It's yet another hot day is Mr. R's Science class. For the last week Freddy, the vivacious, thirteen year old master of the sarcastic medium has been cracking up the crowd with jokes about the heat, the class, and even the teachers. Mr. R has called home, talked to the counselors and even sent Freddy out of the class twice. Nothing has worked.

Finally Mr. R holds Freddy back after class. The two of them trade jabs of frustration for a few minutes before Freddy finally admits that he knows better than to play comedian all hour. Mr. R admits that he often finds Freddy's jokes funny, but that there is no place for them in his class. Or is there?

In a flash of insight, Mr. R decides that there might actually be a place for these jokes after all. He proposes a compromise with Freddy. If Freddy will limit his jokes to the first two minutes of class, Mr. R will allow him to spend that time giving his monologue to the class. The students can laugh to start the class, Freddy can get his joking out of his system, and Mr. R can spend the rest of the hour on science. But ... will it work?

Many Educational Psychologists believe that it would. The above scenario fits into any number of different theories on how to manage a classroom. It could be considered a Behavior Contract that Skinner would approve of. It could be considered self-controlling discipline that would make Tom Gordon smile. It could be an aspect of Cooperative Discipline, or even a nice technique of NonCoercive Discipline. Heck, it could even just be a good idea.

But what is a Bevavior Contract really?

Technically, the above scenario would probably be considered an aspect of Behaviorism. Behaviorism can be defined as a theory of human behavior that focuses on a behavioral pattern consistently repeated and reinforced until it becomes learned (Mergel, 1998). Famous Behaviorists include Pavlov and his infamous dogs, Watson and his infamous rat, and Skinner with his utopian vision: Walden 2 (the sequel).

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss these different scientist's theories in depth. Instead, let us just say that the scenario described above fits into the schemata of behaviorism because of it's ability to condition little Freddy to understand when jokes are appropriate through the use of reinforcers and limits. Most contracts with students in a classroom require a student to perform his or her behavior duties in a particular way in order to receive a reward for their appropriate behavior. (Charles, 1999) Usually there is a repetition of behavior that is required before the reward will be given. Therefore, it can be said that Skinner and other behavioral theorists would view Freddy the same way that Pavlov viewed his dogs. Set up the right reward (the chance to run a monologue in front of the class), and the student will behave in the way that you want them to. Therefore, the scenario is quintessential behaviorism.

Of course the behaviorist's perspective on Freddy and Mr. R is not the only way to see this scenario. Many other Educational Psychologists would be able to fit this scenario into their own paradigm.

Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler are two such theorists whose principles of effective discipline have focused clearly on the ideas of dignity and responsibility. (Charles, 1999) The concept of the contract would fit nicely into their theories because of it's ability to treat the student with dignity, and it's ability to foster responsibility. As Jill Jones points out, "Contracts allow students to take ownership of, and responsibility for, their education or behavior." This is exactly the kind of ownership that Curwin and Mendler believe today's students are thirsting for.

Thomas Gordon is another theorist whose work nicely explains the effective use of contracts. Gordon's central focus is on achieving effective discipline by developing the character of the student. He sees many punitive measures and control techniques as futile, while embracing discipline strategies which "help children make positive decisions, become more self-reliant, and control their behavior." (Charles, 1999) A contract, with it's reliance on the self-discipline of the student, can be seen as an effective instrument for helping students in these ways. As Kim Baker points out, "While Gordon does not advocate the use of rewards and punishments, his theories are related to reinforcements, the idea used in contracts."

There are many other theorists whose work nicely encapsulates the ideas of contracts. Glasser, Albert and Jones are just three others that could be mentioned in a long list of writers who have endorsed contracts either directly or indirectly. A more direct question needs to be addressed, however. Mainly, do contracts actually work?

As an educator, I have used contracts for both large group behavior and individualized educational planning. My observation has been that contracts work extremely well for a large group, but can be more hit and miss with individuals. For example, at the beginning of every year I spend a couple of days going over my procedures and expectations with my students. I have three basic rules that I ask them to abide by. After explaining these rules to them I then explain the discipline procedure step-by-step. We role play expectations and procedures and then I ask the students to take a contract that explains what we have talked about home and have it signed by themselves and their parents. When the students bring the assignment back I place it in a file for future use.

Every year I have incidents where students challenge my authority. I have found it to be extremely disarming for the misbehaving student if I simply point out that the student signed a behavior contract at the beginning of the year and that the student is now in violation of that contract. When a student understands that they have made an agreement and broken it, they often understand very clearly exactly why they are in trouble (a huge step) and exactly what they can do next time to stay out of trouble.

My experience with individuals, however, has been different. Some students that I have employed contracts with have responded well to the structure and defined reward of a contract. I have witnessed students turn around their behavior because of a simple reward like candy or a pencil.

I have also seen students who have attempted to follow the contract for a week or two and then discarded it because they were not able. There have also been many students who have completely blown off the idea of a contract all together, only to later respond to a more strict discipline policy.

So it is clear to me that individual contracts can be successful for some students, but may also be fruitless for students who require a different approach.

The discipline system known as Assertive Discipline was created by Lee and Marlene Canter back in 1976. It was very quickly adopted by numerous school systems in America and by 1988 the Canters could claim to have trained some 300,000 teachers in workshops in 48 states (Crockenberg, 1982). The system has been so thoroughly embaced by American educators that it is now believed the Canters have trained over one million teachers and administrators. This fact makes Assertive Discipline "the most widely used of all discipline systems" (Charles, 1999).

Assertive Discipline focuses on creating and maintaining a classroom in which student needs are being met, behavior management is accomplished humanely and learning takes place as the teacher intends (Charles, 1999). The system teaches students to understand and accept the consequences of their behavior through the rewarding of appropriate behavior and the punishment of inappropriate behavior. A system of rewards and punishments is created by the teacher in order to let the students know when they have acted in an incorrect or correct manner. Teachers are encouraged to create increasingly severe penalties for students who continue to make the wrong choices in class. Though this system may sound focused on negative consequences, the Canters encourage teachers to let the focus to be on "positves and lots of praise" within the context of the system (Canter, 1988).
It is believed that one of the reasons for Assertive Discipline's popularity is its relative simplicity. Teachers often feel secure in implementing Assertive Discipline with only a short training seminar under their belt (Curwin and Mendler, 1989). It is seen as providing "an attractive, packaged, simple-to-understand, easy-to-implement alternative" (Curwin and Mendler, 1989, p. 83). The simplicity and intuitive nature of the program is undoubtedly attractive to many teachers who may already feel overwhelmed by the demands of the teaching profession, and the relative complexity of many of the competing management strategies. Teachers will often feel secure in implementing Assertive Discipline with only a few hours of training in a seminar behind them (Curwin and Mendler, 1989). Compare this with a typical seminar on choice-language, for example, which may will usually run for several sessions.

There are many critics of Assertive Discipline. Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler have openly challenged many of the principals of the system in their books and through such publications as Education Leadership. Their argument against Assertive Discipline is based on the limited amount of research that supports the program and the idea that the program suggests all problems in the classroom stem from students who do not know how to behave (Curwin and Mendler, 1989).

There are other critics of Assertive Discipline including Crockenberg, who has challenged many of the fundamental aspects of the program, especially the lack of accountability on the part of the teacher. "The Canters nowhere in their book recognize that behavior problems in the classroom might possibly be a function of poor teaching" (Crockenberg, 1982, p. 63). Crockenberg also takes exception to the undemocratic nature of a program that does not involve the parents or the students in the creation of the discipline system. "The teacher knows what is required. . . . Parents must adapt to the teacher's requirements. Any attempts by parents to criticize teaching are understood to be 'side-tracking manipulations', uninformed and unfair" (Crockenberg, 1982, p. 63).

While these criticisms are generally based on legitimate concerns, it seems clear that Assertive Discipline is doing something positive in the classroom. Any system that is so widely accepted by so many teachers must have aspects that are effective, at least from a teacher's point-of-view. So what does Assertive Discipline offer that makes it so attractive to so many teachers?

As an experienced practitioner of Middle School Assertive Discipline I have found that the program's main attraction is its simplicity and its ability to keep the students aware of their boundaries. I take a lot of time at the beginning of each school year to educate my students about what my procedures and expectations will be during the course of the year. I then re-emphasize the rules that continue to be problematic throughout the year. I use choice-language during most instances of correction. When students break a rule I remind them what rule they have broken, and then write their name on the board (first warning). If they continue to misbehave I again remind them of the rule and give a check (second warning). If the behavior continues after the first check (it rarely does) then I give a third check (detention) and then a fourth (removal from class). During all of these steps I continue to remind the student what rule they are choosing to break and then explain to them exactly what I expect their behavior to look like.

I have found that this system provides an easily understood, easily accepted way for students and teachers to communicate expectations without dragging the class to a halt or engaging in petty bickering. This system has worked for me. Year after year I continually have one of the lowest detention and referral rates of all the 8th grade teachers in my building. My classroom is orderly and focused on a daily basis and the Urbana District's social studies test results continue to be the highest of any discipline within the district.

I am aware, however, that I add aspects of other philosophies into my version of Assertive Discipline. I do, for example, allow the students to help me create some of the rules of the classroom. I also allow parents or students to question my system and have even made improvements on the system in the past based on those suggestions. I have a stipulation in the behavior contract that the students sign at the beginning of the year that states that I can disregard the system at any time if I feel that any student's behavior threatens the well-being of myself or others in the class. I will also take time to pull kids out into the hall and discuss with them what I expect in my classroom. I combine all of these strategies (and a myriad of others) with Assertive Discipline to make a management system that works for me. At the core, however, is the Canter's threories on rewards and punishments and I do believe that it is that core which makes many of the other strategies work in my classroom.

Assertive Discipline is not a perfect system and cannot solve a teacher's classroom management problems by itself. It is simply a tool which may or may not work for individual teachers. Critics of the system are right to point out its weaknesses, and teachers who use the system should be aware of its faults so they can address those problems in their classroom. For myself and for thousands of other teachers Assertive Discipline has become an excellent foundation for discipline in our classroom. It is an easy system for both students and teachers to understand and use. It is only as good as the teachers who use it, however, and should not be considered a cure-all for classroom management problems. Most of the problems in today's classrooms are too serious to be truly solved by any system. It is the relationships and the love between students and teachers that will eventually turn even the worst classroom into a place of light and joy. No system can do that, but Assertive Discipline has been able to create a foundation on which that kind of growth and healing can occur.

There are numerous ways that one can see the fundamentals of Assertive Discipline in action today. Kim Baker's response to this question is a completely legitimate example of how this kind of structure can be used in an insensitive and controlling manner. I can completely relate to her frustration with her administration (sounds like my own) and with the inflexibility with which they handled the tragic events of September 11th.

The real question here in my mind is: what is the purpose of control and what role do we play when we demonstrate to our students that they WILL be controlled (whether it be through AD or any other manipulative device?? These are big questions, but I think they cut to the core of what this class is attempting to address.

In the "real world" we are controlled every day. In fact, it is not hard to see that the Canter's theories are really extensions of the control that is placed on each of us by society-at-large, or by the economic structure in particular.

We have to understand and respect our boundaries or there will be consequences for our actions. If we NEED a vacation we had better be able to afford it. If we can't then we suffer economic consequences. They could be as insignificant as an overdraft charge or as severe as the loss of our home and credit rating. Either way, the consequence is firmly in place.

If we choose to break the law there us a whole other mode of consequences that we need to consider. The consequences for speeding are well understood, and are strikingly similar to AD. Our first offense may very well be a warning. The second and third offenses will become gradually more severe until we are not allowed to drive anymore, or until we can no longer afford to drive due rising insurance costs. The consequences for more serious crimes are also similar to AD. Everything from shoplifting to murder is open to a gradation of penalties. Perhaps the old theme song from Beretta said it best when it declared: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Isn't this AD in a nutshell?

There are numerous other parallels between AD and the real world. I could mention post-secondary schooling or the work world as just two. The real point here is whether a discipline structure inside a class should reflect the real or the ideal world. But what is the ideal here?

The ideal world would be a place where everyone does what is right because it is right and not because they will be punished, however gradually, if they do not. Is this not what Educational Psychologists are striving to do with their theories on classroom management? Aren't they attempting to create students who instinctively do what is correct because they WANT to, not because they will be punished if they don't? I believe that is precisely what they are attempting to do.

So should discipline structures attempt to create an ideal environment where students and teachers overcome their inherent fallen nature, or should they attempt to closely replicate the way the world actually functions?

The advantage to focusing on the ideal is to express and realize the possibilities. If students can be shown a better way maybe some day they will go on to create a better way. If they are only shown how to follow rules and how to function within the boundaries set by their teachers then they will only transfer that submissive nature to the real world when they leave the school. Therefore it would seem clear that we want to create the ideal in the classroom in order to allow students to start from a place of possibility instead of submission.

The advantage to focusing on the real world is that it prepares students to interact and function positively within that world once they leave the school. One can imagine a product of the ideal deciding that this very assignment is irrelevant since he or she has already worked through the problem in his or her head. The point is that they need to write it out and explain it so the rest of the world can understand that they understand. But does that mean it is right to do the assignment? The moral ambiguity becomes clear and soon the product of the ideal has become a lost sheep in the wilderness of the real world.

So what is the right thing to do with classroom management? Do we go for the ideal or do we embrace the real. The answer lies within each teacher who sets up a discipline system, but it may be relevant to imagine a middle way that incorporates the ideal and the real into the same system.

What is that middle way? I am not sure. Personally I believe that AD can be the foundation for a system that allows students to reach for the ideal while keeping them firmly attached to the real. It is not an easy task, but teachers who use the hidden X factor of love and caring for their students can make it happen. Perhaps it does not have as much to do with a system as we believe. Perhaps it has more to do with love?

Punishment is not a control mechanism widely loved by Educational Psychologists. It is widely criticized in most modern discipline theories and has taken on a semi-taboo stature in the enlightened world of modern thinking about discipline. Dreikurs believes it is simply a device for teachers to show students "who is boss" (Charles, 1999, p. 52). Coloraso has described punishment as "treatment that is psychologically hurtful and unjust to students" (Charles, 1999, p. 220). Whether we accept these descriptions as truth or not, clearly the idea of punishment is not well loved by most Educational Psychologists.

Yet punishment is still a very popular means of controlling students. In my classroom I use punishment only in extreme cases of misbehavior. My punishments consist of two simple procedures: detentions and referrals. I give detentions for classroom behavior that does not correct itself (excessive goofing around) and then use the detention time to collaborate with the student on a plan to help him or her better recognize their behavior boundaries. I give referrals (being sent out of the class) to students who I deem to be a threat to the health or well-being of myself or the class, and to students who absolutely refuse to cooperate in class. Students are usually given numerous warnings before they are removed from class for misbehavior, but can be removed from class immediately in the event that I view them as a threat. I rarely use either of these punishments. I find that most students respond to gentle reminders and respectful talks in the hall. If push-comes-to-shove, however, I will dish out the occasional punishment.

The effectiveness of my punishments must be addressed in three ways: overall effect, detention effect, and referral effect. Let's start with the overall effect.

My punishments have the overall effect of creating a subtle layer of threat into the teaching of my class. Though it rarely happens, students understand that if they push the boundaries too far there wil be a punishment that follows. This gives me a certain level of power that is helpful in controlling my classroom.

My detentions are by far the most effective of my two punishments. Students NEVER want to get a detention, and I am actually not sure why. Most students actually end up enjoying their detention time. We get to chat, usually I give them some candy and I try to help them walk away feeling good about themselves. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of my students stay away from detentions out of reflex, intuition and fear. They simply do not want them. When they get one, however, I try to make the most of the time that we have together. The detention time is usually around 15 minutes and I use that time to talk to the student about their behavior in my class, and to brainstorm how we can develop mutual respect and understanding about their boundaries. I always ask the students to write down what we have talked about and what their solution is for the misbehavior. Most of my students do not get more than one detention. Therefore, I believe that the detention effect is a positive one, if only because it gives me uninterrupted time with a student who needs extra attention.

My referrals are not as effective punishments. Usually I do not see the student again for a day or two, and when I do see them again they are not very happy, even if they understand what they did was wrong. I give out very few referrals and when I do I make sure to call home the same day and talk to the parents about what happened in the class. This is one of the positive effects of the referral because it helps me in the relationship building process with the parent, even though it is usually a conversation that centers on a negative. Overall I feel that referrals have very little value beyond removing a dangerous or extremely disruptive student from a classroom. This very act itself is often value enough for the rest of the class and myself.

I do believe that there are alternative ways of dealing with misbehavior in my classroom. Since punishment does not play a central role in motivating my students it is hard for me to see alternatives to the punishments that I already have in place. I do believe that the detention and referral punishments that are in place are effective for the occasional student who needs to be confronted about their behavior. I am aware that there are other techniques that I could use to help all of my students before they get to the punishment phase.

I could, for example, attempt to involve my students in the decision making processes that accompany the leadership (teacher) role in my class. An example of this might be to hold more class meetings that center on where the class is going academically and how we are going to get there (Kohn, 1996). This kind of vulnerability on my part may be just the thing that is needed to keep my students connected to the class in a way that fosters cooperation on their part in regard to management issues. It would also give the students a higher sense of ownership over the work that they do, which may lead to higher homework completion rates and better grades overall. There is also the simple fact that meetings like this will make me a better teacher because I will be addressing the interests of the students (at least those who speak up).

Another alternative is to create units and lesson that allow me more time to interact with students individually (Wong & Wong, 1999). I have been practicing the multiple-intelligence approach to instruction (Gardner, 2000) for many years now and I have noticed that the sections of my units that are devoted to the verbal/linguistic or the logical/mathematical intelligences tend to be a little more unruly. It is probable that the reason for this breakdown is that students who are not strong in these areas will act in a more dramatic way when they are uncomfortable with the learning style. I believe that I could address this management deficit within my classroom by creating lessons and units which address these intelligences in a way that allows me to have more time to interact with and serve my students.

It is clear that there are numerous alternatives to the way that I currently structure and orient my students for instruction. It is also clear that punishment by itself is not a legitimate answer to classroom management problems. I would like to believe that punishment does not exist in my classroom. Unfortunately, I am fully aware that the system of assertive discipline that I currently employ within my classroom is loaded with consequences that can be viewed as punishments in the traditional sense of the word.

This lesson has helped me to understand that there are alternatives to the way that I currently run my classroom. It has also helped me to acknowledge that some of these alternatives may actually be doable for me. Though I do not consider myself to be much of a punisher, I am willing to try to make myself even less of one, and I plan to use what I have learned here in my class in the future.

Fred Jones's system of limit setting is set out in his text "Positive Classroom Discipline" which was first published back in 1987 with a companion text "Positive Classroom Instruction." His system is unique because of it's emphasis on nonverbal communication skills, and the meaning that a teacher's body language can have in a classroom (Charles, 1999).

Jones bases his system on thousands of hours of observations that he and his associates made during the early 1970s. The observations led Jones to draw several conclusions about effective and ineffective discipline techniques. Some of these conclusions include the concept of massive time wasting (students doing pretty much anything except their assignment), bell work (work students can engage in immediately without direction when the bell rings), grandma's rule (work, then reward) and preferred activity time (time used as an incentive) (Charles, 1999). The most powerful conclusion that Jones drew, however, is that of setting limits.

Setting limits involves "learning to do nothing when under pressure" (Jones, 1987, p. 55). Though it sounds extremely simple, this technique is actually the culmination of a complex series of events that allow a teacher to speak volumes without saying a word. In order for limit setting to work a teacher must spend a lot of time and energy creating both general and specific rules for the classroom. The teacher must then review, teach and rehearse these rules thoroughly during the beginning of the year, and consistently throughout the year. Jones has actually recommended spending the first two weeks of the year on the specific rules (Charles, 1999).

The payoff for spending so much time and effort on the class rules is the ability to set limits without speaking a word. Jones discusses several body language techniques that can convey to students a boundary message without forcing the teacher to engage in any discussion with the student, or allow the student to back talk. Some of these techniques include eye contact, physical proximity, body carriage and facial expressions (Charles, 1999). Most important, however, is Jones's emphasis on proper breathing techniques and the "Queen Victoria" look (www.fredjones.com, 2001). These techniques focus on a teacher's ability to stay calm during a confrontation, which not only reduces the intensity of the confrontation, but also helps teachers to relieve stress.

An example of this technique in action can be found on the Fred Jones website, www.fredjones.com. The model described there involves an 8th grade music teacher who has a student come to class with an icicle. The teacher walks over to the student but does not say a word. The student attempts to be sarcastic and confrontational with the teacher but the teacher refuses to say anything. The student then realizes that his behavior is not only inappropriate, but also will not be tolerated. The student succumbs to the technique and class continues after the student voluntarily discards the icicle (www.fredjones.com, 2001).

This example of the limit setting technique in action is convincing on a number of levels. It is obviously effective in achieving the desired result. It also retains the dignity of the student by allowing him to make the choice to get rid of the icicle. There is no stressful or embarrassing confrontation with the student. Finally, it is clear that the student (and all other students present that day) now understands the specific rule about bringing icicles to class.

There are some problems with this model however. The student in this scenario is incredibly responsive to the technique. Why? It cannot be simply a matter of general and specific rule setting for there it is doubtful that there is a specific rule about icicles in the classroom. Neither can it be a matter of the body language that is employed by the teacher for we can easily imagine a more stubborn student making a smart remark about a teacher standing next to them refusing to speak. There must be something deeper, more subtle at work here.

It is my contention that what is really going on here is an example of an effective teacher/student relationship at work. There is a level of respect that has been established between this teacher and this student. Isn't it likely that the student would ridicule a technique that can be so easily perceived as ridiculous if there weren't? The respect can also be seen in the way that the teacher handles the situation. Quietly reminding the student of the ridiculousness of the icicle is much more respectful than arguing with or ridiculing the student in front of the class. This is the hidden strength of Jones's work: it creates respect between teachers and students. Students feel respected because the teacher has taken the time to outline for them exactly what the rules of behavior are. It has been my experience that students thirst for these explanations, and respond to them wholeheartedly. The want to know what is expected. Teachers also feel respected in this system because there is an emphasis on not only what techniques to use, but also on the physical well-being of the teacher. Creating a system that focuses on lowering a teacher's stress level is an effective way to create respect in teachers. Giving them solid, physical techniques to use in a classroom is also effective in allowing teachers to find ways to give their students respect.

Personally I have been using a homemade version of limit setting for about four years now. I have always intuitively used my body language to convey messages to my students and I have found that this technique works incredibly well. The cornerstone of the entire system, however, is the rules. If a teacher simply walks over to a student and puts a hand on his shoulder during silent reading, then that student may not have a clue what is wrong. So he was doodling, so what? It is important to clarify to students the specifics of the behavior you expect from them. If the same student had been informed and reminded about the rule that all students are to give their undivided attention to reading during silent reading time, then he would instantly know what he is doing wrong and how to get back on track.

There are, however, plenty of times when limit setting with body language is not appropriate. Any time that a student is presenting a physical threat to anyone in the classroom, no amount of body language is going to solve the problem. The student needs to be confronted and removed from the classroom. It is also clear that students who do not respond to the body language techniques may need other forms of limit setting imposed upon them.

No system can work for all students, or all teachers for that matter, but Jones's techniques can be effective for many. Through clear and well-defined rules, and proper use of body language, any teacher can begin to develop relationships with students that are based on mutual respect. These are the relationships that we thirst for, and the more that we can learn to respect our students the more they will learn to respect us back.

The process of forgetting something has been well researched over the years. It is fairly well understood that humans have three areas of memory that are in play at any one time: sensory memory, short-term memory and long term memory (Bruning, 1999). Sensory memory is where perception begins with "sensory registers" that receive incoming stimuli (Bruning, 1999). Humans then make a decision about the meaning of the stimuli using prior knowledge and the context of the situation (Bruning, 1999 and Gage, 1992).

After being perceived stimuli moves to the short-term memory. Short-term (or working) memory has a very limited capacity and life span. Information in short-term memory will tend to be forgotten quickly if additional meaning is not placed upon it, and will often consist of approximately seven pieces of information at a time (Bruning, 1999). There are many reasons why information is forgotten so quickly in short term memory. Some explanations include interference, decay and replacement by new information (Bruning, 1999).

If information is properly encoded it will move into long-term memory. Long-term memory appears to have an unlimited capacity. Once information makes it into long-term memory it appears to become a permanent part of the brain (Bruning, 1999). This permanence does not make information in long-term memory easy to recall. There are many reasons for this but cognitive psychologists tend to focus on the context of encoding and retrieval. If the cues for retrieval were present during the encoding of the information, then the brain will usually be successful retrieving the information. If the context has changed then the brain may struggle with retrieval (Bruning, 1999).

In my own life I have often struggled with forgetting. A common example might be a quick trip to the super market. Before I leave I often have one or two items in mind that I need to purchase. Between my home and the supermarket I am often subjected to many pieces of mental interference, and experiences which replace the items in my memory. Driving, for example, places me in a situation where I am not only following the rules of road but I am also attempting to maneuver a large piece of heavy machinery. Add a bad motorist and maybe stopping to chat with a friend to the mix and suddenly I have a very difficult time recalling exactly what it was that I was going to the store to get. Therefore, I always take a list.

Other examples are easy to find. Just this morning I left for work without my lunch. I took the lunch out of the fridge and placed it on the counter but instead of placing it in my bag I brushed my teeth instead. On the way back the kitchen I picked up a couple of items in the living room and placed them in the sink. I then grabbed my bag and left, having completely forgotten or "spaced" my lunch. It is not difficult to see that there were several pieces of interference that entered into my processing between the bathroom and the counter, and a lot of information that replaced the "grab the lunch" thought in my short-term memory. These factors are what probably caused me to forget my lunch.

Unfortunately, I must admit that my students forget a lot of the information that they learn in my class. For example, if I asked my students to "memorize" the countries of Africa, but do not give them an effective device for memorization they will simply memorize the countries for the tests and quizzes and then quickly forget them. Another example might be vocabulary words. I am required by my district to teach vocabulary for every unit that I do. I enjoy teaching vocabulary and watching students learn new words. When I first started to teach vocabulary my strategy was to have the students look up the words in the glossay of their text and then use them in a sentence a couple of times. We would then have a quiz and a test. This proved to be very ineffective for many students because they were not required to create a context in which the words have meaning. I now ask them to define and memorize the terms and to use the terms in a journal entry about their day. We then discuss some of the journal entries in class and the context for the meaning of the word is completed. My test scores on vocabulary have increased greatly since making the change in strategy.

It is extremely important for teachers to understand how the brains of their students work. Unless we are gearing our teaching toward effective encoding and retrieval methods it is very likely out students will remember very little of what we teach them.

Mnemonic devices are an excellent tool that allows humans to remember information that needs to be memorized. In general, mnemonic devices should be unusual and (surprise) memorable, but also simple, clear and easy to understand. (Bruning, 1999)

There are five basic types of mnemonic devices: grouping, rhymes, acronyms, visual association and loci. (Utah State, 2001)

• Grouping a list of information together helps us to remember the whole, but only if the key element of the group is remembered.
• Rhymes are an easy way to remember simple facts like "I before E except after C."
• Acronyms are an excellent way to remember a short list of words like The Moral Attributes of God: Eternal, Unchanging, Perfect, Infinite, Incomprehensible, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent, can be combined to read "I3OU-PIE" or (I owe you a piece of pie).
• Visual Association is based on the PEG system which allows us to remember a sequence of ten unrelated items in order as long as we know the PEG words. This technique only works if we visualize each term with the peg word that it is related to.
• Loci is an excellent device for remembering a lot of information. To use loci a person needs to simply visualize themselves walking around a table picking up the pieces of information that are on that table.

In my class I often struggle to find ways for my students to remember important information. One of the most effective ways that I have found is to make up little songs to go along with information. This technique falls under the category of mnemonic grouping.

For the first three years of my career at UMS I taught 7th grade World Geography. Every time we did a continent we, as a class, would make up songs to help the everyone memorize the countries and their locations in the continent.

I taught the countries using a large map and a pointer. We did three countries at a time and then strung the countries together until we had completed the entire continent. The process usually took about five minutes of the beginning or end of each class period and the kids loved it. The test scores for locating the countries of the continent were always fantastic. Years later I still have students tell me that they remember the Africa Song, and then begin to recite it back to me.

Click here to hear some of the songs we have used in my class.

I got the idea from my 7th grade American History teacher who had us memorize all of the Presidents. She did it in groups of three and then strung the groups together gradually. To this day I can still recite the presidents of the United States in order. This comes in very handy for me since I now teach middle school American History myself.

Mnemonic devices have been criticized because of their inability to help a student make the connection with previous learning. (Biola University, 2001) I agree with Kery Strysick who pointed out in her response to this question, that "no claim is made that they do so. Their sole purpose is to enhance recall." I do not use Mnemonic devices for learning that is on a separate level of the taxonomy of learning. It is used simply for the knowledge and comprehension levels.

Mnemonic devices are meant to simply help a student recall information. Students should be encouraged to abandon the decies as soon as the material is learned well enough that the devices are no longer necessary. They can be time consuming to learn and truly do not help a person understand material. They can, therefore, be easy to forget and without them the information one is supposed to be able to recall will be forgotten as well.

There are many ways for a human being to know something. Perhaps the most interesting distinction between levels of knowledge is between declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge occurs when we have knowledge of "what is true" (Moss, 2001) and we can communicate that knowledge directly to other individuals (Moss, 2001). Procedural knowledge occurs when we know how to do something, but not in a way in which we are able to communicate the knowledge directly to another individual (Moss, 2001). A good example of the differences between these two levels of knowledge can be seen in the sport of baseball. A coach can tell a pupil exactly how to hit a baseball; how to stand, how to hold the bat, how to shift the weight, etc. A pupil can learn these basics in a very precise and accurate way since they are true. This is declarative knowledge. No coach, however, can truly teach a pupil how to hit the baseball. In order for that to happen the pupil must actually allow all of the declaractive knowledge that he or she has been taught to fade into intuition, and then simply hit the ball. Once the pupil has successfully learned how to do that the knowledge has been transferred into procedural.

Many Cognitive Psychologists believe that procedural knowledge often begins as declarative knowledge (Bruning, 1999). Thus, we learn how to do something before we actually do it. It is my opinion that this theory is correct in most but definitely not all cases.

Examples that fit nicely into the declarative then procedural model include learning to write, learning to read music, and even learning how to learn. It is not easy for most people to develop effective study skills, and it is often our task as educators to role model proper study skills for our students. We show them the way to study and hope that it becomes second nature for them as they develop.

Examples that go against the declaractive then procedural model can be found in almost any classroom in the world. For every 10 students who need study skills role modelled for them there are probably one or two students whose thirst for knowledge has given them an instinct for learning that cannot be taught. For every saxophone player in the high school band who pours over the sheet must for "Louie Louie" every night to get it right, there is at least one gifted sax player who could play the 1-4-5 progression by instinct without ever having learned how to read music. For every teacher who spends his or her evening pouring over classroom mangement theories in order to retain control of the classroom there is a teacher who just creates control on a daily basis without knowing what practice is being followed.

This topic brings to mind the movie "The Natural" with Robert Redford. Redford plays a young man who is taught to play baseball by his father. At the opening of the movie we see the boy and his father practicing, with the father giving the boy helpful hints. Then we see the father standing back in joy as he watches his son throw steaming fast balls through an old tire. Later the boy strikes out Babe Ruth and goes on to become one of the best players the game has ever seen.

Is the boy successful because his father "taught him everything he knows", or is there some other force at work here? It is true that without his father's help this boy may have never become a great baseball player. Therefore it is true that the declarative knowledge that is garnered from instructors is priceless. It is also true, however, that this boy became a much better baseball player than his father could have ever taught him to be. His ability to turn the declarative knowledge that he garnered from his father into a gift is what makes him "The Natural".

Like this baseball player's father we have an obligation to teach our students the basics. There are many students who may not need to have the basics explained to them in order for them to be successful, but there are many students who do need these basics explained. Therefore it is impossible to say whether procedural or declarative actually comes first, or which is more important. It all depends on who is doing the learning.

Reading is a complex process. Psychologists have developed three major models to explain how human beings comprehend the written word: data-driven, conceptually driven and interactive (Brunning, 1999). Data-driven (or bottom-up) processing emphasizes decoding and word meaning. In this model a person deals with the information by starting with the raw, physical stimulus and then works their way up to the more abstract or cognitive operations (xrefer.com, 2001). Conceptually driven (or top-down) processing is based on the idea that a reader's comprehension is controlled by the thoughts or ideas that they have about the nature of the material that is being processed (xrefer.com, 2001). In this model we construct the meaning of the text from what we already know and from what the text has to teach us. Interactive processing refers to models that integrate both data-driven and conteptually driven models. In this model we construct the meaning of the text through the interaction of bottom-up and top-down processing.

In the last decade the internet has become an increasingly relevant medium for the transfer of information. Though still not on the level of the daily newspaper or a good book, the internet is nonetheless and important tool the publishing of material to be read.

There is perhaps no better way to analyze the internet's strengths and weaknesses than by analyzing it using reading comprehension models. With that in mind I decided to look at three somewhat obscure web-sites and analyze their text.

The first site I went to was http://www.fantagraphics.com/, which is a website for a bookstore in Seattle, Washington. This bookstore specializes in alternative comics. Upon uploading the page my eyes at first fixated on the large graphic of a book that was in the center of the page. The title of the book was next to it in colored letters and my eyes instantly recognized this as a comic by an artist that I am familiar with. I believe my comprehension of this book was conceptually driven. I instantly made a higher understanding of this book and picture because of my previous knowledge of this artist's work. I do not like his work very much so I quickly ignored this information and found my way over to the navigation bar on the left side. The web-designer cleverly created a bar with the names of the artists that have work available through the site. Once I began looking at the bar conceptual understanding took over. I quickly skimmed the names of the artists for those that I know and like. I categorized the names into three sections in my mind: good artists, bad artists and unknowns. I then surfed through some of the links looking for new books from old favorites, and maybe a new artist that I though I might like.

I then surfed on over to http://www.mojo4music.com/, which is a website for Mojo Magazine, a British music magazine. I read this magazine often and I recently noticed that they had a website where a reader could download mp3s of some of the artists that they review in the magazine. This seemed like a good use of my time so I went to the site looking to download some mp3s.

When I arrived my eyes were instantly drawn to the title bar and the navigation links. Not knowing what links like "What's Going On" or "Enlightenment" might hold I decided I needed to surf this site a little more to understand. I found the site frustrating because the navigation terms did not seem to have much to do with the actually pages that they were linked to. "What's Going On," for example, took me to a bulletin board that was hard to navigate. Some messages on the board seemed to be from the editor and some seemed to just be from readers. This did not interest me much so I surfed on to try to find some music. I went to the "Enlightenment" page and was again frustrated to find myself directed to a discussion board. Ugh! I decided to try one more link, "Cult Heroes" and was again directed to the bulletin board. I was extremely frustrated at this point so I decided that yes, I was definitely using data-driven processing here because I had absolutely no idea what any of the words in these navigation links were supposed to mean.

I decided to try my the website for the church I attend on a regular basis, New Covenant Fellowship (http://www.prairienet.org/ncf/). When I arrived my eyes were immediately drawn to the words along the top of the page. I quickly began to look for a navigation bar and was frustrated to not find one right away. I clicked on a button which said "Table of Contents" and quickly found the navigation help I was looking for.

I searched through the pages using mostly conceptually-driven processing. I am extremely familiar with my church and the different things that we have going on within the community, so it was easy for me to be led by words like "small groups" or "worship". Since I have such a familiarity with the church I found myself fascinated by the many pages of information about what we have going on at church. I spent a lot of time at this friendly, personally interesting website.

I came away from these three pages with a better understanding of how reading schematas play into the development of a website. Navigation terms that have multiple meanings, or are used in a vague way create confusion and a regression to data-driven comprehension, which is often time-consuming and frustrating. Terms that synch with the users previous knowledge create a site that is easy to use and enjoyable. A term like "links" for example is misleading on numerous levels because of its ambiguity. What are these links for? Where will they take me? Are they personal or are they connected to the theme of the site? All of these questions arise when confronted with a term like "links". Terms link "Personal Links" or "Educational Links" seem much more appropriate and efficient.

Traditionally it has been understood that humans learn to read by first making sense of the letters in English, and then move on to larger components like sounds, words and sentences. This understanding has led to a system of instruction known as "phonics", which begins with reading lessons that focus on souding out letters, tightly controlling vocabulary and short, basic reading passages. Students are then given several skills exercises, each with only one correct answer (www.edweek.org, 2001).

In recent years "Whole Language" has arisen to challenge the phonics approach. Whole language stresses that children should be allowed to use language in ways that connect with their own lives and culture. Correct answers are less important in a whole language classroom, the process instead becomes the method. Students are encouraged to decode words withing their own context. Techniques for this kind of teaching include journaling, letter writing, silent reading, oral reading and student cooperation (www.edweek.org, 2001).

These two competing approaches to reading instruction have been doing battle for prominence inside the American classroom, but most experts agree that incorporating both approaches is most effective (National Reading Panel, 2000). I agree with Kery Strysick and Heidi Adreon when they state that this balanced approach can also be applied to webpages. Students who have a good foundation in reading are able to apply their own meanings to the text on webpages. Without the good foundation, however, there is little that a student can understand on a webpage. Therefore it seems clear that the balanced approached called for by the National Reading Panel and many students in this class is not only the most logical, but also the most effective.

Adreon, Heidi. (2001). EdPsych 399 OL - Fall 2001, Lesson 8 Question 1.
Retrieved November 7, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
http://courseinfo.cet.uiuc.edu:80/courses/1/EDPSY399OL_FA01/db/_35277_1/edpsy399ol_webtexts_l8q1.html

(1998-2001) - Observations made as a teacher of the social studies at Urbana Middle School in Urbana, IL.

In attempting to understand the psychological aspects of writing it is helpful to understand the way that humans think about their thinking and their memory. Psychologists like to refer to these two areas of knowledge as "metacognition" and "metamemory" (Bruning, 1999). Metacognition refers to the knowledge of one's own cognitive system and its regulations (Flavell, 1979). Effective metacognitive knowledge is applicable in many real world situations, especially in education. For example when students are studying for an exam they are more successful when they use metacognition to plan out how to study. Metamemory refers to the knowledge and self-monitoring of one's own memory (Nelson & Narens, 1990). Metamemory can be placed inside a framework where it constantly monitors the memory system by way of retrospective monitoring (confidence judgements) and prospective monitoring. Prospective monitoring can be divided into three main areas: ease-of-learnng (EOL), judgments-of-learning (JOL), and feeling-of-knowledge (FOL). Kirk and Yuzama in their study of Social Influences on Metamemory Judgments (2001) give an excellent example of how these three areas of prospective monitoring can be seen in action:

"...when a student is given a certain text to study, a priori, he will analyze and judge its difficulty (EOL judgement) and based on this judgment he will allocate study time and select the kind of strategy he will use to approach the material. Subsequently, after he has studied it or even meanwhile studying section, he can judge whether he has studied well or long enough (JOL judgement) and based on this second judgment he will decide whether to terminate the study section, to continue studying, or even if he needs to change the strategy that he is currently using to approach the material to be studied. Further, at the exam, in the case that the student do not remember the answer for a given question but still he has the feeling that he knows it or at least that he should know, for he has studied it exhaustively (FOK judgement), based on the judgment of how sure he is that he actually knows the answer, he will decide whether to keep trying to remember the currently nonrecallable answer, to end searching, or even to change the current search strategy and apply another one."

Once we have an understanding of metacognition and metamemory it is useful to apply the idea of "meta" understanding to the practice of writing. For example, what would metawriting look like?

A practical definition for metawriting would be knowledge and understanding of one's writing. This concept could be used in a variety of classrooms, and could become a fundamental step in the development of a student's writing. A student who is writing a paper could, theoretically, follow these basic steps while writing a paper:

1. develop a thesis
2. do research to support the thesis
3. metawriting: develop a plan for how to effectively write the paper
4. write the rough draft
5. metawriting: analyze the rough draft and make improvements
6. write the final draft

What would the metawriting steps of this process look like? During metawriting, students could do a prospective monitoring of their effort, with three major steps: ease-of-writing (EOW), judgment-of-writing (JOW) and feeling-of-writing (FOW).

For example, when a student is given a writing assignment she will analyze the difficulty of the writing (EOW) and then allocate time and a writing strategy for the assignment. Then, while writing the assignment the student will look back over her writing to analyze it for a variety of effective writing aspects like flow, voice and grammar (JOW). She will then make corrections as necessary. When the first draft is finished the student will then go back and analyze the writing for effectiveness and how it "feels" (FOW). Based on this judgment the student will decide what to re-write and correct in the final draft.

It seems clear that a system like the one describe above could not only be implemented fairly easily in a classroom, but would also be an invaluable tool for students who are learning to write.

It is undoubtedly helpful to create a meta-notion for the practice of writing. It has been fairly easy for me to create a scenario which effectively deals with the concept of metawriting, and much of the writing practice works nicely with this concept. There are some aspects of writing which do not fit neatly into this concept, however, like the idea of style. Every writer needs to develop their own writing style, and often this aspect of effective writing seems to develop almost intuitively. It is a well-known truth that writers who try to have style usually end up having no style at all. Therefore thinking about style seems to be contrary to effective writing. Overall, however, it seems clear that the concept of metawriting could be an effective tool for today's developing writers.

William Glasser first recommended conducting class meetings back in 1969 as a part of his "Reality Therapy" program (Glasser, 1969). The program was set up to help students with behavior problems figure out how to be more responsible for their actions. It was also designed to address the goal of allowing students to become more actively involved in their learning, and to help develop closer connections between students and schools. The idea behind class meetings is to share some of the responsibility of managing the classroom with the students (Charles, 1999).

Glasser advocates three different types of class meetings: open ended, diagnostic curriculum and problem solving (Glasser, 1969). Open ended meetings are designed to allow students to discuss a variety of topics (McIntyre, 2001). Diagnostic Curriculum meetings are designed to allow the teacher to evaluate the knowledge possessed by the students before beginning a new unit (McIntyre, 2001). Problem solving meetings are designed to allow teachers and students to deal with problems that arise in class (McIntyre, 2001). Possible problem solving topics include rules of the class, seating charts, problems at home or in society and specific incidents that happen in the classroom like a fight.

Class meetings are now a widely endorsed tool for teachers in both elementary and secondary settings. Many theorists advocate or incorporate the use of meetings into their classroom management ideas. Such theorists include Rudolf Dreikurs who can be considered a co-founder of the concept with his landmark "Psychology in the Classroom" (Broder, 2000), Nelson, Lott and Glenn whose Positive Discipline integrates class meetings into one of the more popular discipline plans in the country today (Charles, 1999), and Alfie Kohn who has advocated meetings in numerous publications (Kohn, 1993).

Research has also found that classroom meetings are effective tools for improving student behavior. Students who participate in class meetings improve their behavior significicantly more than those in a control group (Sorsdahl & Sanchez, 1985). It has also been proven that class meetings improve the climate of a classroom (Broder, 2000).

With all of these psychologists and researchers endorsing classroom meetings it would seem logical that many teachers would use meetings in their curriculum. My experience has shown, however, that many teachers at the secondary level do not use these meetings. I believe there are several reasons for this, including the small amount of time that secondary teachers usually have for their classes, and the difficulty of implementing the results of these meetings, especially diagnostic curriculum meetings.

In my classroom I use class meetings in both planned and unplanned ways. A good example of a topic for an unplanned meeting would be the September 11th tragedy. We were in school on that day and the events were so overwhelming that I believed it was a good time for a problem solving meeting. This gave me a chance to inform the students about what had happened while also giving the students a chance to ask questions and process their emotions in a safe environment. Shortly after the 11th President Bush asked America's young people to each donate a dollar to Afghan children's relief. The next day we held a class meeting in each of my classes to discuss what the President had asked and to beging taking donations for the fund. The meeting gave the students a chance to argue both for and against giving the dollar and helped us to not only understand why someone would choose to give or not to give, but also the difference in the values that students have. All of these meetings have been a great success.

I have had more mixed results when running the diagnostic curriculum meetings. At the first of these meetings that I held I asked students what they wanted to learn about Native Americans. The students threw back a flurry of answers ranging from dancing techniques to food. I took this knowledge home and drew up a research project that allowed the students to choose their own topic, research it on the internet, and then present their findings to the class. The project was a great success and students presented excellent projects that we were instructive to us all.

I have had more problems with the curriculum meetings since that time. Because of the recent emphasis on test scores and state performance indicators it has become harder for me to relent to my student's requests for a two week project on, say, the Salem Witch Trials. I feel that though the students have good ideas for what they want to study it is still my responsibility to steer them toward the information that the state and I want them to know. Focusing on the economics of the colonial regions may not be as much fun as learning about witch trials, but it is my job to help these students learn the materials. And, after all, can't a good teacher be defined as one who makes students want to learn what they need to learn?

Class meetings are an excellent tool for developing community inside the classroom. Studies have proven that they are also effective for reaching students with behavior problems. Teachers are wise to use meetings to their advantage. Whether it be assessing prior knowledge, letting the students in on the curriculum choices or simply solving classroom problems, meetings can be an ideal tool for creating a climate of caring and cooperation in a classroom.

Teachers wear many caps. From resident expert on their subject area to nanny or nursemaid, the job of a teacher is multi-tasking at its best (or worst). One of the many roles that teachers often play is that of peacemaker. Interpersonal conflict is inevitable in a classroom full of adolescents and it naturally falls to teachers to become experts at conflict resolution.

There are numerous ways to approach the peacemaking process but two of the most common are mediation and arbitration. Arbitration is the simple but extremely difficult process of resolving a conflict by having a disinterested third party make the decision for the parties involved in the conflict (Charles, 1999). The classic example of an arbitration is a judge or jury deciding the guilt of a defendant in the criminal justice system. Arbitration can only work if there is an understand among the parties involved that the arbitrator's decision will be final (Scholl, 2001).

Mediation refers to the process of resolving a conflict by assisting the parties involved in arriving at their own resolution (Charles, 1999). A mediator typically attempts to help the parties re-focus themselves from the position they have in the conflict to the personal interest they seem to have in the conflict. For example, a mediator may start a mediation by determining the personal interests that lie behind a each party's commitment to their position in the fight. Once the mediator is successful in helping both parties define their problems in terms of their individual interests, he or she tries to get both parties to generate new alternatives to the problem. A successful mediation will end when both parties arrive at an alternative that satisfies the interests of both parties (Scholl, 2001).

As a middle school history teacher I am often confronted with interpersonal conflicts between students. Whether it be a young boy who keeps pestering a girl at his table or two best friends who have decided they "hate" each other, I am often placed in the position of peacemaker.

My experience has taught me that both arbitration and mediation can be effective tools for resolving conflicts. I find that arbitration is usually appropriate when time is short or when the students do not seem to have an interest or ability to resolve the conflict between themselves. A typical example of this might be a girl who comes to me between classes and says that a boy hit her on the head in the hall. She is angry and wants him to apologize. If I am in a hurry and I do not have time to mediate this conflict I may tell the student to apologize and to not do it again. Usually the student will comply and the less-than-heartfelt apology will emerge. Nothing really gets solved, but the problem that exists in the moment does does get resolved.

A more effective way to handle this interaction might be to take some time to mediate. Ask the students what happened, ask the boy who hit the girl why he did it and then begin the process of breaking down the error in the interation. Why was it wrong to hit her? Would you like to be hit? How do you think it makes her feel? Ask the girl questions about what she would like to see this young boy do to make it up to her. Usually a suggestion of "would it be better if he apologized to you?" will get things rolling. The goal is to get these two students to a place where they can understand each other and promise to not let this problem happen again.

The interesting thing about mediation is that it often relies upon arbitration to be effective. For example if the boy in the above scenario agrees to not hit this girl again and the girl agrees to accept his apology, then I may throw in a small threat. Something along the lines of "Good. But if this does happen again I am going to have to talk to Mr B (principal) about it." This technique is usually extremely effective for detering future behavior, but does create an arbitration scenario for the next conflict. If the girl comes to me in the future and reports that this boy hit her again then there is no longer a mediation process, now there is only arbitratrion: I will solve this problem by taking the student to a higher authority.

It would be wonderful to be able to have the time to mediate all of the small and large conflicts that occur on a daily basis in a middle school. I have no doubt that conflict resolution skills are one of the most valuable tools that we can equip our students with. Unfortunately, teachers often do not have enough time to effectively mediate conflicts. Instead we often become arbitrators of conflicts that continue to arise because of our inability to properly mediate them. It seems clear that teachers need not only time but also training to be able to properly mediate in their classrooms. Techniques such as class meetings, talk times and days devoted to character education can be helpful in this regard.

According to the Illinois State Police, a gang is defined as "any combination, alliance, network, conspiracy or understanding of three or more persons with an established hierarchy, that through its membership engages in a course or pattern of criminal activity" (ISP, 2001). Gangs typically deal in drug distribution, physical assault and weapons-related offenses, and can be found in both urban and suburban areas (NCES, 1995).

Information on gangs in Urbana, Illinois where I teach is not easy to come by. Research into the names of the gangs that have a presence in our community turned up dead end after dead end. The Urbana Police, for example, have no published information about gangs in Urbana at all. The Illinois State Police has no specific information about the Urbana community either. In order to find the information that I needed I had to track down the police officer who is specifically responsible for my school and ask her for the information.

It turns out that there are many small gangs at work in the Urbana area but that the two main gang influences are the Gangster Disciples (GDs) and the Latin Kings (LKs). The main symbols for these two organizations are shown below

The Gangster Disciple's Symbol	The Latin King's Symbol

In recent years gangs have begun to use professional team sportswear to represent their membership. The GDs and LKs also have garments that can be identified. The GDs wear Duke and Georgetown apparel with the colors of black and blue being prominent. The LKs wear Los Angeles Kings apparel with the colors of black, gold and silver being prominent (ISP, 2001). It is important to understand, however, that wearing professional team wear does not necessarily represent gang affiliation. Other supporting indicators are necessary in order to establish gang affiliation. (ISP, 2001)

The structure of the gangs that have a presence in the Champaign/Urbana community is very complex and well organized. Gangs are controlled by leaders who are like the CEOs of corporations. These leaders direct the criminal or business activities of their members and establish a hiearchy that enforces rules and orders. If a member of a gang violates an order he or she is given a punishment that typically involves a physical beating, but may also include homicide (ISP, 2001). Gangs may recruit in schools, and the age of gang members can range from adults all the way to grade school children (Burnett & Walz, 1999)

As a teacher at the Urbana Middle School gangs definitely have an effect on me. Though no concrete data exists for the number of youth from Urbana who are involved in gangs, it is clear from my observations that there are a significant number of students who are involved in the gang life. I have observed many students using gang hand symbols, have seen gang grafitti on notebooks, lockers and bathroom stalls, and have overheard many conversations that have involved the subjects of the gang life. I have had some experience with gangs in the past so I have felt fairly well prepared in dealing with these incidents, but it is clear that there needs to be a thorough system worked out for how to deal with gang influences in our schools.

Burnett & Walz, in there paper on this subject, propose eight interventions that can be used to deal with gangs in the schools. Of these eight interventions, I believe that educating today's teachers about how gangs develop and how to respond to them is very important. More importantly, I feel that it is our job to attempt to reach out to students who we believe may be involved in gangs, or who may be a potential gang recruitee. We need to talk to these these students honestly and attempt to create relationships with them that can give them positive support in their challenge to make good choices in their lives. We also need to make special efforts to empower them to become more successful in school so they can have a viable alternative to the gang lifestyle. These are not easy tasks, and gangs appear to be something of a minor threat in our community, so it might be easy for us to not make these tasks a priority. However if we are to serve the needs of all of our students then we, as educators, need to be serious about addressing the threat of gangs in our schools. We need to have the courage to talk to students and to help them create alternatives to the gang lifestyle. Our actions could be the difference between life and death.

Corporal punishment, or the practice of physically hurting a student as a consequence for negative behavior, is still with us. Only twenty-seven states currently prohibit corporal punishment in their public schools (aap.org, 2001). There are many reasons why coroporal punishment is frowned upon. It is considered ineffective and abusive. It can unintentionally cause serious physical damage and it can have pedophyllic undertones. It trains children to use violence and can actually lower a child's IQ. Perhaps most importantly, it uses fear as a motivator for appopropriate behavior (Head, 2001).
In America today there are 10 states that are considered the "Top 10" states for coporal punishment. These states include Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Texas, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky and Oklahoma. According to Jeff Charles (2000), seven of these states have below average graduation rates, no significantly improved crime rates and a higher teen pregnancy rate than the national average.

Here in Illinois there are many schools that still use various forms of corporal punishment, though all are private schools. Clicking here will take you to the website of a private Christian School which uses "swatting" as a punishment.

If the evidence stacks up neatly against corporal punishment use, and few schools use it anymore, why do some still believe that it is effective? It should be conceded that corporal punishment does have some advantages. Students who receive corporal punishment do view it as unpleasant (as compared to an in-school suspension or a detention which may be viewed non-chalantly) (Yancey, 2001). Another advantage to hitting children is that the punishment can be done quickly and then be over with. It is also a clear consequence for an action, instead of a delayed or vague consequence which students may not relate to their misbehavior (Vockell, 1991).

In the Urbana School District where I work corporal punishment is not allowed. I personally have never struck a child and I have no desire to do so. I believe that using violence as a means of corrective behavior is wrong and should be completely abolished. It is similar to a comedian who has to use profane language or subjects to get jokes. Good comedians can make people laugh without swearing at them. Good teachers can make students learn without hitting them. I do believe it is that simple.

I also believe that corporal punishment serves the more subtle, dangerous purpose of creating students who do not question authority. I worked in South Korea for 14 months as a teacher of ESL and during that time I was encouraged to have younger students go into a corner and hold their arms above their heads when they misbehaved. I never used this practice, but I did talk to other teachers who did and found that at times students would be forced to hold their hands over their heads for up to 10 or 15 minutes. This kind of abuse was expected in the Korean culture where dissent is frowned upon and children can be beaten with a stick for talking out of turn in class.

Here in America our society is based upon a healthy degree of skepticism about not only our government, but also big business, the media and labor. I believe that children who are taught that speaking out of turn will result in pain are less likely to question not only their leaders, but also their teachers and employers. I do not believe that the goal of our education system should be to create mindless robots who heed the call of the government, business or their teachers. Corporal punishment serves the purpose of keeping students quiet and well-behaved. Two results that may have severe negative effects in the long term.

Unfortunately there has been a growing movement toward using corporal punishment in this country. As Ginger Kastor pointed out, George W. Bush recently tried attach legislation to the "Teacher Protection" bill that would have protected teachers and administrators from lawsuits stemming from the use of coporal punishment (Kastor, 2001). An interesting side note to this fact is that Bush's base of support comes primarily from the states that still have legalized corporal punishment. In fact, 63% of Bush's electoral college votes came from states with legalized corporal punishment, as compared to Al Gore's 15% showing in those states (irregulartimes.com, 2001). It seems clear that we may be in for more legislation of this kind in the future from Mr. Bush.

If we are to educate the whole child we must learn to lovingly correct the whole child, not to beat or harm them. Hopefully our leaders and the teachers in this country will come to understand that fact as so many of us already have.

Glasser's idea of the Quality School would face many problems if it were accepted wholeheartedly by a large city school system. The Quality School idea deals not only with the managements of the classroom, but also with the way classes are conducted. Teachers would not only have to adopt a new way of handling problems in the classroom, they would also have adopt a new way of teaching. This would be a difficult task indeed.

Some of the ways that teachers would need to change their classrooms include the climate, the assignments the evaluations and the interactions with the students. Teachers would need to create what Glasser terms a "warm, supportive classroom climate" (Charles, 1999). To establish this climate teachers would need to be willing to be vulnerable with their students. This may be very difficult for some teachers to do and even harder for administrators to dictate, especially in a large school.

Teachers in this school would also need to structure assignments that could be classified as what Glasser calls "useful work". Useful work can be defined as work that consists of skills, instead of information, that students can see as being valuable in their lives (Charles, 1999). This means assignments should be directly related to an important skill, something that students actually want to learn, something the teacher believes is useful and also something that is required for the college entrance exams (Charles, 1999). Again, it is difficult to imagine that all teachers would be able to reform their curriculum in this way, and even harder to imagine administrators effectively monitoring this kind of curriculum. It is clear, however, a school-wide curriculum that dictates specific performance standards for the students in the classroom may be a first step in attempting to get teachers to use the Glasser method.

Teachers in this school would also have to change the types of evaluations and interactions that they have with students. Instead of focusing on correcting behavior, teachers in a Quality School are expected to be extremely encouraging of students, and to show them the exact way they will be expected to succeed. Students would be encouraged to use self-evaluations as a way to improve their work. Expectations for the students behavior and product would increase. Teachers would need to continue to be supportive and nurturing of students who need struggle, and challenging for those that excel. This would require a lot of dedication on the part of the teachers and, yet again, would be hard to evaluate from an administrative point of view.

Perhaps the most challenging task for a large city school adopting the Glasser method would be the confused students. Students who have not had a chance to develop within a system that emphasizes what I have described above would be somewhat overwhelmed by the changes in their school. Many students would, of course, readily embrace the new systems. But there would be other students who would find the change both emotionally and psychologically difficult. It is my belief that it would take some time for students to be able to understand the new expectations that have been placed upon them. Self-evaluations, for example, would take quite a bit of time for students to learn to do effectively. Useful work would also take some getting used to. There are many students who may not respond to these new changes and may need special attention such as tutoring in the methods or perhaps and after-school program that specialized in skills like self-evaluation.

I believe that the most important change that would need to be effected in this school would be the language of the teachers, administrators and support staff. All of these groups would need to be instructed in the ideas of choice language, or language that focuses on the student's choice in his or her behavior. It would be essential that employees at the school focus on helping students to undestand that their behavior depends upon their choices. Language would be the best way to help students develop this understanding.

Turning a large city school into a Glasser school would pose many challenges. I have only touched on a few in this paper. Through organized leadership, teacher buy-in and a lot of patience it seems clear that this task could be done. It would not be easy and I would not envy the adminstrators who would lead this task, but it is definitely possible and would be quite the sight to see.

A Critical Analysis of the
Illinois State Learning Standards
for History in the Middle School

Introduction:

During his campaign for the Presidency George W. Bush promised to test students each year, and hold all students accountable, regardless of their race or economic status (Schouten, 2001). While it is debatable whether or not Bush has the mandate of the American people to enact these promises, it is clear that his administration is serious about pushing test scores and standards as the basis of school accountability (Schouten, 2001).

This new reality raises many questions for educators. Recently during a social studies department meeting I was given a copy of the 7th grade ITBS test. As I looked over the questions I was comforted that many of the skills were ones that I believe most of my students understand. Unfortunately I was also befuddled by the difficulty and apparent trickery of many of the questions. Looking at this test left me a little confused about my role as a middle school 8th grade American History teacher. I began asking myself some questions. How do I know, for example, if my curriculum is properly preparing my students for these rigorous tests? Who makes these tests and how do I know they are qualified to be writing them? Moreover, what are the psychological or philosophical basis' for these standards? Are they sound, and can they fit into progressive classroom management plans?

This paper is my attempt to answer these questions. My goal is to critically analyze the Illinois State Learning Standards for Middle School American History. I specifically want to find out what psychological foundation is used in the creation of these standards and theorize how they can be effectively implemented into today's classrooms.

History of Standards

The idea of standards for our nation's schools really began after the publication of "A Nation at Risk" in 1983. This groundbreaking report declared that what was "unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur -- others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments." (NCEE, 1983). The report caused quite a stir in both Washington and around the country. The concern for the condition of our educational system drew attention to the idea of creating standards for schools.

The process of formally making schools accountable through standards really began six years later in 1989. At the Education Summit of that year then-President George Bush and the nation's governors finalized the national education goals. The summit also created the National Education Goals Panel which began to collect data on progress toward the six national education goals. There were also several private organizations, like the National Councils of Teachers of Mathematics, that were charged with setting national standards. By 1994 most of the curriculum areas had national standards in place (Allen, 1994).

The Illinois state goals were adopted by the Illinois Department of Education in 1992, and the current standards were officially adopted in 1997 (Owen, 2001). The standards are created by a committee of the Illinois Board of Education. The committee includes members of the Illinois Council of the Social Studies. After the goals are created, tests (ISATs) are generated from the goals by a private corporation (Owen, 2001). This corporation then asks teachers across the state to write questions for each specific goal or standard. Teachers send the questions back to the corporation who holds a roundtable with teachers and officials from the Board of Education to decide which questions will be included on the tests. After the questions are finalized the corproation creates the final versions of the tests. There is a lot of money involved in this whole process as each teacher who writes questions for the tests gets paid, as do the members of Board of Education's committee and, of course, the private corporation (Owen, 2001).

Analysis of the Standards

I chose to analyze the standards on the basis of their effectiveness as objectives. Most of the standards are written using the Bloom's taxonomy created by Dr. Benjamin Bloom, of the University of Chicago (Bloom, 1956). The taxonomy creates divisions for the verbs that are used in objectives. The divisions lay out in the following manner (Wong & Wong, 1998):

Thinking Heiarchy 6 = higher level 1= lower level	Levels of Thinking	Explanation of thinking
Six	Evaluation	Thinking tells teacher that a student can appraise, asses, or criticize on the basis of specific criteria.
Five	Synthesis	Thinking tells teacher that a student can originate, combine and integrate parts of prior knowledge into aproduct, plan, or proposal that is new.
Four	Analysis	Thinking tells teacher that a student can examine, take apart, classify, predict and draw conclusions.
Three	Application	Thinking tells teacher that a student can transfer selected information to a real-life problem or a new task without a lot of direction.
Two	Comprehension	Thinking tells teacher that a student can grasp and interpret prior learning.
One	Knowledge	Thinking tells teacher that a student can recall or recognize information in the way it was presented or learned.

Bloom proposes in his taxonomy that all levels of knowledge or thinking need to be addressed for a teacher to successfully engage students. He and many other psychologists after him have take exception to much of the instruction that goes on in public schools today, which is focused on levels 3-6 without addressing higher level thinking. Since teachers are now supposed to take their ques from the standards that have been created by the state it is worth analyzing these standards using the Bloom's taxonomy.

State Goal 16 (History) of the Illinois State Learning Standards states that students should be able to "Understand events, trends, individuals and movements shaping the history of Illinois, the United States and other nations" (ISBE, 2001). In order to help teachers to accomplish this goal the ISBE created five learning standards for this goal. They are:

Learning Standard 16A:	Apply the skills of historical analysis and interpretation.
Learning Standard 16B:	Understand the development of significant political events.
Learning Standard 16C:	Understand the development of economic systems.
Learning Standard 16D:	Understand Illinois, United States and world social history.
Learning Standard 16E:	Understand Illinois, United States and world environmental history.

Analyzing these standards with Bloom's Taxonomy reveals that four of the five standards address thinking on the level of Knowledge and Comprehension (the verb "understand" is vague enough to be in either category). Only one of the standards (16A) attempts to challenge students on a higher level, and that is only the third level of Application. Clearly, these standards are not designed to address the higher levels of thinking that Bloom and many others believe is so necessary for effective education.

The Illinois Board of Education also includes twenty-five benchmarks with the five standards in order to help Middle School teachers to identify whether or not their students are achieving the standards. The reader can view these twenty five benchmarks by clicking here:

The verbs used in the benchmarks fall into the following categories:

Verb Used	# of uses - % of total	Level of Thinking (level in taxonomy)
"Describe"	16 - (64%)	Knowledge (1)
"Identify"	4 - (16%)	Knowledge (1)
"Explain"	3 - (12%)	Comprehension (2)
"Compare"	1 - (4%)	Analysis (4)
"Make Inferences"	1 - (4%)	Analysis (4)

Using the table above it easy to see that the vast majority (92%) of the ISBE's benchmarks address only the first two levels of thinking on the taxonomy. Only two of the twenty-five benchmarks (8%) address thinking on any sort of higher level and that is only level four, Analysis.

Given this data, it is easy to conclude that the ISBE's committee does not value the higher levels of thinking that has become a foundation for creative and effective education. It is also clear the tests created from these standards and benchmarks are going to mostly address lower levels of thinking.

Application of Analysis

What do these conclusions mean for a middle school history teacher who is trying to create lessons that will