“bad apples”, in he sense ha only a mino i y o eache s clea ly disc imina e agains s uden s (IP5,
line 274; In 2, line 401-402; IP6, line 917). Mo eo e , he in e iewees es ablished dis ance
be ween he bad apples and hemsel es – no ing, o example, ha he in e iewees expe ienced
such eache s when hey we e s uden s (IP3, line 238), o hey emphasized ha hese eache s we e
no pa o hei close ci cle o colleagues (IP2, line 406-407; IP3, line 237).
4.2 The S uc u al and Cul u al Dimension
Rega ding he s uc u al dimension, wo cen al opics came up du ing he in e iews: 1) he
in e iewees’ a i ude owa d he complain s office and 2) how hey desc ibe he cul u e o
communica ion in hei schools.
Posi ioning owa ds he Munich Complain s Office
Despi e he obliga ion o epo cases o disc imina ion, he in e iewees men ioned se e al easons
o no epo ing: They e ealed ha eache s had diffe en le els o knowledge abou he
complain s office. Two eache s (IP3; IP4) demons a ed a low deg ee o knowledge abou he wo k
o he complain s office. Howe e , one eache s a ed ha hei p incipal insis ed ha eache s ell
all hei s uden s abou he office and hang up pos e s ad e ising i s unc ion (IP2, line 470-479).
Addi ionally, while eache s had diffe ing opinions abou he complain s office, many pe cei ed i as
a aluable ool o s uden s (IP1, line 769; IP2, line 441; IP3, line 543; IP6, line 773). One
in e iewee no ed how he office could help hei school o e come exis ing hie a chical
ela ionships among he eaching s aff (IP6, line 767). Ano he in e iewee explained ha he office
could imp o e ela ions be ween eache s and school adminis a o s (IP6, line 841). Howe e , some
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 6
in e iewees ea ed ha s uden s migh abuse hei abili y o epo , asking “Who can p o e ha I
didn’ do ha ?” (IP1, line 768). A guing ha disc imina o y si ua ions should be cla ified in e nally,
one in e iewee said, “Well, I ce ainly wouldn’ epo i ” (IP4, line 464 ).
Cul u e o Communica ion among he Teaching S aff
When eache s obse e colleagues’ misconduc , se e al dimensions de e mine how hey deal wi h
he si ua ion: The decisi e ac o s o he in e iewees included how bad o se e e he beha io was,
he na u e o hei p e ious ela ionship wi h ha eache (IP2, line 529), and he ex en o which a
cul u e o ei he open communica ion (IP2, line 215) o silence (IP3, line 520) p e ailed a hei
school. One eache s a ed “I hink some hings a e also igno ed” (IP5, line 737), explaining ha
hey migh no epo inciden s because hey did no wan o be pe cei ed as opposing he solida i y
o hei colleagues (IP5, line 738 ). IP5 ci ed possible epe cussions o epo ing on hei ellow
eache s: “Maybe I’m also a aid o making mysel unpopula . As colleagues, we a e […],
ne e heless, always oge he as a eam. […] We a e dependen on each o he […] on he help (.) on
he ad ice, […] on coope a ion” (IP5, line 551-552). The ea , i seems, is ha epo ing may be
iewed as b eaking he g oup us , which may lead o he eache s o os acize o “cancel” he
eache who b oke anks and epo ed one o hei own. The e o e, exis ing dependencies as well as
he exis ing cul u e o communica ion a e impo an ci cums ances when dealing wi h colleagues’
misconduc .
4.3 The Rela ional Dimension Be ween Teache s and S uden s
How ce ain social expe iences a e classified depends on exis ing ela ionships. Indi idual s uden -
eache ela ionships can be cha ac e ized by a ying deg ees o ca e and us (IP1, line 79-80; IP6,
line 451-452). F om he in e iewees’ pe spec i es, wha s uden s o mula e as expec a ions migh
diffe based on age (IP2, line 792; IP5, line 185; IP6, line 34-35, 459; IP3, line 593), school ype
(IP2, line 24), e ugee expe ience (IP5, line 111-118), p e ious academic successes o se backs
(IP5, line 640; IP6, line 54-55), and socio-economic s a us (IP6, line 130-132). I also plays a ole
ha educa ional ela ionships a e no s a ic bu can change o e ime (IP4, line 427; IP3, line 55-60,
92) – as does he sensemaking o si ua ions.
Hie a chical Rela ionship Be ween Teache s and S uden s
The in e iewees held diffe en pe cep ions o he hie a chical ela ionship be ween eache s and
s uden s. Fo example, i a s ong hie a chy is desi able o should be a oided. This seems o be
ela ed o hei p e ious expe iences and pe sonal belie s abou he hie a chy as well as he s a us o
he child en (e.g., age, e ugee s a us). Some in e iewees unde s ood he dynamic be ween eache s
and s uden s as a ela ionship o dependency (IP6, line 354; IP3, line 114; IP2, line 801-802) and
no ed he po en ial abuse o powe on he pa o he eache (IP6, line 354). A he same ime,
some in e iewees poin ed ou ha he hie a chy is also ques ioned in p ac ice – by pa en s wi h
high socio-economic s a us (IP6, line 130-131), by colleagues (IP3, line 411), o by s uden s who
esis (IP3, line 40). Indeed, one eache explained: “Today’s child en a e no in dange o alking o
adul s in a e y ea ul way anyway. I ’s a he he opposi e” (IP4, line 126-128). The in e iewees’
posi ions a ied as o whe he i was app op ia e o s uden s o ques ion his hie a chical
ela ionship, e.g., as a means o cu b he abuse o powe (IP6, line 134). Some in e iewees
appea ed gene ally uncom o able wi h his hie a chical ela ionship, because i can lead o conflic s
wi h g ading (IP2, line 802) and gene a e ea (IP1, line 248), o because a ela ionship a eye le el
is seen as mo e desi able (IP6, line 81). “This powe imbalance: ‘I’m he eache , I g ade you, I
decide abou you u u e. Fo me, ha ’s al eady […] his poin o conflic ha hen (..) causes
FEAR, causes STRESS” (IP2, line 392; see also IP1, line 494).
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 7
Rega ding he sensemaking o si ua ions, disc imina ion can be unde s ood as an abuse o powe .
Howe e , i eache s do no pe cei e hemsel es as powe ul, hey may find i difficul o admi
when hey abuse hei powe by disc imina ing agains s uden s.
S uden Beha io as a (Legi ima e) T igge
When making sense o si ua ions, he in e iewees also add essed s uden s’ beha io : “In difficul
classes, ha also plays a ole” (IP5, line 368-369). Tha same eache explained ha some imes
s uden s epea edly p o oke and challenge he eache , bu e en in such ci cums ances, eache s
should no be p o oked by his. Ye , he in e iewees acknowledged ha some eache s espond by
saying “ce ain exp essions” (IP5, line 373; see also line 466-467; IP6, line 546). The in e iews
e ealed ha he deg ee o challenging beha io on he pa o he s uden s migh legi imize he
eache ’s disc imina o y ac ions (IP2, line 573). Howe e , he in e iewees disag eed on wha
cons i u es challenging beha io , e.g., mee ing he diffe en needs o a he e ogeneous lea ning g oup
(IP4, line 485) o agg essi e beha io (IP2, line 573 ), and how o in e p e such challenging
beha io , e.g., as an inexcusable dis u bance (IP4: 485) o as a c y o help ha manda es he
eache o in es iga e he oo cause (IP1, line 183-190).
4.4 The Pe sonal Dimension
Du ing he in e iews, we asked he eache s i hey eg e ed any beha io hey displayed owa d
s uden s. In his ega d, wo opics we e cen al: pe cei ing hei own misconduc and s uden s’
willingness o pe cei e eache s’ needs.
Pe cei ing and Dealing wi h One’s Own Misconduc
Rega ding hei own (po en ial) misconduc , some in e iewees pe cei ed hemsel es as people who
do no (wan o) commi emo ional iolence o disc imina ion. One eache old us: “EMOTIONAL
iolence: I don’ hink I e en know how I could exe i ” (IP1, line 418-420). Ano he in e iewee
answe ed he ques ion o whe he she had e e eg e ed any hing du ing he 32 yea s o se ice
wi h a clea “no” (IP4, line 317). Howe e , mos o he in e iewees admi ed ha hey had
p obably inad e en ly commi ed emo ional iolence o disc imina ion in he pas (IP6,
line 707-708; IP3, line 434; IP2, line 639; IP1, line 740-742). Th ough hei wo ds, in e iewees
seek o cons uc an image as eflexi e o hemsel es who can admi hei (po en ial) mis akes.
Addi ionally, he in e iews e ealed he eache s’ need o diffe en ia e hemsel es om he bad
apples desc ibed abo e (IP6, line 712).
I didn’ OFFEND anyone. I wasn’ qui e he e. Somehow, I don’ hink I c ossed exac ly ha
BOUNDARY ha we alked abou ea lie , because um ha is, o cou se, also a pe sonal bounda y,
o which I say, I won’ c oss i , yes, I didn’ c oss i . Bu , in e ospec , as hey say, well, bu he
REACTION, he way I scolded hem, was pe haps a bi … no, i was oo MUCH. (IP1, line 736-742;
see also IP3, line 282; IP5, line 700-717)
Linguis ically, his is eflec ed in long delibe a ions and signals o unce ain y. Fu he mo e,
in e iewees p esen hei own misconduc as unin en ional (IP6, line 713) a he han a bla an aux
pas (IP6, line 282, see also IP5, line 740; IP1, line 740) – ha i happened when hey we e
o e whelmed (e.g. IP2, line 353) o i was he esul o miscommunica ion (IP5, line 792; IP3, line
435; IP6, line 687).
Teache s’ Needs as Legi imiza ion
The in e iewees exp essed ha hey wished s uden s would pe cei e hei needs, e.g., ha s uden s
on_educa ion Jou nal o Resea ch and Deba e _ISSN 2571-7855 no. 21_ap il 2025 8
would a icula e g a i ude (IP2, line 15), show unde s anding o he (p i a e and p o essional)
challenges eache s ace (IP2, line 792; IP3, line 18, 212), and o momen s o exhaus ion (IP3,
line 211). One eache s a ed: “I I’m busy wi h o he hings, o example, o amily- ela ed easons
[….] hen (..) um, I can’ eally ge in ol ed wi h hem some imes […] O I ge annoyed mo e
quickly o some hing” (IP3, line 213; see also IP2).
Rega ding ambiguous si ua ions, his sugges s ha i he ela ionship is basically good, s uden s
should no make sense o hei eache s’ beha io s as une hical, e en i hose beha io s would be
conside ed une hical in o he ela ionships o si ua ions. As one eache said: “I some imes mess up,
and he s uden s o gi e me” because he s uden s a e awa e, “Hey, we ac ually know him, he’s no
like ha ” (IP6, line 708-709; see also IP5, line 787-788; IP5, line 418).
5. Conclusion
The analysis shows ha he in e iewees pe cei ed disc imina ion and simila phenomena as
nebulous and some imes difficul o iden i y. Thus, om a legal pe spec i e, he e is no cla i y
ega ding si ua ions ha migh be po en ially disc imina o y in e e yday school li e. Mo eo e ,
acknowledging his lack o cla i y is pa o unde s anding eache s’ sensemaking o disc imina ion.
We mus conside how a ious indi idual and s uc u al dimensions define eache s’ sensemaking o
a si ua ion o po en ial disc imina ion. These dimensions include exis ing dependency in
ela ionships, he se e i y and equency o ce ain beha io al pa e ns, s uden s’ pe cep ions o
eache s’ ac ions, and eache s’ pe cep ions o hei own (po en ial) misconduc . These dimensions
a e likely o define whe he o no a eache decides o epo an inciden o he complain s office.
Rega ding he analysis o he indi idual and s uc u al dimensions, h ee a eas o ension eme ge:
a) Classifica ion as disc imina ion s. loss o con ex ual knowledge:
I he in e iewees we e willing o epo o he complain s offices, hey ended o epo only clea
and se e e cases o disc imina ion. Many in e iewees exp essed ea ha he ac o epo ing o
he complain s office implies ha he con ex o he inciden ge s los , e.g., he eache ’s p e ious
beha io , exis ing (good) ela ionships wi h s uden s, easonable causes o he eache ’s beha io
such as excessi e demands o igge s on he pa o he s uden s. The e a e pa allels he e o he
phenomenon o commensu a ion which Espeland and S e ens (1998) desc ibe as how diffe en
expe iences a e ans o med in o a me ic uni (e.g., ankings o g ades) ha is accompanied by a
loss o con ex ual knowledge. Howe e , i mus be conside ed ha he complain s office is no only a
epo ing office o disc imina ion, bu i can ac as an ad iso o membe s o he school
communi y in such momen s o unce ain y.
b) Admi ing “misconduc ” as a ( eflec i e) eache in hie a chical ela ionships:
The analysis showed ha he in e iewed eache s did no in end o disc imina e bu did in end o
dis ance hemsel es om bad apples. A he same ime, many eflec ed on hei beha io s and
named ac ions ha hey would label as une hical o unjus ified. I is clea ha se e al dimensions a e
a play: hei posi ion a school and how hey ca ego ize hese si ua ions, e.g., hei deg ee o
se e i y. In his con ex , exis ing hie a chical ela ionships wi h he s uden s also play a ole in how
(po en ial) misconduc is deal wi h and wha implica ions his has, e.g., one’s willingness o admi
misconduc o o he s. The in e iewees no ed an a ea o ension hey el be ween diffe en
expec a ions hey had o hemsel es:
