One of the most common problems we’ve noticed for good teachers who struggle with managing misbehavior is a lack of consistency with delivery of diverse consequences with consideration for the function (purpose) when applying a corrective procedure. Teachers typically have 2-3 strategies used for most misbehavior regardless of the function, like reprimand, time out, or calling for a student to be removed. The problem with this is low-magnitude behaviors tend to occur repeatedly as the consequence (reprimand) may not be functionally based and does not compete with the reinforcer (e.g. peer attention, avoiding working, etc). As a result, these consequences are ineffective and may be inadvertently reinforcing undesirable behavior. We would highly recommend developing a list of all behavior in your classroom that concern you, then dividing them into 3 groups. One strength of this approach is that it increases the consistency of your corrections and reduces emotion-based consequences.
- The first group is for low magnitude misbehavior that while annoying, is not continuously disrupting the flow of instruction. Behaviors like pencil tapping, talking out of turn, out of seats, or other low intensity and habitual or impulsive misbehavior.
- The second group of behaviors should be for what might be considered moderate magnitude misbehavior. Behaviors like non-compliance, yelling out, running around the classroom, etc.
- The third group are behaviors that are commonly addressed in the school code of conduct like physically dangerous acts, threats, and open defiance. Word of Caution: Out of school suspension (OSS) is a common consequence for these types of behaviors. For “frequent flyers”, OSS may be rewarding their behavior! Try alternatives like lunch/after school detention, or internal school suspension.
Once your list is complete, attempt to determine why (the function) you think the misbehaviors commonly occur. This is important because you may be inadvertently rewarding misbehavior with your consequence. For example, putting a student on time out who is seeking to escape work is likely an ineffective consequence. And reprimanding a student who is seeking teacher attention is like saying “hey, I love your misbehavior, would you please misbehave more”! Here are the common reasons students “misbehave”:
- Unintentional/habitual or impulsive behavior (e.g. impulsive calling out, pencil tapping)
- Attention from peers or staff
- Escape or delay (skills deficit or motivational deficit)
- Access things or activities • Sensory (feels good!)
Now create a menu of potential non-progressive consequences that aligns appropriate and function based consequences related to the magnitude of the misbehavior. Non-progressive consequences are characterized by being the “same” every time. For example, if a student is displaying low magnitude misbehavior to escape work, consider using a work out (i.e. withhold access to things they enjoy) until their work is done. This would happen every time. Or perhaps a time owed where for every second a student is out of their seat, they “owe” time away from a favorite activity like recess or even transitioning in the hallway. This is also good for students who call out (e.g. 15 seconds time owed for each call out). If a student throws paper, restitution (i.e. clean it up) might be appropriate. If they continue to throw lots of paper, consider using overcorrection, which might entail cleaning up all of the paper on the floor, even the paper that they didn’t throw. If the student runs in the hallway, positive practice that simply entails requiring them to walk back would be effective or perhaps providing a “misbehavior point” (a.k.a. “demerit”) for each occurrence of misbehavior. This is good for a student who has a high frequency of lower magnitude behaviors. When the student earns X amount of points for the misbehavior, a consequence is applied like completing an action plan (see my Ditch to Disney Series), or 5 minutes time owed off of a favorite activity, etc. The key to dealing with lower magnitude misbehaviors is to have consequences that are just “annoying enough” to the student and just enough that the teacher feels comfortable consistently delivering them in a business-like manner.
For continued lower or moderate magnitude behaviors that are “new”, you can also consider using progressive consequences. These consequences move from lower to higher magnitude and should match to the intensity of the misbehavior they are intended to punish. If behavior becomes frequent and deliberate, fade the prompt (i.e. warning) and apply the correction as a non-progressive consequence to avoid prompt dependency (i.e. students know they can push things so far before a receiving the consequence). A great resource for understanding progressive vs. non-progressive consequences is CHAMPS Proactive Strategies for Classroom Management, by Randy Sprick.
For a sample of the function based consequences described here, check out our link at http://schoolleadershipsolutions.com/resources-2/ It is not perfect, but it will give you a sense of how consequences can be differentiated based on the function.
FINAL NOTE: The above strategies are meant to guide staff with conceptualizing function-based consequences as reactive interventions to misbehaviors that are disruptive to the classroom environment. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THESE STRATEGIES BE USED WITHOUT THE USE OF POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. Positively reinforcing appropriate replacement behaviors that serve the same purpose (function) as the behaviors targeted for reduction is essential. Using these consequences without adequate reinforcement (rule of thumb is 4-1 ratio of positive to negative) for appropriate behavior will likely result in an increase of disruptive behavior. Reinforcement with specific feedback for appropriate behavior is necessary for effectively reducing or eliminating misbehavior. We believe the best reinforcement occurs naturally in the form of meaningful work and strong student and teacher relationships developed and nurtured daily. If the students like the work and like the teacher, misbehavior will be held to a minimum, and the above strategies will have maximum effect.
By Paul Gavoni and Frank Krukauskas
Paul has successfully supported multiple struggling schools in the turnaround process. As a certificated behavior analyst who concentrates on organizational behavior management and behavioral leadership, Paul provides administrative teams, teachers, and staff with coaching and consultation in analyzing and developing behavior and performance management systems directly aligned with student achievement. Contact Paul at gavonip@hotmail.com or check out more articles at schoolleadershipsolutions.com
Recent Comments