Christian Concepts of Behavior Management

Disobedience & Christian Classroom Management

A Critical Analysis of Charles Howell's "Is Disobedience Sin? Christian Perspectives on Problems of Classroom Management" Philosophy of Education.

In an article published in Philosophy of Education, Charles Howell sets out several perspectives and attitudes concerning the role and conception of classroom disobedience held by various vested interests in public education. Howell's examines points brought up in Robert Kunzman's review of Nel Noddings book on religion in American public schools in order to reframe issues frequently seen as political divisive in a context searching for mutual agreements between Christian parents and secular educators. The author analyzes the root of what constitutes "disobedience" and thus what is appropriate classroom management in the secular and Christian concepts in an effort to acknowledge these core differences so that the focus might be put upon finding solutions that satisfy the needs of secular educators and Christian families.

A tacit conflict of the article is the lack of acknowledgement that there are sometimes differing opinions of the role of the classroom, and therefore, the concept of management might differ. Howell discusses Susan Wolf's "Reason View," which advocates for relativism due to differing socioeconomic contexts which influences an individual's concept of responsibility and grasp upon moral judgment. This view conflicts with the Christian precept of obedience as following absolutely the commandments of God, including "legitimate civil authority (Howell 466)."

Is it the role of the public classroom to impart the knowledge of information only, or is there is a civil, moral and/or ethical component to the role of education as well? This is an issue in sharp debate in various communities, but if there is an ethical element to the role of education, than what is to be done with as Wolf describes them, "students from backgrounds of intergenerational poverty [who] have difficulty comply with teachers' expectations because they don't understand or accept the middle-class norms that permeate school ? (Howell 468)" If education extends to the domain of ethical instruction, in keeping with the civic-minded aims of a public educational system, would classroom management not then extend to the domain of obedience? The difference in the conception of obedience is whether one considers oneself to be obedient to a moral and spiritual authority of to a public consensus of the general comportment necessary for an efficient classroom.

While Howell admirable looks for common ground between secular and religious and parental and public interests, there are some conflicts in the paper that remain unresolved and thus inactionable. If one puts weight in the concept that Strawson puts forth, as noted in Howell's article, then a blended conception of obedience in a public school context does not provide children with suitable 'rehearsals" for the "performance" of adult life. Without a cohesive system of moral behavior, children will not understand the root of what it means to be obedient, and thus, to whom they must be obedient. While Howell points to common ground for further discussion, which is vital to ensuring that the focuses rightly remains upon meeting the needs of the children, conflict is glossed over in order to find that common ground; a deeper conception of how to integrate plural conceptions of ethical education is surely possible.