This writing was sent to members of the BehaviorAdvisor.com "B-List". To receive these mailings, sign up here.

 .

 Greetings fellow B-Listers!

First off, I offer profuse apologies for my 7 month absence (and the resultant absence of lists of tips on improving classroom management practices and helping errant students make better behavior choices). I'll diligently undertake the task of creating more frequent mailings; Ones that will enhance your already-strong teaching repertoire. (Excuse my French.)
.

Today, I'm sharing my thoughts about schools and classrooms that utilize point systems to manage student behavior. In particular, we should hold strong concerns about the versions of these programs in which the marks are given for displays of inappropriate behavior.

  I don't need the tips, Dr. Mac. I wish to "opt out" of future mailings.

What could possibly be wrong with "keeping the lid on" the behavioral pot by giving a "deserved" consequence for out-of-bounds actions? Read on.
.

WHY SCHOOL-WIDE & CLASSROOM PENALTY SYSTEMS

ARE COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE

The introduction of my grad student’s paper described the behavior management system of her “no-nonsense” school.  “Oh no.”, I thought; educators who describe themselves and/or their schools with this terminology are usually using a euphemism for mean and hurtful… As I hear and read of such caustic climates with their punitive behavior management systems, I often imagine that the developers devised them after having donned their underwear on backwards… thereby cutting off blood circulation to their brains.

That scenario of “Let’s get tough with those kids and let ‘em know who’s boss.” was playing out in my teacher candidate’s school; yet another example of educators creating more of the problem that they’re trying to solve. (Please note that the school's policy was a mandated school-wide system. This system, wrongly labeled as "PBSS" (Positive Behavior Support System) was not the preference of my teacher-student.)

In this school, students receive penalty checkmarks whenever they are caught talking or calling out answers without permission.  Increasing accumulations lead to escalating caustic penalties.

So why am I bellyaching about these systems and what in particular are my gripes?  They are varied and myriad, but here are the primary expostulations. (Click on the highlighted words/phrases to read more on the topic.)

1. Penalty-based systems (devoid of positive recognition for appropriate actions) only work with the kids who don’t need these schemes in order to behave well. They are ineffective with learners who exhibit errant actions.
2. These systems use the threat of punishment to coerse students into displaying appropriate actions.  This approach is a form of “negative reinforcement”; kids are “reinforced” by avoiding the threatened punishment. (It feels good not to be punished.  There is relief in having “dodged the bullet.”)  These disapproving game plans focus on the lowest stage of human moral development: Obey me because you fear me.  No positive character traits are developed.   If any traits are promoted, they are the adversarial ones of deceit and deception, or the mindless acquiescence to blind obedience.
3. Punishment does not teach the behavior we wish to promote.  Using force to "teach 'em a lesson" only teaches the wrong ones. Whenever we attempt to eliminate an action, we must assure that we provide a socially acceptable replacement action that meets the same function or purpose of the errant one at (at least) the same level of reinforcement potency.  It’s the same principle that you learned in your science classes: Nature abhors a vacuum.  A void will be filled.  We must assure that the behavioral space is replaced with a action that will serve the young scholar well.
4. Punishment only works if it is harsh enough to coerse that particular student AND there is an attentive punisher nearby.  When the cat’s away (read: substitute teacher), the mice will play.  No inner self-management of behavior is promoted by these punitive behavioral blueprints.  We educators need to assure that we teach self-control of one’s actions.
5. When teachers react negatively toward a youngster's action, the attention of other kids is drawn to that inappropriate behavior.  Some of those other pupils (due to their life situations, and exacerbated by the point program) view negative attention as being better than no attention at all. They've just discovered how to gain that socially distorted reward. Then it’s monkey see, monkey do.
6. When educators punish, they model how to treat others badly. A different version of monkey see, monkey do is activated with the teacher's monkey dance being imitated. 
7. Public downgrading by educators is likely to arrouse the defense-of-self instincts of many students. These prideful youngsters refuse to be the recipients of the negative force in the classroom equivalent of the "whack-a-mole" carnival game. They respond, either through future subterfuge and sabotage, or via direct confrontation in the present tense.  An escalating cycle of conflict typically results.
8. There are about another 20 reasons why punishment and threats of it are contra-indicated, but you can view the video on consequences at BehaviorAdvisor.com

My graduate student, a middle school paraprofessional, was especially concerned about Hank, a frequent recipient of the head teacher’s ire. He collected as many as 20 negative behavior checks each day. (A vivid example of misguided educators using more of what already isn't working.)

This future teacher wrote an anecdotal account of a lengthy and sequential series of events (found below) that would fill several A-B-C analysis forms. This sequencially segmented episode with Hank reveals how punishment frequently leads to more of the undesirable action that is being addressed.  Notice how the initial behavior of whispering to another student ends up (after interventions intended to reduce the action) with the boy being taken from the class, made to write an apologetic essay, and a teacher's negative note being sent home to the parent. (The latter action no-doubt places all the blame for the crisis situation on the student, and certainly won’t do anything to build positive bonds with the home front.) Here's the run-down:

Math class is underway. Hank is asked to independently work on long division math problems.  He whispers to the boy next to him, resulting in a negative “check” being assigned. Hank gives a look of distain and continues the communication. This time, the volume is at a conversational level.

A second check is given, and the teacher sternly directs Hank to go to the “reflection desk”.

Hank sucks his teeth, blows out a burst of air, bangs his hands on his desk, and complains loudly while walking to the time out desk, proclaiming “I don’t even care about your damn checks!”  When he gets to the reflection desk, he continues to call out insults and make noise.

An email is sent by the teacher to the school's crisis team.  They arrive, brusquely tell Hank that he must come with them, and then escort him from the room to the office of "the behavior specialist". The specialist tells Hank that he must “calm down” and complete a “reflection form” in a separate isolated room.  Knocking the paper away, Hank tells the specialist to stick the form "up your a where the sun don't shine. The crisis intervention team restrains Hank. At the end of the day, when calm finally prevails, a note describing the incident(s) is sent home to his mother to be signed and returned.

Now let's back up the bus: Which was the original behavior that drew the negative response from the teacher? Right; whispering... a breathy, difficult-to-comprehend, mildly intrusive communication. The end result? Restraint and negative reports filed. Does the outcome seem to be strongly related to the original offence? Nope.

In this case (and others like it) the educators contributed to the resultant (re)actions. It's a classic case of the conflict cycle engaging. Indeed, it takes two to tangle. The A-B-C analysis tells us more about the school's checkmark system than the youngster’s actions.  Talking under his breath to someone next to him was escalated to insubordination and defiance followed by removal from the room and involvement of the parent in a negative way.  It's yet another example of penalty-based systems creating the conduct they were designed to subdue.

So the question arises: What else should be done in the place of the contra-indicated responses found in negative point/checkmark systems. What other practices might truly resolve the problem? Here are some ideas:

1. Discern the reason for the action. Perhaps Hank is in need of private instruction in math. Perhaps he was asking his friend for a pencil.
2. Teach a replacement behavior. Instruct. Demonstrate. Role play. Practice. Strengthen the new response with at least as much reinforcement as the present behavior receives. Fade the reinforcement over time as the skill becomes ingrained.
3. Follow the how-to-do-it guidelines found at http://www.behavioradvisor.com/Tokens.html
4. Change to a positive checkmark/token system. Award points to individuals or groups/tables on a regular basis using interval or momentary time sampling procedures.
5. Implement the free digital system from ClassDojo.com It allows for development of a personalized system that can include both positive and negative points. It can be publicly displayed on a smart board and activated with your mobile phone, or can be kept private and shared with the student and parents later.
6. Implement the "Good Behavior Game" tally mark system.
7. Remember that checkmark/token/point systems promote the demonstration of appropriate behaviors that have already been learned. They do not teach new actions. If you want the youngster to demonstrate behaviors that s/he has not yet displayed, you'll have to teach those actions via "social skills instruction".
8. Improve your ancillary skills in classroom managment with the readings and videos found at http://www.behavioradvisor.com/the-macademy/
9. For highly intervention-resistant youngsters, increase their readiness and willingness to change behavior for the better.

Remember: You can't teach 'em if they're uncooperative and inattentive. Make certain that you click the “not junk” button in your e-mail box to assure that future mailings on essential behavio(u)r management practices reach you directly. Doing so guarantees that you'll become highly proficient at motivating and engaging your charges with positive procedures that build warm learner-teacher bonds.

Thank you for visiting with me for a small part of your busy day.  I look forward to tarrying with you at our next rendezvous. (Again, please excuse my French.)

Warm regards,

Dr. Mac

 .