Chapter 1: Examining Classroom Communities

The Philosophy Dilemma

Most educators would agree on the desired outcome of their philosophy around teaching and classroom management. These outcomes are usually focused on student learning and development. Student growth across academic, social, and emotional domains is central for school success. Although the outcomes of teachers’ philosophies are usually similar, the methods used to achieve these outcomes vary dramatically. When deciding on a philosophy of management, we have a key choice to make: Do we structure our approach around punishment or support? In the context of behavior management, we define punishment as using withholding, humiliating, or shaming in an attempt to change a student’s inappropriate or unproductive behavior. In contrast, we define support as using problem-solving to identify the “why” behind inappropriate or unproductive behavior to help a student shift to a more productive behavior.

The punitive approach to management, which is the predominant model followed in schools today, poses a number of problems. First, this approach is based on a system of rewards and punishments. As states have moved toward positive behavior support models (see Chapter 5), we have seen an increase in the rewards associated with following this approach, including a number of reward apps for schools to adopt. Although using rewards might seem different or better than punishments, it is not. Rewards and punishments are two sides of the same coin; you can’t have one without the other. Trying to focus more on rewards than on punishments does not fool children. They understand that if they don’t or can’t comply, things they want and need will be withheld from them (e.g., recess, sitting with friends at lunch, the class party, going to the treasure box). Second, this approach is based on fear, and we know that being afraid to take risks prevents children from reaching their full academic potential (Fordham Institute, n.d.).

Children who have difficulty complying with the norms of school are regularly subject to this system’s punishment structure. Children who can easily comply with the norms of school benefit within this system and receive accolades and rewards for their compliance and performance. Nonetheless, they too are negatively affected by the community climate and internalize the inferred message that self-worth is tied to accomplishments and compliance. Repeated exposure to punishment approaches not only affects students’ self-esteem and beliefs about themselves but also can lead to many detrimental outcomes, such as suicide, dropping out of school, and drug use (Tschannen-Moran, 2014).

Gartrell (1995) explains:

Although teachers who punish “misbehavior” believe they are “shaming children into being good,” the result may be the opposite. Because of limited development and experience, children tend to internalize negative labels, see themselves as they are labeled, and react accordingly. (p. 31)

Table 1.2 compares and contrasts punishment and support approaches to management.

Table 1.2: Contrast Between Punishment and Support Approaches

Punishment	Support
Lens: Compliance	Lens: Problem-solving
Definition: Using withholding, humiliating, or shaming to stop a student’s inappropriate or unproductive behavior	Definition: Identifying the “why” behind inappropriate or unproductive behavior to help a student shift to a more productive behavior
Key driver: Fear	Key driver: Growth
Teacher’s role: Enforce the rules	Teacher’s role: Collaboratively partner with the student and facilitate the problem-solving process
Student’s role: Follow the rules	Student’s role: Actively participate in solving problems

The Role of Power in the Classroom

An important part of determining your philosophy for management requires addressing the role of power in classroom communities. As shown in Table 1.2, the punishment model vs. the support model shows how different power structures influence the actions of teachers and children in the classroom. In the punishment model, the teacher holds the power, and it is their job to motivate students to engage productively in the classroom. In the support model, the teacher shares this power with students. Choosing the support model requires an understanding that children don’t need us to motivate them to become productive members of the community (Greene, 2018). If children are struggling to engage productively, it is not from lack of motivation but from a lack of skills. We will talk extensively about this distinction in Chapter 8; however, this understanding shifts the teacher’s role from motivator to problem solver and role model. Sharing power with students offers numerous benefits, including teaching them to govern their choices, giving them a sense of agency, and letting them practice important collaborative skills needed for healthy relationships, engaged citizenship, and future employment.

It is important to consider the role of power in educational settings. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, historically, not all children and families had access to an education. The individuals, institutions, and governments that controlled schools used their power to deny educational opportunities. For this reason, it is important that we intentionally make all students feel part of and accepted in the classroom community. This is best accomplished by sharing power “with” instead holding power “over” children. In Chapter 4, we will talk more about how we can do this by identifying our cultural beliefs and areas of hidden bias.

One way to think about power in classroom communities is to picture a continuum. On one end of the continuum, we have a heavily teacher-directed approach. On the opposite end of the continuum, we have a highly student-directly approach. In Figure 1.3, you can see the key theories instrumental in developing these approaches and how power is leveraged by these different theoretical perspectives to motivate student behavior. This continuum places heavily teacher-centered practices and compliance-based lenses on the left. Teachers frequently leverage extrinsic motivation strategies to condition children to behave in specific ways. This perspective leans on the principles of behaviorism, relying on rewards and consequences to encourage or extinguish behaviors. On the right side of the continuum, student agency is centered and leverages problem-solving approaches to shape behaviors. This perspective leans on humanistic philosophies and values the inherent dignity of each child.

Of course, many approaches fall somewhere in between these two points on the continuum. It can be helpful to examine resources by thinking about where they would fall on the continuum. It is also helpful to use this visual when considering if a particular management strategy or tool aligns with your philosophy. The key decision about where an approach should fail lies with the question of who has the power to implement the idea. Are teachers the ultimate gatekeepers or are students part of the decision-making process? The answer to this question has a palpable and significant impact on the classroom climate and community.

Centering Care

Focusing on caring classroom communities is a departure from earlier approaches to schooling. Significant research has shown, however, that although teachers’ primary role may be to instruct students on age-appropriate content, their role to support students’ social and emotional development is equally as important (Nelson et al., 2013). Watson has written extensively about the importance of creating caring communities as a primary management strategy through the Child Development Project. Watson et al. (2019) found that “when teachers succeeded in creating a caring classroom community, their students reported a strong sense of community and were more likely to report that they enjoyed school, trusted their teachers, and cared about academic learning” (p. 12). Watson and her colleagues’ (2019) work is based on Nel Noddings’s (1992) theory of the ethics of care and education. Smith (2020) explains that Noddings “has been able to demonstrate the significance of caring and relationship both as an educational goal and as a fundamental aspect of education.” Noddings’s theory has prompted numerous studies about the impact of care in school communities (Smith, 2020).

Centering care is focused on recognizing when children’s basic needs are met (or not) as well as what mental health needs children may be exhibiting. Centering care is also about directly providing care to children and modeling how students can show care to each other. This perspective shifts the positionality of the teacher and requires a more active stance. Teachers need to have in-depth knowledge about child development, an understanding about their individual students, and a willingness to advocate for their well-being. Centering care asks us to pay attention to and nurture caring relationships with other members of the community and to model empathy. Developing trusting relationships is an essential component of centering care. In Chapter 6, we will talk more about how to foster these relationships, especially with students who come to school mistrusting teachers and peers.

In addition to Noddings’s work, the concept of caring classroom communities is also informed by the work of Carl Rogers. McLeod (2023) explains that Rogers believed children have two basic needs: positive regard from other people and self-worth. Note that “positive regard” is about accepting others even if the person does something wrong or makes a mistake. Unconditional positive regard can be leveraged by teachers to foster a sense of caring and ultimately a positive sense of self-worth in children. The inverse, however, is more often the case in schools. When our management systems are designed around rewards and punishments, it moves teachers into a space of conditional positive regard. McLeod (2023) states:

Conditional positive regard is a concept in psychology that refers to the expression of acceptance and approval by others … only when an individual behaves in a certain acceptable or approved way. In other words, this positive regard, love, or acceptance is conditionally based on the individual’s behaviors, attitudes, or views aligning with those expected or valued by the person giving the regard. (para. 5)

Thinking about our regard for students as unconditional or conditional shifts the type of classroom community we are establishing and who can thrive in these communities.

Finally, centering care can only be fully understood by examining the inverse: harm. In healthy classroom communities, we foster care, belonging, and acceptance but also understand that we will inevitably hurt each other, intentionally or unintentionally. The work around restorative justice informs our approach to ensuring that all students are unconditionally included within the community, and it also serves as a road map for how to repair harm when conflict arises (Lodi et al., 2022). In Chapter 6, we will talk more about the strategies teachers can use to build and maintain relationships.

Focusing on Strengths

Strengths-based approaches in education have shifted the way we see children and their families. Using a strengths-based orientation also shifts the way we develop our management structures. Renkly and Bertonlini (2018) state: “While other businesses may thrive with the deficit model, education is not one of them. When schools focus solely on at-risk behaviors exhibited by students, they tend to work reactively rather than proactively” (p. 24). A strengths-based approach is an intentional decision that educators make to view children through an asset instead of a deficit lens (Renkly & Bertonlini, 2018). An asset lens recognizes that children come into our classrooms with experiences, knowledge, and cultural strengths that can benefit the entire community. An asset lens also sees the potential in each child and recognizes that the teacher’s role is to nurture and support.

These approaches are grounded in the tradition of positive psychology, but they have only more recently become popular in education. Noble and McGrath (2015) state: “The goal of positive psychology is to provide the conditions and processes that contribute to flourishing or optimal functioning of people, groups and institutions” (p. 1). Positive education movements link academic success with student well-being (Seligman, 2012). Understanding that student well-being affects readiness and the ability to learn has fueled strengths-based approaches. Focusing on student assets, however, can be hard to do. Research has shown that adults have a negativity bias (Vaish, Grossman, & Woodward, 2008). Vaish et al. (2008) explain this bias in the following way: “When making judgments, people consistently weight the negative aspects of an event or stimulus more heavily than the positive aspects” (p. 2). This negativity bias will affect our management structures, if we don’t intentionally choose an asset lens.

A traditional approach to management would be to identify students’ issues and then reward or punish them depending on whether or not they change their behavior. A strengths-based approach forces us to pay attention to when and where the student is successful and then build off those areas of strength and apply them to other situations where growth is needed. Even though this approach takes time to learn and can feel inefficient (e.g., Wouldn’t telling them what to fix be quicker?), it has a tremendous positive impact on the climate in the classroom. Children pay attention to what we do, and they play out the interactions they witness with their peers. When they see the teacher recognizing everyone’s strengths and supporting them to make good decisions, the children will start doing the same thing for each other. Additionally, focusing on what we are doing well feels good. It provides positive reinforcement to continue improving and increases self-esteem and self-efficacy, or the belief that we can be successful (Galloway & Reynolds, 2015).

Addressing the Needs of the Whole Child

In addition to centering care and focusing on strengths, addressing the needs of the whole child is also critically important to the classroom management approach presented in this textbook. A student-centered teaching philosophy has roots in constructivism and the work of John Dewey (Williams, 2017). In his review of Dewey’s impact on 21st-century educational practices, Williams explains, “In learner-centered classrooms, one can see much of John Dewey’s social learning theory and educational beliefs in action. He viewed the classroom as a social entity for children to learn and problem-solve together as a community” (pp. 92–93). The key tenets of constructivism and student-centered learning have been challenged in the accountability and standardization movements, but Dewey’s theories have persisted.

When applied to classroom management, we see how student-centered teaching requires seeing the needs of the whole child, not just who they are at school or what their academic profile looks like. Recognizing the various contexts in which children interact, helps teachers see beyond the classroom walls. This holistic viewpoint is helpful for a number of reasons, but most important, it is a critical component of problem-solving when inappropriate or unproductive behavior arises. Often, factors outside of school affect how children show up in classrooms. Without a recognition of these factors, teachers can incorrectly attribute the motivation for these behaviors as character flaws (e.g., laziness, selfishness, stubbornness). In Chapter 8, we will discuss the importance of understanding the “why” behind the behavior and how to approach the situation through a problem-solving lens. Taking a student-centered, holistic approach to management ensures that we will recognize what the child is communicating with their behavior. Additionally, seeing the whole child helps us empathize with students, especially when they are engaging in challenging behaviors.

A whole-child approach also helps us recognize that children’s needs change as they grow and develop. Understanding that children’s physical, mental, and emotional needs are all having an impact on their engagement in the classroom helps us see the nuanced complexity of managing young children. For instance, recognizing that biting is a common way two-year-olds may communicate frustration guides how we will support children at this age level. Understanding typical and atypical developmental milestones helps teachers set realistic expectations and establish preventative measures to support children. In Chapter 2, we will discuss developmental progressions and explain how they can inform our management structures from a whole-child perspective.