There is much literature advocating that an educator's style of school and classroom management needs to shift from autocratic to democratic approaches (Hill, 1990; McEwan, 1990; Sarason, 1990; Glickman, Allen & Lunsford, 1994; Gathercoal, 1999; McEwan, Gathercoal & Nimmo, 1999; Landau & Gathercoal, 2000). The rationale for this paradigm shift is simple. Students need models from which to learn. Educators delude themselves if they believe students will learn to be responsible citizens in a democratic society by passively learning about democracy in autocratic schools and classrooms. Students need democratic models operating in their daily lives and opportunities to exercise their democratic rights and responsibilities. It is pure fantasy for educators to believe that their students will operate at the higher levels of moral development as a result of their meting out rewards and punishment in hopes of reinforcing "good" behavior and discouraging the "bad." Students need educators who can model appropriate knowledge, dispositions and skills at the principled level of moral development.

This paper emanates from a 1995 through 1997 action research project that studied the effect Judicious Discipline, a democratic citizenship model for school and classroom management, had on students, educators and parents. Judicious Discipline is the only model for school and classroom management that is based on principles of democracy and operates at the principled level of moral development (Wolfgang, 1995).

The results of the action research project suggested that when teachers use strategies complementary with the philosophy of Judicious Discipline, they do much to lead students toward the autonomous stage of social development, as measured by the study's questionnaire. The research indicated that students become more self-directed and are able to take responsibility for learning. They display flexibility in a variety of social situations without demanding conformity of all students. They are able to empathize with others and establish mutual expectations based on respect for themselves and others.

The action research project findings also suggest that teachers need to take the time to teach students about Judicious Discipline and individual rights and responsibilities. Teachers who do take the time reap many benefits:

• Their students are more likely to respond on questionnaires that indicate they are operational at the autonomous stage of social development, and as a result,
• Teachers are less likely to feel frustrated and/or experience high levels of work-related stress.
• They are more likely to be respected by others, and
• They will feel a sense of professionalism.
• They will be using management strategies that are legal, ethical, and educationally sound, and
• Their students will be provided with a "language of civility," which offers a common ground for discussing, mediating and reconciling social problems, and
• Their students will use "the language of civility" to advocate for themselves and to solve their own social problems.

Further analysis of the data collected in the study indicates that teachers who conducted democratic class meetings while implementing Judicious Discipline tended to benefit more, in terms of peaceful resolution to conflict, than teachers who did not conduct democratic class meetings. This finding emerged in both the quantitative and qualitative data that was collected. As a result, a recommendation was made that the implementation of Judicious Discipline works best when teachers concomitantly conduct democratic class meetings.

The action research data indicated that there were certain elements of democratic class meetings that made meetings more successful if teachers practiced them and logistically conducted the meeting with these elements in mind. The purpose of this paper is to share the elements of democratic class meetings that the research data supports as successful strategies. These elements appear at the end of the paper, but first the quantitative research findings are presented.

Students and educators in two schools in Southwest Minnesota participated in the project. One school was an Elementary School with approximately 425 students in grades one through five, and the other was a Middle School with approximately 300 sixth grade students. Quantitative data was collected through a questionnaire which was administered to all students in both schools at three separate times throughout the 1995-96 school year. Qualitative data was collected through videotaped interviews with educators and students.

During the month of September, students at both schools were taught about Judicious Discipline, a citizenship model for school and classroom management. Instruction began with presentations by the school principal, counselor, and other resource staff, e.g., school psychologists and police liaison officer. After these initial presentations, classroom teachers taught lessons about rights and responsibilities, including the concept of appropriate "time, place and manner." Lesson plans were made available to every classroom teacher, however, it was left to the classroom teacher’s discretion as to the amount of time used for these lessons and the amount of follow-up that occurred after the initial presentations.

Throughout the year, various interventions by resource staff occurred in both buildings in order that the faculty and staff be made aware of the components of Judicious Discipline and the successful strategies that were being used to implement it in the classroom. As well, faculty, administration, and staff held meetings for the purpose of brainstorming democratic methods and individual strategies for dealing with student behavior. At the Elementary School, a Judicious Discipline empowerment group, of interested faculty, administration and staff, met regularly to discuss delights and concerns with its implementation. At the Middle School, discussions occurred on an as-needed basis to brainstorm "judicious" responses to specific student behaviors. Through these discussions, strategies and ideas were developed with teachers who wanted to deal with particular behavior problems, specific to their classroom. Discussions of this nature occurred when teachers indicated that certain students could have effected the results of the classroom survey. The discussion then centered on how the teachers might deal with the behavior problem "judiciously" in their classroom setting, either through class meetings or through private discussions with the students.

Democratic class meetings provide students with a sense of value and belonging. They are an essential part of the effective operation of all Judicious Discipline classrooms. Democratic class meetings are needed at all levels of education, as these meetings provide excellent opportunities for developing and discussing goals, expectations, and relationships within the educational setting.

Democratic class meetings work to share power; and as a result, these do much to avoid power struggles by providing every student with an opportunity to express their concerns and delights. When students feel that they have some power in the organization and operation of their class, they are less likely to "act out." Class meetings provide "institutionally okay" ways for students to vent their frustrations, anxieties, and celebrations in a fair and equitable manner. When decisions are made in the class meeting, and if there is action to be taken, students are more likely to participate because they feel like they were an important part of the decision-making process. Democratic class meetings are opportunities for teachers to model respect and trust by actively listening to and valuing their students' ideas.

The importance of conducting democratic class meetings emerged from the Mankato action research throughout the 1995 - 1997 time period. The quantitative support for democratic class meetings was apparent both years through the analysis of student response questionnaires.

A questionnaire developed by The Social Development Group, Research Branch of the South Australian Department of Education, and published in their 1980 publication Developing the Classroom Group, was used to determine stages of social development at which students in various home rooms operated. The questionnaire differentiates between power and affect relationships through a series of eight true/false questions and places the individual in one of four developmental groups (dependent, rebellion, cohesion, and autonomy).

Student behavior for each developmental stage of social development is described below:

The sixth grade only school is a building housing approximately 300 students and twelve distinct home rooms. Two teachers conducted democratic class meetings throughout the year and ten home room teachers did not. A comparison of survey results indicates that the two teachers who conducted democratic class meetings generated a class climate that was more aligned with autonomous social development than did the ten teachers who did not conduct democratic class meetings.

At the beginning of the year, the two teachers who conducted democratic class meetings had similar results to teachers who did not conduct democratic class meetings. This indicates that the classes were probably similar in their stages of social development at the beginning of the year.

The teachers who conducted democratic class meetings and who did not conduct democratic class meetings questionnaire results for September 1995 are presented in Table 1. The reported "N" indicates the number of responses that were given by all students answering at a particular stage of social development for the four constructs (teacher power, student power, student/student relationship, and teacher/student relationship).

TABLE 1. Results of Student Responses to Questionnaires in September

By February, differences in survey results began to emerge and qualitative data indicated that students who were involved in democratic class meetings felt more empowered and felt more of a sense of belonging to the group. The February results indicate that while the school is making good progress in the area of social development, the two teachers who conduct democratic class meetings are making great progress. The teachers who conducted democratic class meetings and who did not conduct democratic class meetings questionnaire results for February 1996 are presented in Table 2. The reported "N" indicates the number of responses that were given by all students answering at a particular stage of social development for the four constructs (teacher power, student power, student/student relationship, and teacher/student relationship).

TABLE 2. Results of Student Responses to Questionnaires in February

The May questionnaire results continue to show that the two teachers who conducted democratic class meetings maintained high level response rate for students' reported social development and the ten teachers who did not conduct democratic class meetings tended to score very high in the rebellion stage of social development. The teachers who conducted democratic class meetings and who did not conduct democratic class meetings questionnaire results for May 1996 are presented in Table 3. The reported "N" indicates the number of responses that were given by all students answering at a particular stage of social development for the four constructs (teacher power, student power, student/student relationship, and teacher/student relationship).

TABLE 3. Results of Student Responses to Questionnaires in May

These results support the need for conducting democratic class meetings when implementing Judicious Discipline. The elements for conducting democratic class meetings, that follow, were gleaned from interviews with students and teachers, who through trial and error, found strategies that worked best for them when conducting democratic class meetings.

That being said, it seems strange to start with this statement: There is no "right way" to conduct a democratic class meeting. However, the data indicated that successful democratic class meetings took many different forms and the "best" organization and structure for any given class will probably emerge as the academic year progresses. Nonetheless, some elements that work well to facilitate and democratize class meetings did emerge as "key elements" for success. The following is a list of key elements that will be helpful for teachers who are organizing and conducting democratic class meetings for the first time.

Educators may be well advised to include democratic class meetings in their repertoire of teaching strategies when they implement the principles of Judicious Discipline in their classrooms and schools. As educators shift from autocratic class management practices to a more democratic style of administration, it serves educators and their students well to have the key elements for conducting democratic class meetings in place. When democratic class meetings are conducted in concert with the practice of Judicious Discipline, educators can feel proud that they are truly preparing tomorrow's citizens for living and learning in a democratic, free society.

References