My data is taken from my personal teacher journal. I have kept a journal every year since I started to work in the public realm in 2016. This is often where I write notes to myself on lessons, things to consider in the future, supply issues or considerations, etc. However mostly, this is the tool that I grab when I need to vent, reflect or document classroom behavior or management issues. As I started to code, I realized that the entries on these experiences were still fresh in my memory. For my layered analysis, I look to a selection of entries from my 2019-2020 journal to help address my main concerns which are:
-What emotional affects are present within our current school community
- How using the restorative practice framework as an approach to discipline would change the relationships established between individuals within the school community.
Layer One: Code
- Stakeholders:
- Individual
- Teacher
- Student
- Staff
- Administration
- Parent
- Group
- Within School
- Educators
- Class
- Student Body
- District Administration
- Within Community
- Families
- People of color
- Disabled
- Approaches to Discipline:
- Punitive
- Restorative
- Fully
- Mostly
- Partly
- Neglectful
- Permissive
- Affects:
- Postive
- Enjoyment - Joy
- Interest - Excitement
- Neutral
- Surprise - Startle
- Negative
- Shame - Humiliation
- Withdrawal
- Isolation
- Run/hide
- Attack Others
- “Turn the tables”
- Blame the victim
- Lash out verbally or physically
- Attack Self
- Self put-down
- Masochism
- Avoid
- Denial
- Abuse of drugs and alcohol
- Distraction through thrill seeking
- Distress - Anguish
- Disgust
- Fear - Terror
- Anger - Rage
- Dissmell
Layer Two:
The first category is 'Stakeholders'. This breakdowns the question of who the community is that is referenced
in my first question, "what emotional affects are present within our school community?" When considering the
school community I thought of what community means outside of the school walls. Community means that there
are many individuals coming together to form a group. Community and collaboration go hand in hand, however this implies that
we must also consider the individuals that make up that community as being just as influential. My role as a teacher
is defined differently depending on who is looking at it. I am not just a teacher, I am also a member of the faculty.The scope of this lens must continue to broaden to include societal groups such as people of color, and the "disabled" if I am to fully consider the community and its influence.
The next category is 'Approach to Discipline'. The four terms defined by the restorative practice framework seem
very narrow in comparison to the long list of who is a part of this story. Looking at the four terms, you almost want
to remove the label of 'neglectful' from the list. As teachers, I think that it is an inherent part of our nature to want
to help and care for our students. I would hope that someone who is neglectful would be fired or never hired to begin
with. I wonder if this idea is linked to my personal history with neglectful parents. The window of social discipline not
only seems to reflect the habits of teachers, but of parents as well.
Lastly, the category of affects seems to go on and on. I believe that when assessing the quality of a relationship, you
must look to how those in relation to one another feel. As a society, we have more words to describe the negative as
opposed to the positive. This fact has always made me feel that the natural inclination for people is react from a place
of fear instead of trust. With this thought in mind that I find it surprising that "safety" is not listed as one of the affects.
Feeling or emotions are often described as being outside of our control. However, when we look at them as "affects"
I wonder if it redefines them as something that is more malleable. The research question asked how restorative
practices would change the relationships. This suggests a shift in affect, perhaps from positive to negative, or negative
positive.
Layer 3:
In scene one, the common stakeholder that applies an authoritarian method of discipline is the administration. This is
seen in two ways. In one way, the morning duty is assigned to or for the teacher. The resulting affect is a feeling of
"pointlessness". The other way, is when the three students come into the office and told to write down what happened.
The boy who was hurt, was sent to the nurses office while the others filled out "incident reports". Verbally expressing
the thought that what they had done would, "get them tossed." In the end, the students are sent back to their homeroom,
having never actually spoken to anyone. This would almost suggest a neglectful approach which is contrary to my
initial belief that neglectful discipline is rarely seen in the educational world.
The other stakeholder that is commonly described in scene one is not one that is applying any discipline but is
instead the reflection of discipline in the larger community in describing race. "Hispanic", "Black", "white", "minorities"
play an important role in my perception of the students and their actions. In layer 2 I realized that while communities
are defined by many people coming together as a group, it does not mean that she would negate how those individuals
identify. In the fourth paragraph in Scene 1, I identified my younger self as being a "minority" as a student who
attended a predominantly Hispanic, Latino, and Puerto Rican public school. This happens directly after I identify
the three students as also being "minorities". This creates an invisible, emotional relationship between myself and the
students. In Scene 2, this relationship results in a negative affect as I state, "I am angry that we have created a school
that doesn't care to ask questions about the fights that happen on the bus." This connection is what ultimately inspires
me to go to morning meeting in Scene 3 as, "I worry that all of this will throw the whole day into disaster."
When we compare the approach to discipline from scene one to that of scene two, we see a stark comparison.
In Scene one, the three students who were involved in the fight are handed clipboards and told to write down
what happened. When they wrote out their stories, they were then sent back to homeroom. In this case, it
is as if the authority that is holding them accountable is a ghost. While they can not see them physcially,
the students feel the dread of the consequences which is expressed by the female student when she says, " I
bet we are going to get tossed." The word 'tossed' here seems to imply suspension. They know that they broke
a rule and therefore, they will be disciplined.
Layer 4:
Layer 3:
In scene one, the common stakeholder that applies an authoritarian method of discipline is the administration. This is
seen in two ways. In one way, the morning duty is assigned to or for the teacher. The resulting affect is a feeling of
"pointlessness". The other way, is when the three students come into the office and told to write down what happened.
The boy who was hurt, was sent to the nurses office while the others filled out "incident reports". Verbally expressing
the thought that what they had done would, "get them tossed." In the end, the students are sent back to their homeroom,
having never actually spoken to anyone. This would almost suggest a neglectful approach which is contrary to my
initial belief that neglectful discipline is rarely seen in the educational world.
The other stakeholder that is commonly described in scene one is not one that is applying any discipline but is
instead the reflection of discipline in the larger community in describing race. "Hispanic", "Black", "white", "minorities"
play an important role in my perception of the students and their actions. In layer 2 I realized that while communities
are defined by many people coming together as a group, it does not mean that she would negate how those individuals
identify. In the fourth paragraph in Scene 1, I identified my younger self as being a "minority" as a student who
attended a predominantly Hispanic, Latino, and Puerto Rican public school. This happens directly after I identify
the three students as also being "minorities". This creates an invisible, emotional relationship between myself and the
students. In Scene 2, this relationship results in a negative affect as I state, "I am angry that we have created a school
that doesn't care to ask questions about the fights that happen on the bus." This connection is what ultimately inspires
me to go to morning meeting in Scene 3 as, "I worry that all of this will throw the whole day into disaster."
When we compare the approach to discipline from scene one to that of scene two, we see a stark comparison.
In Scene one, the three students who were involved in the fight are handed clipboards and told to write down
what happened. When they wrote out their stories, they were then sent back to homeroom. In this case, it
is as if the authority that is holding them accountable is a ghost. While they can not see them physcially,
the students feel the dread of the consequences which is expressed by the female student when she says, " I
bet we are going to get tossed." The word 'tossed' here seems to imply suspension. They know that they broke
a rule and therefore, they will be disciplined.
Layer 4:
The idea of teachers and students needing to create and establish relationships to appropriately deal with discipline issues is the foundation of restorative practice. The International Institute for Restorative Practice is a Graduate School that leads the research in this theory as the only institution solely devoted to this framework has implemented this in education, criminal justice, and family counseling arenas. The founder of this institution Ted Wachtel defines restorative practice as, "a social science that studies how to build social capital and achieve social discipline through participatory learning and decision making." (Wachtel, 1991) I chose this theory as my lens to look because of their goal being similar to mine “The aim of restorative practices is to develop community and to manage conflict and tensions by repairing harm and building relationships.” (4, Wachtel)
Ultimately, I believe that the data I collected in my journal shows that if we were to build more authentic relationships with our students there would be less negative affects compared to positive. When the students who were involved in the fight on the bus were addressed about their behavior, they were not spoken to directly by any adult about what happened. They were able to share what happened on paper but then were immediately sent to homeroom. This is an example of what the IIRP would describe as authoritarian discipline. This is one of four approaches to discipline that the IIRP acknowledges as part of their Window of Discipline. Administrators are able to be just as effective as "ghosts" becuase they maintain a high level of control. Even though the administrator does not support the students in the moment, they are able to ellict a negative affect from the students. On the other side of the spectrum there are educators that practice a permissive style that executes paternal power over students. Paternal power in the educational setting suggests that teachers act as parents and make discipline decisions based off their belief that they know what is best for the student. While this is done from a genuine place of concern for their wellbeing, it allows the majority of the control to be in the hands of the students and not the teacher. The permissive teacher is far more likely to accept a lower quality of work and behavior in favor of maintaining a caring relationship with the student with the hope of self regulation coming naturally. In addition to these two approaches, the framework includes the approach of using no power (neglect) and the ideal approach of restorative practice which balances authoritative power out by building relationships to foster everyone's ability to execute their own power.
One of those students who I later spoke to responded to me in defense when I brought up the incident. If we were to implement restorative practices like a conference between the bully and the bullied, administration and a teacher, the students would be able to experience an emotional container in the room. Freely expressing their thoughts and feelings would result in understanding, not defensivness. Wachtel says, “...human relationships are best and healthiest when there is free expression of affect or emotion-minimizing the negative, maximizing the positive, but allowing for free expression.” (5) If we want our students to truly change and own behaviors, we need to take the time and make the effort to establish a relationship with them where they feel both safe and accountable.
Ultimately, I believe that the data I collected in my journal shows that if we were to build more authentic relationships with our students there would be less negative affects compared to positive. When the students who were involved in the fight on the bus were addressed about their behavior, they were not spoken to directly by any adult about what happened. They were able to share what happened on paper but then were immediately sent to homeroom. This is an example of what the IIRP would describe as authoritarian discipline. This is one of four approaches to discipline that the IIRP acknowledges as part of their Window of Discipline. Administrators are able to be just as effective as "ghosts" becuase they maintain a high level of control. Even though the administrator does not support the students in the moment, they are able to ellict a negative affect from the students. On the other side of the spectrum there are educators that practice a permissive style that executes paternal power over students. Paternal power in the educational setting suggests that teachers act as parents and make discipline decisions based off their belief that they know what is best for the student. While this is done from a genuine place of concern for their wellbeing, it allows the majority of the control to be in the hands of the students and not the teacher. The permissive teacher is far more likely to accept a lower quality of work and behavior in favor of maintaining a caring relationship with the student with the hope of self regulation coming naturally. In addition to these two approaches, the framework includes the approach of using no power (neglect) and the ideal approach of restorative practice which balances authoritative power out by building relationships to foster everyone's ability to execute their own power.
One of those students who I later spoke to responded to me in defense when I brought up the incident. If we were to implement restorative practices like a conference between the bully and the bullied, administration and a teacher, the students would be able to experience an emotional container in the room. Freely expressing their thoughts and feelings would result in understanding, not defensivness. Wachtel says, “...human relationships are best and healthiest when there is free expression of affect or emotion-minimizing the negative, maximizing the positive, but allowing for free expression.” (5) If we want our students to truly change and own behaviors, we need to take the time and make the effort to establish a relationship with them where they feel both safe and accountable.
References
Buckmaster, D. (2016). From the Eradication of Tolerance to the Restoration of School Community: Exploring Restorative Practices as A Reform Framework for Ethical School Discipline. Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, 12(3), 1–8.
Covaleskie, J.F. (2013). Membership and moral formation: Shame as an educational and social emotion. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
Fox, W.D. (2004). Supporting teachers supporting pupils: The emotions of teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://ebookscentral.proquest.com created from pensu on 2020-02-22 09:16:13.
Wachtel, T. (n.d.). Defining Restorative. Retrieved 1991, from https://www.iirp.edu/restorative-practices/defining-restorative/
Watchel, T. (2005, November). The next Step: Developing Restorative Communities.
Comments
Post a Comment