Chapter 9:
Developing Logical and Related Consequences within the Social Contract (and Why
to Avoid the Use of Punishments)
In
this Chapter
- What is
a Consequence?
- What is
a Punishment?
- What is
Wrong with the Use of Punishments?
- Creating
Effective Consequences within the Social Contract
- Examples
of Effective Logical Consequences
An essential part of a well-functioning
system of social interactions and classroom social contract is the development
of a clear relationship in the students’ minds between their actions and the
consequences of those actions. Therefore it is necessary to develop within the
context of our classroom social contract a set of logical and related
consequences for student behavior that violates the contract. These consequences
act to create boundaries and clarity of expectations. Along with providing
meaningful cause-and-effect connections, agreed upon consequences for violating
ones agreement act as a practical, concrete manifestation of accountability and
what it means to be a responsible member of the class. Without consequences a
social contract is merely an abstract ideal, participated in voluntarily, and
practically ineffectual.
WHAT IS A CONSEQUENCE?
Often we use the terms consequences and punishments
interchangeably (Elias & Schwab, 2006). However, consequences and
punishments are very different things. It may appear that they are different
variations of the same idea -- doing something to or toward students to give
them a disincentive to misbehave -- but as we examine each more closely, we
will see that they are very different and have dramatically varying effects
(Brady, et al., 2003; Dreikurs, 1974; Nelson, Lynn, & Glenn, 2000).
To illustrate the differences between
consequences and punishments it may be useful to examine two cases related to
what might happen if a student misses a school bus. As you compare the two
cases, which example would you characterize as a consequence and which as a
punishment?
Case #1
The student understands that the bus to
school arrives at his stop at
Case #2
Again the student understands that the bus
was to stop at
Chapter
Reflection 9-a: In a group discussion or on your own,
identify all the ways in which these two situations vary from one another. As
you examine them more deeply, you will recognize many ways in which they do.
The questions below may be helpful in your analysis.
Reflect on the two cases:
- Which
one is more likely to change behavior in the long-term?
- Which
one teaches the more useful lesson for life?
- Which
one builds the student’s sense of responsibility and internal LOC?
- Who
is in control in each case? Is that important?
As you likely identified, the first case would best be characterized as
a consequence and the second case as a punishment. In the first case a lesson
was learned; in the second, the result was merely discomfort. While both cases
may have had an effect on the student in the short-term, as we examine the two
cases more closely, we see that only the first case was logically related to
the problem. The student was late (cause), and therefore the bus was no longer
available (effect), as it would have been if the student had gotten to the stop
on time. The lesson to be learned is clear -- get to the stop on time and the
bus will be there. The ownership of the problem rests with the student.
Chapter
Refection 9-b: Recall a situation in which you missed a bus,
flight, deadline, or arrived at a store after it closed. Did you learn a
lesson? Did it change your behavior in the future?
In the second case we find a lot of
difficulty recognizing the logical relationship between being yelled at and
taking too long to get to the bus stop. It may seem like a common response to
such student behavior, but it is not logical. In this second case, the lesson
learned has little to do with a need to change behavior, and has more to do
with avoiding the discomfort that may (or may not) come from the bus driver.
And like many punishments there was no real consequence for being late. The bus
was still there. The student learned that they could be late to the stop and
the bus would still be waiting. There was a lot of sound and fury, but it
signified very little. In this situation the causality was external. It was
dependent on the mood and the whim of the bus driver, and so there can be
little or no effect on the development of the student’s internal locus of
control and thus growth toward more responsible future choices.
Chapter
Reflection 9-c: At this point in the chapter, most students
begin to realize that what they received from their parents were mostly
punishments. Reflect on whether this is true for you.
Consequences as Cause-and-Effect Results
In life, generally consequences are things
that happens as a result of our actions. We may choose to describe them with
such labels as “reaping what we have sown,” “karmic reactions,” “sleeping in
the bed we have made,” “emotional bank accounts,” etc. But in the natural world
all causes have effects. Nothing happens in a vacuum. All thoughts and actions
have consequences. And if we are perceptive, we begin to learn which actions
and thoughts (causes) bring us the kinds of circumstances (effects) that we
desire, and those that bring us unwanted outcomes.
In the classroom, students experience countless
consequences each day. Most are natural and occur without any teacher
intervention. For example, when a student is in a hurry or careless they may
make a spelling mistake, or miscalculate a math problem. Or a student may be
friendly to other students and as a result be perceived as likable. An infinite
number of events act as consequences for each of us daily.
Most consequences related to most teachers
are typically positive. For example, when the student works at a task, the
teacher may offer a verbal recognition of effort, or may provide academic or
emotional support. And in most classrooms, when the student raises a hand the
teacher recognizes them for a response. In each of these cases there is a
fairly apparent cause-and-effect relationship between the thoughts and actions
of the student and the consequences they experience. Moreover, when a student
feels successful they associate that feeling of success to a great extent with
the person who helped them get there, and that is usually you, the teacher.
As we will discuss in more detail in the next
chapter, the most powerful means to developing a responsible mindset in
students is to help make them aware of this cause-and-effect relationship
between their thoughts and actions and the consequent effects that occur. A
requirement for helping students recognize this cause and effect is to create
it within the logic of the classroom social contract. The keys to this logic
are: 1) the use of cause-and-effect in your explanations for why things happen,
both academically and managerially; and 2) well-established, natural, related,
and logical consequences for both positive and negative behaviors. In other
words, students learn that when they make certain choices, a logical and
related consequence will follow.
Ideally, the best consequences (and
inherently most logical and related) are those that are naturally occurring
(Dreikurs, 1974). However, when these are not sufficient given the situational
demands, the teacher must create a manufactured consequence that is as related
as possible to the situational behavior. For example, in the instance of the
student who arrived late for the bus, the consequence was natural. No one had
to implement it. And in that case, the only person affected was the student. In
the absence of clear and direct natural consequences the teacher (with the help
of the students if they wish) must manufacture one. For example, the naturally
occurring effect of a student getting up to sharpen a pencil several times a
day is that others are annoyed and learning is disrupted. Clearly in this case,
the natural consequence is insufficient to meet the needs of the class as a
whole. Therefore the consequence must be artificial but related (Dreikurs,
1974). One of the many logical consequences in this case would be that a
student might lose the privilege of using the sharpener for a while. The
“cause” of course is the student’s choosing to misuse a privilege; the “effect”
is that the privilege is withheld for a time. The student may be given the opportunity
to try again later, and hopefully they will take a more responsible approach to
the use of the privilege in the future.
WHAT
IS A PUNISHMENT?
A punishment is an external intervention that
is intended to give discomfort for the purpose of payback or out of the belief
that it will change behavior (Curwin & Mendler, 1986; Schlosser, 1992).
There are no natural and/or logical punishments. The locus of control of a
punishment is the punisher. In nature there are only consequences, NO
punishments. For instance, if we take a wrong turn on a hiking trail we may
get lost, we may run into trouble, experience hunger or feel frightened, but
none of the pain we experience could be defined as a punishment. It is always
rooted in the laws of nature -- in cause and effect. We made a bad choice -- we
did not prepare properly or we underestimated the task -- so consequently, we
paid a price.
Punishments come in many forms. Some are very
overt and obvious, such as writing standards or lines, picking up trash, names
on the board, detentions, being sent to the office, angry outbursts, having to
sit alone, calls home, losing class points, etc. Some punishments are much more
subtle. These include lectures, guilt throwing, public shaming, overt
disappointment, being more critical of student work after they have misbehaved,
lowering of expectations, etc.
In a punishment condition, the pain and
discomfort inflicted on the “punished” is always calculated by an external
agent, the “punisher.” With consequences, the cost or benefit is determined by
natural laws, whereas with the punishment the price is determined artificially.
Consequences teach lessons, punishments teach avoidance of the punisher (Schlosser, 1992).
Most consequences are understood before decisions are made and actions take
place. Punishments are typically reactive.
Figure 9.1
Consequences vs. Punishments: A Comparison
|
Consequences |
Punishments
|
|
Intend to teach lessons |
Intend to give discomfort |
|
Foster internal locus of control |
Foster external locus of control |
|
Are proactive |
Are reactive |
|
Are logical and related |
Are unrelated and personal |
|
Work in the long-term |
Work in the short-term |
|
Promote responsibility |
Can promote obedience (but more likely
resentment) |
What is so Wrong with Punishments?
On the surface punishments can appear to
“work.” They produce what appears to be a desirable outcome (Landrum &
Kauffman, 2006). But as we examine their effects more closely, we will see that
punishments either do not really improve behavior in the long-term, and/or are
not the portion of the intervention that had the desirable effect (Kohn, 1999; Schlosser, 1992).
Punishment may stop unwanted behavior in the short term. This contributes
to the illusion that it works, but the lesson learned is not related to the
problem behavior and so will not lead to learning or behavior change. For
example, if a teacher angrily tells the class to “BE QUIET!” the effect will
likely be that the class stops talking momentarily. But if we return to this
same class a week later, the teacher will still be required to yell when they
want quiet. The lesson that is being learned by the students from this
punishment intervention is to tolerate the teacher’s yelling and anger for a
while and then wait for the opportunity to go back to the behavior that meets
their previous needs. There is nothing learned that relates to an appropriate
use of voice or a respectful orientation to others’ need for a peaceful
learning environment. Without the fundamental learning (which consequences
provide), the teacher’s external and emotional intervention appears to be the
only thing that works. But it only stops the problem for an instant, and worst
of all, as the students become comfortable with the negative impact of the
punishment they become increasingly immune, so more frequent and more severe
forms of punishment are required to obtain the same result (Kauffman, 2005).
According to the saying about digging yourself a hole, the first step is to
stop digging.
Some readers may say, “But my class is
improving, and I rely on punishments.” Let’s examine typical practices in such
situations and analyze what is making things better. It is a safe bet that
mixed in with the punishments are a lot of high expectations and the implicit
message that you believe in the students and will not accept poor behavior. In
the end, these positive messages of caring and validation are having the
positive effect (Kauffman, 2005). Moreover, the use of punishments is only
holding the class back from its potential. Try keeping the high expectations
and exchange the use of punishments for consequences. You may be surprised at
how the students respond with a level of behavioral maturity that you did not
think that they had. Moreover, you will find yourself experiencing an emotional
ease and lightness that gives you more positive energy throughout the day.
As we examine the effect of consequences more
closely, we see that they build responsibility in students. Children who are
fed a steady diet of punishment (especially guilt, shame, lectures) do not
build responsibility because the locus of control in punishment is external and
responsibility comes from an internal locus of control. So what do punishments
promote? For the most part, it is either obedience or rebellion (Landrum &
Kauffman, 2006;
Schlosser, 1992). You might think, “Well, if it is
obedience, then I am fine with that.” Obedience may sound desirable on the
surface, and for the teacher it may seem to make life easier but it can be a
slippery slope down a path that leads to emotionally immature and dependent
students (Kohn, 1999). It might be useful to put yourself in the position of
the student (a useful cure for most “teacher power trips” by the way), and
consider whether you would want to be put in a position where you were expected
to do only what you were told. You can see the benefit of this arrangement for
the self-centered teacher, but it is difficult to see the benefits to the student.
The primary skill one learns from a teacher who loves to punish and demands
obedience is how to play the game of pretending to be repentant. This is not
the kind of skill that translates into high quality relationships over a
lifetime. So if our job is to teach and promote our students’ growth, why would
we incorporate a practice that fundamentally stunts personal growth?
Chapter
Reflection 9-d: In groups or individually, respond to the
teacher who suggests that “consequences are fine for small things, but for the
big things, we need to use punishments.” Do you find this to be sound logic? It
may help to recall you answer to the earlier question related to the events
that changed your life the most, were they consequences or punishments?
Why We Love to Give Punishments (and the
Pain-Based Logic)
If we examine why one would have a compelling attraction to the use of
punishments (detailed in Chapter 17 in our discussion of the 4-Style approach),
it has more to do with one’s mental conditioning than any evidence of efficacy.
Very often teachers (and students in teacher education classes) become upset
after examining the consequence vs. punishment dichotomy and feel the need to
defend the use of punishments. They often use the phrase “I have tried to use
consequences, but my students only understand punishments, and they are working
for me.” On the surface this sounds reasonable. But as we examine the logic
more closely we can see why these classes are not developing more responsible
and desirable behavior and why the teacher spends a lot of time emotionally
miserable. At the heart of their thinking is a “pain-based logic.” This form of
reasoning implies something to the effect that, “Because I was personally
offended by the students’ actions, to teach them a lesson, to motivate change,
and to pay them back, I need to give them some pain. It’s only fair.”
It’s possible to assume that somewhere in the
past of the teacher who clings to a “pain-based logic” and cannot give up
defending the use of punishments is an attachment to a past authority figure
who used this logic and a high quantity of punishments. As a result, the
teacher continually misinterprets the evidence. Like an addiction, while the
effects of the use of punishments are to the objective eye (and to their own
inner conscience) not very desirable -- little improvement of behavior, an
ever-increasing hostile climate in the class, and a feeling on the part of the
teacher that they are more law enforcement than learning facilitator -- the teacher
continues to hold to the belief that the punishments are necessary. The inner
dialogue is, “If I do not give pain for unwanted behavior, I will be viewed as
weak and powerless.” There is a fictional and faulty working assumption by the
teacher that suggests that people cannot be trusted and that they only respond
to pain and domination. Within this mental fiction is misinterpretation of
one’s own past. If one regularly receives the message that one cannot be
trusted, one comes to internalize the belief that one only responds to
punishment. This interpretation is likely giving one’s self a great deal less
credit for being responsible and trustworthy than one actually warranted, and
giving the influence of the punishments far too much credit for promoting
positive behavior. Moreover, and most importantly, it is currently keeping this
teacher (or parent or coach, or leader) from trusting their students and giving
up the illusion that the use of punishments is doing anything positive.
Sometimes it is not what we do, but how we do it that distinguishes a punishment from a consequence.
In practice, what distinguishes a punishment
from a consequence can be in how it is perceived by the students (Curwin &
Mendler, 1986; Dreikurs, 1974; Schlosser, 1992; Weinstein, 2003).
If the student perceives an event as external (you were mad), reactive (you
were fed up), or intended to give pain (they needed to be taught a lesson for
what they did), it is punishment, and has all the negative impact of a
punishment--even if the intent is a clear and logical consequence (Schlosser, 1992;
Weinstein, 2003). This might seem confusing. Keep in mind,
however, that management success is not about being able to defend one’s self.
It is about the results that one achieves. Ask yourself after each consequence
implementation intervention (discussed in detail in the next chapter), “What
did the student learn from that event?” and “Who and what was it about?” If it
was experienced as being about choice and supported the processing for how a
better choice could have been made, it was most likely a successful
consequence. If was perceived as being about you the teacher, and the student
left the situation feeling as though they “got in trouble” and were therefore
given some discomfort, it could best be characterized as a punishment.
To illustrate the difference between a
consequence situation that could be similar to a punishment situation, it may
be helpful to compare two interventions with the same basic elements. For this example,
those basic elements are:
- A
review is being provided as a service to help the student prepare for an
upcoming exam
- Students
need to listen during the review, or ask questions
- The
review will last as long as it needs to
- The
expectation is that students are quiet during an exam
Give these basic elements, consider the following two cases:
Case #1
Teacher is reviewing with students. After
about 40 minutes, the teacher senses that the students are restless. He asks
them, “I am seeing less attention than I did earlier, does that mean you have
had enough review and we are ready to take the test?” Some students say yes,
and others say no. So he makes the deal, “If you are able to be attentive and
use this opportunity well, we will continue to review; if it looks like you are
getting bored and restless, that will tell me that it is time to give the test
out.” After a few minutes the students look restless. The teacher says, “Okay,
let’s take everything off our desks and get out a pen or pencil (gives additional
instructive and supportive comments related to the material). “We have done
well on this in class, so let’s show it here,” and “Remember, we need to be
respectful of one another, so please be quiet until everyone is done.”
Case #2
Teacher reviews with the students. After
about 40 minutes, the teacher hears talking. He tells them, “There is too much
talking right now.” After a couple of minutes, talking continues so he tells
them, “If you keep talking I am going to give you the test.” After a few minutes
the teacher again becomes frustrated with the amount of talking and says,
“That’s it, you are getting the test now!” As he passes out the test he angrily
tells the students that if they talk during the exam, they will “get a big fat
0!”
As you examine the two cases, they are
essentially the same in terms of the teachers’ actions. In both cases, the
teachers made the determination that as a result of the students’ behavior they
seemed not to be taking advantage of the review and therefore were ready to take
the test. But would you characterize them both as consequences? Or was the
second a punishment?
Chapter
Reflection 9-e: In
your group or on your own, reflect on the differences in the two situations.
While similar, there were significant differences. What would you label each
intervention?
Case One seems to meet the qualification for
a consequence. It was proactive, logical and related, and the students were in
control of the outcome. As a result, the students felt responsible for what
happened. Conversely, Case Two falls into the classification of a punishment
condition. It was reactive, the teacher was angry and therefore the students
perceived the case of the action as being related to the level of the teacher’s
frustration. As a result, the locus was shifted externally. Moreover, in the
end the test was used as a punishment. What does that do to the students’
association with the purpose of tests and other assessments?
If the teacher in Case Two had not resorted to
a “pain-based logic,” a much better result would have been manufactured. In
Case One, tomorrow is going to be better as a result of the teacher’s
intervention today. The relationship in Case One stays intact and the students
take a step forward in learning to be responsible class members. In Case Two,
the relationship is damaged. The teacher has withdrawn a great deal from the
emotional bank account balance that had been accrued. In Case One the lesson
learned is if we (the class) want to have the privilege of having a review, we
need to use the opportunity maturely. In Case Two the primary lesson learned
was to do a better job of interpreting what does and does not make the teacher
mad. In Case One the expectation was strengthened. In Case Two, because the
cause and effect was not well established, the expectation will remain vague.
And finally, how about the energy level of the teachers? Which teacher used
more energy?
Chapter
Reflection 9-f: The cases above seem to imply that
interactions that are driven by a pain-based logic (anger, punishments, guilt,
revenge, shaming, embarrassment, etc.) are more exhausting for the teacher. Is
this true in your experience? Reflect on the last interaction that you would
characterize as being driven by a pain-based logic. What was the emotional cost
to the pain-giver?
Chapter
Reflection 9-g: Reflect on the following situation:
A teacher decides to let students work
together on an assignment. In this case, after a couple of warnings the teacher
reaches a point of intolerance and implements a punishment, angrily stating,
“That’s it! I am fed up! You are making too much noise. Everyone is going to
have to do (a worksheet) on your own.”
What in the teacher’s reaction would
you call a punishment? How could he or she have accomplished a more effective
result with a consequence?
Rewards, the Other Side of the Punishment/Reward Coin
In his book Punished by Rewards, Alfie
Kohn (1999) makes the argument that rewards (e.g., prizes, preferred activity
time, stickers, personal praise, awards, and even, to an extent, grades) are
really just the other side of a punishment/reward coin. As we examine the
research on the use of rewards, this characterization is supported (Deci, Koestner, &
Ryan, 1999; Landrum & Kauffman, 2006; Kauffman,
2005; Ryan & Deci, 2006). As with punishments, rewards are external,
artificial, and do a poor job of teaching lessons related to the learning
event. What we learn from rewards is to do what it takes to continue to get the
reward. The focus is shifted from the value of the process or even the
accomplishment to an external and artificial object (Deci, Koestner, &
Ryan, 1999). The source of the reward is not one’s
own efforts, but someone else -- the “rewarder.” So whereas consequences promote
an internal locus of control and a success psychology, rewards inevitably
promote an external locus of control and a failure psychology.
Likewise, beware of the less visible but
often more insidious version of this reward and punishment paradigm in practice
-- the use of love and withdrawal of love in the form of praise and
disappointment. Many teachers will say that they don’t like rewards and
punishments, but their interactions with students are defined by “are you doing
what I want? -- then I like you, and if you are not, I don’t.” Recall our
discussion of praise in Chapter 6 -- it is an external, coercive and
manipulative reward given under the guise of positive reinforcement. And its
sibling, disappointment, is an external, coercive and manipulative punishment
disguised as corrective feedback. Neither is effective in helping students grow
or learn, but each is very effective at keeping them in fear of failure,
dependent upon praise to perform, and externalizing their sense of cause and
effect.
Figure 9-2. Comparison of Positive
Consequences versus Rewards
|
|
Positive
Consequences |
Rewards |
|
Examples |
Increased opportunities Achievement Recognition of effort Opportunities to contribute Learning |
Personal praise Tokens and grades Preferred activity time Party at the end of the week Stickers and stars |
|
Locus of Control |
Internal to student |
External from teacher |
|
Teaches |
Responsibility and a clear cause and effect
between one’s effort and the outcome |
To do what it takes to get the reward, and
to shift attention away from the value of the task to the value of the reward |
|
Motivation |
Satisfaction of needs |
To get the reward |
You Just Don’t Know My School
It is true that many of our students
respond to punishment and a pain-based logic because it is familiar to them. We
can hear it in their voices as we try to explain that their actions reflect
that they have made a choice to violate the social contract --“Teacher, why are
you getting me in trouble?” We state the situation as a consequence; they hear
it as a punishment. It is likely that these students have never been supported
in a cause-and-effect pattern of thinking about their choices and actions. They
are often acculturated into a “crime and punishment” orientation toward those
in authority. In many cases this student is exhibiting a deeply conditioned
“negative identity” pattern. Students with a negative identity are actually
habituated to and desire punishment and pain (see Chapter 14). While this may
seem odd, it is critical to recognize if we are to help this student grow in a
more functional and healthy direction.
Sometimes we will be given a class that
is mostly full of such students. Often in these cases, the group of students
will have friends and even family who have very real experience with gangs,
crime, and violence. So to them punishment is what authorities use in their
“real word.” When we respond to their misbehavior or observe others responding
with abusive language and/or pain-based penalties, they often react with
repentance and improved behavior in the short-term. And when we dangle rewards
in front of them, we see a seemingly unmotivated student come to life and make
a substantial effort toward the task. So the temptation is to accept that this
is “what works” for these students. In many cases these students can be found
in schools in which the discipline culture is defined by a 4-Style mentality.
When we ask experienced faculty for advice, we often are told to become
domineering, lower our expectations, and threaten the students with poor
grades, calls home, and/or to give awards to the top students to motivate the
rest. The logic is that since the students come to us with a well-formed
failure psychology (discussed in Chapter 8) that frequently includes a negative
identity, we need to give them what they are used to. It is tempting to give in
and mete out pain and punishment and take on the 4-Style approach.
While it may even seem as though we are
getting results in the short-term, there are several reasons not to revert to a
4-Style approach with this group of students. Here are four of them:
- The
behavior in the class will not get better and will worsen in the long run.
- We
are perpetuating a failure psychology in the students. We are bringing
them one year closer to taking that failure orientation out into the world
and on to the next grade.
- Like
any 4-Style teacher, we will struggle with a hostile, unmotivated and
irresponsible class as long as we keep up this form of practice.
- We
have lost a chance to make a difference in the lives of these students. We
had a transformative opportunity and we missed it.
Chapter Reflection 9-h: Reflect on the approach
Ellen Gruwell took to such a group of students as depicted in the movie Freedom
Writers. When presented with a group of students that was accustomed to a
crime and punishment mentality, what did she do? What was the result?
The fact is that students who are used to
4-Style management will adjust to a 1- or 2-Style management approach
eventually. Furthermore, as they internalize the emerging success psychology
the more effective environment is fostering, they will recognize that the
4-Style environment was unhealthy. This was depicted beautifully in the films Freedom
Writers and To Sir with Love. I have seen it firsthand in countless
classes myself. Yet many of the students who come from these situations do not
know how to operate in a 1- or 2-Style approach class structure. We need to
teach them how. It will take time, but it is worth it. First, it is worth it
for the reasons listed above. Second, it is worth it because we will get
results and transform lives.
To begin we need to understand the nature of
the patterns in which our students are operating. For example, there may be a
negative identity pattern. There may be a helpless pattern, or external locus
of control, or other manifestations of a failure psychology. Maintaining a
working knowledge of how to promote a success psychology will be an invaluable
tool in any classroom with any students. The remainder of this chapter and the
next will describe practical strategies for creating cause-and-effect thinking,
more responsible behavior and the development of functional social bonds, and
offer a more effective path toward a system that really works rather than
resorting to the use of punishments and bribes.
CREATING
EFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES WITHIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Developing logical and related
consequences is crucial to successfully achieving a social contract that feels
democratic and is built on promoting responsibility. Without logical and
related consequences students can experience teacher interventions as very
external and arbitrary. If students view consequences as arbitrary or
subjective, the contract will have little meaning and will likely feel imposed
and artificial. For the social contract to be effective students must feel as
though being faithful to their agreements to the contract is making the class
better and helping them feel the satisfaction of becoming more responsible
while achieving their goals of inclusion and achievement.
In the next chapter we will discuss the importance of how consequences are implemented. The
quality and effectiveness of the contract and how successfully it evolves is
contingent on the care and deliberateness of the implementation, but in
conjunction with that the success of the contract will depend on the quality of
the consequences we build into it. The most successful consequences will be
those that are logical and related, built-in proactively, represent a strong
cause-and-effect relationship to both problems and solutions, and contribute to
long term growth and behavior change.
Logical and Related
It would be nice if all problems had
naturally logical and related consequences built in to them like our example of
the student arriving late to the bus. But the reality is that it can often be a
challenge to find a logical and related consequence for some things. It is
difficult, but taking the time and effort to come up with quality consequences
(alone or with the help of the students) is well worth it. Reverting to
punishments will undermine the success of your contract and developing
consequences that are unrelated to the problem behavior do not teach lessons
and are essentially quasi-punishments. A consequence is by definition related
to the problem. If it is not related, it is not a true consequence (no matter
how many other teachers call them consequences) (Dreikurs, 1974; Weinstein,
2003).
A well-intentioned and fairly common practice in many schools is to have
a standardized set of consequences for incidents of misbehavior. This is a step
in the right direction in many ways. It encourages the individual teacher
(especially those with a 4-Style tendency) to take a less punitive approach and
it builds in proactivity and clarity of the policy. Below (Chart 9.1) is an
example of a typical school-wide policy chart displayed on classroom walls in
many schools.
Figure 9.1 Common
uniform school-wide policy chart depicting levels of consequences for each
misbehavior
|
Misbehavior |
Consequence |
|
1st offense |
Warning |
|
2nd offense |
Time at recess or after school |
|
3rd offense |
Detention and/or contacting parents |
As you can see from the chart, the same
consequences are applied for all types of problem behavior. The primary problem
with this approach is that it eliminates the opportunity to have logical and
related consequences. As we have discussed, that means there is little if any
cause-and-effect connection between the consequence and the behavior that
warranted it and as a result no meaningful lesson is learned from this set of
standardized consequences. Moreover, it is a real stretch to characterize what
are referred to as consequences in these school codes as true consequences. Undefined time-outs and detentions are at best
merely quasi-punishments.
In Chart 9.1 warnings are listed as the first
level consequence. Recall our discussion of warnings earlier (see Chapter 4).
They have their use. When understanding and/or memory are the issue, a warning
can be a useful tool to help improve behavior and/or cognizance of the social
contract. They are characterized as favors from the teacher to help support
students toward the development of functional behavior free of the need for
reminders. But they are not consequences.
A more effective approach to developing
consequences for our social contract is to begin with our most pressing
problems. For each problem behavior, select a corresponding consequence that is
as logically related to it as possible. Bringing in students may be a great way
to get them to buy into the fairness and legitimacy of each consequence, and to
take part in conceiving what would be “related” consequences. Expect this to be
the most powerful and memorable “concept attainment” exercise that the students
participate in all year.
For example, if we discover that we have a
problem with homework being turned in late, we might ask our students what we
can do to promote more work being turned in on time. Make sure that you
instruct them to think in terms of logical and related consequences. Be
patient, as this is likely very new thinking for them. In professional life,
the consequence for being late with work can be that we miss a deadline,
causing others to be let down or to have our efforts become less valuable.
Therefore, a logical guiding principle could be that work needs to be in on
time to get full credit. As a result a consequence for late work could be that
it would only receive partial credit. Or we could take a more hard line stance
and say that only work that is turned in on time will be accepted. Either of
these options makes sense, as might others. Both are grounded in
cause-and-effect and real-world precedent. In practice, establishing the logic
and relatedness of the consequences we ultimately choose will make all the
difference in how well they are accepted by the students, help to improve the
behavior, and strengthen the social contract. The time used in the development
of creating class consequences is time well spent.
Be Proactive: Build Consequences into the Contract from the
Start
Effective consequences are proactively
built into the contract before they are implemented (Curwin & Mendler,
1986; Dreikurs, 1974). In the example of the student’s arriving late to the
bus, the consequence would not have been educational if the bus has left at a
different time each day, or the student did not know when the bus was supposed
to leave.
Making students very clear about the consequences before the fact has
many benefits. First, it will make contract violations less common since
students know what is expected. Second, it makes it possible to implement the
consequence by simply recognizing that a choice was made to violate the
contract, as opposed to the student’s perspective of the teacher “getting them
in trouble.” Third, the focus of the student after the contract violation is
much more likely to be on how they can display more effective behavior rather
than what the teacher said or did or feeling that they were unfairly penalized.
Being proactive promotes internal locus of control. When we know what to expect,
we have power; when the climate of the class is accidental, our need for power
is unmet.
It is a good idea to put consequences in writing. Post them. Review them
and give general reminders when you sense that a little prevention could be
valuable. But the most valuable teaching tool will be your actions. Recall
Chapter 3 and the social learning model; students will learn from what you do.
In addition, the use of verbal clarifications
can be invaluable (Chapter 4). For example, we might use the mantra, “In this
class, we actively listen to the other members of our group, and ask clarifying
questions when we don’t understand.” Or use a statement such as, “If we do a
good job of taking care of the equipment, we will continue to get the privilege
of using it; if we don’t we will need to go back to using the old equipment
until we can show that we are more responsible.” Again, the words can only
support the actions. When we follow through, the expectation and understanding
of the consequence is strengthened; if we do not it is weakened.
Promote Buy-in and Ownership of Consequences
As discussed in the previous chapter, if students own and clearly
understand the expectations and consequences in their social contract, they are
much more likely to carry them out and respect them. Remember, there is no
better way to do this than to have the students involved in the process of
developing the consequences. This is especially true for grades K-8. For high
school grades, periodic class meetings during which a problem is discussed and
students are enlisted to brainstorm logical and related solutions and
consequences for the problem can be a good way to promote buy-in. This cannot
be emphasized enough: over time, the contract and the consequences built into
it will only be as powerful as the students’ sense of ownership of them. When
they fully accept the purpose of the contract as being related to them and
their welfare rather than being just the “teacher’s set of rules,” the results
can be remarkable.
Chapter Reflection 9-i: Compare two classes that you
have observed at some point -- one in which there was a great deal of ownership
and buy-in of the rules and/or social contract, and one in which the rules were
imposed upon the students. Was there a difference in behavior? How about
motivation?
Keep Your Eyes on the Long-Term Benefits
The test of a good consequence is what it
does in the long term. If it does not teach the students to be more responsible
and self-disciplined, it needs to be re-examined. It is simplistic to assume
that a consequence that deters an immediate behavior is a good consequence. As
we discussed earlier in the chapter, this illusion of effectiveness keeps us in
the trap of using familiar but flawed consequences and/or punishments. A useful
clue to the long-term effectiveness of a consequence is the reaction that one
receives from a student when it is implemented. If the reaction implies, “I
knew not to do that,” it has a good chance to be effective. It the reaction is one
of repentance, look for the behavior to be revisited; it is therefore not
perceived as a consequence but as a punishment.
Ask yourself, “What is being learned each
time this consequence is implemented?” If the consequence is logic and related
and built-in proactively, it is likely that the student is learning a useful
lesson related to the problem behavior. However, we can only consider success
if the behavior changes rather quickly and for the right reasons, and makes
“tomorrow” more healthy and functional. Since every class is different and
every student in the class is different, finding the right consequences may
take a bit of active research on the part of the teacher. It may also require
some collective soul searching on the part of the class.
Ascending/Increasing
Level of Impact of Consequences for Each Problem Behavior
All contract violations do not have the same
degree of damage to the class’s health and function. Moreover, a particular
student action does not necessarily imply that the student has a problem. Most
contract violations will be a result of forgetfulness or immaturity. Some will
indicate a need to examine why the behavior occurred or continues to occur.
Some require that the student loses an opportunity so that they may experience
a clear consequence for their inability to be a responsible member of the
group. It therefore makes sense to have within our social contract an
increasingly more powerful series of consequences for particular problem
behavior. If the problem behavior is minor and is infrequent, a small
consequence may be all that is necessary. If it is prevalent or is a persistent
problem for a particular student, more significant consequences may be
necessary. Let’s take the example of a student who cannot resist talking to the
next door student when they should be attending to those contributing in a
class discussion. It is not a major problem if it does not happen often, but if
it happens regularly, or the particular student cannot help it, it becomes
quite significant. Here is one possible series of ascending consequences:
First offense (the student turns to a
neighbor to talk while the teacher is talking): Consequence -- teacher stops
talking (when they are interrupted) and waits for 100% attention or says something
to the effect, “I need everyone’s attention, so I will start over with the
directions.” This consequence is simple but effective. It does not take a lot
of time or energy, but it is active and gets the message across.
Second offense (the teacher notices that the
student is talking to their neighbor when they are supposed to be attentive to
another student who is contributing):
Next level consequence -- student comes up
with a strategy to make sure they are able to pay attention when it is
required.
Third offense (student does it again):
Consequence -- student is moved to another
seat.
Fourth offense (student has the same problem
in the new location):
Consequence -- conference with the teacher
after school resulting in a written contract.
Given that this series of consequences
implies escalating degrees of power, the student is given logical and
appropriate opportunities to solve their problem. It is unlikely that
many students would require all four levels of consequences, but it is comforting
for both the teacher and the students in the class to know that they are in
place. Much of the stress experienced by teachers and the frustration
experienced by students comes from worrying about what particular students may
do on a given day. Having clearly established consequences in place eases much
of that stress. The ownership for making good behavioral choices rests with the
students. The teacher simply needs to be a fair and consistent manager of the
social contract.
Chapter
Reflection 9-j: Are you asking yourself, “At what point do we
include in the series of consequences something that will give the student some
pain to “teach them a lesson?” Watch out for the tendency to get more negative
rather than more powerful.
An important distinction should be made here
between the increasingly powerful (consequences) and the increasingly painful
(punishments). In the pain-based logic, if one blow to the head does not do the
trick, then maybe two will. The problem with this logic is that no lesson will
be learned from the blow (e.g., standards, shaming, lecture, picking up trash,
etc.) as it is not related to the misbehavior. Therefore, since the small
amount of pain did not change the behavior pattern, a greater amount will work
only to make the student more hostile and defiant.
Likewise, there is often a misconception that
consequences are easier on the student than punishments. Even some teachers who
are opposed to punishments for ethical reasons hold this belief. However, it is
simply untrue. If one examines the most difficult and painful lessons they have
learned in life, they will discover that nearly all of them came in the form of
consequences. Close scrapes with nature, losing loved ones, missing the cut,
painful relationships, lost jobs, missed opportunities are all examples of
life’s consequences. Few of the punishments that have been imposed on us have
had the same power to impact or teach. The power of consequences is that they
are meaningful. They involve a real price to pay. Punishments may feel bad, but
in the end they merely need to be tolerated. Their only price is discomfort.
Beware of Punishments Disguised as Logical Consequences
Indeed, the term consequences has become very popular in discipline circles, especially in schools, partially because of the natural and logical concept and partially because it sounds less harsh or cruel than punishment. However, calling something a consequence does not make it so, just as calling something a punishment may not be accurate. (Elias & Schwab, 2006, p.332)
Since the use of the term “consequences”
is attached to all manner of teacher-imposed penalization in schools today, it
is common to see punishments and punishment-based systems sold as assertive
discipline consequences. Some examples are negative calls home, being sent to
the office, picking up trash, running laps. One of the most prevalent examples
of this brand of punishment is the idea of writing names of students on the
board, or its sibling, having students move their cards from the green level to
the yellow level to the red level (Canter, 1992; Wong, 1991). This practice is
essentially a systematic shame-based punishment sold as a system of rational
consequences. Not only is it a punishment or “pain-based” system at its core,
but like all punishment systems, it does not work. Check in on a class that
uses such a system, and you will see the same names on the board or the same
cards changed from green to yellow, all year. Like other pain-based systems,
its main function is to make the teacher feel better, but it will not do much
to change behavior for the better and does a great deal of harm on other
levels. Because of the widespread use of this procedure, Chapter 19 is devoted
entirely to an examination of it, its fundamental problems and a more effective
and positive alternative.
Chapter
Reflection 9-k: Observe a class that uses a colored card
behavioral system at the beginning of the year and then months later. Do you see
the same students with their cards on a lower color level? What does it tell
you?
Avoid Giving Activity as a Negative Consequence
Most of us can think of countless examples
throughout our schooling where we were given an activity as a punishment. We had
to run laps, write lines or standards, memorize capital cities, clean up the
room, pick up trash around the school, do push-ups, help the teacher at recess
or any number of activities that were supposed to “teach us a lesson.” And even
today they can seem somewhat related to our misbehavior. But as we examine this
practice more closely, we can see that in the long run the use of activity as a
penalty will take us a step backward in our efforts.
First, it is difficult to classify activities
as something other than punishments. They are based on the principle that if
one has a lousy enough time doing the activity, they will be deterred from
making the same choice again. Recognize the pain-logic? As we examine why we
are attracted to these types of penalties and even perceive that they have a
desired effect, it’s because they appear to deter certain behaviors in the
short term and they produce the desired level of repentance in the students,
post-penalty. But are they really logical and related? What is the relationship
between talking in class and having to write 50 times “I will not talk in
class?” Or what is the relationship between being tardy and having to run laps?
Second, the actual lesson that these punishments teach is to avoid the
activity (Landrum & Kauffman, 2006). The message that we are sending is,
“Since you did something that we want you to stop doing, we are going to
penalize you with a behavior we would like to see you do more of.” This acts to
create a disincentive to engage in a desired behavior. In the long-term, since
no related lesson is learned there will be no desired behavior change, except
possibly some avoidance of getting caught. Yet we can be assured that the
student will develop a negative association (and therefore a disincentive to
perform) with the behavior. If one is given standards as a punishment, one
learns that the act of writing is a punishment to avoid. So much for all the
time we spend telling our students that they should love to write. Likewise, if
we tell them they must run as a punishment we are saying that the only reason
that they should ever consider running in their lives is if someone forces them
to. If we punish the student by having them help, clean-up, beautify the
school, and so on, we are saying in effect: never do anything helpful, of
service, or altruistic unless you are forced to.
Chapter
Reflection 9-l: Recall a situation in which you were forced
to do work (run laps, help clean, write, etc) as a penalty for misbehavior. How
did it affect your association with that activity at the time? Has that
negative association carried on to the present?
A helpful guiding principle might be to use
activity as a positive consequence and inactivity as a negative consequence. If
the student has a great day, invite them to stay after school and help you
clean up. Observe the effect this has on the student. Most likely he or she
will consider it an honor. If a student makes an exceptional effort in an area,
give them an extra task that stretches and challenges them. When work is seen
as a reward, it reinforces the student’s intrinsic sources of motivation. When
work is seen as a punishment, students learn only to do what is externally
rewarded.
Clarify this principle by creating a clear cause-and-effect
relationship in your class. It may help to use such “social frame” clarifying
statements as, “When you work hard and invest, I will give you more challenging
work; when you show that you are not ready for the challenging work, I will give
you work better suited to a less motivated and responsible group.” “When you
show that you can be responsible, I will give you more freedom and
responsibility; when you show that you are not responsible, you will not be
given the same opportunities, until you show you are ready.” Watch the student
rise to the occasion. In this responsibility-based classroom failing to earn
the opportunity to take part is a powerful and related consequence, and if
failure does take place, the presence of the clear cause-and-effect logic
within the expectation provides an opportunity for reflection. Over time, the
result will be the development of more intrinsically motivated students.
Developing social bonds can set the table for
communal bonds, but it will not create them. Developing clear expectations,
logical and related consequences, and a functioning social contract will
ultimately lead to ever-increasing levels of emotional safety, a sense of
fairness, and behavior changes for the better, but they cannot by themselves create
in a student a cause beyond themselves or community. Nevertheless, it is a wise
and likely necessary starting point for most groups. The social contract can
transform a class from a self-centered and dysfunctional group of individuals
into a self-responsible and functional collective. However, if we want to
foster the transformation of the group into one that is bonded, acts as a
team/tribe, and puts the needs of one another first, we must make an
intentional effort to promote a success psychology and to foster communal
bonds.
Chapter
Reflection 9-m: Recall in your experience a time when you
were part of a class or group that lacked structure. Did it limit your ability
to feel a deeper sense of pride and group identity? In other words, did you
recognize the need to feel that the social bonds were functional before you
could feel a sense of community?
Table 9.3 represents a list of common
problems that occur in a class; this is followed by a list of what not to do
but are examples of common punishments that teachers use, alongside a list of
possible related consequences for the same problem. As you may notice there is
rarely a case when we are able to manufacture a consequence as logical and
related as the bus’s being gone when the student arrived late to the bus stop,
but we can attempt to get close. Finally, transformative ideas are offered for
each problem -- that is, strategies that one can put into practice that make
the need for such behavior less necessary.
Table 9.3 Examples of Consequences, Punishments and Transformative Ideas for Problem Behaviors:
|
Problem |
Punishment (What not to do) |
Related Consequence |
Transformative Idea |
|
Problem lining up |
-Disappointment. |
-Practice lining up. |
Be positive, but as discussed in Ch. 12,
help the students learn to be successful and take joy in their success. |
|
Turning in assignment late |
-Public embarrassment. -Asking for an excuse. |
-Loss of points. |
Project-driven work and meaningful assignments
will reduce the tendency for students to neglect assignments. See Ch. 13 for
more ideas. |
|
Frequent talking out of turn |
-Writing lines. -Negative recognitions. |
-Loss of opportunity to talk.
-Problem-solve solutions to fix problem. -Loss of opportunity to take part in
activity. |
The level of side-talk is usually related
to a) how engaging the work is and b) whether the teacher has created a
culture of listening (Ch. 6) |
|
Group can not refrain from conflict that
leads to poor performance |
-Hovering
over the group. -Splitting
them up. -Shaming
them. |
(See Chapter 12: Cooperative Learning)
1st intervention -- clarify
task, confirm understanding. 2nd intervention -- clarify need
to resolve conflict -- confirm commitment to conflict-free effort. 3rd intervention -- loss of
opportunity to take part in activity, potentially needing to reflect on
solutions for future efforts, and/or need to complete work on own time. |
Clear directions, assessing the quality of
group participation (see |
|
Tapping pencils on desks |
-Public negative recognition -spending time after class. |
-Have students put everything down and have
their hands free while listening |
Meet students’ basic need for power. Create
engaging lessons. Develop a culture of listening. |
Cheating
|
-Public Humiliation. |
No credit for work. |
Teachers who project the expectation that to
cheat is to lose out, and that they have faith that no one will cheat will
usually have little cheating. |
|
Cell phone |
-Public Humiliation. -Angry power struggle. |
Confiscate phone for a time. |
It is best to set an expectation early in
the year that there is no reason to have a cell phone out. Zero tolerance
early will save a lot of pain later. |
|
Going to Bathroom |
-Publicly questioning why the student needs
to go. -Questioning the students’ intentions. |
Some set amount of bathroom visits per quarter.
|
Student uses them as they see fit, and when
they are gone the student is out of privileges to go. Help the students take
make wise use of the privilege. |
CONCLUSION
It is hoped that this chapter has helped
you clarify the distinction between punishments and consequences and has
demonstrated why the use of consequences produces more desirable and effective
outcomes. A thoughtful and intentional approach to the development of the
consequences within the social contract will help in your efforts to promote
more responsible behavior and a positive classroom climate. The next chapter
will provide a step-by-step system for implementing one’s consequences and
social contract.
Journal
Reflections
1.
In
your experience have teachers more often used punishments or consequences? How
have these affected you differently?
2.
Do
you recognize the pain-based logic inside yourself and others? Reflect how in
your own experience pain is traded back and forth between parents and children,
teachers and students, and those with whom you are in relationships. (If this
idea resonates with you, I recommend that you read Eckhart Tolle’s Practicing the Power of Now.)
Group Class Activities:
- In
groups of four, brainstorm two common student behavioral problems that you
have seen recently or feel are pertinent (it is more effective if they are
not severe problems such as fighting or disrespect--those are addressed in
another chapter). Pass them to the group next to you. Once you have your
neighbor’s two problems, develop consequences for them. Be sure that they
are true consequences, not simply quasi-punishments. Refer to Table 9.1
(Consequences vs. Punishments) to assess your answers.
- Discuss
the difference between logical and related (but manufactured) consequences
and naturally occurring consequences. What criteria would you use to
decide which is best in any given situation?
- In
groups, fill in the following chart with teacher practices. When you are
done, compare your answers with the rest of the class.
|
|
Positive |
Negative
|
Healthy and Effective
|
Natural Positive Consequences for good
choices. 1. 2. 3. |
Natural and logical consequences for poor
choices. 1. 2. 3. |
|
Unhealthy and Ineffective |
Extrinsic Rewards. 1. 2. 3. |
Punishments. 1. 2. 3 |
Chapter
Activities
1. In groups, discuss the differences between
the two conditions in the scenarios of the student’s missing the bus in the beginning
of the chapter. What are the differences between a punishment condition and a
consequence condition?
2. In groups, take part in the
following exercise. Start by having each group develop a list of two or three
common social contract violations (don’t make them too severe for now). When
you are done, pass them to another group. This group will need to come up with
logical and related consequences for each problem. This is more difficult than
it sounds. It will be helpful to use the chapter table comparing consequences
and punishments. Share your ideas with the whole group, and discuss why you
felt each was a consequence rather than a punishment.
REFERENCES
Bluestein, J. (1999) 21st Century Discipline: Teaching Students Responsibility and Self-management.
Fearon Teaching Aides
Brady, K., Forton, M.B., Porter, D., & Wood, C. (2003) Rules in school.
Canter. L. (1992) Lee Canter's Assertive Discipline: Positive Behavior Management for Today's Classroom. Lee Canter and Associates
Curwin,
R., and Mendler, A. (1986) Discipline
with Dignity.
Doyle, W. (2006) Ecological Approaches to classroom management. . In C.M. Evertson
& C.S. Weinstein, (Eds.) Handbook of
classroom management. (p. 97-126).
Deci,
E. L., Koestner, R. , & Ryan, R.M. (1999) A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Driekurs,
R. (1974) Discipline Without
Tears. Hawthorn Books
Elias,
M.J., & Schwab, Y. (2006) From compliance to responsibility: Social and
emotional learning and classroom management. In C.M. Evertson & C.S.
Weinstein, (Eds.) Handbook of classroom
management. (pp. 309-341).
Kauffman, J.M (2005) Characteristics of emotional and behavioral
disorders of children and youth. (8th ed.)
Kohn. A. (1999) Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold
Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise, and Other Bribes. Houghton Mifflin
Landrum,
T. J., & Kauffman, J.M. (2006) Behavioral approaches to classroom
management. In C.M. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein, (Eds.) Handbook of classroom management. (pp. 47-71).
Ryan,
R.M., & Deci, E.L.(2006) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 65-78.
Nelson,
J., Lynn, L., & Glenn, H.S. (2000) Positive
discipline in the classroom: Developing mutual respect, cooperation and
responsibility in your classroom (3rd ed.)
Schlosser,
L.K. (1992) Teacher distance and student disengagement: School lives in the
margins. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2),
128-140.
Tolle,
E. (2001) Practicing the Power of Now.
Weinstein,
C.S. (2003) Secondary Classroom
management: lessons from research and practice. (2nd ed.)
Wong. H, Wong, R. (1991) First Days of School: How to be an
Effective Teacher. Wong Publishing