Socialized niceness is a significant barrier to equity work. Equity-minded mentors must push through the need to be nice when working with teachers to eliminate microaggressions and discriminatory practices.

Roughly half of the K-12 student population in the U.S. is made up of Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and other students of color, while more than 80% of the teaching force is white, middle class, and female. Despite many teachers’ good intentions, the cultural mismatch in the classroom too often leads to irreparable harm to students. Students with minoritized identities bear the brunt of implicit bias and invisible ideologies. In schools, this plays out with low expectations, deficit ideologies, color-blindness that erases important aspects of their identities and lived experiences, curricula that ignore their contributions and identities, exclusionary practices, and other forms of slow violence (Fergus, 2018; Love, 2019; Picower, 2021).

Many teachers recreate the systems they came from, which means that well-intentioned teachers are reproducing inequities and violating the humanity of the children they are charged with serving. Comments like these exemplify what we are talking about:

• “We had training on making science models, but these students can’t handle that kind of work.”
• “I just heard about this cool book, The Water Protectors. I’ll save it to read for Thanksgiving when we talk about Native Americans.”
• “I don’t see color; I just teach kids.”
• “When you’re in my class, you need to speak English. How else are you going to learn?”

Mentors and coaches are uniquely positioned to interrupt the microaggressions that such comments represent and other discriminatory practices that persist in schools. Unfortunately, they often find it difficult to hold the necessary “hard” conversations that can lead to more equitable and inclusive teaching practices. While there are many reasons mentors (and other people) are reluctant to have these conversations, the ideology of the nice teacher, or socialized niceness, is one significant barrier to equity work (Bissonnette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019).

Socialized niceness

Niceness is a shared, subconscious socioemotional mindset, particularly (but not exclusively) among white women, that shapes people’s thoughts, beliefs, actions, and reactions (Bissonnette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019). Girls especially are raised to be nice and maintain the comfort of others at all costs. Because it is subconscious, people driven by niceness may not even recognize it — or its negative effects. It can take the shape of avoiding or ignoring conflict, refraining from discussing controversial topics, being people-pleasing and rule-following, and downplaying their own knowledge and expertise. These behaviors maintain existing power structures by avoiding the difficult work required to dismantle them (Baptiste, 2008; Bissonnette, 2016; Castagno, 2019; Galman, 2019; Galman, Pica-Smith, & Rosenberger, 2010).

Socialized niceness in teaching sustains color-blindness, white-centric curricula, lack of cultural competence, and deficit thinking. Addressing these topics creates discomfort, which is at odds with being nice. Most teachers and mentors are white women serving a far more diverse student population. Therefore, understanding and addressing socialized niceness is essential to promote equity, inclusion, and justice.

Socialized niceness in mentoring

Socialized niceness may lead mentors to refrain from addressing problematic practices. If they do address them, they may step back when the teacher gets upset. This takes shape in a variety of ways, including:

• Focusing on “safe” mentoring topics.
• Not challenging a teacher’s practice when they:
  • disproportionately send students with minoritized identities out of the room for “behavior problems.”
  • assign low-rigor, low-relevance work or materials.
  • blame children or families for “not achieving.”
  • give their attention to the children who “want to learn.”
  • avoid using books featuring people with minoritized identities (for fear of parental pushback, because they want to use their childhood favorites, etc.) or only use them during holidays and designated months.
  • use books with stereotypes or harmful language.
  • exclude students with disabilities from field trips and other opportunities.
• Refraining from addressing schoolwide practices that are inherently racist, sexist, or ableist with teachers or administrators.

When mentors engage in or fail to actively fight against practices that disempower, disrespect, or dehumanize students, they exhibit socialized niceness. This is the case whether the mentor is making a conscious choice and whether the practices are schoolwide or in a single classroom. In the end, socialized niceness protects educators, especially white educators, from meaningfully challenging biases, inequities, and oppressive systems, structures, and practices (Castagno, 2019).

Mentors are in a position to recognize and disrupt inequitable patterns in individual classrooms and across the school, but only if they can recognize and work through their socialized niceness. This work can affect their relationships with the teachers they serve, the mentoring practices they select, and the conversations they are willing to engage in with teachers. For this reason, they need to be prepared before embarking on these difficult conversations.

Mentors are in a position to recognize and disrupt inequitable patterns in individual classrooms and across the school, but only if they can recognize and work through their socialized niceness.

Costs of being the nice mentor

Among the challenges mentors will experience related to their socialized niceness is the perception that if they are not nice, other teachers may see them as “mean” or “unlikeable.” They worry that the relationship will break down. Without strong, trust-based relationships, it can be difficult, if not impossible, for the teacher and mentor to work together effectively. Mentors want to avoid hurting another teacher’s feelings or making them angry. Ultimately, mentors worry that being perceived as mean will lead to a loss of trust and an erosion of the mentoring relationship and, therefore, a loss of ability to mentor effectively.

Further, concerns about preserving the relationship and not being perceived as mean can impact the practices that mentors are willing to use. Sharon Schwille (2008) organized mentoring practices into two complementary sets based on whether they are implemented inside (e.g., stepping in, co- and demonstration teaching) or outside (e.g., debriefs, video analysis, co-planning) the action of teaching. The first happens while students are present; the second is when students are not. Research suggests that mentoring overwhelmingly occurs outside teaching (Gardiner & Weisling, 2016; Schwille, 2008) because of concerns about overstepping or creating discomfort for teachers. In other words, socialized niceness may be one factor stopping mentors from embracing inside practices. This results in the underuse of an effective set of practices, potentially slowing or preventing positive changes in instruction.

Socialized niceness in teachers and mentors can interfere at every phase of arguably the most common mentoring practice: the debrief. In preparing for an upcoming debrief, mentors may refrain from mentioning an inequitable practice. Instead, they may select and focus on a “safer” practice unlikely to generate conflict or discomfort. If the mentor does opt to address inequities, they may hesitate or withdraw if the teacher becomes defensive, upset, or otherwise uncomfortable. As a result, the mentor fails to address practices that, at best, are ineffective for some learners and, at worst, deny students’ dignity.

Like many of the impacts of niceness, these concerns and decisions are rooted in good intentions, at least in part. With each choice to confront inequity, mentors risk alienating or damaging their relationship with teachers. If a teacher does not trust a mentor, they are not likely to listen to or incorporate their feedback and ideas. The working relationship comes to a grinding halt. Mentors, therefore, must have strong working relationships and trust with their teachers, and many view their niceness as pivotal to both.

Another challenge mentors may face because of socialized niceness: feeling insecure in their abilities to facilitate sensitive or challenging discussions. Those discussions may highlight aspects of their identity, beliefs, or practices that they are ashamed of or defensive about. For those who are white, neurotypical, non-disabled, cisgender, or otherwise privileged, these identities may have advantaged them in ways that make it difficult even to name exactly what their concerns are or why they matter, let alone engage a teacher in reflecting on and working through the situation. Others question their ability to hold these conversations effectively without upsetting the teacher.

Even when mentors feel confident in their skills and ability to hold these conversations, they may hesitate to portray themselves as the expert or the person who knows better in the relationship. Instead, they may downplay their knowledge and expertise so that the teacher won’t feel bad or incompetent.

The costs of inaction due to niceness are real, and the students being served in an inequitable classroom deserve a teacher who recognizes, values, embraces, and acts in ways that preserve their dignity and humanity. For every hesitation a mentor fails to push through, there is a classroom full of children experiencing and internalizing the effects of implicit and overt bias. Mentors must be willing to recognize and challenge socialized niceness to engage in meaningful, practice-changing dialogue with teachers.

The equity-minded mentor

Mentoring can disrupt the status quo. Mentors must be willing to work through their fears of discomfort or of being perceived as mean or unpleasant. They must center student dignity, humanity, and success as the mentoring goal. The work of learning and unlearning is significant, and our students are worth the investment.

Mentors can begin by challenging their beliefs that a trusting relationship and pushing through socialized niceness are mutually exclusive. A mentor does not have to choose between a strong relationship with teachers and a willingness to challenge inequitable practices. Instead, these priorities can work to strengthen and reinforce each other. Part of building a strong mentoring relationship is transparency, honesty, and productive struggle to improve practice. A well-established relationship with deep trust can create an emotional safety zone where risks can be taken, reflection can be open and honest, and it is acceptable to admit mistakes and ask for help (John-Steiner, 2000).

One way to do this is by investing deeply in relationships early. This includes listening deeply to each teacher to understand why they teach, what they believe about children, and how they best receive feedback. It must also include a statement that the mentoring relationship is geared toward growth through active practices and occasional discomfort from productive struggle (Hammond, 2016).

Mentors can be explicit that they are looking for and supporting inclusive and equitable practices to ensure that all students are learning. To do so, they will use a full continuum of practices, including sometimes stepping into the action of teaching. Specifically, mentors can explain that they may:

• Co-plan.
• Co-teach.
• Demonstration teach.
• Step in (verbally and through gestures or other non-verbal cues such as passing notes).
• Record video (to capture teaching practices or model alternative practices).
• Visit colleagues’ classrooms.

When co-teaching or demonstration teaching, mentors should co-plan or share plans in advance.

Further, mentors can prepare to respond to common mentoring situations in which niceness may inhibit growth. For example, they may observe teachers who, in the classroom:

• Show resistance to implementing student-centered or rigorous instruction
• “Segregate” students of color, those with individualized education programs (IEPs), or those with other marginalized identities.
• Don’t call on students equitably.
• Disproportionately punish a specific group of students.
• Use non-affirming language (e.g., “IEP kids,” “these kids”) or refuse to use students’ preferred names or pronouns.
• Equate compliance with being a good student.

When mentors attempt to address inequitable practices in the debrief, teachers may try to avoid or escape, redirect or distract, minimize the severity and deny responsibility, or become emotional (Ford, Green, & Gross, 2022). This can include behaviors such as:

• Using coded language to avoid saying certain words (e.g., “those” in “Those kids can’t handle it” or “Those kids’ levels are so low they can’t possibly do the work”).
• Claiming to be “color-blind” or “not see difference.”
• Claiming innocence: “That’s not what I mean; I’m not [racist, ableist].”
• Joking to minimize the issue.
• Changing the topic when inequities are addressed.
• Crying, getting angry, or otherwise deflecting.

Preparation for difficult conversations

Mentors can hold these potentially difficult conversations in specific ways. First, they can engage in thoughtful work on their own biases and build their knowledge of historical, systemic, and ongoing inequities, seeking out authors and other creators from impacted communities. We recommend finding an accountability partner to review and discuss resources and prepare for challenging debriefs. This lifelong journey won’t be easy.

Additionally, mentors can make equity and inclusion the focus of their mentorship through the pedagogy they recommend, the practices they focus on, and the data they choose to collect. When preparing to debrief, mentors can draw on specific language to move the conversation through potentially challenging moments when niceness might otherwise stop it. For example, language frames like these (Gardiner & Weisling, 2020) might help mentors raise difficult subjects in productive ways:

• Here is what I noticed . . . Let’s explore this together.
• Is there another way of looking at _____?
• When _____ happened, what message do you think _____ might have seen/heard?
• I think _____ is the source of _____.
• Maybe we should explore_____.
• Are you open to the possibility that _____?
• There is research that supports _____.
• It is important to remember that even if it is not our experience as [identity here], that does not mean it is not a valid experience. How can we _____?

Understanding and addressing socialized niceness is a necessary step toward mentoring for equity. It can help us explain why mentors sometimes struggle with challenging teacher practices and engaging in conversations that could cause discomfort. It also can explain why and how mentors run into teacher resistance on equity topics.

Ultimately, understanding socialized niceness can help mentors recognize and disrupt those underlying causes. Mentors can help teachers create classroom practices that promote justice and access for all students. It is vital that mentors do not prioritize their own or their teachers’ feelings over our students’ dignity, humanity, safety, learning, and experiences in school. Our students deserve no less.

References

Baptiste, I. (2008). Wages of niceness: The folly and the futility of educators who strive not to impose. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Development. 22 (2), 6–28.

Bissonnette, J. (2016). The trouble with niceness: How a preference for pleasantry sabotages culturally responsive teacher preparation. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 12 (2), 9–32).

Castagno, A. (2019). Mapping the contours of niceness in education. In A. Castagno (Ed.), The price of nice: How good intentions maintain educational inequity (pp. iv-xxiv). University of Minnesota Press.

Fergus, E. (2017). Confronting color-blindness. Phi Delta Kappan, 98 (5), 30–35.

Ford, B.Q., Green, D.J., & Gross, J.J. (2022). White fragility: An emotion regulation perspective. American Psychologist.

Galman, S. (2019). Nice work: Young white women, near enemies, and teaching inside the magic circle. In A. Castagno (Ed.), The price of nice: How good intentions maintain educational inequity (pp. 70–87). University of Minnesota Press.

Galman, S., Pica-Smith, C., & Rosenberger, C. (2020). Aggressive and tender navigations: Teacher educators confront whiteness in their practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61 (3), 225–236.

Gardiner, W. & Weisling, N. (2016). Mentoring “inside” the action of teaching: Induction coaches’ perspectives and practices. Professional Development in Education, 42 (5), 671–686.

Gardiner, W. & Weisling, N. (2020). Responsive mentoring: Supporting the teachers all students deserve. Rowman & Littlefield.

Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.

John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford University Press.

Love, B. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of educational freedom. Beacon Press.

Picower, B. (2021). Reading, writing, and racism: Disrupting whiteness in teacher education and the classroom. Beacon Press.

Schwille, S.A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education, 115, 139–167.

---

This article appears in the December 2022/January 2023 issue of Kappan, Vol. 104, No. 4, pp. 42-47.