Anarchy in the Classroom? Not really.

I taught middle school for five years, and it always astounded me how much documentation teachers threw at students on the first day of class. I mean, imagine you're 12 years old, excited to see your friends, to meet your new teachers and arange your new locker. Then, for nearly 8 hours, teachers hand you endless lists of rules to read or listen to. Over the course of that first day, any enthusiasm is severely muted by the repetetive, hours-long stream of do's and don'ts.

For this reason, I have always tried, as much as possible, to be a facilitator rather than a teacher, in the traditional sense of the word. I have never bogged students down with long lists of classroom rules and expectations, opting instead to place the onus on the students themselves, meaning that common sense and common courtesy should guide student conduct and that a student’s sense of self is the best standard for their performance in class.

This is not to say I have no behavioral guidelines, but they are simple and emphasize the basic foundations of a close and productive community:
• Trust
• Integrity
• Perseverance
• Inquisitiveness and creativity
• Compassion
• Self-awareness

I have always believed that codification of behavior standards in terms of do’s and don’ts is a short-sighted solution to classroom management. To a great extent, this teaches children to operate in a binary system of right/wrong, reward/punishment, or carrot/stick. In the traditional rules-based system, students are indoctrinated to modify their own behavior in response to the “or else.” Students learn to make choices based almost exclusively on self-interest, on what will happen to them if they make the wrong choice, and not in terms of doing what’s best for everyone, including themselves.

If, as teachers, our goal is to nurture democracy through knowledge and citizenship, it seems me that we defeat this purpose by teaching students to conform to a classroom “rule of law” rather than allowing them to exercise and develop their own personal sense of ethics and social responsibility.

Admittedly, what I am about to say is mostly anecdotal, however, I guarantee that the “rule of law” system generates no better student behavior than an ethics-based system. Moreover, I am certain that the ethics-based system produces better, more engaged and enthusiastic learning.

I make this assertion for several reasons. Fisrts of all, under the “rule of law” system of classroom management, teachers place themselves squarely in the role of Chief Enforcement Officer. This is a terrible and counter-productive role for teachers to choose for themselves. I have known a great many teachers who so firmly implant themselves in the role of “classroom cop” that they spend literally hours each day documenting rules infractions, counting demerit points, and assigning the necessary consequences. In five years of teaching middle school, I never wrote a behavior referral and never had to make a negative call home to a parent.

As teachers, we are authority figures by default. We’re the oldest, most experienced, and often the largest people in the classroom. However, it seems to me that we have a choice about how we define “authority” for ourselves. We can, as many do, choose to view authority in terms of power and control, in terms of “authorizing” what is acceptable and what is not. Or we can define authority in terms of our expertise, experience, and, yes, wisdom. Put simply, we can choose to be a cop, or we can choose to be a resource person, a counselor.

Obviously, we can all conjure up worst-case scenarios that might occur in the absence of “rules.” I will simply conclude with this question: do we not, as a culture, tend to celebrate the adage “rules were made to be broken” as a motto for those who think critically and creatively, for those who innovatively solve problems, and for those who boldly blaze trails into new territory?