In previous years when we’ve had a new addition to our class, we’ve sometimes experienced the following problem:  If the new youngster starts to feel anxious and begins to cling to Mom when it’s time for her to leave, we’ve been surprised to see that there have always been one or two other kids in the class who start crying and clinging to their moms too!  I guess it’s a sympathetic reaction;  they must pick up on the new child’s anxiety and it makes them feel nervous or scared too.  Whatever the reason, it’s been a rather negative experience for all––just at a time when one would hope to create a positive atmosphere of  welcome.

She started the meeting by explaining that a new boy would be joining our class.  She asked the kids to imagine what it might feel like to be in his shoes.  Had they ever experienced something similar––a time when they were new to a group?

Then she brought out our DWS Hierarchy chart.  ”How might various people, operating at different levels of the Hierarchy, handle this out-of-the-ordinary situation?” she inquired.  She guided the discussion with questions and together they arrived at the following descriptors for behavior at each of the four levels:

Level A

• being mean to the new child,  perhaps teasing etc.

Level B

• not looking very pleasantly at the child
• ignoring the child altogether
• imitating clingy behaviour which upsets everyone in the class

Level C

• being polite to the child in class (when adults are present,) but essentially ignoring the child on the playground

Level D

• going out of your way to say hello
• telling the new person your name
• smiling at the new person
• inviting the newcomer to join in at lunch and recess
• offering help when the new child seems confused about routines etc.
• understanding that the new child may feel sad to be left in a new classroom––but not imitating that behavior
• offering friendship to the newcomer

At the end of the meeting she asked the children to keep this discussion in mind and to think about which level they wanted to operate on the following day when the new boy arrived.

The results of this meeting were great!  Not only did we avoid a problem we had encountered several times before, but we noticed that kids were shyly taking the initiative to say hello and introduce themselves in the cloakroom––even before the new student had been officially introduced.  We’ve never seen that happen before!

For those who don’t know me, I have three teaching positions, all of which are shared with the same partner. Darlene and I share a grade 1 classroom, each working one end of the week, and on our other days we share two literacy positions, working with individual students at an alternate high school and a regular middle school. It’s hectic but we love it!  At our high school and middle school jobs, we work with a great range of students, some struggling with courses like English 10, but most with much lower skill levels. At both the middle and high school, a number of our students are currently reading (independently and accurately, that is) at a mid-grade 1 level.

Usually when we start with a new student, we initially have them work at conquering the alphabet. Recognizing/saying/writing the sounds of the letters is of course necessary for both accurate decoding and spelling. We always begin each 15 minute daily session with a quick “say/write the alphabet sounds” until the student is able to record all the sounds, automatically, as we dictate. Whenever we take on a new student, we also offer them a chance to learn to print each letter shape correctly at the same time. (DWS Principle of Choice!) Many are interested in improving their penmanship by doing that.

Early this week, one little grade 7 boy mentioned to Darlene that he was trying to remember to print every letter properly–not only when he was working with us, but all day long–whenever he had to write something in one of his classes. As a DWS teacher (always on the lookout for any flicker of internal motivation that can be fanned into a stronger flame!) Darlene explained how significant it was that he was CONSCIOUSLY CHOOSING to do this for himself. Naturally, she happily passed this information along to me so I could continue to build on it.

When I met with Mark on Thursday, I started our standard “say and write the sounds,” by telling him that Darlene had mentioned to me that he was starting to take charge of his own learning by choosing to improve his printing all day long. I said, “Wow! That’s the highest level of human behavior there is–to take charge of your own learning like that.” He nodded and on we went with all the various parts of his literacy lesson.

As it happened, we finished up everything I’d planned for that day a minute before his 15 minute time slot was up. Rather than fill in with some other impromptu literacy activity, I decided I had just enough time to explain in more detail what I had meant earlier in his session, when I referred to “the highest level of behavior.” I started to draw a quick DWS Hierarchy on our little white board, D, C, B, A and explained while writing, that human behavior could be described in four levels.

Beside A, I quickly scribbled, “Anarchy” and gave him the briefest of descriptions. Then as I was about to write another quick word next to B, he said, “that’s Bullying and Bothering.” Well–you could have picked me up off the floor, I was so stunned! This is the first time I’ve ever encountered a student (who didn’t attend my own elementary school,) who was already familiar with the DWS Hierarchy! Then I remembered that there was one teacher in this middle school who had told me a month or so ago that she had ordered Marv’s posters and was planning to teach her grade seven classes about the Hierarchy. Of course that explained it; Mark was one of her students.

So, on we went quickly to review the higher levels, with him, explaining to me, what each was about, and we also talked about how these levels connected to his decision to print carefully all the time. By then it really was time for him to go, so I stood up to usher him out to his next class but he remained seated. He asked, “Have you ever taught anyone at this level?” I sat back down and explained that yes, I had sometimes worked with those on Level A before. (In my mind, I thought of a student, who came to our high school with a knife a week ago, and two of our grade 1 students who (unbelievably!) bit two older students on their arms, one after the other, on the playground!)

Then I stood up again–by then we were really cutting into the next student’s time slot–but being a rather easy-going guy, Mark was in no hurry to leave! For the second time, I sat back down, to hear what he wanted to tell me.

He said, “I once knew two kids on Level B. Remember I told you about the teacher who taught me in a little group in grade 5 and then was my tutor in the summer? She was the teacher who taught me about vowels and consonants.”

(When I first met Mark a few weeks ago, I was impressed because he was the only student I had encountered at the high school level who had a pretty accurate understanding of what vowels and consonants are.)

He continued, “These two kids were on Level B with that teacher. They wouldn’t do any work at all and they said they didn’t want to learn anything, and they said mean things to her. But…I just sat back and thought to myself: I don’t want to be like that. I won’t be like them. I’ll try to learn something here–and I did.”

And as he stood up to go, now a few minutes late, I asked, “And what level were you on then?”

“D,” he said, as he went out the door.

To me, this is a bit of “scientific” evidence that even a brief introduction to the Hierarchy can have an impact on a child. Mark’s teacher has only been talking about the levels for a month at the very most–I’ll have to check in with her–and already she’s had an impact on this child. He’s aware that he’s making decisions to be internally motivated and he’s making use of the Hierarchy to make sense of things he’s experienced in his life.

It was exciting for me to witness how one DWS teacher’s efforts are paying off for this child! It was what some people refer to as a “Marshall Moment!”

Here is my latest success:
Last Friday, three third graders left their homeroom in route to my class (science) and on the way, chose to yell and scream and play an impromptu game of tag. (At my school, we don’t walk the kids from class to class, and all the classroom doors lead outside, so they were coming across the playground.) Upon hearing the commotion, their homeroom teacher flew out of her room and wound up in front of mine, fuming at the gall of these kids.

Since she got there first, I let her handle it. She said, nearly yelling, “Which one of you children decided to act like a preschooler and run and yell while you were coming over here?!?  I’ll stand here and wait until whoever it was comes forward!” And of course, no one moved a muscle because they could see how angry she was.

She went on and on about acting like wild animals, what the other teachers would think if they saw them, etc. It was clearly ineffective because after 3 minutes of this, still no one confessed.  There was a lot of staring and mean looks coming from her, and silence by all of us!  I knew the right way to approach this situation, but being that she has been teaching 30 years longer than me, I let her go.  She finally left it that the kids should all think about this incident over the weekend, and they would start Monday morning by writing apology letters to the other teachers who they may have disturbed.

Once the kids were in my room, I took a different approach.  I asked what level running and screaming was on. They clearly knew it was Level A. Then I reiterated that a Level A choice was never acceptable.  But I put this spin on it: I said that even though some of them had made a Level A choice already, now they had an opportunity to change it to a C level choice by cooperating and taking responsibility.  I explained that no one could make them do this, but if they chose to, this situation could turn into an acceptable one, with their decision to cooperate.

We talked about responsibility and how once a poor choice is made, we shouldn’t have to wallow in it forever; we can make a choice to fix it and move on. Because the levels are so concrete and understandable, the kids weren’t dwelling on the Level A behavior any more, they were working on turning it into a C.  Shortly thereafter, three kids came up to me and said they wanted to make a good choice and take responsibility.

The conversation followed from there:  “How do we walk between classes? Why wouldn’t we want to yell and run?” etc. I didn’t feel extra punishment was necessary because I wasn’t sure they ever understood these things in the first place; it was like a light-bulb moment when we talked about someone getting hurt without a teacher around to help them. Finally, I elicited consequences if this behavior should happen again and we moved on!

I should mention that I’m new to DWS and just finished reading the book in September.  If someone with only a month of experience can have these kinds of interactions, it must be good!  Read the book! Implement now, perfect later! It has made me feel so much happier throughout the day. No more “me-against-them” feelings. Good luck!

DR. MARSHALL’S RESPONSE:
Let him know that it is his choice to act on Level A, however, when he chooses that level, he is telling you to boss him. Explain that a person on Level A needs to be bossed because he is not mature enough to follow directions. A person on Level A is a victim and not in control.

Then say, “I have seen how capable you are, but if you want me to boss you, that is your decision. I will do what you are asking.”

Then leave him to reflect, i.e., immediately move away.

Keep feeding him this same dialog until he changes his mind.

Notice that you have employed all three principles of this discipline system:

1. You have been positive with him by your assertion of his capability.

2. You have given him a choice, and;

3. You have prompted him to reflect.

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.

QUESTION:

I have a 3rd grade student who is demonstrating increasingly 
disruptive behaviors. I have all kinds 
of support with him – my principal, school counselor, 
behavioral specialist – we’re all involved, every day. This boy can work elsewhere when he can’t manage in the classroom. My question is this: How do I 
teach the other students that it’s better for them to 
ignore this student’s behavior than to be an audience or worse yet, play along? I need some “choice 
words” to really explain it and underscore the importance of this.

They did a great job today and I complimented 
them on doing so after the student had been removed from the room. A couple of them asked me individually why that student wasn’t with us and I told them that when behaviors 
interrupt everyone’s learning time, it can’t be permitted to go on and that the student was with the principal. Any advice/good words to use?

RESPONSE:

For situations like this, I find a discussion centered around the understandings 
of Marvin Marshall’s Discipline Without Stress HIERARCHY to be invaluable. Even 
though you may not be familiar with Marshall’s approach, I think I could explain 
the basics of it enough for you to be able to use it in your current situation. You wanted some “choice” words to use. One of 
the principles that forms the basis of this approach is helping kids understand 
that all personal behavior is a choice.

In a nutshell, Marshall’s approach fosters SELF-discipline. This is exactly what I 
imagine you are hoping your students will develop with respect to managing 
their own behavior when faced with a classmate who is 
displaying very little self-discipline.

Marshall’s Hierarchy has four levels of personal/social development: 
Levels A, B, C, D.

Levels A (Anarchy) and B (Bossing/Bullying) describe unacceptable behavior in 
any situation.

Just as an example, 
currently your disruptive student is often choosing to operate (either consciously or non-consciously,) at these lower levels of A 
and B. In other words, he is not in control of himself and relies 
on an adult to take control of his behavior most of the time. Just as you 
explained to students in your class, whenever a person can’t manage their 
own behavior in an acceptable manner, then the adult has to take over and 
manage their behavior for them. In your case, the adults in the school have sometimes 
found it necessary to remove this child from the room in order to preserve the 
learning environment for all the other students. It’s only fair that the other 
students have the opportunity to learn in an orderly, safe classroom.

Here’s an important point from Marshall’s program for students to 
understand:

All behavior is a personal CHOICE. If any of them were to follow along and 
misbehave–by copying a disruptive student or even by just giving encouragement as an appreciative audience–they too would be CHOOSING to 
operate at a lower level than acceptable.

In discussing the situation, you would also talk about the other two levels, C 
(Cooperation) and D (Democracy), which describe HIGHER levels of 
personal and social development. Level C is acceptable. But then there is Level 
D, which describes something even higher than acceptable. You might think of 
it as exceptional, although Marshall doesn’t use that exact description in his program.

DwStress teachers use the Hierarchy to help students understand self-discipline. The key to the approach is to explain ALL the levels to students but focus 
especially on some important understandings related to the highest two levels, 
C and D.

The difference between Level C and D (that is, between acceptable and 
exceptional behavior), can be explained in terms of motivation:

At Level C, a student is motivated EXTERNALLY to behave themselves by 
cooperating, and by willingly conforming to the expectations of the adult—AS 
LONG AS THE ADULT IS PRESENT. In your situation, this would describe 
students who can manage themselves appropriately in the classroom (even 
though one child is being incredibly disruptive in front of them,) whenever they 
notice the teacher is nearby or directly looking their way.

This level is higher than Level B because (at least when the teacher is present 
and is watching,) the child operating at Level C is self-disciplined enough to do 
the right thing. Their motivation is external however. They are motivated to do the right 
thing, perhaps to please their teacher or because they realize that to do 
anything disruptive would only lead to getting into trouble themselves.

Level C is the expected level of behaviour in the classroom in Marshall’s system 
of discipline. It is the level of obedience. In all other discipline systems 
that I’ve seen, this level is considered the highest level of behavior, but not so 
in Marshall’s approach. Having a higher-than-acceptable level is what makes 
Discipline Without Stress unique.

**********************************************************************************************************

Level D is the level of taking responsibility for yourself. It is the level of SELF-
discipline. It is the level of doing the right thing simply because it is the right 
thing to do. In other words, students operating at Level D think for themselves. 
They consciously make CHOICES for themselves with the understanding that all 
behavior is a personal choice.

You might think of Level D as the level of following your own conscience. When 
operating from this highest level, a student does the right thing regardless of 
whether or not an adult is present. In your situation, this describes a student who 
notices that a fellow student has chosen to behave in inappropriate ways and yet 
is not influenced to follow along–whether the teacher is watching or not.

They decide for themselves that following along or giving encouragement to the 
disruptive student would only mean that their own behaviour was no better off 
than that of the disruptive student–they would no longer be in control of 
themselves – in fact, they would be ALLOWING THE DISRUPTIVE STUDENT TO BE IN CONTROL OF THEM.

When you complimented your class on being able to manage themselves when 
one student was losing control, you were actually acknowledging that they were 
either on Level C or D of Marshall’s Hierarchy. The interesting thing is that Level 
C and D behaviour usually looks identical to anyone watching. The only 
difference between these two levels is in WHY the person is MOTIVATED to act 
correctly.

Some of your students would have been on Level C—they were motivated to act 
appropriately because your presence motivated them 
(externally) to behave themselves. This is acceptable but it’s not the highest 
level of behaviour.

Some would likely have been operating on the higher level, Level D. They simply 
knew inside themselves that to follow or encourage the disruptive student would 
be inappropriate. In other words they were INTERNALLY motivated.They 
wouldn’t have followed along with or acted inappropriately–even if they 
were all alone in the room with him.

Here’s the conversation I have had with 
previous classes in similar situations.

Just as you did, when it came up, I would be quite candid in discussing that ____ is sometimes working elsewhere in the school. Just as you did, I would 
explain that his behavior is out of control at the moment and that he is 
showing little self-discipline. I would ask someone in the class to identify the 
Hierarchy level of this type of disruptive behavior. Any child in the class would 
be able to correctly identify it as either Level A or B. Then I would ask them to 
tell me what happens when someone chooses to operate at an unacceptable 
level–to the point where it interferes with other people’s learning. Someone 
would say that when a student continually operates at Level B, a teacher has to 
take over. A teacher has to be the boss and tell the person what to do.

I would agree and say that yes, that is what the current situation is. ____ 
has such little self-discipline at the moment, that the adults have decided that 
he needs to work somewhere else in the school so that others can still learn and 
he can be helped to learn some self-discipline. Hopefully, with some help, ____ 
will soon learn to control himself enough to be able to rejoin the class in an 
acceptable manner. Then he too, will be able to move forward in his schooling.

Then I would initiate a discussion about the behavior of EVERYONE ELSE in this 
situation. I would talk about how we all have a personal choice in how we 
respond to ____ and his lack of self-discipline. I would ask them to imagine 
some scenarios.

For example, I would say:

What if someone chose to follow along and copy ____? What level would that 
be? (B)

What if someone chose to encourage ____ by laughing or making other 
comments (B)

Would a person who chose to encourage ____, or be influenced into following ____, be self-disciplinedthemselves?

I would talk about how some people in this situation might follow or encourage 
____, thinking that it was ____’S FAULT that they were misbehaving. I would 
make sure that everyone understood that ____’s behaviour can only influence 
our own, if we allow that and if we have no self-discipline ourselves.

Then I would move to discussing higher level behavior, Level C and D. I would 
first get them to describe behavior at each of these levels. They would explain that at Level C, a student watching ____ and 
his antics, wouldn’t follow or encourage ____ because they see the teacher in 
the room and know that it wouldn’t be a good idea to act like ____ because then 
they’d be in trouble too.

I’d say, yes, that’s true. Level C is acceptable behaviour. They would be able to 
manage their own response to ____ because they’d be smart enough not to do 
something inappropriate themselves WITH A TEACHER WATCHING. We’d talk 
about how they were doing the right thing, but that they were relying on the 
presence of the teacher to influence them in how they chose to behave. The 
result would be that classroom atmosphere would remain fairly calm and we’d 
be helping ____ too because he would see what self-discipline looks like in the 
rest of us.

Then I’d remind them that both Level C and D are acceptable and I would ask 
them this:

If Level C is acceptable, how is Level D higher?

Then some child would be able to explain in their own words that Level D is 
higher because the person at Level D wouldn’t be influenced by ____’s antics–
EVEN IF THE TEACHER WASN’T WATCHING or even if the teacher wasn’t in the 
room at all. Regardless of whether the teacher was in the room or not, they 
wouldn’t follow or encourage misbehavior, simply because they know that that’s the 
right thing to do. They wouldn’t want to encourage ____ to act up because they 
would know that wasn’t helping ____. They wouldn’t follow ____because 
they wouldn’t want to sink to Level B behavior themselves.

Then we’d talk about the benefits of being self-disciplined and being internally 
motivated to do the right thing simply because it’s the right thing to do in the 
situation. We’d talk about HOW GOOD IT FEELS to be in control of yourself. 
We’d talk about how people who are self-disciplined can respect themselves. 
When people often operate at a high level, they understand that to sink down to 
a lower level and follow someone else’s misbehavior means that they would be part of the 
problem. What self-respecting person wants to think of themselves as a 
problem! It FEELS GOOD to respect yourself and think highly of your own 
behavior. Operating at Level D allows you to take great pride in yourself.

As I said, I have had this exact same discussion with my own class in previous 
years and I have many similar discussions EVERY DAY about the benefits of 
operating at a high level; about exactly what it looks like to operate on a high 
level in ordinary everyday situations.

Although this might sound as if it would be above the heads of primary 
students, it isn’t at all. I teach Kindergarten and grade one. I simply 
use vocabulary that young children will understand to get the points across.

Although this way of thinking about behavior and self-discipline is very new to 
most teachers, I sense from your question that you are already thinking along these 
same lines. I hope my own experiences with fostering self-discipline through 
Marvin Marshall’s Discipline Without Stress will be of value to you!

To make a long explanation short, the children begin this exciting trip by visiting a dig site on the beach where they excavate a variety of “dinosaur fossils.” These finds are then taken to the “Lab” (Darlene’s back yard!) to examine, identify, and use in a variety of activity stations. Ahead of time, we prepare for the day by strategically planting “fossils” in the sand. After showing ID tags that identify them as real paleontologists, the children enter the dig area, find their numbered site and carefully begin the process of excavating dinosaur fossils!

In preparation for this special day, we ask the children to come prepared by bringing some specialized equipment from home! Each one is asked to bring a spoon for digging and a small brush for removing sand. At school we provide them with a waist bag in which to keep their equipment and later, their fossils.

In any given year, there are always some children who are devastated on the morning of The Dig because they have forgotten to bring their “equipment.” And then, there are always those others who bring in enough for a whole class!

Well, this year, Greg, an enthusiastic student from a very supportive family, brought in a sample of every type of fossil-digging tool known to mankind! Not only did he have extra spoons and brushes to suit every possible type of fossil he might discover, he also had a little shovel and several blunt-ended, homemade wooden chisels! I didn’t know it at the time, but as we left the classroom and headed to the cars, he kindly lent Daniel–who had no special tools at all–a couple of his precious silver spray-painted chisels.

At the end of The Dig, just as we were lining up to make our way to the Dinosaur Lab, Daniel came to me. With great concern on his face, he explained that he no longer had Greg’s chisels–he had lost them! He knew it wasn’t right to leave the beach knowing he had lost Greg’s tools. He wanted to stay and search for them.

Now, Daniel is one of the more difficult children in our class. He has some severe emotional issues caused by Bipolar Disorder. Over the past six months of school, he has lost many friendships and desk partners because of his increasingly sullen, depressed attitude and sometimes, angry and annoying behavior.

I knew that it was very important to find the tools he had lost, not because Greg would be upset about not getting them back (Greg would be momentarily, but being a secure little boy, he would get over a little loss such as this quickly and easily,) but rather because Daniel desperately needed the experience of having a happy ending to a situation in which he had acted with great personal integrity.

So, despite the fact that all the other kids were lined up in the heat and would have to wait a bit, I offered to go back and help him look for the tools he had lost. Luckily, the dig sites were well-delineated and the children had spent most of the time in their own areas. After a minute or two of sifting through sand, I finally found first one, and then the other chisel. (Thank goodness!)

While digging through the sand, I had the opportunity to chat with Daniel and use some reflective questions to help him think positively about this seemingly negative situation. I began by asking him to identify the level of behavior of someone who had borrowed something special from a friend, lost it, but then would not leave the area until he had made every possible attempt to find it.

He identified that this was Level D. Without expecting (or receiving) a response out loud, I asked him to think about that.  How did he feel inside when he displayed such a high level of behavior? I gave him a word to describe the character trait he had shown–integrity. I asked him to think about the type of relationship he was creating with Greg by showing such a high level of integrity.

The next day, I took some time to talk to Daniel again. This time I brought out our DwStress Hierarchy. We talked about the different types of relationships that people create with others by operating on the various levels. We began with the lowest levels and talked about how people operating down at A and B don’t create very positive relationships. I asked how people operating at a low level would respond if they had lost a borrowed tool at the beach. He said that they would just walk away and not bother to look for it at all.

I had to help him with Level C, but in the end we came up with this: A person operating from external motivation might wait until either a teacher or another child made them look for the lost item. The relationship that they created would be only “so-so.” The person from whom they had borrowed the tool would be happy to have it back but would also remember that the person they had loaned it to wasn’t all that concerned about having lost it–at least not concerned enough to take the initiative to start looking for it without being asked.

Then we went on to Level D. Of course, from our conversation the previous day on the beach, Daniel knew that he had been operating on the highest level that day. We talked about what Greg would be thinking about as he watched Daniel, obviously concerned about having lost the chisels–so concerned that he would not leave the beach until they had been found.

We talked about how Daniel, through his actions, had built a sense of trust with his friend. I asked, “Would Greg be willing to lend you something else on another day? Why?” Of course, Greg would remember the beach experience and would feel that he could trust Daniel to return any item that he borrowed.

I explained to Daniel that by his high level of behavior on the beach, he had developed a sense of trust, not only with Greg but also with his two teachers, other kids in the class and even parents who had noticed the whole situation. Many people at the beach had witnessed his integrity that day. They had seen that he was a person who could be trusted because he had owned up to losing something, and then tried to find it. I said that I, for one, would be happy to lend him anything he needed, simply because I knew I could trust him to return it.

We also talked about that despite having had the desire to find Greg’s chisel that day, it might have turned out that the chisel couldn’t be found–things can easily get lost in so much sand. Even if that had occurred though, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that Daniel had acted on the highest level. Greg would have still known that Daniel was an honest person, full of integrity, because he had taken responsibility for having lost the tools and had the sincere intention of looking until he found them. In that case, his honest intentions would have been more important than the chisels in the long run.

With so much writing here, it might seem as if this was a huge deal, but of course, it wasn’t. It was just one small incident; barely noticeable to others but potentially powerful to one small child. These type of small character-building experiences are why I absolutely love teaching with the DwStress Hierarchy!

QUESTION:

I am still waiting for my Discipline without Stress book to arrive, but this morning I introduced the system to my class anyway. Even though it’s almost the end of the year, I have such big behavior problems that I decided I had nothing to lose and everything to gain! However, I must have done something wrong because the very students who need this system most, were the ones who didn’t pay attention to the discussion and mocked the levels right from the very start. Any suggestions for making this system real to kids who don’t pay much attention to things like this?

RESPONSE:

Here is an example of just one small discussion I have had with my own class in an effort to make the levels of the Hierarchy meaningful to them. Although the following example comes from a primary grade level, I hope you’ll be able to see that you could use this same kind of DWS discussion framework with older students to help them realize that it is always to their own benefit to become more SELF-disciplined.

A Sample Hierarchy Discussion in a Real Classroom Situation

I often use the Hierarchy to talk with my grade one students about things that are connected directly to our lives in the classroom. For example, every year I initiate a few conversations to connect math corrections to the Hierarchy. I feel it’s important for students to correct any math errors that they might have made on previous days, before we move on to new learning. I find that the this type of fifteen minute discussion always has a large positive impact on the choices my students make during math time for the rest of the year.

In keeping with the DWStress Principle of Reflection, I usually begin the discussion by eliciting from the students what operation at each of the four levels might look like with regard to the situation at hand. I guide the discussion and the students participate by sharing their thoughts. At the same time, we also talk about the results a person can expect from consistent operation at each of the levels. I always begin at the lowest level and build up to the highest level, in order to end on an inspiring note.

Here’s a synopsis of what we discuss with regard to math corrections:

Operation at Levels A/B:

• People operating at these levels don’t bother doing many math corrections at all–unless the teacher forces them.

• A person at this level might feel badly that their book has lots of errors in it but they don’t do anything to help the situation–so they continue to feel badly.

• During Math time, they might just sit there or goof off, play little games by themselves or with others. They might even have a lot of fun.

• People operating at this level often take pleasure in the thought that they are “getting away” with something. They notice that while everyone around them is doing math corrections, they are not—they’re having free time.

• Eventually the decision not to do math corrections during class time catches up with them and the teacher responds by taking control. After all, individuals at Levels A/B are not displaying SELF-control. Whether they consciously know it or not, they are ensuring that the teacher must take over.

• Once class time allocated for doing corrections is over, the person has lost the opportunity to use school time to finish their work. When are some other times to complete the required corrections? (At recess? At free choice center time? At lunch time? After school? At home?)

• In the end, did this person “get away” with anything at all? In actuality, they’ve lost out. For one thing, a person who doesn’t consistently attempt to understand and correct their math errors is less likely to understand the math concepts at their grade level—their learning suffers.

• In addition, a person operating at Levels A/B, often feels discouraged whenever they look at their notebook. Even though they have tried to ignore the situation, they know that their notebook is full of errors. Despite the fact that outwardly they may appear not to care, inwardly they feel uncomfortable.

• When the majority of their classmates are ready for recess, the person who decided to use their class time to play, must then BEGIN to work.

• Sure, they got away with not doing their corrections in Math lesson time–but was it worth it?

Operation at Level C:

• A person at Level C is cooperative and so doesn’t misbehave in Math time. They comply with the teacher’s expectation that math corrections should be completed first thing, during math class time.

• This is an acceptable level of operation because the student completes their corrections–as expected by the teacher.

• At Level C, a person is complying but not exhibiting true SELF-control. They wait for the teacher to say that it’s time to do their corrections before they begin. In other words, they depend on the presence of the teacher to start and keep them working.

Operation at Level D:

• At the highest level of operation, people take charge of their own behavior and feel competent because of that. It’s personally satisfying to know that you are SELF-disciplined.

• People operating at this level take initiative–they don’t wait for the person in charge to tell them what to do when they know they need to do something. As soon as they get their notebook back, they look to see if they have any corrections to do and they get started. They take pride in the fact that they are keeping up and acting responsibly.

• Often they can correct one or two errors while other classmates simply sit–waiting for the teacher to tell them what to do. Because they have made good use of their time, they often have a few free minutes later, to do something of their own choice, while they wait for others to complete the required work.

• People who make an effort to understand errors have a greater chance of understanding math concepts at their grade level.

• If the teacher has written, “See me” on a page, students operating on Level D, take the initiative to ask for teacher help–they don’t wait until the teacher finally catches up with them. While they are waiting for the teacher to come to their desk, they go on to any other corrections that they might be able to complete independently.

• When they get their work back each day, they know they will only have one day’s corrections to do, not days and days’ worth. They look at their noebook and take satisfaction in the fact that all the pages are clipped and up to date.

Every year I find that this discussion about math corrections is very effective in 
motivating kids to WANT to look after their errors promptly and without nagging 
by me. Once we have discussed 
what autonomous behaviour looks like in this situation, they WANT to see themselves as operating autonomously. That’s not to say that 
EVERY child has aimed for, or achieved Level D in this regard, but I would say that a very large majority have, after this type of a discussion.

I find that as the year goes 
on, my students become increasingly more responsible about completing corrections 
independently. One year, when our regular Math time followed recess, I would typically return to the classroom, always to find a 
large number of students with their math books out–by choice–working 
independently to get their corrections up to date for the day. On seeing this, the remainder of the class would often follow suit… peer influence at it’s best!

My teaching partner and I had a group of boys who recently started to spend their playtime roughhousing. To them, it was just fun. They weren’t hurting each other deliberately, but there was a lot of pushing and shoving starting to happen in their game, and any adult could see that sooner or later, somebody would likely get hurt. These students needed to find a more positive way to play at noon time.

In The Raise Responsibility System (Part III of the DWS Teaching Model) there are THREE PHASES to implement:

1. TEACH the Hierarchy of Social Development.

If behavior is unacceptable, then:

2. ASK (that is, Check for Understanding.)

If the unacceptable behavior continues, then:

3. ELICIT a consequence or procedure (Guided Choices.)

PHASE ONE:
In this case, teaching the Hierarchy had already been completed earlier in the school year. These students were well aware of the levels of social development and because we had had many classroom discussions over the school year regarding the Hierarchy, these students and I had the same understanding of what inappropriate or unacceptable behavior might look like.

PHASE TWO:
The boys were asked to identify their level of behavior, which they did correctly. They said, “Level B or A.” I asked them to tell me what happens when people operate on Level B or Level A. They said something like: “The teacher has to step in and take charge,” which is correct.

The teacher’s job is to ensure safety for everyone. When students are operating on a low level (A and B), then the teacher’s job is to step in and use authority. This is no different than any other discipline system. The difference between Discipline without Stress and most other discipline approaches lies in the fact that a teacher who implements this approach uses authority in a way that is non-coercive and non-punitive (but not permissive) manner.

This doesn’t mean that the teacher will do nothing. It means that the teacher will not IMPOSE consequences (punishment), and the STUDENTS (rather than the teacher), WILL DO THE THINKING about what should happen if misbehavior should occur.

Simply put: The misbehaving student identifies Level A or Level B as unacceptable levels of operation. IF THIS UNACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF BEHAVIOR CONTINUES, then the teacher moves to Guided Choices.

PHASE THREE:
Guided choices can look like many things. “Setting up consequences ELICITED from the student, PRIOR TO MISBEHAVIOR” is just one option.

In this particular case, it didn’t seem that consequences in the immediate situation were necessary; no one had been hurt. All the boys were still friendly and happy. We discussed whether this type of behavior was appropriate and whether it should continue. We also spent time to come up with some procedures for what to do in the future. In other words, we tried to brainstorm some ideas for alternative activities to their pushing and shoving game.

Because the boys didn’t seem to be enthusiastic about any of the ideas we came up with as a group, I was pretty sure that as soon as I left the scene, they might be tempted to play the pushing and shoving game again. I knew that it might be helpful to ELICIT some consequences from them before I left. This is an example of what Marvin Marshall would call “being proactive in a discipline situation.” So, I said to them, “Boys, I feel confident that you will be able to think of a more appropriate activity to do on the playground—you’re all good thinkers! BUT WHAT IF you get caught up in playing that same pushing and shoving game again? What do YOU think should happen then?”

After a moment, one of them said, “We should have to go in and sit at the office for the rest of lunch time.” Using the words of Marvin Marshall, I replied, “Okay, I can live with that.” The rambunctious boys started to play something else, and I went and had a word with our noon time playground supervisor. I suggested that she keep an eye on this group and at the slightest bit of rough play, she should come and get me.

Not ten minutes later, there she was at my door! Off I went to the playground for a second time, where sure enough, the pushing and shoving game was back in full swing! I said, “Boys, it’s happening again. This is not an appropriate way of playing. What was it you said should happen if you decided to push and shove again?”

They all looked a bit sheepish and sad. One finally said, “We should go inside to the office for the rest of the noon time.” I just nodded sadly too and in we all went to the office, where I left the boys to sit near the secretary.

Now, knowing this particular group of boys well, my partner and I checked on them often during the rest of the week. Sure enough, some of them still didn’t have the message that roughhousing was not going to be tolerated. A couple of more times at lunch, we had to repeat the scene with a few of the kids.

With the most severe problem kids, we had to HAVE THEM come up with additional consequences with the following type of a conversation:

TEACHER:
Jason, you still don’t seem to have the message that I’m trying to get across to you–that pushing and shoving games are not a good idea at school. This idea of yours, to sit in the office, doesn’t seem to be working all that well. You’re still playing this pushing and shoving game with a couple of kids when you go out to the playground. What should happen now?

JASON:
I should have to sit in the office for the rest of lunch.

TEACHER:
And what else? Just that alone doesn’t seem to be working.

JASON:
I don’t know.

TEACHER:
Well, if you keep on pushing and shoving out there, is it safe for other people out on the playground? I’m worried about recess time. I don’t like to think that other people might not be safe out there or that one person is encouraging others to push and shove. What do you think should happen about that?

JASON:
Maybe I shouldn’t go out at recess either.

TEACHER:
Well, I can live with that. At recess time, when the bell rings, where should you go?

JASON:
To the office.

TEACHER:
Well, that would be fine with me.

Since we’re currently on Spring Break, we may have to continue to deal with this situation when we come back to school in 10 days. On the first day back, my partner will be sure to talk with Jason and probably a few others, as they head out for their first noon time back at school. This will be PROACTIVE because she will again review the situation by ASKING THEM QUESTIONS and by having THE BOYS SET UP THE CONSEQUENCES for what they think should happen, should they fall back into their old ways!

DR.MARSHALL’S RESPONSE:
“Don’t talk” and “ignore others” are not procedures. As usual, go back to step one of the DISCIPLINE without STRESS Teaching Model and have them create and practice a procedure(s).

Have students work in small groups. The assignment is, “Your neighbor is talking and it is getting in the way of your learning. What procedure can your group come up with that can be used to remind other students that they are letting an impulse direct their behavior? What can we do to gently remind others in our class to self-reflect?”

Each group will come up with some procedure. You can have the groups share.

Here is what you have done with this approach:

(1) You have empowered the group. If someone is talking when the person should not be, you now EXPECT the group to handle the situation. The problem/challenge is now theirs.

(2) You have had the students create a procedure that would not be insulting.

(3) You were positive. You replaced a negative (“Don’t talk” and “ignore others”) with some action–something that the students themselves created and own.

http://www.marvinmarshall.com/impulsemanagement.html has an example of text you may want to refer to.

Expect to periodically reinforce and practice.