Assertive Discipline – Marlene & Lee Canter

1. Assignment # 1-Mini Presentation Instructor: Dr. Rick Freeze, Professor By : Dan Marshall Barb Warren Mia Safiniuk Assertive Discipline – Marlene & Lee Canter

2. The Presenter

3. Biography • Canter, L. & Canter M. (2001) Assertive discipline : Positive Behavior management for today’s classroom. Seal Bech, CA: Lee Canter & Associates. • *Assertive Discipline is still used today but has evolved from a more authoritarian approach to one that is more of a democratic and co-operative approach.

4. Lee Canter: As a teenager he realized teacher’s have the power to change a student’s behaviour. • Attended California State University and completed a master’s degree in social work at the University of Southern California. • Felt that if teachers could manage their student’s behaviour, they could have a positive impact on students’ lives. • Interest led to the research and the development of his well-known Assertive Discipline program. • Created cutting-edge training programs for teachers. • Keynoted numerous conferences together with his wife.

5. Marlene Canter: • May 2006 named ”Woman Executive of the Year.” • 30 year career as co-CEO of a successful teacher training company. • Committee founder which strived to hire very qualified teachers in L.A. • Began her career as a special education teacher. • Went on to co-found and serve Canter& Associates, Now Laureate Education, Inc. The company has trained teachers and developed programs, distance learning materials, and resources for teachers, administration, parents. • Actively involved on education councils, boards, advisory commitees.

6. Important Facts: Assertive Discipline • In 1976 most popular discipline system in U.S. schools for the next 20 years. • Rationale: Students had the right to learn in a calm, orderly classroom . Teachers had a right to teach without being interrupted by misbehaviour. • Easy common sense approach. • Teachers possessed a high level of control-”taking charge.” Mean what they say, say what they mean. • Accomplished by devising a plan. Students are responsible for their own behaviour and consequences. Teachers establish rules that clearly define acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. Teachers ask parents and administration when support is needed with behaviour.

7. Assertive Discipline Includes: • Stating expectations clearly, firmly, straightforward. • Simple, organized, structured plan. • Use of clear, firm, calm tone of voice, and eye contact. Use students names and repitition. • Use of non-verbal clues that support statements. • Influencing behaviour without threats.

8. Application in the Classroom • Impliment 4 or 5 simply stated rules in the class. • Determine and post rules. List negative and positive consequences. • Have students write/copy rules and consequences and have parents sign them. Pass these on to administration. • Praise appropriate behaviour and use negative consequences for misbehaviour. • Responses need to be appropriate and do not ignore inappropriate behaviour. • Follow through with consequences, track behaviour.

9. Teachers should: • decide what is best for students and expect compliance. • encourage cooperation in the classroom. • be confident when responding to behaviour. • build a bond with students based on trust, positive student relationships. • listen carefully to students. • respect and treat all students fairly ( relate to special education students since a teacher must have individual expectations for special needs). • welcome a place without yelling. • positively reinforce struggling students.

10. Positive and Negative Consequences • Positive • Catch students being good. • Personal attention • Positive notes • Special Rewards • Material Rewards • Home Rewards • Group Rewards • Negative • Loss of reward time. • Loss of recess or a detention. • If you have positive rewards students feel more welcome in the classroom. This increases a bond with the teacher and you are more likely to comply with expectations.

11. Canter & Canter describe three types of teachers: Hostile • See students as adversaries. • Use punishment approach. • Use shouting/threats, address students in an abusive way. • Use sarcasm, derogatory remarks. • overbearing, often lose their temper.

12. Assertive: • Clear, confident. • Model and make expectations known to students, parents, or administration. • Calmly insist students follow rules. • Use actions to follow words, establish limits for their students and enforce them. • Students receive positive benefits with compliance. • Sometimes ignore unacceptable behaviour.

13. Non Assertive ( Passive) • fail to be clear, reasonable, wishy washy, leave students confused. • feel it is wrong to place demands on students. • cannot establish standards of behaviour. • fail to back up words with actions.

14. Summary: Charles in “Building Classroom Discipline (pg.73) suggest the Canters provided a number of examples of how the plan can be put into effect at different grade levels. The plan is as follows: 1) Explain why rules are needed. 2) Teach the specific rules. 3) Check for understanding. 4) Explain how you will reward students who follow the rules. 5) Explain why there are corrective actions for breaking the rules. 6) Teach the corrective actions and how they are applied.

15. Conclusion: • The basic principle teachings are: • I will not tolerate any students stopping me from teaching. • I will not tolerate any students to prevent another student from learning. • I will not tolerate any student engaging in any behaviour that is not in the student’s best interest and the best interest of others. • I will immediately reinforce and recognize appropriate behaviour.

16. The Discussant

17. Which Type of teacher are you? • Canter describes 3 different types of teachers: Hostile, Assertive or Non-Assertive (Passive) Examples: “I don’t believe it. You finally handed in an assignment that doesn’t look like chicken scratchings.” Typically active students are working quietly on their projects while the teacher sits at his desk and talks with the classroom aide. “Tish, I liked the way you raised your hand before speaking.” “Conchita, please start putting your project away. It’s been five minutes since I asked you to clean up”

18. Using the Assertive Style • Examples: Ben rips up his work sheet and throws it on the floor, mumbling, “I’m not doing this crap.” Diana leaves her seat to tug on your arm and ask for assistance. You tell her to sit down and raise her hand. She starts to cry and accuses you of never helping her.

19. “Broken Record Technique” • Cantors speak of repetition. You must show concern for the student by giving a supportive message and then giving your direction/command. Eg. Mike is not wearing his goggles during an activity that requires chipping pieces of a rock with a hammer and chisel. Teacher: “ Mike, put those goggles on.” Mike: “ It’s OK, I’ve done this before.” Teacher: “ “ Mike: “Aw, but they mess up your hair and leave red lines on your face.” Teacher: “ “

20. Setting up for an Assertive Classroom “We have rules because…” Our Classroom Rules 1) Listen to all adults 2) Be respectful to people and property 3) Hands and feet to yourself at all times 4) Raise your hand when you want to ask a question.

21. Rewards and Consequences “If you follow the rules, then…” (Some examples of rewards) “Why do you think there are consequences “If you choose not to follow a rule, then…” (Some examples of consequences)

22. The Critical Friend

23. Potential Pitfalls • Personality change for teachers? • Implementation • The students • Is this “Discipline in a Can”? • The use of punishment

24. Personality Change for Teachers? - What if the teacher is not assertive to begin with? - teaching is an intensely personal interaction. - question becomes “How much training does it take for some one to change their teaching style. - supports need to be in place and training needs to be thorough.

25. Implementation - Will this be school wide or left for individual classrooms? - Very complex implementation if it is to be school wide. - “Implementation is a political process” (Martin 1994) - each teacher will bring their own agenda - Who decided that the program was needed? - The Canters advocate for teacher training, but the reality is that time for teacher training is limited. - The Robinton example.

26. The Students • What about the students? • - The importance of the introduction and ownership of the • plan • - Will they “roll over” and comply? • - Will they calculate the risks (reward and punishment) and • try to get away with what they can? • - Will they simply revolt? • - Will they learn self regulation? • Disconnect between researchers and reality. • - most research on punishment is done in controlled lab • setting. • - researchers rarely consider the chaotic variability of • school.

27. Discipline in a Can - Curwin and Mendler warns educators to use caution when deciding to prescribe to a “packaged” discipline plan. - caution of “one size fits all” types of programs. - they can limit teacher discretion, actually foster less self discipline, lead to resentment, and in sometimes actually leads to increases in bad behaviour. - They emphasize that ‘Effective discipline comes from the heart and soul of the teacher. It come from the belief that teaching students to take responsibility for their behaviour is as much the job of the teacher as teaching history or math.”

28. Discipline in a Can -These authors recommend several questions that should be asked before implementing any discipline program. They include: 1. Is it realistic that teachers will be able to reinforce the program consistently? 2. What do students learn as a result of the enforcement? 3. Do students have a say in what happens to them? 4. Do teachers have discretion in implementing the consequences? 5. Is adequate time given for professional development of teachers and administrators? 6. Does the plan account for the special relationship between teaching and discipline style (see personality change for teachers) or does it solely focus on student behaviour? 7. Is the dignity of the student preserved? 8. Is the program consistent with the stated school goals? 9. What happens to students who break the rules? Punishment or consequences?

29. The Pitfalls of Punishment

30. Punishment • Punishment is highly effective in changing behaviour in a laboratory setting. School? • To be effective, it must be delivered every time the behaviour occurs without delay. To truly work, it must be severe enough that the perpetrator will not want to challenge it. For the Cantors, “punishment” is often the removal of positive reinforcement. Is this as effective? • No room for discretion… What does “no talking” really mean? • Escalation. Increasing intensity of punishment gradually actually makes it less likely that the behaviour will be suppressed. This is one of Canter’s main tennants (name on board, etc.) • Research shows that punishment usually is ineffective and actually leads to resentment, lack of self regulation, withdrawl, negative attitudes towards school, AND typically, AN INCREASE IN NEGATIVE BEHAVIOUR.

31. What Does the Research Say? - Surprisingly little. - Twelve years after its introduction, Render, Padilla, and Krank did a literature review for Asssertive Discipline and found “…no evidence that Assertive Discipline is an effective approach deserving school wide or district wide adoption. - In 2007, Edwards in his book Classroom Discipline and Management also notes the lack of systematic research into to the effectiveness of Assertive Discipline.

32. REFERENCES Canter, L. (1988).Assertive discipline and the search for the perfect classroom. Young Children . 43(2),24 Canter, L. (1988). Let the Educator Beware: A Response to Curwin an Mendler. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 71. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Charles, C. ( 2011). Building Classroom Discipline. Pearson. Curwin R. L. & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Packaged Discipline Programs: Let the Buyer Beware. Educational Leadership, 46(2), 68. Retrieved from ECSCO host. CurwinR. L. & Mendler, A. N. (1989) We repeat, let the buyer beware: A response to Canter. Educational Leadership, 46,(6),83. Edwards, C.H. (2008) Classroom Discipline and Management 5th ed. , John Wiley and Sons Inc. Gay, J. E. (1982). ASSERTIVE DISCIPLINE: A PANACEA FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR”S DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS?. Education, 103(2), 173. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Kourilsky, M. & Quaranta, L. (1987) Effective Teaching. Principles and Practise. Scott, Foresmanand Company. Martin, S. C. (1994). A preliminary evaluation of the adoption and implementation of assertive discipline at Robinton.. School Organization, 14(3), 321. Retrieved from EBSCO host. Niagra, A., D’Aurelio, MacDonald, A., & Degabriele K. Lee & Marlene Canter” Assertive Discipline”; RetreivedJanuary 18, 2011 Render, G. F., Padila, J. M., & Krank, H. (1989). What Research Really Shows About Assertive Discipline. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 72. Retrieved from EBSCO host. http:www.brains.org/classroom_management.htm http:www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/e/kem/EDUC4203 http:www.behaviouradvisor.com/AssertiveDiscipline.html