Social Contracts - Essay Example

Review of Literature Teachers employ various strategies to manage their rooms effectively. One is the establishment of rules. Brewer (2001) advices that children, especially in groups must be given some rules, and it is ideal that they have a part in making group rules. Group-management strategies should consider not calling attention to an individual child, instead, address the whole group to assure them that they will all have their turns in participation. Teachers must be careful to preserve children’s self-esteem and use techniques which help their students learn acceptable behaviors (Brewer, 2001). Rules have been analyzed in literature to help children in monitoring their behaviors or helping teachers gain a better sense of control in the classroom. Curwin & Mendler (1984) believe that both teachers and students function best when limits and expectations are clearly defined. “Social contracts” is one way of developing agreed upon standards in the classroom. These are developed jointly by the teacher and students and define rules and consequences that describe acceptable and unacceptable classroom behavior. Curwin and Mendler (1984) include six specific elements namely flag rules, negotiable rules, consequences, rules for the teacher, student-developed rules for students and a vote to determine which rules to enforce. Flag rules are minimum behavior requirements for efficient classroom management which are developed by the teacher and unquestioningly accepted by students even without their input. Examples of such logical rules are “No fighting and hurting anyone”. Negotiable rules are decided upon together by both teacher and students whether or not to adopt such rules. Democratic teachers allow some limits to be stretched without compromising order in the classroom. Consequences are teacher-determined without student input. Teachers need to be fair in setting down consequences for each rule depending on the severity of behavior. Positive consequences should also be included to reward students of good behavior. Consequences need to be instructional instead of punitive and students regard them as natural and logical extensions of the rules. Rules for the teacher are determined by the students to give them the opportunity to set standards for the teacher. This is a way for them to feel a sense of commitment to all rules and consequences, thus make them more inclined to follow them. Examples are “the teacher will not yell at students in front of their classmates”. Student-developed rules for students allow students further input in the development of a social contract. Lastly, the vote to determine which rules to enforce are decided by the students. Except for flag rules, all rules must be accepted by at least 75 percent of the students. Such democratic practice and high involvement of students in the process may yield a high degree of compliance in a positive, dynamic sense and not just blind obedience. Rules work best when they are behavioral and expressed in clear terms so students and teachers easily know whether a specific behavior violates a rule (Curwin and Mendler, 1988). One common rule is raising one’s hand when he wants to speak and wait to be called before speaking. Calling out answers without raising one’s hand is considered rude. Hand-raising has been considered a sign of respect. “Hand-raising can comprise more than a purely behavioral mechanism for regulating turns and the flow of events… It can embody moral meaning, conveying messages about how to regard oneself and others.” (Hansen as mentioned in Jacobs, 2004, p. 38). It gives structure to the class, maintains order, gives teacher control and teaches respect for rules. In a way, it also builds character in that it trains people toward authoritarian conformity. However, Jacobs (2004) criticizes the emphasis on hand-raising in classrooms as authoritarian, centering power on the teacher to call on her preferred hand raiser. He suggests teaching children from kindergarten about “listening, conversational skills, respect for the rhythms of students’ conversations, patience and self-regulation” (Jacobs, 2004, p. 38). Children should be prepared in participatory democracy so that when they are adults they can engage in the process of maintaining democratic ideals. Jacobs views may be well-taken, but for purposes of classroom management, hand-raising is still an effective rule in maintaining order during group discussions and activities. Curwin and Mendler (1988) also suggested a method of solving classroom misbehaviors through the use of their three dimensional model: The Discipline with Dignity. It is a program that has teachers spending less time dealing with behavioral problems and more time on positive interactions with students. It is based upon the belief that the most effective and respected teachers express their beliefs, demands, and expectations within the context of clear values and goals that benefit learning.  They hold students accountable by expressing approval and disapproval, and they seek consequences that teach each student a connection between what they have done and what happens as a result of those actions (Curwin & Mendler, 1997). The Discipline with Dignity model promotes student regulation with guidance and moderate teacher control, emphasizing self-awareness and self-knowledge. Self-knowledge leads to greater creativity, a better perception of reality and greater freedom. It is a major means towards student’s growth and actualization and also leads to higher responsibility. But the model does not only expect from the students, but from the teacher as well. The basic principles of the model are: rules must make sense, always treat students with dignity, a teacher can be fair without always having to treat every one the same and the teacher must be a model of what he or she expects. The Curwin and Mendler dimensions are Prevention, Action, and Resolution. Their view is that schools spend far too much time trying to figure out why a student misbehaves, when they should be spending more time trying to change the pattern of misbehavior. Curwin and Mendler suggest that a lot of student misbehavior occurs in classrooms where the academic expectations are lax. They contend that teachers are responsible for providing efficient instructional delivery and whole class interaction to minimize misbehavior (Curwin & Mendler, 1988). The first dimension, Prevention, is letting the students know the teacher’s expectations and role playing misbehaviors. Action is the reactive measures a teacher takes to solve the misbehavior.  And lastly, Resolution is the solution taken to prevent future misbehaviors and at the same time treats the student with dignity and respect. While the classroom management mentors have different views of how to go about classroom management, common ground in their published research is the need for consistency. Vera and Louise Jones, authors of the book Comprehensive Classroom Management, agree saying “it is important to be as consistent as possible in employing consequences” (Jones & Jones, 2007). The researchers took this into mind, as well as Curwin and Mendler’s three dimensional approach to create their own system of managing the most prevalent discipline problem observed in the preparatory classroom, talking out of turn. The said product is called the clip system. References Brewer, J. (2001) Introduction to Early Childhood Education. Allyn and Bacon. Curwin, R. L. & Mendler, A.N. (1984) “High Standards for Effective Discipline”, Educational Leadership, May, 1984 Curwin, R.L. & Mendler, A.N. (1988) “Packaged Discipline Programs: Let the Buyer Beware”, Educational Leadership, October 1988 Curwin, R. & Mendler, A. (1988). Discipline with Dignity. New York: Edwards Brothers, Inc. Curwin, R. L. & Mendler, A.N. (1997) “Discipline with Dignity: Beyond Obedience”, Education Digest, Vol 63, Issue 4. Jacobs, T. (2004) “Hand-Raising”, Paths of Learning, Winter Issue 19 Jones, V. & Jones, L. (2007). Comprehensive Classroom Management. Boston: Pearson Education. Read More