So what's the alternative? Is there a way for teachers to truly get what they want from their students without creating additional conflicts, resorting to traditional authoritarian power dynamics, or somehow compromising the emotional climate of the classroom?
I've discovered that the promise of positive outcomes is less destructive than the threat of negative consequences. And I've found that the most successful teachers are those able to ask for what they want with clarity, assertiveness, and great respect for the needs, preferences, and dignity of their students.
In many classrooms, the rules are invariably negative. Often the rule itself is stated negatively: “No hitting,” “Don’t call out,” “Eating in class is prohibited.” However, even when the rule is stated positively (“Turn in work on time,” “Speak respectfully,” “Raise your hand to speak”), the result of an infraction is typically negative. In some instances, the punishments— often called “consequences”—are listed right along with the rules.
Rules and penalties depend on the students’ fear of the negative consequences. If the child is afraid of a bad grade, missing recess, or having her name written on the board (which for most kids, simply reinforces attention-getting behavior), she may do what you want, often at a cost to her emotional safety and to the general stress level in the class.
In contrast, boundaries do not depend on fear or power, other than the teacher’s power to allow a positive consequence to occur when the students have done their part. This positivity represents an important characteristic of a boundary, as well as a significant difference between boundaries and rules. As a management tool in a win-win setting, boundaries are always stated positively, as promises rather than threats. Likewise, boundaries offer a refreshing change from punishment-oriented strategies to a reward-oriented approach to behavior management. Boundaries allow us to think of consequences as the good things students get (or get to do) as a result of their cooperation, changing the prevailing connotation of the word “consequence” from negative to positive.
In
addition to being positive, boundaries support win-win power dynamics
because they are themselves win-win. Even the most reasonable rules are
oriented to the power needs of the adult, providing information for the
students how not to “lose.” Rarely do rules communicate how students can
“win” in any other, more positive way. Boundaries, on the other hand,
take into consideration to the desires and needs of the students they
attempt to motivate.Additionally, boundaries are proactive, attempting to prevent problems in positive ways. Rules typically focus on the negative or punitive reaction of the teacher (or the system) when a student gets caught. Both rules and boundaries can prevent misbehavior, but because with rules the payoff to students for compliance is simply avoiding a negative consequence, the process of enforcement becomes unavoidably reactive. (This is why simply posting a bunch of rules, penalties, or punishments before kids misbehave is proactive only in forewarning of impending reactivity!)
With a boundary, a positive outcome simply does not happen unless the desired behavior occurs. The absence of the positive outcome— pending the student’s cooperation— is, in most cases, the only “teacher reaction” necessary.
The subtlety of the differences between boundaries and rules makes it easy to discount the impact each can have on the emotional climate in a classroom and the quality of the relationship between teachers and students. However, teachers who endeavor to shift from the win-lose familiarity of rules to the win-win prospects of boundaries report a significant decrease in conflicts and power struggles in their classes, and far greater success in reaching kids previously deemed difficult, unmotivated or, in some instances, even dangerous, than with any strategy previously attempted.
0 comments:
Post a Comment