Initially, some teachers new to DISCIPLINE without STRESS, have difficulty visualizing what is meant by the practice of “setting up consequences proactively” in a discipline situation. Here’s an example of “eliciting consequences ahead of time” with a group of boys in my own primary class.

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 Discipline Without Stress 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!

Print This Post Print This Post
For More Information on Disciplineand Learning Click Here
Posted In: Guided Choices, RRSystem in Action
posted On: February 6, 2008: 11:47 pm: By Kerry Weisner
Comments: