Unintended enablers often have their hearts in the right place, but their actions, unfortunately, are counterproductive. Several disempowering mindsets that may cause unintended outcomes motivate these teachers’ behaviors. The disempowered mindsets of unintended enablers usually stem from their fear of student reactions or feeling sorry or making excuses for their students. Examining some of the common mindsets of unintended enablers will support you in building stronger relationships with students and likely provide you with greater satisfaction in your classroom.
“I Don’t Want to Be Mean or Strict”
A common attribute of unintended enablers is that they tend to be reluctant to take charge of their classroom because they don’t want to be “mean” to students. Rather than clearly communicating expectations to students, such as saying, “There is no talking at this time,” and, if appropriate, providing a consequence, unintended enablers may do or say one of the following.
The fear of being mean or strict often arises from communication differences between teachers and students because of socioeconomic, cultural, or racial background differences. When some students hear the teacher’s tone (negotiating, seeking permission, and so on), they think they have a choice, while the teacher thinks he or she has communicated an expectation. This miscommunication between the teacher and students is unintentional, but if given a choice, students may not meet the intended expectation, causing frustration for the teacher and sometimes unwarranted consequences for students.
The work of educator and author Lisa D. Delpit (2006) helps clarify this issue. She postulates that, in general, most educators raised in middle-class homes had parents or guardians who spoke to them in an indirect manner. She identifies this indirect approach as more democratic in nature, as adults may allow children to express their opinions, ask questions, or negotiate rules and expectations.
For example, if an indirect parent wants his or her child to get ready for dinner, he or she might say the following.
Parent (question): “I think it’s time to put away your toys?” Child: “Hmmm …”
Parent (statement of opinion): “I think it’s time to put away your game and wash up for dinner.”
Child: “But I’m in the middle of a game.”
Parent (negotiation): “Then how about finishing the game and then washing up?”
Even though the parent’s words are indirect—that is, couched as a question, a statement of opinion, and a negotiation—both the adult and child understand it is a directive to put away the game and get ready for dinner.
In contrast, some parents or guardians communicate with their children in a more authoritarian manner, which may be an unfamiliar practice for some teachers (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001; Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005; Jensen, 2009). These parents or guardians often speak to their children in a direct, firm, and some might say, demanding manner (Delpit, 2006; Ladd & Fiske, 2011).
For example, if an authoritarian or direct parent wants his or her child to put away toys and get ready for dinner, he or she might say the following.
Parent (demand): “It’s time for dinner. You need put away the video game and any other toys that are out.”
If the child tries to negotiate or argue, the response is typically direct.
Child: “But I’m in the middle of a game.”
Parent: “Don’t argue with me … put away the toys and get ready for dinner.”
Thus, a child being raised by a more authoritarian parent or guardian typically learns that if a loving adult expects the child to listen to directions, he or she does not ask questions, state opinions, or negotiate. Rather, the authoritarian parent or guardian gives a directive, often in a firm tone of voice, stating what he or she wants done. If a teacher takes an indirect approach with children who are used to a more authoritarian approach, they may interpret the request as optional, when the teacher believes he or she stated it as an expectation. This type of cultural misunderstanding, often aligned with race or socioeconomic status, can lead to misaligned expectations resulting in behavior challenges and broken relationships. However, because the teacher is in the power position, he or she often blames the student for the lack of understanding, leading to unexamined or unnecessary behavioral challenges.
What is the possible outcome of this disempowering mindset in the classroom? If teachers do not create clear communications and positive relationships, then the classroom culture may be void of consistent expectations. Disruptive behaviors can become the norm and opportunities for academic achievement can go unfulfilled. These teachers’ inability to influence students’ academic achievement or social development can result in teachers being frustrated and leaving the profession (Aloe et al., 2014; Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke, 2002; Chang, 2009; Freedman & Appleman, 2009; Haberman, 2004b), and students missing academic opportunities.
“I Can’t Get My Students to Behave Because My Administrator Doesn’t Support Discipline”
Many unintended enablers struggle with holding their students accountable, so instead they try to rely on school leadership.