IntroductionClassroom managements is (or, is rumored to be, at least) the thorn in the side of

any poor soul trying to navigate a student teaching placement. There are many different

theories offering ideas regarding effective classroom management; it is crucial for

teachers to create a classroom management plant that will be most beneficial for their

own personality and educational philosophy. My classroom management plan will be

guided by principles of assertive discipline models and is intended to give students

responsibility in the classroom. As a result, these young adults will begin to understand

the wisdom and process of discipline, and will grow into individuals of good character.

Discussion of Classroom Management OptionsOutlined in an article written by James A. Johnson of Northern Illinois University,

Carl Glickman and Charles Wolfgang identified three different climates of control in the

classroom: Noninterventionist, interactionists, and interventionists. Each of these theories

takes a stance on the balance of control in the classroom. As we look at the strengths and

weaknesses of each of these three, it is important to keep in mind these are not three

separate categories of discipline models; rather they are major points on a spectrum of

discipline.

A classroom that follows the noninterventionist approach to classroom management

is going to emphasize a small amount of teacher control and allow students most of the

control. A prime example of the noninterventionist style is William Glasser’s Choice

Theory. Glasser believes “All of our choices and behaviors are based on the urgency for

survival, power, love, belonging, freedom, and fun” (Johnson 124). Because it is natural

for people to act out of line when these six needs are out of whack, teachers must deal

with these underlying issues rather than the symptoms by talking to counselors, social

workers and parents involved (Johnson 124).

The major weakness of this kind of behavior management is that it is nearly

impossible for a student teacher or first year teacher to implement. First of all, student

teachers need to show their ability to take the lead in the classroom; this type of

management may offer too much control to the students to work with a teacher who has

been dropped into a school system for one semester. Secondly, a new teacher is going to

have trouble (at least initially) accessing the deeper levels of needs that Glasser outlines.

Having little relationship with parents and social workers and especially the students will

not allow for proper analysis of the root causes of the misbehaviors this theory begs for.

The interactionist approach aims at the ideal of having an equal balance of student

and teacher control in the classroom. A model of this type of classroom management is

the Conflict Resolution theory, which is centered on modeling, probing and reinforcement

(Johnson 124). This theory teaches students how to identify problems and then solve

them on their own, with some guidance from the teacher. Teachers are responsible for

equipping students will the skills necessary to handle conflicts inside and outside the

classroom.

The obvious benefit of this theory is that students learn to resolve conflicts with

minimal assistance from the teacher. Those who promote this theory believe that

allowing students to partake in discipline policies and solutions “helps them to contribute

to the school and to society as a whole” (Johnson 125). The weakness of this approach is

that it is indeed a slippery slope. Interactionist classrooms require a delicate balance of

student and teacher shared power in the classroom, and students may have a foggy idea of

what they can and cannot do or say. It is important to clearly outline what will and will

not be tolerated in these kinds of classrooms.

The interventionist approach gives most of the control to the teacher, and little to

the students. The example Johnson gives of an interventionist style is the Assertive

Discipline theory developed by Lee Canter. This theory is based on “consistency, follow-

through, and positive relationship building” (Johnson 126). Here, the teachers teach and

the students learn. Teachers who choose an assertive discipline-styled plan must have a

clear, visible and immovable classroom discipline plan and is meant to “have a fair and

consistent way to establish a safe, orderly positive classroom” (Johnson 126).

Critics of the Assertive Discipline theory would complain that it sets the teacher up

as a dictator, which is detrimental for the maturation of the students. “It conveys a

message that only those with power have the right to make rules” (Johnson 126). Others

say that the plan is too simple, and that, unlike the Choice Theory, it does not get at the

root of misbehavior. Yet, students know exactly what is expected of them and will be

held to the standards that have been set up. They will be treated like adults and expected

to behave like adults.

My Classroom Management PlanOn the aforementioned classroom management spectrum, I fall somewhere between

the interactionist and interventionist style, but closer to an interventionist. I do believe,

especially at the beginning of the year, that the teacher must make it known that they are

in charge. That being said, my goal as the year goes on is to gradually release

responsibility to the students, while maintaining final authority on matters such as

classroom policies and discipline. More specifically, I agree with many of the principles

Allen Mendler outlines in his book Discipline with Dignity. Mendler’s style is almost

exactly what I am looking for: A classroom environment where the teacher is in charge,

but each student knows that he or she is a valued individual that can make a serious

difference in the classroom and in the world. Ultimately, the teacher has the final say,

but the student’s input is still esteemed and taken into account As for discipline, Mendler

encourages a responsibility model of discipline. As opposed to a model of obedience

where students are expected to follow rules without question, the responsibility model

allows students to have a serious say in the policies of the classroom. I believe in this

approach because students who just listen and obey without understanding why there are

rules in the first place are not going to achieve their potential as members of society. I

want to develop students who can make the responsible decision, not simply the obedient

decision.

Regarding specific classroom policies, I believe it necessary to set a tone for the

year on the first day of class. This means having clearly defined and visible rules, listing

what will and will not be tolerated in the classroom.

Routines: 1) Make sure to greet students at the door 2) Always outline a reason for a rule

Policies I find crucial are 1) Treat others as you want to be treated 2) Be on time 3) Late work will not be graded 4) You’re opinion is valued, but I have the final say. 5) You can expect to be graded fairly, not always equally and 6) No excuses.

Teacher policies: 1) Make sure to catch students doing good 2) Always encourage a love for reading, reward students for reading during free time. 3) Be accountable to the same policies of tardiness and late work as your students.

Classroom Layout: Conducive to large group discussions-- this is important for the social climate of the classroom and involving students in the rules of the classroom. See diagram.

Parents: Should be as involved as they would like to be. I will participate in school schedule parent-teacher conferences. I will also send home a sheet the first day of class with my phone number on it, encouraging parents to email or call me whenever they feel needed. If the parents cannot speak English, I will notify them that a translator can be arrange.

Connection Between Educational Philosophy and Classroom Management PlanOver the course of the semester, and through developing my classroom

management plan, I have realized that what I thought would be my educational

philosophy contradicts my plan for classroom management. Originally, I sided with the

existential education philosophy, in which the teacher plays the role of facilitator, and

gives much of the control of the classroom to the individual. While I like the idea of

students eventually making their own decisions, I do not think effective classroom

management can be achieved where students hold the power.

It is hard for me to pick a specific realm of philosophy that my own philosophy

completely agrees with, but I find some of my ideas lining up with perennialism.

Perennialism holds to the idea that “truth does not depend on time or place, but rather is

the same for all people.” (Martin and Loomis 46). My classroom management plan fits

best with this educational philosophy because the policies and disciplinary measures of

my classroom are results of what I believe to be the right and wrong of old; which does

not change. My desire is to guide students along these truths and show them their wisdom

and purpose, while allowing them to make them their own. These truths “have withstood

the test of time and are as important and relevant today as they were when first

conceived. The enduring wisdom of the past is a guide to the present” (Martin and

Loomis 46).

ConclusionThrough delving deeply into how my classroom is going to be managed and how

the balance of control is going to shake out, I have come to the realization that my

philosophy of education is not what I once thought it was. My desire is indeed for my

students to become brilliant human beings, but I do not think that the definition of a

brilliant human should or can be decided upon solely by the mind of teenagers. I believe

there are ancient truths that teachers have the opportunity to convey through classroom

management and discipline and can enable students to understand these truths for

themselves. I have designed my own plan accordingly.

      

Reference:

Curwin, Richard L., and Allen N. Mendler. Discipline with dignity. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1988. Print.

Daniels, K.N., Patterson, G.C., and Dunston, Y.L. (2010). The Ultimate Student Teaching Guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Johnson, James A., Diann Musical, Gene E. Hall, and Donna M. Gollnick. Foundations of American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changin World. Boston: Pearson, 2000. Print.

Martin, David Jerner, and Kimberly S. Loomis. Building teachers: a constructivist approach to introducing education. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Print.