Classroom Management Resource Page – Shindler – School Climate – PLSI – Teaching - Workshops by JVS

Chapter 19: Why Deficit Models (Checks on the board and colored cards) don’t work, and an effective alternative. (Early draft of section from book: Transformative Classroom Management. By John Shindler)

What is a “deficit model” classroom behavioral system?

Ms. Sanchez is teaching the lesson and she looks over to see that Stewart is talking to a neighbor for the second time in the last minutes. She says to him, “Stewart, you know the rule about talking, I want you to go to the chart and move your card from green to yellow.” Stewart with a look of shame, walks over to the chart and moves his card.

A “deficit model” (or descending levels model) classroom behavioral system is one in which essentially all students begin at an “acceptable” behavioral level and when their behavior violates a rule sufficiently, they drop down a level(s). This can take the form of names on the board (or checks next to the student’s name), or cards being moved from green to yellow. Typically, within these systems, if the behavior continues to be a problem, the prescription is for more checks to be added next to the name on the board, or for the cards to go from the yellow (warning) to the red (problem) level. Essentially, deficit model behavioral systems are characterized by each student’s level of behavior being publicly represented by a level as an incentive to show appropriate (top level) behavior.

The logic seems sound and many teachers are attracted to such systems. And in a sense the systems work to some degree, which may help explain their popularity. But in the end, they will not produce what we desired them to do – that is to motivate all students to behave well and help the students who choose to misbehave to make different choices in the future. There are alternatives that by design do a far more effective job of what deficit models intend, and they will be discussed later in this chapter.

Do your own Research

Right now there are many teachers or prospective teachers reading this and saying, “but (these systems) do work!” For many, they have seen a teacher use such a system or have used one themselves and concluded that what they observed was an effective system. That is why so many teachers use them, because they appear to work. But take the challenge of making a deeper examination and reconsidering your assumptions. Observe a class over a long period of time in which the teacher uses a deficit system, and keep track of what you see as the year progresses. Then from what you observe, answer the following questions:

1. Did you see the overall sense of motivation to behave well in the class get better or worse over time (as a result of the system)?
2. Did you find that the system motivated the students who were already inclined to behave well?
3. Did you see the behavior of the students that had to move their card (or had their name put on the board) improve fundamentally, or did you see the same names on the board, or cards on the yellow level throughout the year?
4. Did you find that it brought more positive or negative energy into the class?

As you begin to reflect on these questions you will better recognize the limitations and even drawbacks of such systems. While there is a short-term sense on a day-to-day level that something is getting better, and when we have committed to a system there is a tendency to want it to work and want to interpret what is happening as improvement, Yet like any short-term fix, it feels good now, but the problems just come back later and usually worse. It feels good to watch the students go to the wall and change their card from green to yellow, and see the repentant looks on their faces and see the cautionary message that it sends to the other students. We feel like we are doing something active to fix the problem. But the reality is that we are slowly getting less healthy and functional as a class and we are actually systematically promoting the unwanted behavior in a way that will inevitably see it increase.

Separating Myth from Reality

Much of the seduction of a deficit model is that logically it “should work.” But let’s examine the rationale (or the myth we might say) of what “should happen,” and then what is actually a more likely set of outcomes.

Moving the Card from Green to Yellow (or Name Goes on the Board):

Rationale/Myth

The student wants to be seen as a good student. If they misbehave then the act of seeing their name go on the board will be a concrete reminder that they made a poor behavioral choice. Consequently, in the future they will avoid such a behavior because their desire would be to stay off the board and so be identified by the other students, the teacher and themselves as a good student.

The more likely Reality

Students have many needs including control, love, and competence (see ch. 10). If the student misbehaves and their name is written on the board, they just been separated and recognized, which on one level meets some fundamental needs. This may be confusing for many students because initially (for first offenders) there is a likely sense of shame. But there is also a sense that they were just given attention. And they realize that they are in control of this attention, because they can easily act in a way that gets their name on the board again. Attention meets the need for love and belonging as well as competence, because (as discussed in chapter 10), being “someone” and being recognized feels good. It could be said that there is not really good attention or bad attention when it is processed by the unconscious mind. Most attention feels better than no attention at all.

For the repeat offender, they begin to realize that when their name goes on the board, all they have to do is to tolerate their (ever-decreasing) experience of shame. Moreover, as they begin to realize, a name on the board is not a meaningful consequence. It is purely symbolic. With each offense the student becomes more and more immune to the shame or the symbolic punishment, and will likely find an increasing level of satisfaction with the attention. In this equation, they quickly come to know the score - they will pay no meaningful price, they will get power, love and a sense of achievement, and all they will have to do is tolerate a symbolic act of shaming. Probably most of us reading this would gladly accept the same deal if it were available.

Moving the Card from Yellow to Red (or more checks next the name)

Rationale/Myth

As the student sees their card move from Yellow to Red, they know that they are in serious trouble. This might mean they are close to going to the principal’s office, or staying after school. In addition, the level of public embarrassment increases. This is not a warning, and the student, and the whole class, can clearly see that he/she is at the “bad behavior” level.

The more likely Reality

If a student has gotten comfortable with their name on the board or seeing their card lowered to yellow, the amount of shame that a student will feel moving one more level is not going to be significant. It may look like a meaningful jump, but the just because the symbolic drop is one whole unit more, the experience will not be twice as powerful. In fact, if the student has gotten comfortable with the attention and recognition that being at the yellow level offered, moving to the red level will likely provide many more of the same avenues toward basic need satisfaction. As we will examine in chapter 21 (exploring the negative identity cycle), it is very likely that if a student continues to have their name on the board or card at red, they are developing an identity around being the “trouble maker.” For many students, they reason that if one cannot be the “best,” then it makes sense to be the “best worst.” When a class incorporates a deficit model approach, only the worst behavior is rewarded with a prominent display of the names of the students who accomplished it. Being placed at level red provides the student free advertising and makes their job easier if they are out to promote their reputation as the “best worst.”

Students seeing other student’s cards moved (or names put on the board)

Rationale/Myth

When students see a student whose name is put on the board or card moved they have a concrete reminder of the kind of behavior that is not acceptable. In addition, they see another case of a student who is publicly shamed by their actions. This creates a disincentive to follow in that student’s footsteps, and an incentive not to misbehave.

The more likely Reality

While some students may consider the logic above, these are likely not the kind of students who consider acting inappropriately in the first place. Moreover there is another potentially more insidious if not more powerful logic that takes place at the same time. On a symbolic level, students see the teacher using a strategy to dissuade bad behavior, but on a practical level they see the teacher giving attention, and taking time away from them and the other students who are on task and giving it to the students that misbehave. While few students consciously think, “I want attention, so I will also misbehave,” the unconscious message is reinforced – “in this class attention, and even public recognition go to students that misbehave.” It is a simple principle of behavior modification – what gets reinforced, will be repeated. One might question the reasoning that suggests that getting one’s name on the board is reinforcing. However, revisit the idea of basic needs. It is certainly not an either or proposition – attention or avoiding shame. Yet, consider the basic needs (i.e., power, fun, competence, freedom, love/belonging) that can potentially be met by the attention afforded from getting one’s name on the board, versus the basic needs that are met by staying clear of trouble and off the board.

We can’t read minds, so we cannot be sure what students are thinking and what thoughts are motivating their actions, but we can watch behavior. What seems like a sound rationale for using such deficit model systems such as those incorporating names on the board and colored cards is exposed when we examine the actual practical and psychological effects of the use of such systems. If we were to simplify what is going on, we could demonstrate that what these systems do is to create an upside down (descending levels) rubric for behavior. The more we move down the levels the more involved the definitions of behavior/performance become. This is shown in Figure 19.1 below.

Figure 19.1: Deficit (i.e., Descending Levels) Model Rubric

If we are familiar with rubrics, we find that one of the great benefits of them is that student performance over time moves to the open end of the rubric. When the rubric levels ascend, like the ones we develop for student performance, performances get better over time, yet when the levels descend, like those in a deficit model, the quality of behavior follows the open end of the rubric. And as our close examination will confirm, the behavior actually gets worse as a result of the influence of the deficit model system.

So what do we do instead?

First of all, it is probably reasonable to conclude that not using a deficit model is better than using one. There are lots of ideas in this book and/or the countless other books on classroom management that will give you more than enough ideas for how to promote more functional behavior. So not using any system for publicly identifying levels of student behavior is better than using one based on a deficit model. But here we offer an alternative system. It is essentially a system that functions by turning the rubric right side up (i.e., ascending levels). The levels of behavior are more positive and clearly defined as they move up. A conceptual representation is depicted in Figure 19.2.

Figure 19.2: Ascending levels of quality behavior rubric

As you will notice immediately, when comparing the look and logic of this rubric to the look and logic of the deficit model, is that the open end and therefore the way the thinking advances moves toward more positive as opposed to negative behavior. Appendix X (available on this website) later in the book explains in detail how to practically construct a rubric as part of a system to assess the quality of student participation. But here we will explore the theoretical comparison.

There are many ways that an ascending levels of behavior rubric can be incorporated into a class. It can be used to assess daily group or individual participation. It can be used for student self-assessment individually or as groups. The rubric can be used by the teacher to lead whole-class reflections regarding the collective level of behavior. Students can be given formal recognition for their level of performance such as grades or comments on report cards, or they can be given informal recognition such as private comments by the teacher, stickers, points, or public recognition. Each of these strategies will produce slightly different results. The more formal and regular the use the greater the impact the system will have. But it is essential to the success of the system that it is designed very “soundly” and implemented very deliberately (See app.x).

How does an ascending level of quality rubric system for behavior compare with a deficit model? We can explore the effectiveness of the ascending level systems here on two fronts, preventing misbehavior and encouraging healthy behavior.

How does this type of system affect the student that comes to us with a habit of misbehavior?

1. A well-constructed rubric makes desired behavior very concrete and operational. One of the main reasons that students continue to misbehave that such concepts as listening, cooperation, being positive, sharing, trying/effort are pretty abstract. We as teachers may have a clear idea about what we mean when we encourage students to behave well, but many times our students do not really have a concrete and meaningful understanding of what that desired behavior looks like or how to demonstrate it. Clear language in a rubric that is clarified by behavioral examples makes those abstractions much more tangible.
2. All behavior that is outlined in the rubric is within the students’ control. Many times students who feel incompetent and powerless to get what they want gain some sense of power by misbehaving (and getting their names on the board, if that is available to them) to feel as though they have control. If a student feels like they are in control and capable of displaying “3 (or top) level” behavior in a day, they are able to get their need for competence and power met through demonstrating and then being recognized for their quality effort. When it is possible to be the “best best,” or at least attain the best level of recognition, it is much less likely that a student will feel satisfied to be the “best worst.”
3. As the student becomes more familiar with and successful in attempting positive behavior they begin to feel their needs being met. While there is a symbolic aspect to the system as there is with the deficit models, the benefits of having 2 and 3 level days feel very real. In the deficit model, there was essentially one feeling that the student experienced as they moved from level to level, that of shame. As the student moves from level to level in the ascending level system, they are likely to feel a whole range of desired emotions – capability, belonging, power, as well as seeing an indirect effect on achievement. But above all the student experiences as sense of affirmation on many levels, seeing their performance at the top level of the chart, hearing the teacher recognize their effort, and seeing that they bond more deeply with their peers as their behavior moves more consistent with the top level behavioral definition (see figure 19.3 for an example).

How does this type of system affect the average and well-behaved students?

1. Richard Stiggins (2003) states, “If an assessment target is clear and standing still, all students will reach it.” If the rubric in the system is clearly worded, the ideas are clarified and related to personal experience, and the students have enough time to internalize the system, the result is a target that is clear and standing still. As you were challenged earlier to examine the effects of the deficit model systems you have observed manifesting themselves over time, you are encouraged to note the long-term effects of ascending model systems. Notice the effects that you observe when students are given a system that sets out a clear target for quality behavior. It is likely that what you will find that nearly all students will hit the target with more regularity over time.
2. Simply put, in a deficit model, the best you can do is OK. In the ascending levels of quality model, OK is level 1. There are higher levels to which the student can aspire. In the deficit model there is no meaningful incentive to do anything but stay out of trouble. In the ascending levels of quality model, there is a built-in challenge to not merely stay out of trouble, but if your rubric so defines, the incentive to make an extra effort, to think beyond one’s own needs, and to use positive and supportive language. In essence, one cannot get a top-level distinction without demonstrating behavior that essentially will make the whole class better.

While a deficit model system is intended to manage the inevitable and perpetual problem behavior in a class, one of the primary advantages of an ascending levels system is that it can permanently transform behavior. Once students feel an experience of personal growth as individuals and as a collective, they rarely have reason to digress. In a sense, an effective system becomes obsolete as students find more intrinsic motivations to behave in healthy and functional ways. If you see yourself being more drawn to a “1-style facilitator” orientation, an ascending levels system may be a stepping-stone to a more self-regulated and self-reflective approach to student behavior. This transition is explained in more depth in Chapter 22, “Moving from a 2 to a 1 teacher.”

Figure 19.3: A sample ascending levels system rubric (From Appendix X)

	Cooperation	Attitude	Effort
Level 3	Cooperates consistently with the other group members. Shares ideas and materials. Takes her/his turn talking. Listens to others and expects to be listened to. Performs his/her role in the group	Approaches the task with a consistently positive expectation. Brings others in the group up not down. Says only positive things to their classmates and themselves. Looks for ways to solve problems cooperatively and does not blame or quit	Makes their best effort when things are going well and when they are not. Works hard regardless of the situation or the behavior of the other members of the group. Effort is consistent from the beginning of the period until the end.
Level 2	Cooperates with the other group members. Usually takes her/his turn talking. Usually performs his/her role in the group	Approaches the task with a positive expectation. Looks for ways to solve problems cooperatively and does not blame or quit	Makes his/her best effort. Works hard regardless of the situation or the behavior of the other members of the group.
Level 1	Cooperates with the other group members. Usually takes her/his turn talking.	Mostly approaches the task with a positive expectation. Recognizes need to solve problems cooperatively.	Makes a sincere effort most of the time.
Level 0	Did not make the effort to be cooperative this day.	Was unable to refrain from negative language or destructive behavior.	Did not make a sincere effort on this day.