Talking about a Revolution: The Languages of Educational Reform

EIGHT. Teacher as Manager

107 EIGHT Teacher as Manager When teaching and learning revolve around personalized “projects,” meaning most students are working independently, familiar challenges of classroom management assume new dimensions. Traditional measures of successful classroom management—time-on-task, productivity, civil interactions between students and teachers—are undermined when the teacher is no longer the primary source of knowledge. Authority relationships between teacher and students are changed when transmission is replaced by discovery or when the site of learning shifts from the classroom to the library. And new learning environments as well as the emphasis on student performance demand a new and expanded repertoire for teachers. Where designing constitutes what may be called the “invisible” work of constructivist teaching, the management skills associated with mentoring and motivation are frequently equated with coaching. AUTHORITY All three teachers concerned themselves with the challenge of cultivating the consent of their students to “do the work.” They experimented with a variety of interpersonal stances—as ally, as rule setter, as therapist, as facilitator—in an attempt to persuade or to coerce students to perform. As Pace (1998) noted in her study of authority relations in diverse high school settings, the quest for civility dominated all three teachers’ interactions with students. Al, Brian, and Camille were hesitant to challenge students overtly; all three either found covert ways to persuade students to comply or they exchanged the goal of academic performance for that of warm rapport. When Camille talked about the “attitude” problem of Senior Political Studies (SPS), she was referring not to rude or disrespectful behavior. Rather, she was concerned about students’ failure to get assignments in on time, if at all. Before scrapping the original plan for the second semester Utopia unit, Camille and Carole attempted to reason with their students, appealing to their sense of right and responsibility: With the class. Um, we’re, okay, its like, “You want us to go back to the way we were doing things but, what are you willing to do to get that back?” And so, we had a list on the board of the things the students wanted and what their expectations were. We even went back to the beginning of the school year. “What did you think you were signing up for when you signed up for Senior Political Studies? How has this class met your expectations? How has it not met your expectations?” And, . . . “if you like the way we were doing things before, ya know, these past three weeks, what do you as students have to do. What’s your responsibility and accountability in that for us to be willing to go back to that?” In response to students’ lack of “responsibility” regarding work in SPS, Camille and Carole punished the class by reverting to a more “traditional” format. When students complained about the punishment, Camille used their engagement as an occasion to cultivate consent. She identified what she thought was an incentive, freedom, and offered it in exchange for responsibility. Ultimately, this bargain was unsuccessful. That is, Camille and Carole continued to adjust their expectations as well as the curriculum to conform to the limits set by the students rather than persuading the students to meet the demands set by the teachers. Brian pursued the more traditional tactics of predictability, explicitness, and the threat of grades. By writing the daily agenda on the board, by going over the agenda verbally at the start of class, and by sticking to this format every single day, Brian made it easy for his students to know what was expected. Occasionally Brian expressed exasperation with what he perceived to be silly questions, but I never once heard him raise his voice with his students (in fact, I never heard any of these teachers raise their voices with students). There was little overt resistance to the Resumé curriculum; as most students were persuaded to complete their assignments in order to “pass” World Connections or not to appear “stupid ” in their exhibitions. Al also used the exhibitions, what he called the “Final Defense,” to motivate students to do the work. Al, like Camille, established warm, personal relationships with his students. He tolerated a relatively loose code of classroom conduct, but always there was the target of the final defense, a requirement for graduation. By letting the occasional off-color remark slide, ignoring mildly disruptive behavior, and introducing tangents himself, Al demonstrated his flexibility, inculcated trust in his students, and allowed room for them to choose to engage. When, early in...