The responsive classroom model is a model for the entire school. It was developed in 1981, by classroom educators at Northeast Foundation for Children in the United States (US) to use “a set of practices that help educators create classroom environments that enhance the feelings of belonging of the child, foster his/her social skills, consider his/her developmental levels, connect the parents to his/her learning goals, and produce an environment that promotes academic learning” (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 324- 325). Dr. Sara Rimm-Kaufman undertook a three-year randomised controlled study between 2008 and 2011 to examine the effectiveness of the responsive classroom model.
According to Brock, Nishida, Chiong, Grimm and Rimm-Kaufman (2008: 135), this model aims to promote self-reliance, build a sense of community, and helps learners to become engaged in their own learning. Rimm-Kaufman and Chiu (2007: 408) add that principals and educators take a proactive rather than a reactive stance towards discipline and provide a holistic support for learner growth and development as there are clear expectations for behaviour. Brock et al. (2008: 144) postulate, in the same vein, that the
93
model allows learners to anticipate consequences for transgressions, freeing the educators from constantly redirecting misbehaviour or negotiating punishment throughout the school year. Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 324) point out that empathy helps educators understand learners and their needs and hence, they can provide a structure that provides guidelines and limits for learner behaviour as learners will develop self-control. In the responsive classroom model, the principal encourages educator collaboration, educators meeting to discuss teaching and problem-solving practices, and uses community groups and external resources for the educators’ own professional growth and development. Also, Rimm-Kaufman, Storm, Sawyer, Pianta and LaParo (2006: 152-155) declare that responsive classroom practices focus on the process of learning, proactive approaches to discipline, opportunity for learner choice, collaboration and reflection, and the teaching of self-regulatory skills. According to Brock et al. (2008: 133) the seven principles of the responsive classroom model highlights the following, namely (a) provide equally emphasis on social and academic learning, (b) focus on the content of learning as well as the process of learning by the child; (c) understand the support of social growth to academic growth; (d) emphasise critical social skills such as responsibility, empathy, cooperation and self-control; (e) understand that not only academic content but also the cultural and developmental characteristics of the learner are important; (f) understand and work with his/her family, and (g) understand and support the ways in which educators may work in close collaboration.
The various practices of responsive classroom are: (1) morning meetings, (2) rules and logical consequences, (3) academic choice and grounded discovery, (4) classroom organisation, (5) communication with parents, and (6) teaching as a collective enterprise and a promoting tool for collaboration (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 325). The morning meeting is a daily class meeting that provides time for educators and learners to share, plan and participate in group activities so that there is a positive start of the school day. During the morning meeting, learners and educators may greet each other; learners may interact, practise pro-social behaviour and use public speaking skills by sharing information on personal or national themes. Moreover, the educator and the learner work together at the beginning of the year to develop positively structured classroom rules
94
which the educator models. The educator will remind the learners about the rules and redirect behaviour rather than providing punishment or using tokens for behaviour modification reinforcement. As the consequence for breaking a rule is developmentally appropriate and individually relevant, they relate to the rule itself.
Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 325) define academic choice as a choice-based approach to activity-based learning that increases children’s investment in learning and creates a forum for reflection with peers. They illustrate academic choice by stating that an educator may design a spelling activity that allows learners to practise by using a computer, pen and pad, the whiteboard, or shaving cream. In contrast, when the educator uses guided discovery, he/she introduces classroom materials in a systematic way that builds a common vocabulary, creates clear expectations for use and establishes routines for their case (Rimm-Kaufman & Sawyer 2004: 337).
The educator should organise the classroom in such a way that encourages independence, cooperation and productivity. In other words, furniture should be arranged to meet both social and academic needs, and materials provided to learners who are allowed to use them independently. The interior loop desk arrangement is recommended by Manning and Bucher (2013: 140). This will allow the educator to reach any learner quickly and provide side walkways to allow movement.
The responsive classroom model also advocates a two-way flow of communication between parents and educators and parent involvement in goal setting for learners. Rimm-Kaufman and Sawyer (2004: 339) postulate that regular parent-educator conferences, materials sent home regularly and parent involvement in class activities help create a successful parent-educator partnership.
Lastly, the model encourages buddy educators who work together to support each other’s efforts to discipline the most difficult learners (Sawyer & Rimm-Kaufman 2007: 212). Manning and Bucher (2013: 139) stress that home groups and network meetings are also used. Home groups comprise of educators from across grade levels in a particular school
95
who meet to discuss school goals, problems, issues and the successful implementation of responsive classroom practices. Network meetings include educators from various schools who use responsive classroom approaches.
Although the responsive classroom model’s ultimate goal is to teach learners to discipline themselves, Gettinger and Kohler (2006: 90) point out that a “one-size-fit-all” approach is rarely effective. The responsive classroom model does not always reflect the dynamic nature of the classroom. This is because it is too structured. Also, Manning and Bucher (2013: 142) assert that though this model discourages punishment, punitive measures sometimes will be needed as the same discipline management strategies do not work with all learners in the classroom.
According to the responsive classroom model, it is obvious the principal’s role is to promote a school culture of order and discipline through the establishment of positive relationships between the educator and the learners, the learners and the non-teaching staff, the learners and the school, and among the learners themselves. This model advocates a relationships-driven principalship where the principal’s role is to establish an active partnership between the school and the parents. He/she promotes a more democratic approach to discipline in the sense that the educators work in close collaboration not only with their colleagues but also with parents and learners on whom school procedures, principles and practices are not imposed, but with whom they are discussed and implemented collaboratively and thus more effectively.