Understanding issues of control in top-down management pedagogies

Abstract

There exist societal problems of control deep within the consciousness of humanity. These problems often surface in schooling as forms of top-down management pedagogies. This article seeks to better understand theoretical issues behind several problems that management pedagogies pose in schools. The author identifies humanity as having an inherent need to create neo-liberal systems of control within societies. The author argues that the need for and nature of control contribute to cultivating cultures of fear in schools, which produce unhealthy classroom communities. Finally, the article proposes alternatives to rethinking top-down management pedagogies through implementations of democratic classroom practices. The problems associated with top-down mechanisms of control in classrooms have the potential to be resolved through intentional changes in language, implementations of democratic practices, and fostering environments for healthy communities to exist.

A complex issue that is persistent today is a deeply rooted desire to create control processes which lead to greater efficiencies in capitalism. In an effort to become more efficient and hold people to higher levels of accountability, these efficiency practices sometimes lead to hegemony and the creation of oppressive societal structures. An interesting manifestation of humanity’s need for efficient control practices can be found in classrooms as a result of a larger neo-liberal agenda in education. In order to counter initiatives that favor free-market capitalism, educational reformers must agree that “education is about attending to and taking into account alternative ways of perceiving, experiencing, imagining” (Schostak, 2012: 251).

It should be no surprise that many teachers have rules or procedures posted in their classrooms for students to follow. These rules are often instituted to provide a sense of order and control in order to help teachers manage students in an age of high accountability on standardized tests. During my research in an urban school district in the Midwestern part of the United States, I have observed many teachers posting what I thought were democratic classroom norms in place of what seemed to be traditional rules. This struck me as odd, as the schools where my observations took place were very traditional in nature, and students tended to be unquestionably obedient to authority and their collective voice was seldom taken into consideration when establishing appropriate behaviors in schools.

When using the terms “rules” and “norms,” there needs to be some clarification for what is meant. The rules referred to are typically unilateral in voice. They contain expectations set forth by only the teacher or other entity in charge. Norms, on the other hand, when implemented in a democratic fashion, include the students’ collective voices. These are democratic practices by which both students and teacher agree to abide throughout the course of the school year. Norms may be amended as students and teachers see fit, as long as they continue to be democratically agreed upon by the collective voice in the classroom (Sergiovanni, 1994).

At first glance, it seemed as if the observed teachers had implemented democratic approaches to establishing agreed-upon classroom rules, procedures, and expectations. On further investigation, however, the posted norms were simply traditional top-down rules in disguise. The teachers had essentially created traditional classroom rules for students to follow and replaced the word “rules” with “norms.” While what has been posted can potentially become normative over time, the teachers have failed to include students’ voices and are unintentionally perpetuating top-down mechanisms of control in classrooms. This article seeks to understand issues of top-down control through a critical lens, while also providing space for possibilities that promote democratic ideals in classrooms.

Theoretical framework

Democracies allow citizens to have active voices in electing officials, and to vote on state and local propositions. Valuing individual voices is essential to the health of Jeffersonian democracies like the United States (Greene, 1988). A Jeffersonian democracy “rests on a recognition of the importance of a fully political and educative notion of democracy that recaptures the collective struggle by citizens to build institutions in participatory ways” (Carlson and Apple, 1998: 9). In schools, however, there oftentimes exist false senses of democracy as students’ voices are seldom considered when creating educational practices.

False democracies are not instantaneously born into existence, but evolve through a variety of actions which silence individuals’ voices. While teachers may believe in creating collaborative, free-thinking spaces that allow students to become critical thinkers, they often find themselves in positions where they see management-style pedagogies as practical, efficient ways to help their students perform well in the wake of high-stakes testing cultures and data-driven policies. The theoretical literature discussed below adds context to observations of falsely democratic classroom practices and examines existing societal needs for control.

Top-down management pedagogy

Rules posted in classrooms tend to be hierarchical in nature. They often depend on student compliance and support teachers’ expectations. Top-down rules fail to consider expectations from students’ perspectives and do not include students’ collective voices. These exchanges seem to be rooted in antiquated classroom management ploys which quash students’ voices and often focus on controlling behavior.

Many teachers, both veteran and novice, find themselves in situations where they grapple with how to manage their classrooms. It has become commonplace to use terms like “classroom management” in today’s schools. The term “management” itself is loaded with implicit overtones of control, power, and hierarchical structure. Implementations of top-down classroom management aim to “produce desirable student behavior” and “maintain procedures, routines, rules, and standards” (Casey et al., 2013: 42).

In recent years, many school districts have become desperate to perform well on standardized tests and to meet the often unrealistic expectations of state and federal performance reforms. In an age of high, top-down accountability, there are increased demands on teachers and students to perform well on standardized tests (Houser et al., 2017). This has resulted in calls for classrooms to be managed like businesses—producing students who can score well on tests in order to meet the expectations set by state and national educational elites.

A high-stakes testing culture, coupled with increased emphasis on data-based school initiatives, has put unreasonable demands on teachers’ time and resources (Houser et al., 2017). As a result, cultures of accountability have created spaces for behaviorist theories and classroom management pedagogies to thrive in schools (Sugai and Horner, 2009). In particular, popular books like Harry and Rosemary Wong’s (2005) The First Days of School have seen widespread use over recent years. According to their website, the book has sold over 3.9 million copies and focuses on maintaining classrooms that operate in an organized manner, maximizing order and control. Wong and Wong (2005) ¹ liken teaching to restaurant management, assuming that all educational stakeholders can relate to their management philosophy, as they are assumed to be familiar with the organized environment of the work world (Gill, 2015). This may also explain the rise in other top-down management pedagogies rooted in fundamentally behaviorist ideologies, such as Lemov’s (2010) Teach Like a Champion.

Interestingly, those who ascribe to management pedagogies fail to recognize students and teachers as stakeholders in classrooms. Harry Wong’s approach to classroom management focuses on controlling students through following procedures. An issue with these types of structures is that they only take into account one unilateral voice in classrooms. Wong does not refer to his management approach as discipline. Instead, he focuses on implementing teacher-created classroom procedures that have predetermined consequences when not followed appropriately (Wong and Wong, 2005). In essence, he is promoting a structure of top-down discipline while refusing to name it as such. As pressures mount for teachers and students to perform well on high-stakes tests, one-size-fits-all management practices, like Wong’s, have become more commonplace due to their uncomplicated nature of implementation (Rebora, 2013). Classrooms, however, are complex and require more than easy-to-implement behaviorist approaches to managing people.

The nature of control

Classroom management pedagogies are historically rooted and have become ingrained in our thinking. Although the world has become much more complex, the mechanistic language of modernity, which arose through the work of Descartes, Newton, and other thinkers during the Age of Enlightenment, continues to prevail today (Capra, 1996). While binary modes of thinking are not inherently wrong, they do create spaces for problematic hierarchical thinking and language to thrive.

The economic system of capitalism has manifested itself into managing students and teachers in education. Many of today’s schools are shaped to look and run like businesses. The capitalistic models of schools create unhealthy competition, favor those who already experience power and privilege in society, and manipulate students into illusions of freedom (Greene, 1988). Many students, parents, and other community stakeholders in local schools have taken the bait of short-term promises of performing well on high-stakes tests, which has been shown to be “detrimental to the educational process” in the long term (Nichols and Berliner, 2007: xv).

As the demands of capitalism grow in order to expand business to meet the needs of consumers, it is natural for the industry to strive for greater efficiency. The emphasis on efficiency, when exploited, causes unhealthy working conditions in the workforce and unsustainable structures in schools. Controlling others for exploitative gains negates individual freedom and rational thought (Greene, 1988). Social-efficiency education models are producing students to fill specific voids in economic markets rather than preparing students to thrive in our increasingly multifaceted world (Casey et al., 2013; Schiro, 2013).

When societal needs begin to overrule individuals’ abilities to pursue personal interests and passions, the education system often begins to force standardization on students. Educational models such as these limit the voices of individuals and introduce mechanisms like tracking to more efficiently fill societal needs (Schiro, 2013; Wheelock, 1992). Many, such as Noddings (2013), are critical of these models of education, claiming that students should be able to pursue their passions and have choices in what they study.

Some results of teaching atomized sets of socially efficient standards through top-down management pedagogies are forms of hidden curricula which reinforce social class. Many teachers have been conditioned to falsely believe that the students they serve, especially in lower socio-economic classes, are not capable of thinking deeply about their enacted curricula. This results in a “dumbing down” of classroom practices, which reinforces social class and inappropriate expectations for what students are capable of learning. Hidden curricula that reinforce unhealthy societal norms are mechanisms of control to keep those already in power in a position of power (Anyon, 1979; Noddings, 2013).

The need for control

Deep within the arborescent roots of US democracy, the writers of the US constitution share a unified voice, advocating for freedom for all people. It is, however, unfathomable to think that, at one time in the United States, one man could own another. This illustrates a cultivated need within US society for ownership and property (Patel, 2016; Quinn, 1992). While slavery includes the physical, emotional, and spiritual dominion of one group over another, there can also exist forms of intellectual slavery. Possessing knowledge of others is known as colonization of the intellect (Patel, 2016). This form of settler colonialism is built on a foundation of control and possession. When knowledge is seen as property, it can be held and protected by a privileged few. Thus, knowledge has the potential to become a commodity to exploit.

There is, however, a tragic irony to this. Hoxie (2008) speaks of how colonizers in the United States were at one time colonized themselves. Those who were once powerless now have power, yet the mindset of conquest persists. This frame of mind reinforces the hierarchical stratification that is now prevalent in today’s society and schools. Power and privilege, when combined, have the potential to negatively impact cultures. The education system, Thomas Jefferson believed, could prevent the control of the mind, thus allowing people to experience freedom (Greene, 1988).

In order to recognize the emancipating power of education, we must first realize that, over time, human beings have been socialized to know who is in control and who is in charge (Bernstein, 1977). In classrooms, those in charge are usually teachers; in schools, it is the administration. Societal cultures of control cause separation between people, resulting in class distinctions, racism, sexism, and prejudice. The processes by which human beings create separation from one another result in one group becoming “less than.” This objectifying process is known as “othering.” Othering creates hierarchies where those in power have control over others, resulting in societal systems of domination (Ellsworth, 1992; Said, 1978; Spivak, 1987). Through this, undesirable subaltern states of being begin to exist. In conjunction with Freire’s (1990) “culture of silence,” the subaltern, when subjected to othering, is rendered voiceless (Lavia and Sikes, 2010; Spivak, 1987).

Quinn (1992) and others argue that the quest for control dates back to the agricultural revolution. At one time, the dominant culture we know today existed as a small sect among many cultures. Over many generations, however, the dominant culture’s way of living has been depicted as “the one right way” to live (Quinn, 1992: 167). The dominant culture being referenced here may differ depending on who holds positions of power, but, ultimately, the dominate culture possesses the largest amount of cultural capital (Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977; Driessen, 2001).

The notion of one culture annihilating other cultures in pursuit of control can manifest itself in classrooms (Patel, 2016). If Quinn (1992) is accurate in how we have developed a belief that there is only “one right way” to live, then it is logical to assume that there may be only “one right way” to teach. If this is the case, it can be concluded that there exists a singular voice that matters. Hierarchical approaches to managing educational systems and classroom procedures have produced cultures that emphasize an “intellectual foundation for domination and control” (Houser, 2009: 202).

Many schools exist within the confines of this type of unhealthy praxis. Expectations for students to exhibit desirable behaviors oftentimes lead to teachers rewarding good behaviors while punishing those deemed less desirable. The results are cultures of fear. Teachers tend to fear student upheaval, disorder, and non-compliance. Such fears can sometimes be justified, but are usually abstract. The threat of losing control results in teachers and administrators feeling the need to impose tighter rules and regulations in schools (Sue et al., 2009).

A culture of fear

On the surface, notions of managing classrooms may not seem problematic to some. However, top-down management pedagogies focus on controlling students’ behaviors, while failing to recognize students as stakeholders. Implementing harsh consequences for undesired behaviors without dialogue is instrumental in silencing students’ voices. This can create a divide between students and teachers, placing them on different planes of expectation.

These planes of expectation are essentially Bourdieuian fields of reference for how students and teachers perceive the world around them (Dimitriadis and Kamberelis, 2006). If students and teachers establish parallel planes of expectation for one another, conflict will inevitably ensue, as their planes do not and cannot intersect. Unhealthy conflicts between teachers and students can create a lack of trust, which reinforces underlying cultures of fear. When students and teachers become fearful of one another, both parties can begin seeking power in classrooms, thus reinforcing mindsets of control. This unhealthy praxis is pandemic in schools today (Casey et al., 2013).

The nature of and need for control have produced an intellectual prison in society. This prison limits individual thought and promotes cultures of compliance. Diminishing individual thought produces dominant cultures that are incapable of questioning their foundational assumptions and deny the existence of multicultural democracy. It should not be surprising that “students come from different histories and embody different experiences, linguistic practices, cultures, and talents [which are] strategically ignored within the logic and accountability of management pedagogy theory” (Giroux, 1985: 378). The point is that the uniqueness of human beings is not just ignored, but also often strategically ignored. This cultivates fearfulness and further suppresses those in subordinate positions. When voices are strategically diminished, those in power can capitalize in order to reinforce mechanisms of control through constant monitoring (Foucault, 1977).

Rigid, top-down accountability cultures in schools oftentimes stimulate suspicion in teachers. Through mandated evaluations and observations, teachers are routinely monitored to ensure that they are teaching to the required standards. Constant monitoring propagates a lack of trust between entities in classrooms. Foucault’s (1977) notion of hierarchical observation develops sentiments of fear within school systems. Teachers are graded based on their administrator evaluations and their students’ performances on high-stakes tests. Because of threats of constant monitoring and pressures to perform, teachers often revert to archaic top-down management practices that have proven to be ineffective (Broom, 2015). Collective discourses and student voices become repressed under the weight of oppression stemming from the fear of surveillance.

Fear, through surveillance and top-down accountability, also creates cultures of uncertainty (Foucault, 1977). This uncertainty plays into unhealthy reproductions of social class in classrooms. The absence of democratic ideals in many classrooms perpetuates hidden curricula that sustain capitalistic ideals of keeping privileged classes in positions of power (Anyon, 1979; Dimitriadis and Kamberelis, 2006; Houser, 2009).

Possibilities

The possibilities proposed in this article are not one-size-fits-all solutions for “fixing” schools. They are, however, theoretical propositions for students, teachers, and administrators to consider as alternatives to existing top-down management pedagogies. The hope is to explore bottom-up democratic ideals that have the potential to permeate schools for the betterment of society. The ideals set forth begin with intentional shifts in language and conclude by empowering readers to think critically about the ongoing work in schools.

Changing language changes thinking

Language is a powerful social construct which influences our thinking. The praxis of reflecting on our actions in light of our thinking manifests itself in language. Schools today operate under umbrellas of high-stakes testing and top-down accountability measures. Schools must begin retreating from languages of accountability by moving toward languages of responsibility (Noddings, 2013). These shifts in language underscore the importance of establishing trust between educational stakeholders. Trusting teachers to be professional educators lessens the need to control classrooms through hierarchical surveillance.

Shifting from languages of accountability to those of responsibility can also help cultivate epistemological curiosities between students, teachers, and their subjects of study (Freire, 1998; Noddings, 2013). Moving away from top-down accountability measures allows teachers and students to feel valued in their work, and to openly explore ideas together. Additionally, Giroux (1985: 379) argues that teachers who find value in their work view themselves as intellectuals and provide students with opportunities to express an “active voice” in their learning experiences.

Moving from languages of accountability to those of responsibility shifts the locus of control away from hierarchical top-down approaches of classroom management. More organic spaces are then opened, where students voices can thrive. Fostering responsibility works to remove the need to closely monitor teachers, eliminates the need for top-down power structures in classrooms, and builds trust between vested educational stakeholders. When trust is at the forefront of classrooms, students can then assume Frierian roles of “students-teacher” and teachers can move into roles of “teacher-student”. Evening the field can produce cultures of cooperation and co-exploration in classrooms, thus providing a catalyst for eliminating cultures of silence (Freire, 1990).

Alternatives to classroom management

It is natural for people to resist top-down control. Specifically, human beings do not and will not “readily submit to external control” (Houser et al., 2017: 9). For this reason, it is imperative to cultivate learning environments where students can share their thoughts, needs, and concerns about classroom procedures and content. Giving students opportunities to express their voices is essential for classrooms to become more democratic in nature.

More often than not, rules and procedures are teacher-created and/or dictated from district officials as homogeneous mechanisms for managing student behavior. A stark alternative to these forms of top-down control mechanisms is democratic norming. In short, democratic norming involves teachers and students co-constructing and agreeing on classroom procedures and expectations that will allow them to have success in the classroom. While democratic norming is one simple way in which teachers and students can begin resisting neo-liberal regimes, this alone will not change the systemic issues found in top-down practices in education. In order for lasting change to take hold in schools, there must be a shift in culture. The genesis of positive school reform can begin to take shape as a grass-roots effort when more teachers implement collaborative bottom-up practices in their classrooms.

An alternative to management approaches is for teachers to engage in dialogue with students in order to resist the neo-liberal idea of surveillance. As educational stakeholders begin to engage in positive discourse with one another, there exists a shift from attempts at managing behavior to working collaboratively to guide behavior (Bovill et al., 2015; Macdonald et al., 2016; Sergiovanni, 1994). As teachers and students work collaboratively to establish agreed-upon normative behaviors, there begins to exist the potential for healthy learning communities.

A call for community

In order for teachers to implement democratic ideals in classrooms, it is important that healthy classroom communities exist. The communities that teachers and students co-create in their classrooms are essential to democratic processes (Quinn, 2015). As students and teachers perceive the world in which they live, they do so through the lenses of their lived environments. Just as environments help shape and form identity within students, students also have the ability to impact classroom environments (Houser et al., 2017).

Because of the symbiotic relationships between students, teachers, and their classroom environments, it is important for schools to provide teachers with time and space to think deeply about the health of their classroom communities. Without this, teachers often become managers of unhealthy systems which rely on passive compliance and unhealthy surveillance. Changing from management-based pedagogies requires students, teachers, administrators, and other stakeholders to engage in dialogue with one another (Wells, 2009). Unassuming attitudes create healthy spaces for honest reflection about current classroom practices and allow teachers opportunities to listen to the needs of their students. When students know they are valued, there can exist room for positive relationships to blossom. Healthy, caring relationships between students and teachers are essential to thriving classroom communities (Noddings, 1992, 2012).

Conclusion

In order to change hierarchical mechanisms of control in schools, there must be intentional shifts in the language, thinking, and action by which educational stakeholders conduct themselves. Administrators, board members, and superintendents must recognize the value in democratic learning communities. Even in listing these educational stakeholders, it is only natural to list them in hierarchical order. Top-down thinking has been so deeply ingrained in our human consciousness that it has become part of who we are. If power-holding stakeholders see the value of releasing external control, opportunities for dialogue between students, teachers, and other stakeholders will begin to have room to exist. Delpit (2012) exhorts us to learn who our students are and where their interests lie. By relinquishing some control and valuing our students, their differences, and their interests, teachers can begin cultivating democratic classroom communities. Democratic bottom-up practices have the potential to empower students to become agents of change in our world.