11
instructions provided by flight attendants just before takeoff. Tau- ber (1999) paraphrased the instructions by stating, “Should we lose cabin pressure and oxygen will be required, oxygen masks will drop from the ceiling. If you are traveling with small children or elderly companions, first place the mask on yourself, and then attend to the needs of those around you” (p. 71).
2. A hostile teacher uses aggressive, hurtful methods such as threats and sarcasm. It is a case of the teacher against the student. In a hostile environment, students feel insecure, become disrespectful, and are prone to retaliation. Permanent learning cannot take place in this environment because hostile teachers meet their needs first but do not meet the needs of their students.
3. A nonassertive teacher is passive, unfocused, hesitant in demand- ing expectations from the students, and inconsistent in enforcing standards, thus setting the tone for ineffective leadership. Nonas- sertive teachers do not meet their needs nor do they meet their students’ needs.
In your classroom, Hank and John are talking while Fred is answering a question. Examine the three response styles to this situation, but before you read the different responses, first decide how you would respond to Hank and John’s behavior.
Assertive teacher response: The teacher walks over to the talking students.
If they still continue talking, she says, “Hank and John,” she points to the rule on the poster, “the class decided that only one person speaks at a time. Be respectful to Fred, and listen to what he has to say.”
Hostile teacher response: “What’s the matter with you two? Don’t you ever learn? How many times do I have to tell you to stop talking?”
Non-assertive teacher response: “Come on, you guys (a speech “Don’t” listed in chapter 2), will you please stop talking? I’ve asked you so many times.”
Implementation
The Canters claim that the assertive teacher, the one they want to develop, must have a well-designed discipline plan that includes both rules and “limit setting.” The rules should be clear, observable, few in number, and posted.
A cause-effect set of consequences, both positive and negative, should be ar- ranged in a hierarchy to match the degree of student behavior in obeying or not obeying the rules. The plan is then approved by the school after which the
plan is taught and practiced in class on the first day of school, sent to parents for their signature, and is consistently enforced on a daily basis.
An important principle in implementing the plan is that it is used fairly. In order to do this the teacher must collect data. The effect is that the data, not the decision of the teacher, will then determine the consequences administered as determined by the discipline plan.
The Canters have suggested two methods for collecting data, “names on the board” or “marbles in a jar.” In the former, when a student misbehaves, her name is written on the board or placed in a grade book or discipline folder.
Each time she continues to misbehave, a check mark is added. The conse- quences of the frequency of the misbehavior are communicated in advance.
For example, it may be decided that the name on the board should serve as a warning.
The first check mark next to the name may be staying after class for a speci- fied amount of time, the second check mark gets a longer amount of time.
Additional check marks could in addition to the extra time spent include a phone call or e-mail to the parents or a trip to the principal. Once the con- sequences are implemented, the student begins with a fresh start, thus giving him/her a new opportunity to behave properly.
“Marbles in the jar” is used when the student is behaving, or following a rule. (For older students, Canter (2006) suggests that the teacher should call it “points on the board.”) The teacher drops a marble in the jar informing all students that they are accumulating points (marbles) which may be traded in for a reward.
Using rewards for one student or for all students who behave according to the rules is a critical part of the Canters’ model. The teacher must determine what every student considers a reward, and then determine a reinforcement schedule—how many times the behavior should be demonstrated in order to receive a reward.
Both the “name on the board” and “marbles in the jar” techniques have drawn criticism. The Canters suggest that if these two methods are not accept- able, the teacher should find his own. Other critics oppose the use of rewards (or punishments) in the attempt to achieve desirable behavior (Kohn, 1993, 1996, 2001; Tauber, 2007). They view rewards and praise as calculating, a way for teachers to exercise control over students, and fostering dependency, thereby making it less likely for students to become self-managed.
At the heart of the Canters’ model is the concept that the teacher should not accept any excuses from misbehaving students such as coming from an underprivileged or minority background. Misbehaving students should be held accountable because they have decided not to obey a rule. The teacher
must not waver in delivering a consequence, even when the student who has misbehaved performs better later in the day.
Teachers using Assertive Discipline have several other techniques for deliv- ering their message:
• Voice tone. The message should be delivered in a confident, firm, and businesslike tone. When delivering the message this way, the “broken record” strategy, can be used. The teacher simply repeats persistently the rule or request made of the student until the student complies.
• Gestures. Eye contact, a stare, a raised palm, a finger crossed over the lip, or certain orchestral conducting techniques such as pushing an open hand down convey confidence without interrupting the lesson.
• Using students’ names. This technique is an attention-getter, especially when the name is used in context or with the type of voice tone men- tioned above.
• “I” messages. You should recall that in both chapters 3 and 8, “I” mes- sages were suggested as effective communicators. Gordon’s “I” message (when implementing Teacher Effectiveness Training) had three parts:
“When you talk in class” (a description of the misbehavior), “it inter- rupts my train of thought” (how it tangibly and concretely affected the teacher), and “I get frustrated” (how it made the teacher feel). Gordon then assumes that once this message is communicated, the student will decide if and how to change the behavior.
The Canters have modified Gordon’s “I” message to communicate just how the behavior is to be changed. “I feel annoyed” (identification of the feel- ing) “when you call out answers” (identification of the problem) “and I want you to raise your hand when you have something to say” (state the behavior the teacher wants).
As already described in chapter 3, the Canter “I” message can be ex- pressed to reflect a more contemporary approach by saying, “I feel I’m not doing my job properly [teacher’s feeling] when you call out answers [misbehavior], and as the class decided, you should raise your hand if you want to participate in the discussion [behavior agreed to by both class and teacher].”
In the Assertive Discipline model, the assertive teacher is definitely in charge and the class procedures are more structured. However, Assertive Discipline can be made more contemporary in its approach when students are involved in determining rules, as opposed to their being decided solely by the teacher; when students participate in determining both rewards for following and consequences for not following rules; and when the assertive
Coaching Rubric for Assertive Discipline (T)
Criteria (Descriptors) Performance Indicators (Examples) The teacher . . .
established a carefully thought-out discipline plan with rules and limits before the opening of school
when possible, established rules with student input on first day of class, but also included those desired by teacher
established with students reasonable rules established with students clear rules that were
simply stated
established with students rules and results with cause-effect relationships
determined with students a hierarchy of positive consequences (rewards) for obeying rules determined with students a hierarchy of negative
consequences for breaking the rules (improper behavior)
determined with students a reinforcement schedule for assigning rewards and consequences.
As soon as mutually agreed upon, the teacher . . . practiced the rules
submitted the plan for examination and approval by the school administration
communicated plan to parents for signature.
When a student violated a rule, the teacher . . . repeated request for changing improper behavior
no more than three times
communicated request in a firm, confident, businesslike tone
maintained direct eye contact
used appropriate accompanying gestures incorporated student’s name in the request sent an “I” message (Canter style)
established a record-keeping system for enforcing discipline plan
enforced discipline plan consistently and fairly allowed every misbehaving student to begin each
day anew
“caught” students behaving properly and rewarded them appropriately
avoided “overkill” in distributing rewards.
teacher ensures that rules are implemented consistently and takes ultimate responsibility for the class.
The contemporary assertive teacher also fosters mutual respect among all class members and communicates with parents the class expectations. When a student violates a rule, the assertive teacher reminds that student which class- decided rule he is violating or asks the misbehaving student which rule he is violating that shows disrespect for the class.