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.

RESPONSE:
When Dr. Marshall refers to “imposed” consequences, he is speaking about any consequence that has been determined BY the adult, FOR the student. An imposed consequence is one that has been imposed on the student by the adult.

Sometimes teachers simply use the term, “consequence” when they refer to what is actually an imposed consequence. Sometimes they use the terms, “logical consequence” or “natural consequence” too. Regardless of what term is used, Dr. Marshall explains that the defining feature of an imposed consequence is that it has been imposed ON a student.

The term, “imposed consequence” sometimes gives people the mistaken impression that the consequence must be harsh in order to be described as “imposed,” however this isn’t the case. The severity of the consequence isn’t the issue. The defining point has to do with who is in charge of the process.

For instance, if a student misbehaves and the teacher decides to have her/him to sit out, then the consequence has been determined and IMPOSED by THE ADULT. Another example would be a parent who decides that a teenager should be “grounded” because of some type of misbehavior.

Dr. Marshall asks people to consider the fact that imposed consequences (including those that might even be called “consequences” or “logical consequences,”) are, by virtue of the fact that they have been imposed, actually punishments by another name. While many teachers would agree that imposing “punishments” is a negative and outdated way to handle discipline situations, many are surprised when first asked to consider that the imposition of “consequences” and “logical consequences” is an equally punitive and negative practice.

In discipline situations in which a consequence is deemed necessary, Dr. Marshall suggests a more positive approach to raising student responsibility. DwStress uses ELICITED consequences.

Here’s another example: If a person doesn’t get up on time in the morning, a natural consequence might be that she misses her bus. There might also be further natural consequences–she might be late and also might have to walk to her destination.

To my way of thinking, natural consequences are often the best way for anyone, of any age, to learn. When a consequence naturally happens to you as a result of certain behavior, there’s generally an awareness that there’s no one to blame but yourself. Smart people pay attention to these kinds of situations and can decide to learn from them.

Often though, OTHER people watching a natural consequence unfold, can’t resist the temptation to jump in with an “I told you so!” which usually means the lesson gets lost. When an “I told you so!” is thrown in, young people may suddenly re-direct their anger or embarrassment. Instead of feeling uncomfortable with themselves (which often leads to some real learning), their emotions are shifted toward the person who has just said, “I told you so!!” Unfortunately, the learning is often then lost entirely.

Of course, the unfortunate downside to natural consequences is that often it’s not possible to allow children to experience the natural outcome of their behavior–sometimes it can be too dangerous or simply not an option. For instance, the natural consequence of running out on to a busy road is that you might be hit by a car–obviously, not an option!

Another problem is this: If the natural result of the behavior isn’t easily or quickly connected to the person’s behavior, then allowing natural consequences to unfold isn’t a very effective route to helping a person grow. For instance, grumpy people often don’t connect their behavior (chronic grumpiness) to the result of their behavior (others avoid them.)

If the grumpy person doesn’t connect a lack of friendship with their own grumpiness, then the learning can’t occur. Often, the result (no friends,) could take years to come about. Leaving someone to suffer for years before they finally connect their own behavior to the things that are happening in their life isn’t very effective, or kind either.

RESPONSE:
According to the dictionary, “elicit” means “to draw out.” Elicited consequences are consequences that are drawn out FROM the child. Dr. Marshall’s third and final phase of the Raise Responsibility System is Guided Choices. This phase is used only when a child CONTINUES to misbehave AFTER they have clearly understood that what they are doing is unacceptable.

In a discipline situation, where the adult feels that a consequence is necessary, Marshall suggests that the teacher will be most effective by ELICITING a consequence FROM the student, as opposed to IMPOSING a consequence ON the student. He suggests using a guiding process to do this because some students (especially young ones,) may need help in finding a suitable consequence for their behavior—hence the term, “Guided Choices.”

To be most effective, Dr. Marshall suggests that an elicited consequence should be agreeable to the adult and should also fulfill the following three requirements:

1. The consequence should be related to the incident.

2. The consequence should be reasonable.

3. The consequence should be related to growth.  (In other words, it should be something that will help the student learn or become more mature in some way.)