At some point, all teachers experience student misbehavior in the classroom. How the teacher handles this misbehavior will determine whether the student will repeat the action. There are many behavioral management plans, and most focus on dealing with the behavior after the fact, or on establishing and maintaining teacher control. The Assertive Discipline management plan by Lee and Marlene Canter suggests that the teacher develop a general set of classroom rules and then assign a multi-step list of consequences and reinforcements. Planning, asserts the Canters, will eliminate indecision on the part of the teacher, provide clear and concise expectations for the students, and free up valuable classroom time for instruction, not discipline (Canter, 1992). Students who obey the rules will be rewarded by a tangible reward, such as extra free time, a pizza party on Friday, or the privilege of turning an assignment in one day late. Students who do not follow the rules will experience a pre-determined list of consequences, increasing with severity if the student continues to disobey. The Canter approach seems ideal; many school districts across North America have adopted the AD model for their classrooms, and for the most part, it has been successful for these districts. However, the Canter model has several critics, despite its widespread popularity. These criticisms tend to focus on the severity and rigidity of the plan, and the top-down approach to classroom management. Critics also complain that the AD model is retroactive in practice, instead of proactive. Students, they claim, should be taught to be responsible for their behavior and self-correct before they misbehave (Charles, 2002).

Two of the most vocal critics of the Canter’s Assertive Discipline approach are Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler. Their model, Discipline with Dignity, recommends a preventative approach to dealing with misbehavior. Students that have a histroy of chronic misbehavior, they contend , misbehave only when they have encountered multiple affronts to their personal dignity, or have lost all sense of hope academically and emotionally. Most misbehavior, such as talking in class or out of turn, tardiness, laughing at inappropriate times, etc., are minor problems that while irritating, are not malicious or dangerous, and can be corrected through more direct and expedient instruction. Curwin’s and Mendler’s approach focuses more on the "behaviorally at-risk" student who is in danger of failing because his or her misbehavior impedes their ability to learn (Charles, 2002). Their view is that schools spend far too much time trying to figure out why a student misbehaves, when they should be spending more time trying to change the pattern of misbehavior (Curwin & Mendler, 1988). Discipline with Dignity proposes to use effective instruction, clear standards of acceptable behavior, and even more unequivocal consequences.

Curwin and Mendler suggest that a lot of student misbehavior occurs in classrooms where the academic expectations are lax. Teachers, they contend, are responsible for providing efficient instructional delivery, providing bell-to-bell schooling, and whole class interaction to minimize misbehavior (Curwin & Mendler, 1988). A high incidence of discipline problems could also be found in schools and classrooms that neglected adopting specific rules and, more importantly, consequences for breaking those rules. They recommend the Three-Dimensional Discipline Approach:

• Prevention: What can be done to minimize problems.
• Action: What is to be done once problems occur.
• Resolution: What can be done for the chronic misbehaver.

The Discipline with Dignity model also stresses that teachers must offer choices to students as a result of their actions, use humor, and disregard excuses. Teachers, they say, are largely responsible for the behavior that students display in their classroom (Curwin & Mendler, 1988).

I think that there is validity on both sides of the argument. While I tend to use a discipline plan that leans more heavily to the Discipline with Dignity camp, I used theAD approach for several years and found that it too has its strong points. I agree and disagrre with the two plans for the following reasons.

Pros:

• Utilizes a simple, no-fuss approach to classroom management.
• Places the responsibility for student misbehavior squarely on the shoulders of the student, not the teacher.
• Easy to develop discipline plan.
• Allows student input for rules, reinforcements and consequences.

Cons:

• Can be too simplistic. Often is too severe for minor infractions, and can lead to resentment.
• Teacher-centered. Students are often the last individuals to be considered in the development of the plan. Plan is designed to make the classroom run smoothly, without interrruptions.
• May be unrealistic for every classroom.
• Tends to be reactive in the response to misbehavior. Does not offer a clear alternative for preventative discipline.

Pros:

• Student-centered. More concern is displayed for student’s rights and dignity.
• Focuses on preventative measures for student misbehavior.
• Emphasizes better instruction techniques and sincere compassion for preventing discipline problems.
• Encourages teachers to let the small stuff go. Focus only on the real problem behaviors.
• Designed to help the behaviorally-at-risk student.
• Emphasizes caring and empathy, rather than control and dispassion.

Cons:

• Places too much blame on the part of the school and teacher for misbehavior.
• May have too much emphasis on student-control. Students may not always know what is best for themselves and need to have strong leadership on the part of the teacher to succeed.
• Is not a simple, no-frills approach to classroom discipline. Requires more teacher planning and forethought than AD.

Both plans have their place in today’s schools and classrooms, and a case can be made for the best of both plans to co-exist comfortably. And, while the Assertive Discipline approach may seem too rigid and unyielding, the Discipline with Dignity model may appear to give too much control to the student. When designing a classroom discipline plan, it may be a mistake to fully adopt the assertions of either program. A wise approach may be to research many different ideas, include the aspects of each program that seems sensible and valid, and then adapt them to suit one’s own instructional style. After all, you and your students must live with your decisions. It is only fair to everyone involved that you choose what’s best.

Canter, Lee and Marlene. 1992. Assertive Discipline Secondary Workbook: Grades 9-12. Santa Monica, CA, Lee Canter & Associates.

Charles, C. M. 2002. Building Classroom Discipline. Boston, MA, Allyn and Bacon.

Curwin, Richard L. and Mendler, Allen N. 1988, 1999. Discipline with Dignity (revised edition). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Retrieved from the World Wide Web Nov. 6, 2001.

http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/books/curwin99book.html