Search results

In this chapter, we purport that “excessive entitlement” is directly linked to concepts of self/identity with the belief that how we come to regard self in relation to the Other is implicitly and explicitly taught. We view excessive entitlement as a manifestation of the privilege and infallibility of educators who take for granted the correctness of their actions. Through a critical examination of personal stories, theoretical literature, and common school practices, we create a collage of thoughts that highlight some of the complex factors that intersect with excessive entitlement, albeit considering what may be determined “excessive” and by whom.

We use a dialogic format, in this chapter, but do not engage in an actual duoethnography. We address the following questions: How does one (a) create an ethical habitus, constantly being aware of one's responsibility toward the Other, (b) reflexively and humbly practice self-accountability in a manner that recognizes one's positionality and status that is grounded in historical privileged, personal power dynamics, and systems of oppression, (c) develop dialogic ways of being in a neoliberal ethos of systemic accountability within prescriptive curricula, and (d) as teacher educators, assist students in understanding and practicing such dispositions.

We discuss how developing dialogic ways of being, treating others with respect, practicing humility in the face of other people, and learning to respect and build on difference disrupt excessive entitlement. We also explore complexities around the attempt to create “safe spaces” for students, given risks of self-deception and appropriation of students' meaning-making.

In this study, I use currere to examine excessive entitlement in my own high school education. By “excessive entitlement,” I emphasize teachers' actions and systemic conditions related to an excessive educational mindset justifying (and manifesting) self-infallibility. Teachers displaying excessive entitlement might take for granted, for example, the correctness of their actions, closing self-awareness, and more equitable relations with others (especially students). On a structural level, it includes, for example, societal norms, school policies, educational traditions, and often laws. Specifically, I present findings examining three levels of curriculum – the formal or explicit, the implicit or hidden, and the null or present/absent. I offer my own story as a case study of how schools and teachers may silence and erase student identity and culture as well as how more inclusive and dialogic teaching approaches (and methods of inquiry) can counteract and offer alternatives to such oppressive forces. My framework includes professional ethics, moral ethics, and social justice ethics. Looking back at my history as a gay high school student, I discovered that my school's explicit curriculum provided teachers with a safe haven for bigotry and hostility toward LGBTQ students (as well as female students and students of color), and its hidden curriculum projected messages that privileged such a curriculum (and denigrated epistemologies more on the margin). It was only in the null curriculum that I began to experience a sense of liberation and inclusion and an awareness of the multiplicity of epistemology and ontology.