The literature on care often draws upon Nodding’s (1992) definition, which characterizes care as a positive relationship between teacher and student, encompassing empathy, reciprocity, and concern. Further studies exploring the positive dimensions of care within the educational field have highlighted its impact on academic performance (Hemmings, 2006), motivation for achievement (Daniels & Arapostathis, 2005), social skills development (Wentzel, 2003), and the cultivation of resilience (Bondi et al., 2006). Alongside these positive aspects, various scholars have recognized that care is also linked to power dynamics (Green, 2004; Noblit, 1993). In this regard, Valenzuela (1999) differentiated between aesthetic care and authentic care. Aesthetic care centers on aspects such as grades, appearance, adherence to rules, and conformity within the teacher-student relationship. She argued that this type of care is superficial, focusing on form rather than substance, and turns students into “objects.” In contrast, authentic care features reciprocity, trust, mutual respect, and open, ongoing dialogue, with a focus on students’ circumstances and needs.

Antrop-González and De Jesús (2006) expanded upon the conceptualization of care by distinguishing between hard care and soft care in order to describe how class contexts and power relations influence care. They found hard care to be predominant among teachers serving higher-SES students, an approach characterized by caring and reciprocal relationships that include a system of high expectations. In contrast, soft care predominates among teachers serving lower-SES students. It is characterized by feelings of pity, concern, and an inclination to lower academic expectations.

Rolon-Dow (2005) explored the intersection of race and ethnicity with care in the educational experiences of middle school teachers in Puerto Rico. She found that while teachers spoke of care as central to their teaching experience, they described students through a deficit lens, viewed parents as those who “did not care enough” about their children’s education and characterized their work in terms of “saving” students. Toshalis (2011) examined the experiences of novice teachers at a high school in suburban Boston serving disadvantaged students. These teachers described the students as intelligent but possessing “street smarts,” suffering from emotional and developmental gaps, and “not wanting to learn.” Moreover, they described the students’ parents as lacking parental skills. Toshalis (2011) refers to this form of care as “deficit-based care” (p. 18), meaning practices of concern and “compensation” that teachers apply based on their perception of students (and their parents) as having deficiencies and shortcomings.

In contrast, studies examining the care work in schools serving higher-SES students have found results aligning with Antrop-González and De Jesús (2006), who referred to it as hard care. Teachers in these schools described their work in terms of their commitment and dedication to advancing their students’ learning and development processes (Kershen et al., 2018; Khan, 2011). They emphasize academic excellence, competitiveness, and students’ self-actualization (Prosser, 2020; Variyan, 2019).

This study builds upon these existing studies and proposes to examine teachers’ identities in schools in Israel that operate in different class contexts: vocational schools serving lower-SES students and elite schools serving higher-SES students. We posited the following main research questions: What are the definitions and practices of care that teachers in different schools adopt in relation to their students? How, if at all, are these definitions and practices influenced by class context? What are the implications of these definitions and practices for the construction and maintenance of inequality and privilege?

To deepen our understanding of teachers’ identities and their interactions with students, 40 teachers from schools located in neighborhoods of differing SES in Israel were interviewed. We aimed to examine the care work they perform in schools as part of their roles, as well as its implications for educational inequality. Of the study sample, 20 teachers worked at three elite high schools. These schools are situated in affluent neighborhoods in different cities across Israel (measured by family income, parental education, professional occupation, and neighborhood prestige). The schools are located in proximity to prestigious institutions of higher education and maintain reciprocal relationships with them. The three schools boast alumni who hold key positions in Israel’s legal, medical, academic, artistic, and economic sectors. The sample also included 20 teachers who worked at four vocational schools. These schools are located in various cities in Israel’s geographic-social periphery and serve lower-SES families. These schools are described by the Ministry of Education as “the last stop” schools (Grubb, 1985, p. 529), meaning they are intended for students who have dropped out of normative educational frameworks. The primary research tool used was semi-structured, in-depth interviews. The interviews consisted of three main parts: general background (academic training, experience in education, and role within the school); description of daily educational routines (schedule, common pedagogies); perception of the teaching role (“What metaphors would you apply to your role as a teacher and to the school?”; “Describe typical interactions”); and the concept of care in education. The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes; they were recorded and transcribed. The data were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith et al., 2009). This epistemological approach enables an examination of individuals’ lived experiences, focusing on how they attribute meaning to their personal and social life domains. Consequently, this analysis helps identify how teachers perceive and construct their identities as educators, facilitating an understanding of their hermeneutic interpretations.

The findings revealed that the care work performed by teachers in vocational schools, which serve lower-SES students, was described as a substitute for the cultivation of academic capital. Vocational school teachers characterized care in terms of sacred work and salvation, portraying the students as suffering from numerous vulnerabilities. In contrast, the care work performed by teachers in elite schools involved a sense of “exclusiveness,” a pedagogy of high expectations, and a fervent focus on a positive future outlook. In light of this study’s findings, we discuss the implications of class and power relations on teachers’ care work and how this work contributes to inequality. Both elite school and vocational school teachers described the care they accorded their students. However, their approaches to care differed in two key ways: the way teachers described and perceived their students (a “deficit” perspective versus an “exclusiveness” perspective) and their future expectations for their students (a pedagogy of low expectations and a relinquishment of academic capital versus a pedagogy of high expectations and a focus on a positive future orientation). We propose appling the concept of critical care (Rolon-Dow, 2005) to describe an ethics of care that is sensitive, particularly for lower-SES students. This form of care encompasses empathy and reciprocity but also demands academic excellence. It is coupled with an awareness of social issues and power relations, alongside a historical and political understanding of the circumstances and conditions that students face and an acknowledgment of the agency of students and their families (Van Galen, 1993). The development of critical care among teachers, particularly those working in contexts of inequality and marginalization, may offer an educational alternative to the forms of care identified in our research.

Antrop‐González, R., & De Jesús, A. (2006). Toward a theory of critical care in urban small school reform: Examining structures and pedagogies of caring in two Latino community‐based schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(4), 409-433.‏ Bondi, L., Forbat, L., Gallagher, M., Plows, V., & Prior, S. (2006). Evaluation of the youth counselling service, Airdrie Local Health Care Co-operative. University of Edinburgh.‏ Daniels, E., & Arapostathis, M. (2005). What do they really want? Student voices and motivation research. Urban Education, 40(1), 34-59.‏ Green, A. D. (2004). In a different room: Toward an African American woman’s ethic of care and justice. In V. S. Walker & J. R. Snarey (Eds.), Race-ing moral formation: African American perspectives on care and justice (pp. 55–72). Teachers College Press. Grubb, W. N. (1985). The convergence of educational systems and the role of vocationalism. Comparative Education Review, 29(4), 526-548. Hemmings, A. (2006). Moral order in high school authority: Dis/enabling care and (un)scrupulous achievement. In J. L. Pace & A. Hemmings (Eds.), Classroom author- ity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 135-150.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kershen, J., Weiner, J., & Torres, C. (2018). Control as care: How teachers in “No Excuses” charter schools position their students and themselves. Equity and Excellence in Education, 51(3-4), 265-283. Khan, S. (2011). Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton University Press. Noblit, G. W. (1993). Power and caring. American Educational Research Journal, 30(1), 23–38. Noddings, N. (1992). In defense of caring. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 3(1), 15-18.‏ Prosser, H. (2020). Provoking elite schools’ defences: An antistrophon. Discourse, 41(4), 532-544. Rolón-Dow, R. (2005). Critical care: A color (full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 77-111.‏ Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. Sage. Toshalis, E. (2012). The rhetoric of care: Preservice teacher discourses that depoliticize, deflect, and deceive. The Urban Review, 44, 1–35. Valenzuela. (1999). Subtractive schooling. SUNY Press. Van Galen, J. A. (1993). Caring in community: The limitations of compassion in facilitating diversity.The Urban Review, 25(1), 5–24. Variyan, G. (2019). Missionaries or mercenaries? How teachers in elite private schools embrace privilege. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(8), 1204-1218. Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Motivating students to behave in socially competent ways. Theory into Practice, 42(4), 319-326.‏