How Limiting Language Impacts School and District Culture

the less teachers challenge and interact with students” (p. 97). Hattie (2009) confirms that teachers’ expectations for students’ academic success have significant effects on how students perform. Students will learn what is expected of them behaviorally and academically then rise to that level, no further. Students who do not experience success internalize the low expectations and continue to struggle because they do not believe they can succeed (Brown & Ferriter, 2021). And the vicious cycle continues. Although educators who use limiting language may not intend to be malicious, this language is problematic by nature because it caps expectations of academic achievement.

Organizations need to battle perceptual predetermination and the accompanying limiting language because they affect not only students but also the adults who work with them. Limiting language about students and colleagues works to subtly destroy teacher efficacy, teachers’ own belief that they can cause learning and make a difference in students’ lives (Hattie, 2018). The opposite of teacher efficacy is burnout, when teachers feel emotional exhaustion, lack of personal accomplishment, and depersonalization (Kanold, 2021). These factors lead to the feeling that the job has become unpleasant, unfulfilling, and unrewarding (Saloviita & Pakarinen, 2021), which plays into the amygdala’s tendency toward negativity. Negativity in turn leads to predetermination and limiting language. Overwhelmed and burned out teachers may express negativity to release stress or subconsciously affirm they are just doing the best they can, but that negativity will take hold of the individual and the organizational culture. Who you are as an organization is how you talk about those within the organization—that language will influence the actions of the organization.

In his book Transforming School Culture, educational consultant and author Anthony Muhammad (2018) notes that every organization has two distinct cultures, the formal and the informal. In learning organizations, the formal culture is made up of staff meetings, professional learning, and any conversation the learning leader is involved in. The informal culture consists of discussions at the Friday happy hour, in the stands as staff members watch their own children’s Little League games, or on the playground as teachers are supervising recess. The informal culture is by far the stronger of the two (Muhammad, 2018). While administrators can monitor limiting language in formal settings, they are locked out of the informal culture of a district or school. To eliminate limiting language