Establishing Working Agreements, Principles and Ethos
There seem to be particularly different (and often opposing) classroom management philosophies that exist within schools. Similar observations can be made of religion, for example, Old Testament “law and judgment” explanations/models alongside New Testament “grace and forgiveness” explanations/models. We could even go as far to say the very world in which we live regularly internalizes, externalizes and “objectivates” laws, judgments, repercussions for actions and so forth. The question to entertain here is: How should we be governed?
Without getting into a discussion on macroeconomics or a highly politicized debate on government structure specifically, I’d like to explore shared concepts that exist within schools and classrooms as they relate to classroom management.
Some teachers/schools employ a set of rules and a set of repercussions for breaking such rules. This is contextually necessary as much as it is contextually unnecessary. In other words, there are situations where law and punishment are effective, and there are situations where they are not. David Tow in his Edutopia article “Why I Don’t Have Classroom Rules” describes,
“When I started teaching, I was incredibly traditional in terms of classroom management and discipline. In those early years, a clear code of conduct was reassuring. For infraction X, there was always consequence Y. […] Although I encouraged my students to think critically and challenged myself to develop new methods of instruction, the actual conduct of the class seemed at odds with all that. I wanted my students to do more than just follow rules handed down to them. I wanted them to understand why those rules exist, and be willing to interrogate ones that didn’t seem valuable, meaningful, or useful.”
I’m not suggesting we don’t have rules, and neither is David. I’m not saying dispose of one and adopt another. We can hold both, while prioritizing/emphasizing one over the other, despite the fact that both systems are useful.
We’ve also observed Chris Opitz establishing his class “Working Agreements,” creating an ethos his students are just as much creators-of, as they are participants-of.
If we want our students to be more than mere receptacles and our teachers to be more than mere dispensaries of information, how do we structure an environment in which that can happen? How do we compel participation?
By including students in the establishing-of guiding principles and culture, we’re showing them that the manifestation of the world is indeed influenced by how-they-show-up. We’re showing and sharing with them that belief, trust, possibility and creating meaning all compel our participation. It’s beyond “buy-in”. The goal is to transcend transaction and shift our way of living to reflect the reality of our complex humanness and society respectively.
Edutopia “David Tow – Why I Don’t Have Classroom Rules”
David Tow: I have four of our foundational classroom principles posted on the walls:
- Be respectful to yourself because it sets the context for being able to participate in a community; to others because it is hard to be a student and everyone’s struggles merit your respect; and to the teacher because although it is a position of authority, the teacher should also be vulnerable and learning.
- Be engaged, because merely being present in the classroom does not necessarily qualify as participation, and a truly pluralistic community requires all voices.
- Be prepared, because informed conversation requires prepared members, and preparation transcends just the work that is assigned—and is closer to deep thought, sincere skepticism, and a general willingness to interrogate assumptions.
- Be courageous, because learning requires acknowledging that there are things we don’t know, skills we lack, and ways in which we might still be foolish—which is a scary prospect for everyone in the class, teacher included.
