A followup to my post about classroom management of almost exactly one year ago. I said in that post that I would try to get comfortable with my role as classroom cop by establishing a non-negotiable rule and then not missing a chance to enforce it. That was ok from the standpoint of being consistent about my expectations of the students, and also from the perspective of getting used to the process of being the classroom cop. But it didn't do much to make me comfortable with the role. It also didn't do anything to address the myriad ways some students find to be disruptive.
I have said on numerous occasions that the only thing I hate about the classroom experience is discipline. I really do hate being a cop.
I've been struggling with the reasons for it. I have no problem talking to parents about their kids' behavior. And it's not like I care if a disruptive kid doesn't like me because I took action against him/her. So why the aversion?
What I've discovered is that I don't really have an aversion to discipline, but rather I have a strong aversion to failure - or at least the admission of failure. When things have gotten to the point where I'm writing a referral (basically a formal notice that a student needs to be dealt with by the dean's office), it's like an admission on my part that the student simply can't control his/her behavior, nor can I do anything to control the student. It's an admission of failure all the way around.
It's also a request for backup. It's almost like I'm saying, "I can't control this kid by myself and I need help." That's also something I almost never say or admit to myself, because of the way it makes me feel about my own command of a situation.
Realizing that my problem with discipline was my own ego, I looked at my relationship to my students differently. I saw myself (or more accurately, my ego) as an impediment to a healthy classroom environment. My ego was cheating those kids who actually were able to control themselves and who were there to learn. My reluctance to admit failure and call for backup allowed the disruptive kids more influence over the classroom environment.
It's now a lot easier to see what I have to do and why. I'm not sure I like disciplinary action any better now, but at least I understand my own aversion to it and also that I'm duty-bound to carry it out.
So what does that action look like now in my classroom? Instead of one non-negotiable rule, I have a system that will work better with some groups than others, but seems to work well for my students: If your behavior gets to the point where I tell you that "you're disrupting my class", the very next time I have to correct you for anything, you're getting a referral and a phone call home. The nice thing about this system is it's flexible enough to cover almost any kind of disruptive behavior without my having to delineate every single possible infraction in my list of rules. One big potential drawback is lack of consistency. I have to be conscious of my own consistency and fairness at all times. But that responsibility comes with the job anyway, and I'm much happier with the flexibility to deal with problems as they arise than I am worried about any lack of fairness, real or perceived.
I've written about four referrals in the past month (a lot for me) and students seem to get it. As long as they're not blindsided with a referral (and they're not, since I warn them with same phrase every time), they don't think it's unfair. I've also had some productive talks with parents and deans that I wouldn't have had otherwise. Finally, the students who can control themselves seem to like the environment better as well.
I would still much prefer not to have to be a cop, but it's simply part of the job. And having a clear and consistent system to warn students when you're getting into cop mode as well as what happens when you get there is a big help.
