Читать книгу Every Student, Every Day - Kristyn Klei Borrero - Страница 11

CHAPTER 1

Ineffective Classroom Management: Unintended Enablers and Negative Controllers

Given the amount of time teachers and students spend together over the course of a year, relationships will form and evolve. It is inevitable. How productive these relationships are for both teachers and students, however, is left to question.

This chapter examines two ineffective relationship-building paradigms teachers tend to develop because they may lack training, support, or self-awareness—(1) unintended enablers, teachers who lead with their feelings and are often uncomfortable taking a firm stand in their classrooms, thereby unintentionally allowing students to be off task; and (2) negative controllers, teachers who tend to be overly strict, unpredictable, and often put their needs before their students’ in order to keep controlled, disruption-free classrooms. Teachers who embrace these paradigms struggle with classroom management and classroom culture. This chapter will help educators recognize any tendencies in their own practices and support them to diminish or hopefully eliminate them.

The paradigms of unintended enablers and negative controllers are sweeping generalizations and are not prescriptive, nor are they completely comprehensive descriptions. In fact, the descriptions on the following pages are extreme examples of these types of relationship-building paradigms. At best, the practices of unintended enablers and negative controllers can work in supporting the achievement of some students in their classrooms. At worst, however, these two relationship paradigms can have detrimental, sometimes damaging and devaluing repercussions for teacher-student relationships and achievement.

You may discover that some of your relationship-building strategies align with those of unintended enablers, while others align more with negative controllers. You may also find that you already build relationships using strategies that resemble those of No-Nonsense Nurturers, the third paradigm (see chapter 2, page 35). Understanding all three relationship-building paradigms (unintended enablers, negative controllers, and No-Nonsense Nurturers) will help you become more aware of your developing relationships and classroom culture. Be reflective as you read about the attributes, motivations, impact, and mindsets of these relationship-building paradigms throughout this book, but don’t be hard on yourself if you find some unintended enabling or negative controlling tendencies resonating with you. Bring your humility to the table, set new goals, and decide on some new ways to build relationships with students.

The following sections review some of the common attributes, motivations, and mindsets of unintended enablers and negative controllers, including possible outcomes for students as a result of interacting with teachers with these characteristics.

Unintended Enablers

Some teachers lead with their hearts. Those who lead with their feelings, making excuses for students, are often uncomfortable taking a firm stand in their classrooms or holding students accountable for their learning, thereby unintentionally allowing students to be off task and disconnect from learning opportunities—these are the unintended enablers.

Teachers with these tendencies unintentionally enable their students. They keep students from reaching or exceeding their potential by lowering expectations because they feel sorry for them, feel bad about the circumstances in which they live, or fear the repercussions of holding them accountable. While a sense of empathy for students is necessary for all teachers, unintended enablers often amass a series of excuses for why students cannot rise to high academic standards. These lowered expectations and excuses quickly catch up to students and ultimately harm their ability to succeed in school and in society.

Early in my career, I shared many of my middle school students with Ms. Emerling. Ms. Emerling was a bit older than me, skilled in her craft in many ways, but distracted by the complications some of our students faced. Her skillful teaching was often replaced by engaging with a single student in need of support instead of engaging with all students. In short, she often lowered her standards for the students we shared because she felt sorry for them.

To be fair, Ms. Emerling had an amazing heart and work ethic. She worked tirelessly to make sure her students had the clothes they needed, food in their bellies, and field trips to new places. She spent much of her free time fundraising and collecting recycled clothes and school supplies, but often to the detriment of her lesson-planning time.

While she worked to build relationships with each of her students, most walked out of her middle school classroom ill-prepared for the next stage of their education careers, not because she wasn’t a great teacher but because she focused on students’ circumstances rather than their abilities and capabilities. I truly admired her heart (and her stamina), but her lowered expectations in the end did not set up students for success. Ms. Emerling was a true unintended enabler.

Unintended enablers often have their hearts in the right place, but their actions, unfortunately, are counterproductive. Several disempowering mindsets that may cause unintended outcomes motivate these teachers’ behaviors. The disempowered mindsets of unintended enablers usually stem from their fear of student reactions or feeling sorry or making excuses for their students. Examining some of the common mindsets of unintended enablers will support you in building stronger relationships with students and likely provide you with greater satisfaction in your classroom.

“I Don’t Want to Be Mean or Strict”

A common attribute of unintended enablers is that they tend to be reluctant to take charge of their classroom because they don’t want to be “mean” to students. Rather than clearly communicating expectations to students, such as saying, “There is no talking at this time,” and, if appropriate, providing a consequence, unintended enablers may do or say one of the following.

Make weak (sometimes pleading) ineffectual disciplinary statements.

“Please listen to me.”

“Come on, I can’t teach if you’re talking.”

Threaten discipline, but then not follow through.

“I’m tired of you constantly talking when I’m trying to teach. I will give you detention, so don’t keep testing me.”

“Next time you talk back, I’m calling your mom. I mean it this time.”

Enter into negotiations with students in the hopes their behaviors will change.

“If you calm down and stop crying, I won’t call your grandmother.”

“If you stop giving me attitude and get back to work, I’ll give you another chance and you won’t have to serve detention.”

Ask questions or seek permission from students.

“Will you please take your seat? I really need to move forward with the lesson.”

“Ladies, can you finish your conversation? We need to move to the hallway, and we don’t want to interrupt other classes.”

The fear of being mean or strict often arises from communication differences between teachers and students because of socioeconomic, cultural, or racial background differences. When some students hear the teacher’s tone (negotiating, seeking permission, and so on), they think they have a choice, while the teacher thinks he or she has communicated an expectation. This miscommunication between the teacher and students is unintentional, but if given a choice, students may not meet the intended expectation, causing frustration for the teacher and sometimes unwarranted consequences for students.

The work of educator and author Lisa D. Delpit (2006) helps clarify this issue. She postulates that, in general, most educators raised in middle-class homes had parents or guardians who spoke to them in an indirect manner. She identifies this indirect approach as more democratic in nature, as adults may allow children to express their opinions, ask questions, or negotiate rules and expectations.

For example, if an indirect parent wants his or her child to get ready for dinner, he or she might say the following.

Parent (question): “I think it’s time to put away your toys?” Child: “Hmmm …”

Parent (statement of opinion): “I think it’s time to put away your game and wash up for dinner.”

Child: “But I’m in the middle of a game.”

Parent (negotiation): “Then how about finishing the game and then washing up?”

Even though the parent’s words are indirect—that is, couched as a question, a statement of opinion, and a negotiation—both the adult and child understand it is a directive to put away the game and get ready for dinner.

In contrast, some parents or guardians communicate with their children in a more authoritarian manner, which may be an unfamiliar practice for some teachers (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001; Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005; Jensen, 2009). These parents or guardians often speak to their children in a direct, firm, and some might say, demanding manner (Delpit, 2006; Ladd & Fiske, 2011).

For example, if an authoritarian or direct parent wants his or her child to put away toys and get ready for dinner, he or she might say the following.

Parent (demand): “It’s time for dinner. You need put away the video game and any other toys that are out.”

If the child tries to negotiate or argue, the response is typically direct.

Child: “But I’m in the middle of a game.”

Parent: “Don’t argue with me … put away the toys and get ready for dinner.”

Thus, a child being raised by a more authoritarian parent or guardian typically learns that if a loving adult expects the child to listen to directions, he or she does not ask questions, state opinions, or negotiate. Rather, the authoritarian parent or guardian gives a directive, often in a firm tone of voice, stating what he or she wants done. If a teacher takes an indirect approach with children who are used to a more authoritarian approach, they may interpret the request as optional, when the teacher believes he or she stated it as an expectation. This type of cultural misunderstanding, often aligned with race or socioeconomic status, can lead to misaligned expectations resulting in behavior challenges and broken relationships. However, because the teacher is in the power position, he or she often blames the student for the lack of understanding, leading to unexamined or unnecessary behavioral challenges.

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? If teachers do not create clear communications and positive relationships, then the classroom culture may be void of consistent expectations. Disruptive behaviors can become the norm and opportunities for academic achievement can go unfulfilled. These teachers’ inability to influence students’ academic achievement or social development can result in teachers being frustrated and leaving the profession (Aloe et al., 2014; Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke, 2002; Chang, 2009; Freedman & Appleman, 2009; Haberman, 2004b), and students missing academic opportunities.

“I Can’t Get My Students to Behave Because My Administrator Doesn’t Support Discipline”

Many unintended enablers struggle with holding their students accountable, so instead they try to rely on school leadership. If the school leader falls short of teacher expectations, this can quickly become a reason why an unintended enabler struggles to support students through their difficult days and gives up on students engaging in academic work (Kafele, 2013).

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? Like teachers, administrators often become overwhelmed (Farkas, Johnson, Duffett, & Foleno, 2001). If teachers and administrators do not work together to support student behaviors and outcomes, some students will fall through the net of the education system, experiencing low grades, inappropriate placement in special education, dropping out of school, or even incarceration. As a result, as adults, these youths will likely need additional supports or assistance.

“I Get Nervous About Students’ Reactions When I Try to Hold Them Accountable”

Unintended enablers may shy away from holding certain students accountable for their work and actions because the teachers are afraid of the students’ reactions— physically or emotionally (Klei Borrero & Canter, 2018). Furthermore, these teachers haven’t learned the strategies to support a student who might talk back, argue, or become defiant. Their fear of a student’s reaction to being held accountable becomes an excuse and a reason unintended enablers give up on certain students and don’t hold them accountable—they give up in order to keep peace in the classroom.

Some common attributes or relationship-building strategies of unintended enablers include the following.

Ignoring inappropriate student behaviors or comments

Overly praising students for the smallest accomplishments, thus lowering overall expectations

Sharing too much personal information with students in an attempt to become friends with them

Trying to be “cool” by pretending to share students’ tastes in music, video games, or other interests

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? These attributes corrupt the students’ ability to achieve and the teachers’ ability to make a difference in their lives (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Steele, 2004). The cool or friend persona often accounts for mediocre expectations and aligned outcomes. Students don’t tend to respect teachers they see as their peers; this can be quite challenging when a mentoring relationship of mutual respect is necessary between teacher and student. Without a respectful relationship, classrooms can become volatile and learning doesn’t reach its full potential.

“I Can’t Expect Students With So Many Challenges to Achieve”

Many teachers fall victim to the “soft bigotry of low expectations” (“Excerpts from Bush’s speech,” 1999). They believe their students face so many challenges, such as poverty, neglect, parental demands, or societal pressures, that lowering their demands on students seems fair and compassionate (Farr, 2010).

Unintended enablers often make excuses for their students because they feel sorry for them. The challenges these students encounter—poverty, bullying, and pressures experienced with social media, violence, unstable households, unattainable demands from family members, illness, and trauma—are real. Do these challenges make it harder for them to be successful at school? Of course they do! But what is the cost of lowering expectations for these students? They miss educational opportunities, thus limiting their choices and opportunities for the rest of their lives (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rosenthall & Jacobson, 1968; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007).

With this disempowered mindset, unintended enablers may hesitate to push students academically because they feel sorry for their circumstances at home or in the community, or for medical reasons, as in the following examples.

Norman has a really hard life. His grandparents are raising him, and he really misses his mom. How can I expect him to complete all of his homework?

Shayla has always struggled in school. Now that she’s in tenth grade, how can I expect her to keep up with the class?

I don’t think Jake’s parents ever read to him. This first-grade work is developmentally inappropriate for him.

Zach’s attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is so severe, I am just happy when he stays in his seat and isn’t disruptive to the other students’ learning.

Katie’s dad is so hard on her. He expects straight As and extra homework. I need to go easier on Katie while she is at school. Otherwise, she will burn out before high school.

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? While this compassion is commendable, and circumstances may be tough for some students, when we lower our expectations, each year students fall further and further behind academically (Milner, 2007). This often has crippling effects on their future academics, especially after a year or two of experiencing teachers with lowered expectations. For some students, after a few years of lowered expectations, they will struggle throughout their academic careers (Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rosenthall & Jacobson, 1968; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). Excuses (instead of solutions) further disempower students and rob them of educational opportunities. Demands on students are real, and if teachers don’t help them navigate these demands, they will fall further and further behind in what is necessary to achieve in a 21st century learning environment and job market.

Unintended enablers have their hearts in the right place, but they often compromise their impact. When students are exposed to these types of teachers over time, they will fall further and further behind academically and miss opportunities for achievement. Ultimately, this relationship-building paradigm can lead students to believe that adults hold low expectations for them, which transfers to how they see and perceive themselves throughout school and life (Steele, 2004).

Negative Controllers

While unintended enablers share some qualities with negative controllers, these relationship-building paradigms tend to be quite different; however, both adversely impact students and teachers over time.

As a student (or now as a teacher), you may have had some teachers exhibit negative, controlling attitudes when interacting with you or other students in class. Negative controllers tend to be overly strict and unpredictable in their consequences, and they tend to pick on certain students while letting others slide. Negative controllers also tend to be intolerant of certain student needs or behaviors and struggle to understand the importance of relationships in a learning environment. Their intolerance and lack or absence of relationships may show up as aggressively advocating for zero-tolerance discipline policies that put their needs before those of their students in order to keep controlled, disruption-free classrooms (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).

While teachers with negative controlling attributes often lack fairness, they do want students to succeed and strive to have the quiet classroom their administrators and colleagues admire. The disempowered mindsets of negative controllers denote their need for control and lack of relationships with students because of their negativity. Examining some of the common mindsets of this relationship-building paradigm will help you examine your own mindsets about the students you serve and support.

“It’s Impossible to Expect 100 Percent of Students to Be Engaged 100 Percent of the Time”

Negative controllers often struggle with their relationships with students. Instead of being accountable for those struggles, these teachers often place blame on their students’ circumstances, the challenges they face, or the students themselves.

Negative controllers tend to believe in self-motivated students, but if students need or expect extra assistance, teachers often leave them behind for the greater good of the class. You might hear these teachers make statements such as:

“She has chosen not to do the work; if she fails, it’s not my fault.”

“I can’t let one kid derail the whole class; he is out of here. The rest of us want to learn.”

“The classroom is like a bell curve; not all students can be challenged, and some may have to be left behind.”

Teachers with this relationship-building paradigm are often quick to dismiss students because of needs they might not know how to address (for example, the needs of exceptional or students you find challenging), so the needs of 100 percent of students rarely get met in these classrooms (Noguera, 2003; Valenzuela, 1999).

As a way of managing, negative controllers may overzealously assert their authority in an effort to ensure they control their classrooms. They might speak in a demeaning, sarcastic, or angry tone to compensate for irrelevant lessons or a lack of strategies to build relationships or support students’ academic needs. Rather than preparing relevant lessons, meeting students, and clearly communicating, negative controllers often expect students to “just know what to do.” This mindset may come across like one of the following.

Using aggressive, sarcastic statements or body language (such as rolling eyes or a shaking head)

“What, are you deaf today?”

“I don’t get it, Anthony. You seemed smart yesterday.”

“How many times do I have to tell you?”

“Really? You don’t get it?” (said under the teacher’s breath)

Disciplining students too quickly, unfairly, or inconsistently

“I’m tired of you being constantly off topic. Just get out if you don’t want to learn.”

“I can’t deal with you and your attitude today. Go to the dean for the remainder of the period.”

“I’m sick of you talking constantly; go sit in the hallway.”

Not recognizing students who need to be challenged

“I’m not sure why Damian didn’t show growth on his assessments. He got As on all the work I provided for him. Guess it was just a bad testing day for him.”

“I know certain students aren’t being challenged, but I can’t get to all thirty of my students in one day. I’m sure they will find something new in this lesson.”

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? If students don’t feel like their teachers care for them, it is unlikely they will learn. Students often misinterpret sarcasm as statements of truth. Aggressive tones and negative body language can impact their psyche and willingness to engage. If all students are not invited to engage in discussion and experimentation at high levels in the classroom, deep learning will never happen. While negative controllers often think they have high-functioning, quiet classrooms, students often perceive these environments as mean and judgmental where high-quality learning (and instruction) is lacking.

“It Is My Job to Teach; It Is the Students’ Job to Learn”

A negative controller may see his or her role as solely teacher of academic content and subject matter (rather than of students). In order to teach students, teachers must have a relationship with them. Negative controllers may forget to humanize their students in a quest to teach content. These teachers often believe if they have spent the time lesson planning and preparing for the day’s learning, it is up to students to learn the content, when in fact, as teachers, our responsibility doesn’t end with teaching—it includes being accountable for student growth and learning (Kafele, 2013).

Statements by negative controllers might sound like the following.

“I prepare my lessons every day. It is up to the students to decide whether or not they want to learn the material. I have no control over that.”

“I work hard. I should be able to expect the same from the students. So many of them are so lazy or unmotivated.”

“I don’t understand why José is failing American history. When I was in school, I loved this topic.”

Because negative controllers believe they are in school to teach, they tend to lose patience with poor student behaviors or lack of engagement. This frequently results in inconsistent discipline practices because these teachers don’t realize they haven’t set clear expectations or given precise directions to students to ensure success (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Yang, 2009). If a task isn’t completed properly, one student’s consequence may be a simple reminder, while another student receives more severe consequences (often because of past behaviors or the way the teacher feels about the student). This is often due to lack of teacher training.

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? Teachers have many jobs—teaching content and building relationships are just two of them. But one cannot sacrifice one for the other. Both are necessary to keep a highly engaged, fair, and consist environment for learning. When one is lacking, inconsistent classroom management practices further exacerbate poor relationships with students. In a negative controller’s classroom, students may initially stay on task out of fear, but eventually some students may attempt to get back at the teacher through overt or covert classroom disruptions.

In addition, students have a keen sense of social justice. When students feel they or their peers are being treated unfairly, it often shifts their focus to the classroom injustices, distracting them from academic engagement and perpetuating behaviors likely unconducive to an academically challenging environment where all students thrive (Picower, 2012).

“I Have So Much Curriculum to Get Through; I Don’t Have Time to Ensure Everyone Is With Me All the Time”

The amount of curriculum and content teachers must cover can overwhelm any teacher but especially those with negative controller tendencies. Because of their need to be successful, relationships often get overlooked, content is moved through quickly, and as time passes, more students are left struggling because of their unmet needs.

Statements from a negative controller might sound like the following.

“It doesn’t matter what we do, we have tried everything, and no one is successful with Clive.”

“Marquis has a hard life, but so do all the other kids. Being a kid these days is hard. He just needs to bear down and get his work done, or he is going to fail at this game we call life.”

“Cecilia has always struggled in school. It is about time she catches up because high school graduation is only a few years away.”

“I have taught this already a bunch of times; I can’t help it if he isn’t learning it.”

“I feel sorry for my top students. I never have time to challenge them.”

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? While teachers meet curriculum map timelines, it is often at the expense of relationships with students and learning. While students’ test scores might be slightly higher than those of their peers with unintended enabling tendencies, their achievement tends to be represented in the lower levels of educational psychologist Benjamin S. Bloom’s (1956) taxonomy (knowledge and comprehension) (Pope, 2001). Many students do not feel challenged in a negative controller’s classroom.

“Students Should Respect Me Just Because I Am the Teacher”

Many teachers enter the classroom believing they should be granted authority by the nature of their position. On the other hand, many students expect teachers to earn their authority through their words and actions (Obidah & Teel, 2001). Much conflict can arise over authority issues between a teacher who expects to receive respect and students who will only give respect if the teacher earns it. Consistency, predictability, and follow-through are the best ways to earn students’ respect. Negative controllers often overlook the necessity of these qualities and make decisions based on their own needs instead of their students’.

Because negative controllers feel students should respect them, a common attribute of these teachers is to threaten students to get them back on task or when a student gets upset. This attribute often comes from a lack of training on how to handle different types of interactions with students or an inability to build effective relationships with them. These negative controllers might sound like the following.

“Stop giving me attitude and get back to work, or you will be seeing the inside of the detention room for a week.”

“You need to calm down. If you can’t, I will call your mother right here, right now, and let her know that you don’t care about learning.”

What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? Unfortunately, the teacher’s inability to communicate high expectations, respond positively to student needs, and build relationships demonstrates for students that adults in a position of authority are often untrustworthy, and may rob the students of opportunities and access—in school and in society.

The need to control the classroom motivates negative controllers, as their name indicates, often with negative tendencies. These teachers aim to control the student behaviors, volume in the classroom, and content taught. Negative controllers often fear that if they do not remain in control of the classroom, student behaviors will quickly get out of hand and students will not master academic content. Their counterproductive interactions with students often create roadblocks in building strong relationships (Duncan-Andrade, 2007) instrumental for all students and their learning, but especially those growing up in communities with high levels of poverty (Nieto, 2002; Picower, 2012; Valenzuela, 1999).

Conclusion

This chapter discussed the relationship-building paradigms of unintended enablers and negative controllers. You may have recognized certain attributes or behaviors in yourself as you read. Remember, this is not a time for blame or remorse; this type of reflection is an opportunity to learn, grow, and build on your training as an educator. Much of what we do in the classroom is done based on what we think is best for students. Until we learn new ways to shift our thinking and behaviors, our teaching and relationships with students are unlikely to change. Take note of the things you want to work on with your students. The next chapter reviews the more powerful and impactful relationship-building paradigm of No-Nonsense Nurturers.

Reflection Activities

The reflection activities on pages 32–33 are designed to help you reflect on your current professional practice and support your journey to becoming a No-Nonsense Nurturer. You may choose to complete them individually or in teams.

Identify Your Attributes

It is likely you have some attributes of an unintended enabler, a negative controller, or maybe both; most of us do. Take ten minutes to jot down some attributes you would like to work on to avoid your students misinterpreting your intentions. Then take an additional five minutes to note the attributes you want to ensure you keep as a teacher.

Record Your Teaching

Teachers walk into the classrooms every day ready to do their best for each of their students. While teaching a lesson, record yourself for ten to twenty minutes. Review the lesson, taking notes and writing down direct quotes of when you see unintended enabler or negative controller tendencies. Then, go back and rewrite your script.