CLASSROOM CHARTER for 9-4
Ian Hedley Dorset 1997
Classroom charters involve teachers and students working together to devise the rules of the classroom. This study identifies three key reasons for using classroom charters: to improve discipline, to raise self-esteem and to improve learning. These reasons are examined through a process of self-reflection, seeking the views of pupils and a colleague, and seeking the views of experts. It examines the philosophical ideas behind classroom charters and places them within the main approaches to discipline. Specific questions about the use of classroom charters are examined. Changes made to my practice and in my thinking are summarised.
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Description of Classroom Charters
3. Where Do Classroom Charters Fit in with Philosophies About Classroom Management?
4. Are classroom charters an effective way of improving discipline?
5. Can classroom charters raise the self-esteem of students?
6. How Do Classroom Charters Affect Learning?
7. Specific Questions
8. Summary of Changes Made
9. References
Appendix 1 - School Rewards and Sanctions
Appendix 2 - Interviews
Appendix 3 - The Bottom Line
Appendix 4 - Results of the LAWSEQ Questionnaire
The following abbreviations have been used:
DES - Department of Education and Science
DfE - Department for Education
LDA - Learning Development Assistant
Classroom charters are the main feature of my approach to the management of behaviour and discipline and as such are indicative of my teaching philosophy (discussed in part 3). By reflecting on their use this study seeks to build a picture of how they could be used more effectively in the future.
I use classroom charters for three reasons:
Therefore this study seeks to answer three main questions derived from these reasons:
This study is for a module on behaviour and discipline so the focus will be on the first question. However, the other three are important and relevant because:
The study seeks to examine these questions through:
I restricted my evaluation to one group, a bottom set year nine mathematics class who had been using charters for two terms (longer than any other group). The behaviour of the group had improved more than any other over the year and I felt that this was due more than anything else to the use of classroom charters.
The essay was written over the Summer holiday in preparation for extending the use of charters the next school year.
Before starting the study I did not have a clear definition, but during the process of researching and reflecting I decided a classroom charter was: A statement of the rights and responsibilities of every person in the group.
This definition makes the breadth of the charter much narrower than it was before writing this study, as it used to contain an assortment of rules, recommendations and guidelines. The reason for this narrowing of focus is explained in 7.2.
One fifty-minute lesson is spent with the students in the school's conference room. We sit in a circle and I explain everything agreed to by the group will be acted upon but:
Pupils form random groups of four and have a pen and a large sheet of paper. They draw a large circle on the paper and inside the circle write everything they would like to be happening in a good mathematics lesson, outside the circle everything they would not like. Then everybody returns to the circle to discuss their ideas.
After this discussion the groups reform to think about the rules needed to make their ideal lessons happen. They are only allowed to put 'Do' (positive) rules. If they have time, they put ideas for sanctions too.
The lesson finishes with a discussion of their rules, focussing on areas where all the groups agree and attempting to resolve areas where there is little agreement.
After the negotiation lesson I take all the sheets of paper and combine the rules to make the classroom charter. This is displayed in the classroom and a copy given to every pupil, their homework being to look at the charter and make sure it was as they had agreed, and let me know if it was not. So far no-one has asked for changes to be made. An example of the end result is shown below. An explanation of the rewards and sanctions referred to is given in appendix 1.
Everybody is expected to follow the rules in the charter and rewards or sanctions are applied by me when necessary.
CLASSROOM CHARTER for 9-4
Classroom charters give students and teachers a say in how the class is run. As such they fall between the authoritarian approach, where "Teachers would expect to make many of the decisions about content and procedure, with perhaps fewer explanations or justification of the reasons for such decisions" (Wragg 1993, p. 11), and the permissive approach, where "Teachers are less likely to issue commands, use reprimands or punishment....Emphasis will be more on pupils taking responsibility for their own behaviour" (Wragg 1993, p. 12). It is not truly permissive because although classroom charters encourage students to take responsibility for their behaviour, they do not allow the teacher to relinquish all control and responsibility. Rogers and Freiberg (1994, p. 242) say classroom contracts are the "halfway point between external and self-directed discipline and instruction".
They are, in fact, more in keeping with what Wragg (1993, pp. 12-13) describes as the 'Interpersonal Relationships' approach, which corresponds with my own beliefs about the importance of building good relationships with students:
The belief here is that learning takes place where positive relationships exist between a teacher and class and among pupils. The teacher's role is to develop a healthy classroom climate within which learning will automatically thrive......There may, therefore, be more involvement of pupils in, say, the negotiation of rules, with discussion and suggestion about why these make sense.
I feel that in a democratic society teachers have a responsibility to listen to and take into account the views of their students. However, before starting this study my ideas about the rights of children to have their say were rather vague, and although classroom charters were introduced partly with this in mind, the primary purpose was to make the group easier to teach. After the reading undertaken for the study, the democratic aspect has become much more significant. Several sources are quoted below.
There is no suggestion that students are as wise, experienced, or knowledgeable as their teachers but they do have the right of self-determination. While teachers have a responsibility and an obligation to provide guidance and leadership for their students, they do not have the right to impose their beliefs and values on students. To do so violates the concept of respect, a crucial value in a democratic society.
(Balson 1982, p. 3)
This is put even more strongly by Brandes and Ginnis (1990, p. 17):
The basic assumptions of the humanistic, or holistic, or student-centred approach to education is stem from a fundamental belief that all human beings, solely by virtue of being human, have both the right and the motivation to take charge of their own lives.
If students are not allowed to have a say in how their classroom is organised, they:
......learn from experience that the major premise of a democratic society - that the people involved in any endeavour help determine its rules - does not apply to them.......Children should have a voice in determining both the curriculum and the rules of their school. Democracy is best learned by living it!
(Glasser 1969, p. 37)
This need for a democratic approach is stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says children that should have the "right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child" (Article 12, quoted in Council of Europe 1996, p. 19). Presland (1996) says this right is reflected in the 1989 Children Act.
All the students in the group felt they had a right to have a say in how their classes were run and that classroom charters gave them this opportunity. Balson (1982) describes this as 'freedom with order', where the teacher shares control, delegates responsibility and has close relationships with students. Classroom charters share control but do not hand it over.
I hoped that getting students to devise their own rules would remove most of the confrontation that occurred when they broke one of 'my' rules. I felt that bargaining with them, saying 'If you do your bit then I'll do this', would give me more of a lever with which to enforce the rules. The charter would also provide lots of perks for the students that could be withdrawn if they did not follow the rules, reducing the need to punish misdemeanours with sanctions.
The charter did seem to improve the atmosphere in the class. The group became more cooperative and my relationships with students more positive. Students seemed to get on with each other a little better but the change here was not quite so noticeable. Discipline problems were less common and easier to deal with, as I could point to the rule on the charter and say 'Look, it's not my rule, you came up with these'.
However, there were still ongoing problems with two or three individual students and the charter seemed to have little effect on their behaviour.
The LDA felt the classroom charter improved the behaviour of the group as a whole and of most, but not all, individuals in the group. She felt pupils were good at remembering the parts that they saw as benefits but were less vocal about other parts of the charter, such as the sanctions and the 'work as hard as we can' rule.
In the LDA's opinion, the strongest properties of the classroom charter were that it made rules clear to students and that it provided a structure for rewards and sanctions. She suggested focussing on one rule at a time for a whole lesson as a way of raising the profile of the charter after the negotiation lesson. For example, "Today we are going to concentrate on the 'Work together when we need to' rule".
Of the ten students interviewed, four felt the charter had improved their behaviour and six felt it had made no difference. Seven felt it had improved the behaviour of the group as a whole (and three felt it had made no difference). The rules that most pupils had difficulty with were 'work as hard as we can' and 'be polite and pleasant to each other at all times'.
Five students felt that most people ignored the charter and three said they had forgotten about it or did not take any notice of it. The people who took least notice of it seemed to be the people who sat farthest away from where it was displayed (it was on a wall on one side of the room) but this could easily be a coincidence.
Three students suggested making the charter bigger; three students suggested pointing out rules to people if they broke them; two students suggested changing the sanctions in some way; and two students felt I should be stricter in applying the sanctions.
Classroom charters mean students are directly involved in forming the rules they have to obey, and Glasser (1967, 1986 and 1992) says this involvement is essential if we are to get students to do anything: "No-one does anything, simple or complex, because someone tells them to do it." (Glasser 1986, p. 8) He says the only rules that work (in school or anywhere else) are those accepted by those they govern, and that pupils are far more likely to accept rules they have formulated themselves (Glasser 1992, p. 191). Rogers and Freiberg (1994, p. 234) quote evidence that "student development of classroom norms reduces discipline referrals and increases student learning" and Davies (1996, p. 159) suggests that pupils are more likely to see their teachers as fair if they "build into their teaching an ability to listen to what their pupils felt about being in school.....a quality represented by a willingness to discuss sanctions...." He also says that many pupils (with emotional and behavioural difficulties at least) view teacher fairness an "underpinning requirement for effective pupil-teacher collaboration." Balson (1982, p. 149) puts it another way: "Failure to involve students as responsible equals in decisions which concern them is to invite resistance."
The classroom charter gives pupils responsibility. Not only must they come up with a workable set of rules, rewards and sanctions, they must keep to them. The government said:
Pupils are likely to behave and learn better when they feel responsible for their learning and capable of success. Pupils should be encouraged under the guidance of the teacher to set and organise clear goals for themselves.
(DfE 1994a, p. 13)
The goals set by the classroom charter are behavioural goals, and the fact that they have been set by pupils should make them more achievable. In an extensive study, Rutter et al. (1979, p. 188) found that "the message of confidence that the pupils can be trusted to act with maturity and responsibility is likely to encourage pupils to fulfil those expectations," a view repeated in the Elton Report (DES 1989, p. 142).
The classroom charter also encourages the group to adopt greater responsibility as the formation of it is a group activity and the final charter is owned by the group. Balson (1982, p. 6) states the "peer group is always more powerful than the teacher in its ability to influence individual students" and this idea is repeated by Galloway (1985, p. 110): "The peer group is potentially the strongest pro-social and supportive influence in the school. It is also, potentially, the most antisocial and destructive influence."
During the negotiation of a classroom charter rules are discussed. This means that any hidden rules, rules that are assumed by the teacher to be understood but have never been fully explained to students, are brought out into the open. McNamara and Moreton (1995) claim that these hidden rules must be discussed and explained because they are the ones that pupils usually have most problems keeping. The reasons for the rules are also discussed and they are more likely to be understood because they have been suggested by pupils. Many discipline problems arise because pupils either do not see the point of a rule or do not understand it (DES 1989, McNamara and Moreton 1995).
However, McNamara and Moreton (1995) say it is not sufficient simply to talk about rules. Each rule needs to be taught, by explaining exactly what it means and by modelling the behaviour that keeping the rule would look like.
Negotiating classroom charters is something that teachers and pupils do together, where teachers hand over some of their power. Both these things help build a positive relationship between teacher and pupil, and pupils are more likely to behave in an appropriate way if they have a good relationship with their teacher (DES 1987; Davies 1996; Glasser 1967, 1986 and 1992).
Classroom charters have been successful in reducing discipline problems but theory suggests they could be much more effective. Unfortunately too many students ignore or forget about parts (or all) of the charter and most students have difficulty in keeping at least one of the rules.
Many writers suggest that negotiation is the only way to get a rule system that will work. The negotiation lesson is important not just for deciding the rules but for exploring the hidden concepts that lie behind them. I need to spend time during the lesson talking with the students so that everybody (myself included) understands exactly what the rules mean.
After the negotiation lesson the rules need to be taught if they are to be effective. This could be done by working through each rule in turn and concentrating on it for one lesson. The kinds of things the pupils should be doing if they are keeping the rule should be made clear. This should help pupils learn how to keep the rules in the charter.
The profile of the charter after the negotiation lesson needs to be maintained to avoid pupils forgetting about or ignoring it. Teaching the rules will help. Displaying the charter more prominently and drawing pupil's attention to it each time they break a rule, or when they have been particularly successful in keeping a rule, will also help keep the charter in students' minds.
Classroom charters help involve the peer group in discipline issues and help to build
positive teacher-pupil relationships. This is important so it needs to be stressed to
pupils that the charter belongs to the whole group and is something we have all done
together.
I believe teachers should actively build the self-esteem of all their students, and everything they do should be examined to make sure it does not damage it. Classroom charters give students responsibility and show the teacher trusts them and I feel pupils respond to this by being responsible and trustworthy, and self-esteem is raised as a result.
The pupils in the group seemed to have much more confidence in lessons at the end of the year, but it is difficult to know how much of this was due directly to the classroom charter.
The LDA felt the confidence and self-esteem of the students in the group had improved dramatically over the year. She was sure classroom charters were the main reason for this because they were such a powerful indication of the trust and confidence I had in them.
I did not ask students if they felt their self-esteem had been raised as a result of using the classroom charter, but I did assess their self-esteem at the beginning and end of the first term of using classroom charters (see appendix 4). There was a very slight rise in the average self-esteem of the group and there was a rise for all but one of the students who at the beginning of the year had been below average. Again, it is difficult to know how much of this was due to the classroom charter.
Forming a classroom charter is a group process and Mosley (1994, talking about involving students in developing whole-school behaviour policies) thinks that this kind of process is "almost more important than the policy itself as it is the process of continually meeting together in a respectful way that builds positive relationships". Obviously for this to have an effect the group needs to meet more than once at the start of a year, but it sends out the message that the class is a social group that everyone is part of, and "self-esteem is enhanced if the child feels part of the social group" (Margerison 1996, p. 178).
Classroom charters allow pupils to have their say: "When we value the learner, we increase her self-esteem and her openness to learning" (Brandes and Ginnis 1990, p. 13). Davies (1996) says that if we deny children the right to express opinions we actually dispense "with their sense of value and dignity" (p. 158) and so diminish their self-esteem. Lawrence (1988, p. 35) says:
....there is a positive correlation between internality, self-esteem and achievement. We should aim therefore to help pupils achieve some feeling of control over their destinies....through pupils having some say in their own governance, that is, the setting up of class rules.
The classroom charter makes it clear to pupils what is expected of them:
Clearly defined expectations can serve as an important framework for students' self-evaluation.......expectations let students know that a definition of their social environment is possible, that the world does impose restrictions and make demands, and that they can successfully handle these on an everyday basis.
Expectations perform another important function: they relay the message that students have the ability to do what is required of them. When set at reasonable, reachable levels, expectations represent a positive vote of confidence. Expectations say, "This is what needs to be done and I know you can do it."
(Hamachek 1987, p. 283)
This structure says to children that they have responsibilities. This is important because the "type of control under which a child lives has considerable effect on his self-image" (Purkey 1970, p. 54). Purkey (1970) quotes evidence from Coopersmith (1967) that children who are brought up in a permissive atmosphere develop less self-esteem than those reared in a firmer and more demanding atmosphere.
If the charter really does help children to stick to the rules, as discussed in part 4, then this will help build self-esteem: "The results of being unable to keep a rule are damaging for pupils because their self-esteem is affected" (McNamara and Moreton 1995, p. 53).
The experience of using classroom charters seems to indicate that they could well help build self-esteem. Theory suggests that the process of forming a charter is very useful but, because it only takes place on a few occasions with each group, it might not have any significant effect. However, charters help to create a positive atmosphere, which many writers say is essential if self-esteem is to grow. Unfortunately the rule about being polite and pleasant to each other is the one most students have trouble with, so more effort needs to be put into helping pupils keep this rule (see 4.5).
Classroom charters give pupils responsibility but this may not have been emphasised enough in the past. I need to make it clear that it is the responsibility of everyone in the group to make the charter a success.
It is essential that students realise that their views are important and that they are influential. I already tell students this but need to tell students about specific changes that their opinions have influenced.
Classroom charters build good relationships with students and encourage a positive atmosphere. Students who feel good about themselves, who do not keep getting into trouble and have a good relationship with their teacher will learn more effectively.
The LDA thought that the classroom charter had helped to motivate the students, and had encouraged them to think and make decisions for themselves.
Of the ten students interviewed, seven said they had difficulty sticking to the 'work as hard as we can' rule, but eight said they enjoyed mathematics lessons more because of the charter.
In the Key Stage 3 test, taken after one term of using the charter, the students achieved marks significantly above average for their ability group.
If classroom charters can improve behaviour then they will also benefit learning because "Good behaviour and discipline are key foundations of good education. Without an orderly atmosphere effective teaching and learning cannot take place." (DfE 1994a, p. 6) and "The relationship between lack of progress in the curriculum, self-image and disturbing behaviour cannot easily be overstated." (Galloway 1985, p. 104)
Classroom charters encourage children to take ownership of their behaviour and their learning. "Fortunately, effective teaching, rather like cooperative behaviour, seems to be facilitated when pupils are given a high degree of responsibility." (Cooper 1995, p. 7) This view is echoed by Brandes and Ginnis (1990, p. 13): "The most effective learning is 'owned' by learners who are consistently regarded as responsible for themselves." A study undertaken by Lewin (quoted in Balson 1982) found that academically there is little to separate authoritarian and democratic approaches.
There is another way in which learning could be improved through the forming of a classroom charter, because it provides a means ".....by which teachers can examine their own classroom practice......The views of the children can therefore act as a mirror for the professional practice of the teacher." Davies (1996, p. 158) Thus learning could be improved because the act of forming a classroom charter encourages teachers to reflect on and improve their own practice.
McNamara and Moreton (1996, p. 54) claim that classroom charters save time:
Time given to this will not be wasted, but should be regarded as an investment. It will reduce the amount of time spent on dealing with rule breaking throughout the rest of the year.
There is also the argument that forming a classroom charter is in itself educational. The Elton Report (DES 1989, p. 69) says:
Teaching has never just been about the transmission of knowledge and never will be. Establishing good relationships with pupils, encouraging them to learn and to behave well have always been essential parts of a teachers' work. This cannot be achieved by talking at children, but by working with them.
The DfE said "Learning how to behave towards others is a particularly important part of school life and may directly influence attitudes adopted in later years," (1994a, p. 12), a view that is repeated by Burns (1982). Glasser (1967) says you cannot teach children to be responsible by teaching "thoughtless conformity". According to Glasser (1967) and Burns (1982) the best way of teaching children to be responsible is to encourage (and teach) them to evaluate and choose between alternatives.
Spending time on a charter is not wasting time. Experience suggests that learning benefits using a charter and many writers agree.
I had not thought about the classroom charter as educational in itself before. Many sources state that it is the responsibility of teachers of any subject to teach good behaviour (rather than just expect it), so even in mathematics it is a valid, if not essential, part of the curriculum.
One of the worries I had before starting this study was about the time spent on the
charter. This could partially explain why students forgot about it, because I spent very
little time on the charter after the initial negotiation lesson, fearing it was stopping
me doing my 'proper' job of teaching mathematics. The evidence suggests that taking time
to follow up the charter by including it in normal lessons and teaching the rules and
responsibilities enshrined in it, would help me be more effective as a mathematics teacher
and also enable me to fulfil my wider teaching responsibilities.
The Elton Report (DES 1989, p. 72) recommends making rules clear from the very first lesson and this seems the best time to get any 'bottom-line' ground rules established (see 8.3).
McNamara and Moreton (1996, p. 54) say the rule forming process:
...should ideally be undertaken at the start of a year, or when a group is just forming, and should be returned to if there is a problem with one particular rule being broken at any point in the year.
Therefore each group will negotiate a charter after one to two weeks, when pupils have had time to understand the ground rules but have not settled into any routines. They will be reviewed when necessary.
The charter shown in figures 2.1 and 2.2 includes:
rules for everybody;
rules for the teacher;
curriculum suggestions; and
rewards and sanctions.
Glasser (1992, p. 123) says that a lot of rules means "time and effort that should be devoted to work is devoted instead to circumventing rules." DfE circular 8/94 (DfE 1994, p. 11) says "Good behaviour is best promoted by a short set of simple rules" and Cheeseman and Watts (1985, p. 83) say "Class behaviour is more easily maintained if rules are few in number but made explicit to the children". So rules should be kept to a minimum, which means looking at which rules should be included is important.
This is the method I intend to use:
[Discuss]....what rules the students think are needed to get the work done....The
teacher should emphasise that his goal is to help students to learn. All he wants is a
minimal set of rules; he does not want to have to police unnecessary rules....As the
students offer rules, try to get them to see that if they are courteous, in most cases the
rule will not be needed. Try to reverse what most see as the teacher's usual role. You are
pushing for fewer rules, not more. After you get these rules, tell students that you can
always meet again if a situation arises where an additional rule is needed.
(Glasser 1992, pp. 123-124)
How the rules are worded in the charter is also important. I used to write the rules myself, based on what had been suggested by the pupils, but McNamara and Moreton (1995, p. 58) say the group's own wording should be used "so that the teacher does not interpret the group's rule to fit their own understanding." However it is important to make sure that these rules are worded in a positive way as several sources (Rogers and Freiberg 1994, Cheeseman and Watts 1985, DfE 1994a) say that positive rules are more effective. So I will continue to insist on 'Do' rules but ask the students to write the rules themselves.
Pupils prefer to work with teachers they see as fair (DES 1989, Davies 1996) and having a list of rules that apply to pupils but not teachers could easily be seen as unfair. I firmly believe that teachers should not ask pupils to do anything they are not prepared to do themselves. This raises the issue of whether there should be extra rules just for the teacher. I included them originally as a way of meeting the pupils halfway and as a kind of bribe to encourage them to take the charter seriously. However, if the same rules should apply to everybody, there should not be any just for teachers. In future there will be just one set of rules for everybody.
Glasser (1986) suggests that asking pupils for ideas about how to improve the working environment is usually more useful than seeking the advice of outside experts who do not have to work in that system, and Lawrence (1988) suggests that this can also help to build self-esteem. Balson (1982), Brandes and Ginnis (1990) and Rogers and Freiberg (1994) maintain children have the right to shape the curriculum, and Presland (1996) suggests that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child asserts this right. So it is important that students have a say in their curriculum and how it is taught. However, if classroom charters are statements about rights and responsibilities they might not be the appropriate forum for this discussion. In addition, it has already been suggested that a set of rules should be short and to the point. For these reasons in future classroom charters will not include curriculum suggestions.
The rules in the charter become meaningless if they are not enforced so it is necessary that failure to keep a rule should have some kind of consequence and success in keeping a rule should have some kind of reward. McNamara and Moreton (1995) believe that student involvement in formulating rewards and sanctions makes them easier to apply, as pupils are more likely to see them as fair. This means rewards and sanctions must be thought of as an integral part of the charter, and should be included.
Not everything can be negotiated. National laws and school policy cannot be changed and rewards and sanctions need to be consistent throughout a school. Brandes and Ginnis (1990) also argue, very convincingly, that there should be nonnegotiable 'bottom-line' ground rules. They say that as educators they have beliefs that are not up for discussion and that it would be "less than honest" to pretend they were. Brandes and Ginnis (1990, p. 83) say the best approach is to "sort out what your own ground rules are and make them explicit to yourself," make them clear to students very early on and explain that while these are not up for negotiation, most other things are. My ground rules are in appendix 3.
Glasser (1967, p. 200) stresses the importance of sticking to the charter once it has been agreed:
....school children should have some part in making the rules of their school. They do not decide, however, whether or not rules, once established, should be enforced. They may choose to disobey the rules; this choice is open to all. But they then have to accept the consequences.
Davies (1996, p. 159) quotes the views of the pupils themselves:
The children stressed the need for an agreed set of rules between the teacher and themselves; in spite of this they wanted the teacher to be in control.
So while many rewards and sanctions are open to negotiation, their application is not.
To summarise, these items will be fixed:
but everything else can be negotiated.
The rewards and sanctions themselves need to be negotiated with pupils, for reasons discussed above, but they will have to be consistent with guidelines in the school behaviour policy and this needs to be made clear to pupils in advance.
As a result of this study, in an effort to make classroom charters more effective, several changes have been made to how classroom charters are negotiated and subsequently used. In particular, they have become more narrowly defined and will only contain the rules needed to create a positive and successful learning environment.
I will introduce my nonnegotiable ground rules, and spend time explaining and talking about them, but the charter rules will be written by the students themselves. There will be more discussion when forming the charter as this will make it easier for students to understand (and so keep to) the rules. The process of discussing and negotiating as a group will also emphasise the group's ownership of the charter and make the charter a more effective way of raising self-esteem. It is important to keep reminding students about this ownership and the responsibility it engenders.
The profile of the charter needs to be maintained in the minds of the students after the negotiation lesson. This will be done by referring to it when rules are broken or when pupils have been particularly successful in keeping a rule, and through the process of teaching one rule at a time. The teaching process is essential because many pupils break rules because they do not know how to keep them.
Consultation will become a much more common feature of my lessons. The charter no longer includes curriculum ideas. Although the content of the curriculum is fixed by the National Curriculum and department policy, I will ensure that pupils have the opportunity to influence the kinds of tasks that are used to deliver this curriculum.
Perhaps the most significant change is that I now feel that classroom charters are an essential part of my teaching, not because they are an effective tool, but because children have a right to take part in the development of the rules that govern them. Not only do pupils have a right to negotiate these rules, I am now convinced they have to become involved in this way if they are to learn the skills needed to live and participate in a democratic society.
| Balson, M (1982) Understanding Classroom Behaviour Hawthorn: Australian Council for Educational Research |
| Brandes, D and Ginnis, P (1990) The Student Centred School Oxford: Basil Blackwell |
| Burns, R (1982) Self-Concept Development and Education Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston |
| Cheeseman, PL and Watts PE (1985) Positive Behaviour Management Beckenham: Croom Helm |
| Cooper, P (1995) 'Introduction: The Special Curricular Needs of Children with Educational and Behavioural Difficulties' in Cooper, P (ed.) Helping Them to Learn Stoke-on-Tent: NASEN |
| Council of Europe (1996) The Rights of the Child: A European Perspective Strasbourg: CoE |
| Davies, JD (1996) 'Pupils Views on Special Educational needs Practice' in Support for Learning Vol. 11, No. 14 (pp. 157-161) |
| DES (1989) Discipline in Schools: Report of the Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton, 'The Elton Report' London: HMSO |
| DfE (1994a) Pupil behaviour and Discipline (Circular 8/94) London: DfE |
| DfE (1994b) The Education of Children With Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (Circular 9/94) London: DfE |
| Galloway, D (1985) Schools, Pupils and Special Educational Needs Beckenham: Croom Helm |
| Glasser, W (1969) Schools Without Failure New York: Harper and Row |
| Glasser, W (1986) Control Theory in the Classroom New York: Harper and Row |
| Glasser, W (1992) The Quality School New York: Harper Collins |
| Hamachek, DE (1987) Encounters With the Self New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston |
| Lawrence, D (1988) Enhancing Self-Esteem in the Classroom London: Paul Chapman |
| Margerison, A (1996) 'Self-Esteem: It's Effect on the Development and Learning of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties' in Support for Learning Vol. 11, No. 4 (pp. 176-180) |
| McNamara, S and Moreton, G (1995) Changing Behaviour: Teaching Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Primary and Secondary Classrooms London: David Fulton |
| Mosley, J (1994) 'Back to Basics: Self-Esteem' in Special Children No. 74 (pull out supplement) |
| Presland, J (1996) 'Teaching Pupils to Negotiate' in Pastoral Care in Education Vol. 14, No. 2 (pp. 10-15) |
| Purkey, WW (1970) Self Concept and School Achievement Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall |
| Rogers, CR and Freiberg HJ (1994) Freedom To Learn New York: Macmillan College Publishing |
| Rutter, M, Maughan, B, Mortimore, P and Ousten, J (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours London: Open Books |
| Wragg, EC (1993) Class Management London: Routledge |
The school behaviour policy recommends a stepped approach, from least intrusive to most intrusive intervention. The rewards and sanctions referred to in the classroom charter fit in with this policy.
The green slip is a reward for good work and is not supposed to be used to reward good behaviour as the behaviour policy says 'We expect students to behave well.' Certificates are given out in assembly for ten, twenty-five, fifty, seventy-five and one hundred green slips.
A pink slip can be for information only or for further action. They are handed to the pupil's tutor and if marked for further action tutors can decide whether to deal it themselves or pass the matter on to the head of year. Pink slips are used for reporting serious incidents and they are all logged by the head of year.
Detentions can be up to ten minutes at the end of the day, most of a lunchtime or, with twenty-four hour's notice, half an hour after school. In exceptional circumstances an hour's detention can be given.
I talked to a Learning Development Assistant about what she thought about the success of the charter with regard to discipline and learning. The LDA had worked with me in various classes (some using classroom charters, some not) and had also worked with the group under examination in several other subjects, so she was able to give a more objective view than myself. The interview was very informal and unstructured.
I wished to interview as many of the pupils in the group as possible for two reasons. First, to use the ideas they had to help me improve their use for the next year and secondly to compare their views about the success and significance of the classroom charter with my own. To encourage the pupils to be more honest in giving their opinions to their teacher, and to interview as many of them as possible in the very limited time I had left before the end of the year, where possible pupils were interviewed in pairs.
The questions I wanted the interviews to answer were as follows:
(1) Negotiation lesson
Do pupils feel I listened to their views on how lessons should be conducted?
Do pupils feel the classroom charter reflects their views on how lessons should be conducted?
What would they change about how the charter is negotiated?
(2) Use of the charter in lessons
Do pupils think the charter has made a difference to the behaviour of themselves or others in lessons?
Do pupils realise that the classroom charter is in daily use?
What would they change about how the charter is used?
Not all these questions were designed for use in the study.
The interview schedule is shown below (Figure A2.1), and the interviews roughly followed the guidelines for semi-structured interviews laid out in Drever (1995). I feel the responses given by the pupils were honest and they were not held back too much by being interviewed by their teacher. I feel this because they are used to being asked their opinions and they know from this past experience that what they say will not be held against them and will be considered by me, and quite possibly acted upon.
Reference:
Drever, E (1995) Using Semi-Structured Interviews in Small-Scale Research Glasgow, Scottish Council for Research in Education
Brandes and Ginnis (1990) stressed the need for a non-negotiable set of rules, the 'bottom line' that any classroom set of rules would have to be built on top of. Their rules are shown in Figure 3.1. This has been reworded slightly and adapted for use in a single classroom in Figure 3.2.
The LAWSEQ survey (Lawrence 1988) was carried out at the beginning and end of the Spring term, with the following results:
| Pupil | First score | Second score | Change |
| A | 13 | 17 | +4 |
| B | 18 | 19 | +1 |
| C | 21 | 22 | +1 |
| D | 20 | 20 | 0 |
| E | 23 | 20 | -3 |
| F | 19 | 18 | -1 |
| G | 21 | 21 | 0 |
| H | 22 | 25 | +3 |
| I | 20 | 12 | -8 |
| J | 17 | 21 | +4 |
| K | 17 | 21 | +4 |
| L | 10 | 9 | -1 |
| M | 15 | 20 | +5 |
| N | 22 | 21 | -1 |
| I | 20 | 19 | -1 |
| J | 22 | 22 | 0 |
| Average | 18.8 | 19.2 | +0.4 |
A high score equals a high self-esteem. An average score is 18.