What an enjoyable time working during the last two weeks with the K-5 teachers at Trillium Charter School in Portland, Oregon. Several questions at the end of our session involved classroom management, and it inspired me to reflect on my experience managing a classroom.
For the first several years of teaching, I was very confused and uncertain when it came to classroom management. I was working in an elementary school (K-8) and was able to observe a variety of approaches, from the physical to the laissez faire. Like hats, I “tried on” several methods but none seemed to fit me. This left me very unsettled and, as a result, I left teaching and did not plan to return.
“Never say never” is a good saying, and I returned to education. When I did return, it was in a fairly structured environment where I learned about “Assertive Discipline” developed by Lee Cantor in the 1970s. What I liked about this approach is that it included clear expectations and consequences, things I hadn’t worked out to my satisfaction previously.
Over time, I also learned about the work of Rudolph Dreikurs, which I added to my system, especially the “logical consequences” part and the idea of children making choices. I also incorporated some ideas promoted by Alfie Kohn.
What worked for me was a system in which there were clear expectations as well as reasonable and timely consequences that lowered the likelihood of constant reminding (=nagging). The foundation for my system was “Everyone has the right to learn, and no one has the right to keep others from learning.” It was my mantra, and the basis for how I approached student behavior.
A few basic rules were created, often with input from students. These rules were clearly posted, and they generally included three things: “Hands and feet to yourself; Listen and follow directions; Show respect for the rights of others.” Yes, these overlap but I found that using the concrete (Hands and feet to yourself) as well as the abstract (Respect the rights of others) covered the bases. I used these with a variety of grade levels, from second through eighth.
Also clearly posted were consequences for not following the rules. As with the rules, these were often developed with students help. Typically, the first step was a warning. After that, a brief time-out and an associated conference with me (during recess or choice time). Following that was a time-out (sometimes in another classroom) with a parent contact.
Administrators’ lives are action-packed so I saved their use for emergencies only. They appreciated that, and I learned that I could count on strong support in the rare cases when I needed to involve them.
Many things change over time, but some things don’t, like the need for a well-managed classroom, where each child is able to pursue his or her learning in a safe and supportive environment. If I were teaching today, I would still have expectations as well as consequences, and all would be clearly communicated and posted. I’d do my best to be fair as well as consistent in carrying out this program. I would also include a reward (sorry Alfie, rewards aren’t always bad!) to support and encourage positive behavior. This can be done reasonably, and I prefer the group type in which the class works together to earn special activities.
I would also explore the work of Marshall Rosenberg (Nonviolent Communication, but I prefer the term Compassionate Communication). His work has been very helpful to me on an interpersonal level, and I think there are some exciting possibilities for classroom use.
Good luck as you work to find an approach that works for your students as well as you. It’s a challenge, but a challenge well worth the effort.
Leave a Reply