Sometimes it is not easy to move away from rewards and punishments so eliciting consequences from kids is not as bad as imposing consequences––but we need to aim to move away even from this.

We want kids to think of the word “consequences” as how their behavior impacts on others rather than on “What will happen to me?”

Instead of giving a consequence, provide an atmosphere where the kids will respond and in an autonomous way engage in the moral act of restitution, mending  relationships, or making a contribution.

Instead of asking kids what should be done or what consequences should be given when a kid screws up, we should ask kids how can we help the ones who have screwed up.

Just as in learning, mistakes are our friends––so in social-moral learning. We  want others to be compassionate and forgiving and help a person to make amends.

Allan Katz

http://allankatz-parentingislearning.blogspot.com

Some related postings:

How often should I be eliciting a consequence?

Why doesn’t this approach use logical consequences?

Can you explain what “elicited” consequences are?

What do you mean by “imposed” consequences?

Do you introduce the DWS Hierarchy during the very first morning meeting or do you wait until a situation arises to talk about it?  BUT then I think you might embarrass the child whose behavior is inappropriate… Help!

RESPONSE:

One thing that I love about DWS is the whole concept of being proactive and positive. It’s important that you teach the Hierarchy in a stress-free atmosphere so that it will be positive. You wouldn’t want to use a real situation of discipline in which to actually introduce the levels––you’re right, that would likely embarrass a child.

However, that said, sometimes it is hard to fit in an introduction to the Hierarchy in the first few days of school in the primary grades. There are a lot of things to attend to––basics such as, “How to find the washroom.”

However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t use the Raise Responsibility System right from the get-go!

You can still employ all three principles by:

1. being positive,
2. giving choices to a child who is misbehaving, and;
3. asking questions to get them to think if what they’re doing is actually going to pay off for them or not.

You can also implement the last two phases of the RRSystem––even before you have actually taught the Hierarchy. Of course it’s not as effective as when the students know about the four levels in-depth, but it will get you through the first week or two of school until you find the time to introduce the levels of the Hierarchy in a more formal way.

Phase Two of the RRSystem––Checking for Understanding

In a discipline situation, instead of asking a student to identify a DWS level, you can ask them to identify whether the behavior is at “low level” or a “high level.” For example, you might ask: “Is pushing someone in the cloakroom a high level thing to do––or is it a low level thing to do?” The kids will instinctively know what you mean by high and low level.

Once they have acknowledged it is low level, that may be the end of it. Often, for a large majority of the children this type of discussion is all that’s needed. For others you might need to ask a few more questions, just to get them to think. For a few kids, you may need to asking increasingly more pointed questions (of course, in a non-threatening way.)

• “You said pushing in the cloakroom is a low level thing to do.  Can you explain to me what you are thinking about that?”
• “How do you think these other kids near you feel about being pushed around like that?”
• “Look at Mary’s face––how does she feel about being pushed?”
• “Is it very easy for you and I to get along if you are in the coatroom doing a low level thing?  What kind of a relationship does that make between us?  What is a teacher’s job if someone is pushing in the cloakroom? What do you suggest we should do, if you keep pushing kids in the cloakroom?

Phase Three of the RRSystem––Guided Choices

In the above example, you might come up with a procedure to help the child deal better with coatroom experiences in the future.

Or you could go through the process of eliciting choices (or giving choices if necessary.)  Remember that this phase is only for those who continue acting inappropriately, after they have acknowledged that it is a low level thing to do.

You can ask questions about what they think should happen if they should do this same kind of thing again. Maybe they might come up with something logical such as:  ”I shouldn’t be here when other people are––I should sit to the side until everyone else has cleared out.” etc.

A related posting:

How do you deal with discipline before you’ve taught the Hierarchy?

When a child does something they shouldn’t, I follow DWS and elicit the consequence from them.  There have been times however when I’ve been faced with children who don’t know how to think and apply consequences.  What do you suggest?

DR. MARSHALL’S RESPONSE:

RESPONSE:
At the grade one level that I teach, children have very few writing skills, especially at the beginning of the year. Beginning writers find it a challenge to get even a simple idea down on paper.  It requires their full attention and concentration to do so, sounding out letter by letter.  Since it requires such effort to write, I think that my young students would likely view a reflection form as a punishment, for displeasing me.  Instead of that response, I want them to see that I consider misbehavior as an opportunity to learn and grow.   In addition, I wouldn’t want to do anything that would lead children to associate writing with something negative or punishing.

Because the writing process requires such extreme concentration on the part of a young child, I feel that using a reflection form in my early primary classroom might actually defeat the purpose of the form, which is to guide a student in reflection.  If a child’s attention is primarily focused on the act of putting pen to paper, there may not be any “brain-power” left over to fuel self-reflection.  Without self-reflection, there isn’t likely to be true change.  While it’s quite possible that in the future the child may choose to act on Level C more often, he/she may well be motivated by a simple desire to avoid “punishment.”

For these reasons, I find it’s far more in line with my goals to have a personal discussion with a youngster who is misbehaving.  In a discussion I can make sure that self-reflection is the key focus.  If the discussion is likely to be somewhat lengthy, I generally put it off till lunch time or after school.  This isn’t a problem.  Dr. Marshall says that a postponement of the discussion itself actually encourages the process of self-reflection.  It’s only natural that the misbehaving child would automatically start to engage in self-reflection, knowing that a discussion is forthcoming.

Without a doubt, this does take time––usually some of my lunch hour or prep time––but I find it to be time well spent.  I know that this investment will pay off––not only for the student, but for me too.  By dealing thoroughly with a situation, going step-by-step through the reflection form, it’s likely that I’ll spend less time dealing with misbehavior from that same child in the future.  I find these respectful discussions can actually improve my relationships with challenging students.  I benefit because they often become more cooperative and willing to operate at an acceptable level (C.)

In the back of DWS book there is an Appendix titled, “Forms.”  I use the forms on Page 275 and 276 to guide me in my discussion.  At first, I absolutely needed the book open beside me to keep me on track but now I can usually “wing it!”  These forms are meant for older students so I don’t use the exact wording.  I just use them to remind me of the general direction in which I want the conversation to go.

Basically that direction is this:

• Tell me about what has happened?  What was the problem you created?

This is a great opener for getting the child to think about the fact that the problem didn’t likely just happen to him/her; likely his/her behavior created the problem.

• On what level were you operating?

If asked in a pleasant way, the child feels no need to self-defend.  Usually they will honestly tell you the correct level.  If not, then more questions help them to arrive at the correct level.  For examples, see DWS p.94.

• Tell me about why you see yourself at this level?

I want the child to verbalize to me––not the other way around––that what they were doing was unacceptable.  Describing the situation from an understanding of the level,  “I was bumping into people on the monkey bars so they would get off and let me have a turn. That was bossing them around,” promotes ownership of the problem.  The child is acknowledging that what they did was at Level B.

• Is acting at Level B ever acceptable?

No.

• How must the teacher treat you on this level?

What kind of a relationship do you have with someone–the teacher or a classmate–when you operate at this level? How are the feelings between us? I want children to realize that they have put themselves into a position of being at loggerheads with me, or the noon-hour supervisor or with another child;  all behavior is a choice.

• On what level should you have acted?  How would the situation have been different if you had acted on a higher level?

One thing I want them to think about are the relationships that they have with others.  Through the guided questionning strategies, I want them to realize that they are putting these relationships into jeopardy. It’s human nature to want to have friends, want to have teachers like you, want to have the noon-hour supervisor enjoy you company etc.   I feel it’s important to get young people to reflect on their actions.  Using the DWS Hierarchy I can  help them understand that they can choose to create better relations with others, by operating on a higher level.

• Let’s think about how you might deal with a similar situation in the future.

Perhaps the child needs to come up with a procedure to help them through a similar situation in the future.

OR

• What should happen now?

If the situation is quite serious and a consequence is deemed necessary then that would be dealt with before going on to discuss a procedure for a future situation.

Most often it doesn’t seem necessary to elicit a consequence for the immediate situation but rather to proactively elicit a future consequence, should the child choose to repeat this same type of misbehavior. Then you’re prepared if it should happen again.  As always, the DWS philosophy is to elicit the consequence from the child with regard to a specific situation, rather than impose it.  As Dr. Marshall says, if the consequence comes from the child, they take ownership––people don’t argue with themselves!  When a child has gone through the process of logically creating a consequence connected to a particular situation, they rarely misbehave again in that way.  They’ve already visualized the situation proactively and can see that it just doesn’t make sense to follow through on that particular plan!  In my experienced, they almost always opt for operating on an acceptable level.

A related posting:

My students are too young to write a reflection sheet.

I’m trying to get a handle on this whole concept of guided choices and procedures.  I guess I don’t really understand what a procedure is or how you would use a procedure when a student is misbehaving.  Can you give me an example?

DR. MARSHALL’S RESPONSE:

Teaching procedures is teaching expectations.

Here is an example:

Rather than punishing students for walking down the hallway and talking without permission (against directions), students can be asked for suggestions.  The question can be put to them, “What can you do if you have the urge to talk?”

A student might volunteer, “Tell yourself not to talk.”  The teacher can respond that this is a good plan but will not produce success unless a procedure is attached to it.

Students can suggest some.  Two possibilities might be:

• Keep your lips together as you are walking.
• Press your tongue to the top of your mouth so you can’t talk.

The teacher would then suggest practicing, “Show me what this would look like.”

The teacher can also pursue the topic of talking a bit further by asking, “What if the person beside you talks to you.  What can you do?”

Again more procedures would be developed such as “Put your finger to your mouth.” The teacher could explain how doing this–taking the initiative to remind a fellow student of expected behavior–is at Level D, taking initiative.

Again the teacher would have students practice and reinforce the procedure:

“Show me what it would look like if your walking pal started to talk to you.  What would you do?”

I understand what a Level B student is but sometimes I hear teachers asking, “Do you want me to become a Level B teacher?” Can you explain what this is all about?

RESPONSE:
One important understanding students receive when the teacher introduces the DWS Hierarchy in the beginning of the year is that people can in effect, choose the type of relationship they wish to have with other people, including the authority figures in their life.

Good relationships are created by operating on Level C. For those who choose to operate on Level D–the highest level–relationships will be even better and more satisfying. Students are also introduced to the understanding that frequent operation on Level B (and certainly Level A,) very naturally leads to poor relationships with others.

As obvious as it might seem to teachers, this is a new concept for many students (and for some adults too!) Many students go through their school years feeling that teachers don’t like them, or pick on them and that their peers have it in for them too. In other words they go through their lives feeling victimized, not realizing that it is their OWN BEHAVIOR over time which determines, to a great extent, how others treat them and how others feel about them.

In this system of discipline, students are directly taught that through their own choice of the four behaviour levels (A,B,C, or D,) they are actually CHOOSING the types of relationships they want to have with other people, including their teacher.

Students are proactively taught then when someone continues to operate on Level B–one of the two lower and unacceptable levels–the teacher is required to step in and exert their authority. In other words, since the student is not being self-disciplined and is not in charge of him/herself, the teacher is forced to step in and take charge. At Level B, a student can EXPECT that a teacher will become their “boss.” It can’t be a surprise.

Therefore, when a student misbehaves (Level B,) the teacher might simply BRING AWARENESS to what is happening in the situation. After a student has assessed himself at Level B, a teacher might calmly ask, “Do you want me to become a Level B teacher?” (Of course, tone of voice and body language is important here so that the question doesn’t come across as a threat.)

Because students have been taught that continued Level B behaviour is unacceptable and results in a “Level B teacher” (that is, a teacher who must assume the position of boss and therefore use their authority to ensure that the child cooperates and conforms to acceptable standards,) in the majority of cases, students often decide that they would rather take charge of their own behaviour by voluntarily moving their operation up to Level C.

The teacher also expresses another important point—that their personal preference is to NOT have to take over and exert authority—since they have no interest in bossing people around. They would prefer that the student take care of their own behaviour and become self-disciplined, but… if the student can’t manage that, they are prepared to take over.

In this light, most students prefer to take charge of themselves.  In other words, they get their act together! Of course, if they can’t get their act together, then the teacher moves on to the next phase of the system, which entails using authority.

I find that in my classroom, because we so often talk about Level C and D as being more powerful than the two lower levels (in the sense of being “powerfully in control of yourself,”) almost all students prefer to think of themselves as powerful and capable—capable of managing at Level C or D. This is the secret to encouraging internal motivation in students.  It gives them a powerful image for which to strive.

Having to admit to yourself that you are on Level B is akin to admitting that you aren’t powerful enough to be in charge of yourself. No one likes to think of themselves in this way. With smaller children, I might phrase this as “Do you think you can raise the level of your behaviour or do you need me to become a babysitter for you–and stay right with you in order for you to manage? Once again, tone of voice is very important. A teacher would be conversational in this dialogue and certainly not threatening or sarcastic.

As I said, it’s usually a matter of simply bringing awareness to the situation at hand. Basically the teacher is asking: Can you control YOURSELF or do you need me to take control of you?

Some examples:

• Can you walk down the hall in an appropriate manner all by yourself or do you need me to walk right beside you?

• Are you prepared to work quietly at your desk or do we need to find another seating arrangement that will allow others to have the quiet they need to finish their assignment?

• Are you willing to play safely with the PE equipment or do I need to take it away from you?

Given the choice, “Do you want me to become a Level B teacher?” most young people decide that they would prefer to raise the level of their own operation to something more acceptable. It just seems like the sensible thing to do!

QUESTION:

I have an ADHD student in my class who takes up at least a third of my time. I’m not sure if this would be part of the DwStress approach, but I have decided that from now on he will go to the In-School Discipline Room whenever he is disrupting my class. I feel that the essays and self-referrals are not working and that the best thing for the REST of my students is to get this child out of the room when he is disruptive.

DR. MARSHALL’S RESPONSE:

EXACTLY! It is simply not fair to other students or parents to allow this student to disrupt everyone else’s learning. His staying in your class is CONTINGENT upon his acting on Level C.

Here is a suggestion of how to handle this situation:

Let him know that you only have students in your class who want to be VICTORS. He is being a VICTIM because he allows his impulses to direct him. Let him know that you want to help him. Figure out a procedure he can rely on when his impulses take over.

You may need to make some suggestions–but it’s better if the procedure comes from him. Have him practice the procedure by imagining different situations when his impulses might take over. Ask him to explain how he could redirect impulses in each situation using his new procedure.

When he acts out, take a post-it or an Impulse Card and put it on his desk so it is plainly visible to him. Let him know that this is his “victim awareness notification”.

Inform him that if he acts on Levels A or B again, he is letting his impulses direct him, that he is allowing himself to be a victim, and that he will be allowed back in the classroom when he can demonstrate better behavior. Then send him to a supervised area of the school such as a detention room, a discipline room or the office.

If he comes back later in the day, ask him what procedure he is planning to use to avoid being a victim again.

Repeat this process as often as necessary–even if it is daily.

Always encourage him: “I know you can do it, but it is your choice to decide. To be a member of this classroom you cannot take time away from other students’ learning through anarchy and bullying. It’s not acceptable. I’d like you to stay, but the choice is yours.”

Persevere and be prepared to repeat this many times–always letting him know that you would like him to stay, but HE makes that decision.

Your message to him is that you simply do not believe he cannot act on Level C.

RESPONSE:
What you have experienced highlights one of the basic premises of DWS that sets it apart from other discipline approaches. When consequences are imposed by the teacher, they are often viewed as punishment by the students. Although, in the DwStress approach, consequences may sometimes be necessary, the students won’t perceive them in the same way because they have come naturally from the situation or are elicited from the students, rather than being imposed by the teacher.

If an assignment or lesson is to be finished before break, and provided that doing so is a reasonable request in that all students would have adequate time for completion, it would be wise to be proactive. Discuss this expectation at the beginning the lesson.

When the bell rings, the teacher can simply ASK the students if they are finished their tasks. Those who are finished are dismissed. Those who aren’t, simply need to complete their work.

With some students, further reflective questions might be necessary so that the student has the opportunity to take responsibility for their lack of focus during class time.

If a student complains…”Why can’t I go out? It’s not fair,” the teacher might calmly ask:

• “What was said at the beginning of the lesson about when this assignment needed to be finished?

• What did you choose to do with your class time?

• During the lesson time, what was the difference between what you did and what the others did, who are outside?

• What could you do right now to help yourself?

With those who might be surprised or make a complaint, the teacher can use a contingency : “As soon as you finish, you’re welcome to go out.”

Of course, body language, tone of voice, and facial expressions on the part of the teacher send many subtle messages. These sorts of questions can be asked as a “coach” (someone who wants to see the child succeed) or as someone delighting in revenge. Naturally, to be most effective when asking questions such as these, the teacher has to keep cool and remain “neutral.”

In my experience with my own students, over the course of time they become very task-oriented during lesson times. Eventually they don’t even grumble at all about completing little assignments at break. They realize that if they choose to make unwise use of time, they will need to complete their work at other times. They don’t even bother to ask if they may go out—they simply know they have a responsibility to complete their assignment before they leave the room. When the students are dismissed and most start leaving for break, you can often see one or two pupils still at their desk, now actively focused on their work!

See this post for related information on this topic.

RESPONSE:
It would depend on how the situation comes about. Dr. Marshall points out that imposed consequences are typically viewed as punishments by students and so lead to poor relationships and resistance. As such, imposed consequences are not very effective for helping students become responsible for their own actions. Instead, Dr. Marshall suggests that proactively ELICITING consequences from students is a much more effective approach when consequences seem necessary.

Here’s what you might do:

At the beginning of the lesson, explain your expectations. Explain that the assignment should be completed by recess (assuming that this is a reasonable expectation for all.) Tell the class that you know that it will require concentration and effort but that you believe they are capable of this high level type of behavior.

Explain that you feel that by being diligent and focused, everyone should have sufficient time to complete the task. Take the time to ELICIT from the students how they might handle distractions.

For example, you might ask, “What would a person who wanted to get their assignment done on time, do during class?” The students might respond with a variety of suggestions:

• Keep your eyes on your own work.
• First do one question and without too much waiting, go on to the next.
• Ignore others who might be choosing to fritter their time away.
• Choose NOT to become involved in jokes with others.
• Remain focused on the goal: Completing work by recess.

Then ASK:
“What should happen if some people choose to do other things with their class time and don’t have their tasks completed by recess?

Someone in the class will be sure to say, “They should stay in to finish at recess,” to which the teacher can respond with, “I can live with that.” You might even go one step further and ask the students if they can agree that this suggestion sounds fair.

By doing these things you have been positive and proactive.

You have:

• set high but reasonable expectations,

• discussed how to be successful,

• elicited a consequence FROM the students as to what should happen if someone doesn’t choose to complete their assignment during the class time that has been provided.

When recess rolls around, most students will have lived up to your expectations and will be ready for play. For those that haven’t made good choices, a consequence is already in place; a consequence that has been determined by the class, ahead of time. Because you acted proactively, you’re now in a relatively stress-free situation.

Even though the consequence has already been outlined, take the time to again ELICIT it from the students who have not completed their work, just to ensure that they don’t feel as if you are imposing it.

In other words, ASK:

“What was it that the class said should happen if someone didn’t choose to get their assignment completed before recess?”

My experience has always been that students willingly (and often sheepishly,) cooperate at this point. In other words they are willing to take responsibility for their poor choices, rather than blaming the situation on their “mean” teacher.

An added thought:

If at the end of the lesson time, you find that your original expectation was not reasonable and that some students who have been working diligently throughout the lesson were not able to complete their assignments, it makes perfect sense that you wouldn’t expect them to complete the task at recess. In that case, you might quietly speak with them and give them the choice to either catch up at recess or go out and take a break, finishing the task at some other agreed upon time, perhaps for homework. It’s important to be flexible when you can see your initial expectations were not reasonable for certain students.

RESPONSE:
You’re correct in thinking that Dr. Marshall does not advocate the use of logical consequences. Whenever a consequence might be deemed necessary in a discipline situation, a DwStress teacher is encouraged to use ELICITED CONSEQUENCES.

Dr. Marshall does not recommend the use of logical consequences for the following reasons:

1. Logical consequences are a form of punishment, in the sense that they are IMPOSED ON the student, BY the adult.

• DwStress is a positive, noncoercive approach to discipline and therefore does not employ the use of punishment in any form—even punishment that may seem “logical.”

• When a consequence is imposed, there is the strong likelihood that the student will FEEL punished (Individual reactions can range from a little bit to a great deal.)

• It doesn’t matter if the adult’s intention is simply to teach, imposing punishments (logical consequences included,) increases the likelihood that the students will FEEL they are being punished BY the adult.

• While punishment may effectively stop misbehavior in the short term, there are often many unintended and negative side effects.

• A discipline approach that uses ELICITED consequences avoids the problems typically associated with punishment. Students do not feel like victims when they have designed their own consequence and when they have been guided to a focus on learning from the misbehavior, rather than being punished for it.

2. By assigning a logical consequence TO a student, the responsibility for thinking about and determining the nature of the consequence, falls to the adult, rather than the student.

• Dr. Marshall points out that if we want students to learn from incidents of misbehavior and become more responsible for their own actions, then it makes sense that the students–as opposed to the teachers–should be the ones required to do the most thinking in discipline situations.

• Rather than designing a logical consequence FOR the student, Dr. Marshall suggests that teachers would be more effective if they were to ASK the students to generate their own suitable consequence-–one that facilitates learning, and yes… one that is logically connected to the situation.

Here is a classroom example to help you understand the one difference between a typical logical consequence and a DwStress Elicited Consequence.

Imagine the following discipline situation: A young student has scribbled on a wall, or an older student has vandalized a wall with graffiti.

In a school where logical consequences are employed, the adult would think about the situation (logically), arriving at a consequence that seemed fair and meaningfully related to the misbehavior. In this situation, the adult would likely decide that as an appropriate logical consequence, the student should be required to clean up the mess on the wall. The adult would inform the student of the consequence (thereby IMPOSING the consequence and making it a punishment) and monitor the situation to make sure that the consequence had been carried out.

In a school using DwStress, the situation would be handled in an almost identical way but with one important difference. In a DwStress school, the teacher would expect THE STUDENT to do the thinking—thus allowing the student an opportunity to take responsibility for his/her behavior in a meaningful way. Instead of imposing an appropriate consequence ON the student, the teacher would instead ELICIT an appropriate consequence FROM the student.

The student would be ASKED, “What do you think should happen now, now that you’ve drawn on the wall?” The STUDENT would be asked to think (logically) to him/herself.  As you can imagine, he/she might likely end up saying something like, “I should clean the wall.” The teacher would certainly agree that this seemed like a suitable consequence and then would monitor the situation to ensure that the clean-up had been completed.

Interestingly, in either case, the actual consequence itself is EXACTLY the same–the wall is cleaned up by the person who drew on it. The nature of the consequence is not the important issue however. The important point is that a logical consequence is IMPOSED by the teacher and an elicited consequence is DRAWN OUT from the student.

This naturally leads many people to ask, “What’s the big deal? If, in both scenarios, it ends up that the young person cleans up the mess he/she made on the wall, why does it matter who thought of the idea?

Dr. Marshall is interested in promoting internal motivation with his DwStress approach.  He points out that this one difference is in fact, very important. True learning and genuine long-term change comes as a result of THINKING TO ONESELF about one’s behavior and about the outcomes that result from that behavior. By being prompted to think about the appropriateness of their behaviour in a conscious way, students are more likely to choose to make better choices in the future.