Introduction

What Are Your Implicit Theories of Classroom

Management?

OBSERVING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Lauren
One semester I supervised two women, both undergraduates in the same teacher education program,
who were placed for student teaching in two very different classrooms. Alice was working in an upper-
elementary classroom at a socioeconomically and racially diverse magnet school. The students in her
classroom regularly engaged in conflict. Their verbal arguments and physical altercations were often
related to racial or cultural differences between students. Alice took a relational approach to classroom
management in which she sought to understand the causes of student conflict, connect those causes to
student needs, and empower students to solve their disagreements independently. She encouraged her
students to take ownership of their actions, to take each other’s perspectives, and to appreciate both
their differences and similarities.
Kim was also teaching in an upper elementary classroom at a socioeconomically and racially diverse
traditional school. The students in her classroom were quiet, obedient, and nearly always agreeable. Kim
took a traditional management approach to classroom management; she sought to control negative
behavior through verbal feedback and through a system of rewards and consequences. She expected
students to do what they were told and took a position as the sole leader responsible for running the
classroom. The different approaches these two teachers took to management of student behavior in
their classrooms transferred to their expectations and goals for their students. In a reflection about her
experiences, Alice wrote about how her classroom code of conduct and her explicit social modeling
would help her students grow into adults who were caring, capable of leadership, and who would be
able to reconcile differences. Kim wrote about a realization that she needed to be consistent about
providing specific and neutral verbal feedback to students who were misbehaving. She believed that
providing this type of feedback would help her students learn to meet her expectations, to understand
the rationale behind her expectations, and to understand right from wrong.
What types of thoughts and behaviors is each teacher encouraging in her
students? If our goals for students are to develop critical thinking, problem
solving, and leadership skills, which teacher fosters growth in those areas in
her classroom?

C LASSROOM M ANAGEMENT IN TODAY’S C LASSROOMS

Most states have adopted professional teaching standards that claim effective
teachers help students develop critical thinking, problem solving, and
leadership skills. This would include encouraging students to ask questions,
develop innovative ideas, communicate their needs and collaborate with
their peers, especially when their peers are from different cultures and
backgrounds. What classroom management strategies are going to help us
meet these goals in addition to sustaining the kind of engagement students
need for meeting performance standards on academic indicators? While
across content areas our instructional paradigms have shifted toward
implementing methods that provide for student meaning making, many of our
management practices in schools have not. Look at the statements below.
Which ones best reflect your current views on your students’ abilities to
regulate their own academic and social behavior?

Too much of students’ time is spent on guidance and social activities at the expense of academic
preparation.
Students can be trusted to work together without supervision.
Being friendly with students often leads them to become too familiar.
It is important to try to understand the reasons for student misbehavior.

Where do these beliefs come from and what impact do they have on our
classroom management decisions and ultimately on student learning and
behavior? In 1976, Dan Lortie coined the term apprenticeship of
observation to describe the phenomenon that most teachers teach using
methods that are similar to those they observed used by their own teachers:
“Teaching is unusual in that those who decide to enter it have had exceptional
opportunity to observe members of the occupation at work; unlike most
occupations today, the activities of teachers are not shielded from
youngsters” (2002, p. 65). Lortie contends that many of the beliefs we hold
as teachers about teaching and classroom originate from personal
experiences as students. Most teachers never had a course or any guided
practice in classroom management; instead we picked up management
techniques spuriously from our colleagues or through our own trial and error.
Whereas many of these beliefs may have been challenged in our teacher
education programs or by reforms made to national and state standards, our
intuitions about classroom management often remain unquestioned. We begin
this text with an exploration of the underlying beliefs about classroom
discipline that guide our planning and interactions with students.

TEACHERS’ B ELIEFS ABOUT D ISCIPLINE

Our beliefs exist on many levels from global to personal and serve as
overarching frameworks for how we understand and engage with the world.
Our beliefs can be thought of as the guiding principles that we hold to be true
and that serve as lenses through which we understand what happens in our
classrooms. Fundamentally, our beliefs as teachers shape our professional
practice guiding the everyday decisions we make about what and how to
teach.
For over 40 years, scholars have examined the kinds of beliefs teachers
hold about discipline and classroom management. In the 1960s, Willower,
Eidell, and Hoy developed a survey to explore teachers’ beliefs about
discipline along two dimensions: custodial and caregiver. Teachers
exemplifying a custodial management orientation tend to be concerned
with controlling the classroom setting and maintaining a sense of order.
Several studies suggest teachers who score high on the custodial dimension
tend to feel pessimistic about teaching and are more likely to use punishment
to control students’ behavior. They are often worried about administering
consequences equally for all students and tend not to be concerned with
trying to understand the reasons that underlie student (mis)behavior. In
contrast, teachers who score high on the caregiver orientation tend to hold
more humanistic perspectives and view students as capable of learning to
self-regulate their own relationships and behavior. These teachers view
school as an educational community in which students learn through both
cooperative and conflicted interactions with themselves and their peers. The
focus is on helping students to develop their ability to exert self-control.

Where do you see custodial and humanistic beliefs enacted in Alice’s and Kim’s teaching?
 Beliefs about management can be enacted in the form of different
orientations toward discipline (Glickman & Tamashiro, 1980; Wolfgang,
1999). For example, teachers who endorse predominantly custodial views of
management often approach classroom discipline from a rules-consequences
perspective. They view good behavior as the result of learning by
experiencing consequences (rewards and punishments). This approach is
often called an interventionist approach because teachers view themselves
as responsible for deciding what behavior is needed for the classroom to run
smoothly. They then assertively teach, monitor, and provide consequences as
appropriate. Historically, the most common approach to classroom
management had been some form of behavior modification. Indeed, many of
the popular classroom management programs (i.e., assertive discipline;
positive behavior support) hail from a custodial/interventionist philosophy.
For this reason, custodial/interventionist models reflect the traditional form
of classroom management. Yet as we shift toward more innovative teaching
methods that require students to work collaboratively, regulate their own
behavior, and problem solve, many scholars question the appropriateness of
these management techniques:

Rules, consequences, rewards seem to be the mainstay of most teacher

repertoires for student discipline. What is the source of this approach?
How useful is it in an era of active learning curriculum and an
emphasis on higher level thinking skills? (Frieberg, 1999a, p. 5)

Teachers with blended views of classroom management—that is, who

endorse both custodial and humanistic, may approach discipline issues with
confronting-contracting strategies. They view student (mis)behavior as a
reflection of a student’s inability to manage his or her own internal needs in
the face of the external demands of classroom life. These teachers are
sometimes called interactionist because they view themselves as serving a
socializing role, helping students to understand and conform to a set of
external standards (i.e., classroom tasks and rules). The goal of a
confronting-contracting approach is to help the student identify and
understand the purpose of each external standard and to develop the social
and academic skills necessary to be successful in the classroom setting.
 Finally, teachers who endorse a predominantly humanistic management
orientation often approach classroom discipline with a relationship-
listening orientation. They tend to view discipline problems in the
classroom as representing a student’s struggle to balance his or her own
individual needs with the needs of the class and the curriculum. These
teachers are often called noninterventionists because the goal of their
approach to discipline is to first listen to and understand what need the
student is trying to meet in a way that conflicts with the needs of the teacher
and the class. Then, the teacher attempts to help students understand the needs
of the teacher and the class and learn to coordinate their needs with the needs
of the class. Because students’ needs vary, noninterventionist teachers stress
the importance of building relationships with and between their students.
Contemporary management models (i.e., Conscious Discipline, Joyful
Classroom, Consistency Management, and Cooperative Discipline) that have
developed reflecting a caregiving and noninterventionist model are often
called relationship models or community-based models.

What do you think are Alice’s and Kim’s orientations toward classroom discipline?

Figure 0.1 compares the basic tenets of traditional models of classroom

management with relationship-based models. Traditional and relationship-
based management approaches of classroom management fundamentally
differ in terms of teachers’ beliefs about control (i.e., Who can I control?
Who should be the leader in the classroom?), teachers’ beliefs about the
source and direction of behavioral change (i.e., Who and what should change
when there is a problem in the classroom?), and teachers’ beliefs about the
meaning of conflict (i.e., Does conflict reflect defiance or
misunderstanding?). It is important to note that classroom management
systems that are based on rewards and consequences will, in the short term,
result in declines in discipline referrals but also tend to result in more
competitive climates in schools and classrooms. Moreover, teachers must
have a plan in place for how to eventually wean students off those incentives.
Classroom management plans based on relationship and community models
not only result in fewer discipline referrals but also result in more
cooperative climates. Moreover, because many of their philosophies
originate from a democratic view of education—that through classroom
activities, students learn to be good citizens—relationship-based
management models provide children with opportunities to assume
responsibilities for collective classroom problems and practice having a
voice and making changes in their classroom communities.

Figure 0.1 Comparing Traditional Views of Classroom Management With

Relational Views of Classroom Management

ESPOUSING A R ELATIONAL VIEW OF C LASSROOM

M ANAGEMENT
Throughout this book, we review theory and research that makes the case for
adopting a relational view of classroom management. That is, we believe
that classroom management practices need to be developmental,
acknowledging students’ emerging understanding of adult, peer, and power
relationships, and involving students in serving as leaders and sharing the
responsibility for the daily operation of the classroom. This view
acknowledges that students of all ages will come to the classroom with
varying understandings of how to interact with adults and with their peers
and may violate teachers’ norms. We then translate this research into
reflective tools that teachers can use to implement relational management
strategies in their classroom. A relational view of classroom management
argues that when students behave in ways that create conflict for teachers or
peers, they do so in an attempt to meet their needs. Understanding students’
developmental needs; designing a management plan that allows for students
to meet their needs to feel competent, autonomous, and connected to their
teacher and peers; and seeking to understand (mis)behavior as a function of
need fulfillment are important steps to managing a classroom that allows for
students to develop critical thinking, problem solving, and leadership skills.
Relational views of classroom management often fall outside mainstream
practices endorsed by schools and districts. We offer this text as an invitation
to teachers who feel dissatisfied with current practices and who are
questioning why the practices they are using may or may not be working as
they intend. We offer case studies and observations from our own
experiences and of teachers we have observed and interviewed at different
phases of their careers. The teachers in our cases are each questioning their
practices. We offer reflective activities and tools for collecting classroom
data that can lead to meaningful change in classroom practice.
Again, it is important to note there are several relationship-based
classroom management programs that have been implemented throughout the
country for young children (Bailey, 2000), elementary age students (Watson
& Ecken, 2003), and adolescents (Frieberg, 1999b). We believe the efficacy
of these programs lies in understanding the theoretical rationales that drive
pedagogical decisions. For this reason, in lieu of describing these programs
in a single chapter, we have chosen to integrate information about these
programs in each chapter.
Throughout this book, educators will learn how to apply the following
concepts to their classroom practices:

Custodial and humanistic management beliefs

Student behavioral, relational, and cognitive engagement
 Alignment of classroom management plans with instructional
pedagogies
Classroom structures that contribute to student engagement
Beliefs that affect teacher-student relationship quality and student
learning
Immediacy behaviors that contribute to relationship quality
The contribution of peer relationships to positive and negative behavior
management
Classroom management to accommodate developmental differences in
motivation
Strategies that help children learn to manage their own behavior
Cultural synchronization
The principles of self-regulatory theory and their relationships to
planning, instruction, documentation, and assessment practices
Ways to systematically and productively reflect on classroom
relationships and the efficacy of their management practices

Our case studies offer snapshots of five different teachers at critical

points in their careers. What they share in common is a deep commitment to
building relationships with their students, but they offer different
perspectives on how classroom relationships should operate. Often the
teachers (including Lauren) are struggling to make sense of what is happening
in their classrooms or in specific relationships with children. Each case is
designed to reveal the challenges we face to build a network of classroom
relationships that optimizes engagement for all students. We offer reflective
questions throughout each chapter as a way to help clarify each teacher’s
perspective as well as your own.

C ONNECTING WITH ALL STUDENTS

We recognize that a discussion of classroom management would be
incomplete if we did not address the issues of disruptive student behavior.
Disruptive student behaviors have been recognized as the top reason
contributing to teachers’ feelings of burnout. In 1995, Friedman published a
report on the types of behavior problems that contribute to teacher burnout.
Among the most frequently cited disruptive behaviors were talking out of turn
(23%), hostility toward peers or teacher (21%), and an inattentiveness or
unwillingness to learn (27%). The literature on teacher burnout is clear.
Teachers need a resource for thinking about classroom management issues—
one grounded in theory and empirical research and that maintains the focus
on student learning. Our goal is to provide educators with ideas and methods
that allow teachers to plan for and respond to classroom disruptions and
relational conflict.
In 1998, Martin, Yin, and Baldwin found teachers’ responses to
classroom management problems fell into three categories:

1. Interactions needed to facilitate orderly and organized instruction

2. Interactions needed to facilitate the development of supportive
classroom relationships
3. Interactions designed to prevent and respond to student (mis)behavior

How teachers dealt with each type of interaction largely depended on

how they defined discipline and the self-imposed boundaries they
established. To facilitate orderly and organized instruction, teachers tend to
establish spatial and temporal boundaries dictating when and where different
lessons will be learned. To facilitate the development of supportive
classroom relationships, teachers tend to establish relational boundaries
concerning with whom and how members of the class will interact. And in
order to prevent and respond to student (mis)behavior, teachers tend to
establish definitions of what constitutes a problem behavior. Our judgments
of what constitutes a problem behavior, however, often reflect our own needs
to feel competent as teachers, in control of the classroom, and connected to
our students (Andrzejewski & Davis, 2008; Newberry & Davis, 2008).

R EDEFINING D ISCIPLINE
From a relational perspective, then, how do we judge problem behavior?
And how do we define discipline? In a traditional model of classroom
management, any behavior that defies the norms and standards established by
the teacher is a problem that requires disciplinary action by the teacher. In
contrast to a traditional model where discipline is performed by the
teacher, in a relational model, discipline is a collective process (see Figure
0.1). Students are encouraged and provided opportunities to develop their
sense of competence for solving social and academic problems and meeting
their own needs. Problems are reflected in relational conflict (i.e., between
the teacher and a student or between the students) but represent opportunities
for learning about each other’s needs. Through observing how teachers
manage conflict and through opportunities for children to participate as
leaders and problem solvers children learn that
a. they can be in charge of their own learning and relationships
b. they have the power to solve social and academic problems
c. although they are responsible for their own feelings, their choices
impact others
d. conflict is a part of life
e. you can teach other people how to treat you
f. caring and love are more powerful than coercion and fear (Bailey,
2000, p. 13)

One of our goals when envisioning this book was to extend the work by
Brophy and colleagues (1996) on problem students. We believe children who
engage in disruptive behavior need compassion from their teachers—
including displays of affection to show they care (Oplatka, 2007). “These
children find it hard to believe their teachers really care about them, despite
the evidence that they do” (Watson & Ecken, 2003, p. 3). Without
compassion, problem students are likely to become alienated from their
teachers (Finn, 1989) and feel less motivated in school (Cornelius-White,
2008). We believe one of the challenges teachers face is to avoid habitually
judging student behavior in an unproductive way (Chang & Davis, 2009). In
Chapter 4, we help teachers to identify unproductive “trigger thoughts”
(Bailey, 2000, p. 31) that can lead teachers toward more interactionist and
interventionist reactions. And we devote time in our final chapters to
providing resources for teachers to intervene in alienated or conflicted
relationships in ways that promote feelings of competence, autonomy, and
connection for both teachers and students.
We also address the kinds of conflicts teachers experience with students
who hail from different backgrounds than their own (Chapter 6, How Do I
Connect With Diverse Students?) and the kinds of conflicts teachers
experience with students who process information and learn in systematically
different ways (Chapter 7, What Does It Mean to Self-Regulate My
Classroom Management Tasks?) in separate chapters. We do this because
issues of culture and social-historical context often lie under the surface of
our consciousness and shape our interactions in ways that we may overlook.
We wanted to bring to awareness the ways in which our methods of
interacting and the conflicts we experience with children and youth can be
shaped by larger discourses and systems in society. But strategies from
across each of the chapters are designed to inform each other. We envision
readers being able to bounce between chapters and assemble a set of tools
that meets their individual classroom needs.
 CONNECT TO YOUR PRACTICE

Reflect on Your Beliefs About Classroom Management

The Pupil Control Ideology (PCI) survey was one of the earliest approaches to conceptualizing and
assessing perspectives on discipline (Hoy, 2001; Willower, Eidell, & Hoy, 1967). It is publicly
available and has been used by researchers for more than 40 years to understand how teachers’
management beliefs affect student achievement (http://www.waynekhoy.
com/pupil_control.html).
We adapted 16 of the items from the PCI to use as a reflective tool allowing you to evaluate
your own beliefs about student behavior (see Figure 0.2). Consider this a preassessment, allowing
you to identify your initial orientation toward classroom discipline. Respond honestly to each item.
Then use the scoring rubric at the end to calculate scores for each dimension.
What do the scores tell you about your orientation toward classroom management? Where
might these beliefs have originated? How do you see these beliefs enacted in your current
classroom management practices?

Figure 0.2 The Pupil Control Ideology (PCI) Survey

 KEY TERMS

Custodial management orientation: An approach to classroom management

in which the teacher’s role is to maintain control and order in the classroom.

Discipline: The reactions of a teacher to any student behavior that does not
align with the expectations and norms the teacher has established for the
classroom.
Humanistic management orientation: An approach to classroom
management in which the teacher’s role is to create a classroom environment
in which students can learn to self-regulate and control their own behavior
and relationships.

Relationship-based management approaches: Classroom management

practice in which the teacher encourages each student to take shared
ownership of the classroom environment and their behavior and in which
behavioral expectations are adjusted to meet the needs of each student.

Traditional management approaches: Classroom management practice in

which the teacher is the sole creator and enforcer of rules, rewards, and
consequences.

RESOURCES FOR TEACHERS

Bailey, B. A. (2000). Conscious discipline: 7 basic skills for brain smart classroom management.
Oviedo, FL: Loving Guidance. [See also http://www.conscious
discipline.com/]
Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday, today, tomorrow. In H. J.
Frieberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 43–
56). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Fisher, B. (1998). Joyful learning in kindergarten. Westport, CT: Greenwood/Heinemann.
Frieberg, H. J. (1999a). Beyond behaviorism. In H. J. Frieberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism:
Changing the classroom management paradigm (pp. 3–20). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Frieberg, H. J. (1999b). Consistency management & cooperative discipline: From tourists to citizens in
the classroom. In H. J. Frieberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing the classroom
management paradigm (pp. 75–97). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. [See also
http://cmcd.coe.uh.edu/]
Kratochwill, T. (n.d.). Classroom management [Teacher module]. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/education
/k12/classroom-mgmt.aspx
Scherer, M. (Ed.). (2009). Engaging the whole child: Reflections on best practices in learning,
teaching, and leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Tharpe, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. A. (2000). Teaching transformed;
achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Watson, M., & Ecken, L. (2003). Learning to trust: Transforming difficult elementary classrooms
through developmental discipline. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K., & Seligman, M. E. P. (Eds.). (2003). Prevention that works for
children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58, 425–432. [Key work for social
and emotional learning]
Wolfgang, C. (1999). Solving discipline problems: Methods and models for today’s teachers.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.