Discipline models in classroom
There
are several models of discipline by different theorists. However, they can be
broadly categorized as (a) low approach, with low degree of teacher control and
high degree of student control; (b) medium approach, with medium degree of
approach for both; and (c) high, with high degree of teacher control and low
degree of student control.
Fay and Funk/ Low-control/Guiding model
Jim Fay and David Funk focus to “create a
classroom environment in which students can develop their own self-discipline
and independent problem-solving skills” (Models of Discipline Low Approach,n.d.). The objective is for teachers to learn “techniques to avoid arguments and
power struggles”, (Delosio, 2008). These are based on 9 essential skills for
teachers which are, “(a) Neutralizing student arguing, (b) Delaying
consequence, (c) Empathy, (d) The recovery process, (e) Developing positive teacher-student
relationships, (f) Setting limits with enforceable statements, (g) Using
choices to prevent power struggles, (h) Quick and easy preventative
interventions and (i) Guiding students to own and solve their problems”, (Delosio,2008).
Some of the advantages of this are,
(a) students have low stress, (b) better relations with teachers, (c) giving
choices to the students and (d) having a space where students are responsible. Hence
“students can develop their own self-discipline and independent problem-solving
skills”, (Models of Discipline Low Approach, n.d.).
While it may look very idyllic, as
an experienced I can see some issues. This is a very pro-student model, in the
sense that there are a lot of choices given to the student with the aim of
using the space by students to discover themselves. Dialogue is the base of
relationship. It requires intense teacher development into reflective human
beings. Its main base is ‘empathy’ and that is a value that takes a lot of life
experience to build. There are also situations where students are not ready for
a space that is so open and might actually get insecure.
For example, at times students requested
me to give them specific instructions while I wanted them to think for
themselves. The students did not do very well with me, but when they moved on
to a structured, they did very well. If the objective is that students ought to
be secure in the class, then the means can be defined by the situation and
clinging a model might be detrimental.
Lee and Marlene
Canter/High-Control/Assertive Discipline
In 1976, when Canters came out with
Assertive Discipline, it brought as “overnight relief to teachers everywhere”,
(Charles & Senter, 2005).
“Canter
maintains that teachers have the right and responsibility to (a) establish
rules
and directions that clearly define the limits of acceptable and unacceptable
student
behavior; (b) teach these rules and directions; and (c) ask for assistance
form parents and administrators when support
is needed in handling the
behavior
of students”, (Models of Discipline High Approach, n.d.).
Several times we forget that
teachers have rights too. I have encountered in my career instances when the
head of school would insist on me stepping back in a situation, where it would
be clear that the student needed to be reprimanded. Or asked to build a better
relationship. My right to have a classroom with discipline was ignored.
Assertive discipline is a very pro-teacher
model, in the sense that the chief responsibility for maintaining discipline is
on the teacher, however humanely. Taken in extreme it could lead to a situation
where the teacher forgets the ‘humane’ bit in the principals given by the
Canters and turn it into a power zone.
Canters believe that “students need
structure and clearly defined limits on behaviour”, (Charles & Senter,
2005). This resonates with me. When I was teaching, there were several students
who responded very well to it. They were not mature enough to control their
impulses and welcomed intervention.
Comparing both the models
Canter’s Assertive Discipline is “A
classroom control strategy that places teachers humanely in-charge of the
classroom”, (Charles & Senter, 2005). The word ‘humanely’ is the point of
contact between the two models. Each believes, “consequencesmust be enforced, it should be done in a way that creates a positiveteacher-student relationship”, (Troika, 2013).
Both models have rules,
and consequences when the rules are broken. In ‘Love and Logic’ way the
consequence would be a dialogue between the teacher and the student. In ‘AssertiveDiscipline’ way, it would be the teacher telling the students exactly where the
student went wrong.
My model
For my discipline philosophy what works
best is to begin with Assertive Discipline, with an aim to move to Love and
Logic. My classroom philosophy stems from establishing a dialogue with the
student. I am not yet so confident in my capacity to trust the students to
apply the principles of Love and Logic. I am also not so confident of my own
skill of empathy for all students. I need to work to bring them to the point of
dialogue.
Conclusion
A classroom group for me is a group of 30
very diverse students. To go full throttle into Love and Logic may be
detrimental to students. I would prefer to (a) use the space given to me by
Assertive Discipline to (b) set some ground rules, (c) win trust and respect of
students, (d) trust them in turn and then (e) relax the space to the greater
freedom as taught within the Love and Logic framework.
Comments