The William Rogers Model

Written by Administrator

The William Rogers Model of Decisive Discipline

Rogers suggests that indecisive teachers hope for compliance but, in the real world,
rarely receive it. Decisive teachers expect compliance, they don't demand it.
Decisive teachers recognize that they cannot make students do anything. Instead
their verbal language and body language convey an expectation that their
reasonable requests will be followed.

Key Ideas

If teachers can keep the language transactions at the least intrusive level they will
keep the unnecessary 'heat' down. Instead of snatching objects off a student's desk,
Rogers proposes that a directional choice be given. An example would be 'Donna, I
want you to put that magazine in your bag or my desk - thanks.' (Thanks is said
expectantly, not pleadingly or sarcastically). Choice gives the ownership back to the
student. If Donna argues, you can redirect or make the consequences clear.

These consequences can be immediate or deferred according to the situation and

context. It is not the severity of the consequences, but rather the certainty of the
consequences that makes them work. The key is to avoid boxing yourself or the
student into a no-win situation.

Levels of Decisive Teacher Action

Rogers proposes four ever-increasing levels of decisive teacher action. As with any
skill development, each of these steps requires practice.

Step 1: Tactical ignoring as a first action.

Tactical ignoring of disruptive behavior, when done consciously, is a decisive

discipline strategy. It involves signaling that you are aware of the disruptive, often
attention-seeking behavior, but refuse to acknowledge it. It involves knowing what
behavior to ignore and knowing how long you can ignore the behavior before taking
further action - moving to step two.

Step 2: Simple direction or rule restatement.

Step two, directional language, addresses the behavior you want to see. 'Nathan, I
want you to put the pen down thanks and face this way.' 'Donna and Michelle, face
this way and listen. Ta.' Saying 'thanks' or TA helps mitigate those times when a
simple direction to a student may be taken as something more - a challenge, an
ultimatum. 'When/then' or 'after/when' or 'yes/when' is better than 'No you can't
because__'

Directional language can also be focused on the rules. 'We've got a fair rule for__
use it, thanks.' Again keep the language brief, focused, positive, and expectant.
 'Michelle, we've got a rule for asking questions, use it thanks.' Relating to
ruleminders is the strategy of causal or direct questions. Avoid 'Why?' questions.
Instead concentrate on 'What are you doing?' and 'What should you be doing?'
questions.

Step 3: Secondary behavior (giving a clear choice).

Step three - the calm, yet firm, repeating of step two - can be enhanced by dignifying
what Rogers calls 'secondary behavior Secondary behavior is that behavior that
often follows a teacher's directive statement. Sometimes teachers see this behavior
('I wasn't doing anything' or 'I was just sharpening my pencil'), complete with insolent,
arrogant, and defiant nonverbal body and facial messages, as being more disturbing
than the primary misbehavior. Don't get trapped by secondary behavior

When Donna is directed to stop talking to a classmate, turn around, and face front,
she responds by saying 'I was just showing him how to solve the assignment, why
are you picking on me?' This is the student's effort, conscious or not, to divert the
teacher's attention away from the primary behavior - talking while the teacher is
presenting a lesson.

Dignifying a secondary behavior simply acknowledges that it may be true, it does not
necessarily condone it. 'That may be the case, Donna, but I want you to stop talking,
turn around and pay attention to the lesson.' Dignifying her reason for talking helps
defuse the situation and helps avoid unwanted and unwarranted escalation of the
problem. Who knows, she may have been helping a classmate.

If redirective statements have not worked after three times, they are not going to
work. Repeating the directions further will be self-defeating. If the disruptive behavior
continues or if the student continues to be argumentative, the consequences
(immediate or deferred) need to be pointed out. If a classroom teacher has clear, fair
rules covering key aspects of classroom life, and if short and long-term
consequences for infringement of learning, safety, and treatment (mutual respect
and dignity) are outlined, the choice can be given to students to work by the fair rules
or face the consequences of their 'choice'.

Step 4: Imposing time-out.

If redirection, rule restatement, and alternative choices do not work, step four comes
into play. Here, the teacher imposes some form of time-out, ranging from in-class
isolation to exiting the classroom. Time-out sends a clear message to the entire
school community about non-negotiable behaviors - from persistent minor
disruptions to ongoing provocation and threatened individual or community safety.
Unless ineffectively administered, time-out is not a punishment. Students should be
told why they are receiving time-out. It is, according to Glasser (1969), a time to
reflect on one's own behavior and to come up with a solution to the problem that is
acceptable to both the student and the teacher.

In the most extreme cases, and these occur rarely, teachers need a crisis plan for
out-of-control children. A cue system of some sort may be needed for dangerous
students or for those who refuse to leave the classroom when directed. The use of
welfare support groups and other counseling techniques may be called for. Parental
involvement, if practical, may be used.

Summary

Roger's Decisive Discipline model borrows from those of other discipline gurus
especially other interactionalists. He contrasts logical consequences and punishment
just as Dreikers does - favoring logical consequences. He offers attention seeking
and a need to belong as motives for misbehavior. just as Dreikers does.

He expands upon Glasser's The Quality School contrast of the characteristics

between boss and a leader - favoring the latter posture. He stresses the value of
rules and avoids asking misbehaving students why they have misbehaved as does
Glasser in Schools Without Failure (1969). He maximizes student choice as does
Glasser in Control Theory in the Classroom (1986).

Rogers states that discipline is an essential factor of our leadership in classrooms,

students need it. Thoughtful, planned discipline language will improve the quality of
discipline transactions by reducing unnecessary emotional exchanges and focusing
on the primary issues.

More information about this model may be found in the following references:

* Rogers, W. A. 1993, The language of discipline: A practical approach to effective

classroom discipline, Northcoate House, Plymouth.
* Rogers W.A., 1989, Making a Discipline Plan, Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.

William Rogers Model

Ditulis oleh Administrator

William Rogers Model Disiplin Tegas

Rogers menunjukkan bahawa guru tidak tegas mengharapkan kepatuhan tetapi, di

dunia nyata, jarang menerimanya. Tegas guru mengharapkan kepatuhan, mereka
tidak menuntut hal itu. Menentukan guru menyedari bahawa mereka tidak boleh
membuat pelajar melakukan apa pun. Sebaliknya bahasa verbal dan bahasa tubuh
menyampaikan harapan bahawa permintaan wajar mereka akan diikuti.

Kunci Idea

Jika guru dapat menjaga transaksi Bahasa pada tahap mengganggu sekurang-
kurangnya mereka akan menjaga yang tidak perlu 'panas' down. Alih-alih merebut
objek dari meja pelajar, Rogers mencadangkan bahawa pilihan terarah diberikan.
Sebuah contoh akan 'Donna, saya ingin anda untuk meletakkan bahawa majalah di
tas anda atau meja saya -. terima kasih' (Terima kasih dikatakan penuh berharap,
tidak memohon atau sinis). Pilihan memberikan pemilikan kembali kepada pelajar.
Jika Donna berpendapat, anda boleh mengarahkan atau membuat kesan yang jelas.
Ini konsekuensi dapat segera atau ditangguhkan sesuai dengan situasi dan konteks.
Ini bukan tahap keparahan akibat, melainkan kepastian konsekuensi yang membuat
mereka bekerja. Kuncinya adalah untuk mengelakkan tinju sendiri atau pelajar ke
dalam situasi yang tidak-menang.

Tingkat Aksi Guru Tegas

Rogers mencadangkan empat tahap yang semakin meningkat tindakan guru yang
menentukan. Seperti halnya pembangunan kemahiran, masing-masing langkah
memerlukan latihan.

Langkah 1: Taktis mengabaikan sebagai tindakan pertama.

Taktikal mengabaikan perilaku yang mengganggu, bila dilakukan secara sedar,

merupakan strategi disiplin yang menentukan. Ini melibatkan isyarat bahawa anda
sedar akan mengganggu, sering mencari perhatian perilaku, tapi menolak untuk
mengakuinya. Ini melibatkan tahu apa perilaku untuk mengabaikan dan mengetahui
berapa lama anda boleh mengabaikan perilaku sebelum mengambil tindakan lebih
lanjut - bergerak ke langkah dua.

Langkah 2: Wikipedia arah atau Peraturan penyajian kembali.

Langkah dua, Bahasa arah, alamat perilaku yang anda ingin lihat. 'Nathan, saya
ingin anda meletakkan pena di terima kasih dan wajah dengan cara ini. " 'Donna dan
Michelle, wajah cara ini dan mendengar. Ta. " 'Terima kasih' atau TA Mengatakan
membantu mengurangkan saat-saat ketika arah sederhana untuk pelajar boleh
diambil sebagai sesuatu yang lebih - cabaran, ultimatum. 'Ketika / kemudian' atau
'selepas / ketika' atau 'yes / ketika' lebih baik dari 'Tidak, kau tidak boleh because__'

Bahasa Directional juga boleh difokuskan pada aturan. "Kita punya peraturan yang
adil for__ menggunakannya, terima kasih." Sekali lagi menjaga singkat bahasa,
fokus, positif, dan hamil. 'Michelle, kita punya aturan untuk mengajukan soalan,
menggunakannya terima kasih. " Berkaitan dengan ruleminders adalah strategi
kausal atau soalan langsung. Elakkan "Mengapa?" soalan. Sebaliknya menumpukan
perhatian pada "Apa yang kamu lakukan?" dan "Apa yang harus anda lakukan?"
soalan.

Langkah 3: perilaku Sekunder (memberikan pilihan yang jelas).

Langkah ketiga - yang tenang, namun tegas, mengulangi langkah dua - boleh
dipertingkatkan dengan dignifying perilaku kedua apa Rogers panggilan 'perilaku
Sekunder adalah bahawa kelakuan yang sering mengikuti kenyataan arahan
seorang guru. Kadang-kadang guru melihat perilaku ini ('Aku tidak melakukan apa-
apa' atau 'Aku baru saja mengasah pensil saya'), lengkap dengan tubuh nonverbal
kurang ajar, sombong, dan mencabar dan mesej wajah, sebagai lebih mengganggu
berbanding dengan perilaku utama. Jangan terjebak oleh perilaku kedua

Ketika Donna diarahkan untuk berhenti bercakap dengan rakan-rakan sekelas,

berbalik, dan depan wajahnya, ia bertindak balas dengan mengatakan 'Saya hanya
menunjukkan kepadanya bagaimana menyelesaikan tugas, mengapa anda memilih
pada saya? " Ini adalah usaha pelajar, sedar atau tidak, untuk mengalihkan
perhatian guru menjauh dari perilaku utama - bicara sementara guru adalah
menyajikan pelajaran.

Dignifying perilaku kedua hanya mengakui bahawa mungkin benar, ini tidak bererti
memaafkannya. "Itu mungkin menjadi kes, Donna, tapi aku ingin kau berhenti
bercakap, berbalik dan memperhatikan pelajaran." Dignifying alasan dia untuk
bercakap membantu meredakan situasi dan membantu mengelakkan eskalasi yang
tidak diingini dan tidak beralasan masalah. Siapa tahu, ia mungkin telah membantu
rakan sekelas.

Jika laporan redirective belum bekerja selepas tiga kali, mereka tidak akan bekerja.
Mengulang penggunaan lebih lanjut akan diri sendiri. Jika perilaku mengganggu
terus atau jika pelajar terus menjadi argumentatif, konsekuensi (secara langsung
atau ditangguhkan) harus ditunjukkan. Jika seorang guru kelas telah jelas, peraturan
yang adil yang meliputi aspek-aspek utama dari kehidupan kelas, dan jika
konsekuensi jangka pendek dan jangka panjang bagi kesalahan pembelajaran,
keselamatan, dan perlakuan (saling menghormati dan martabat) dihuraikan, pilihan
dapat diberikan kepada pelajar untuk bekerja dengan peraturan yang adil atau
menghadapi konsekuensi dari 'pilihan' mereka.

Langkah 4: Pengenaan time-out.

Jika alihan, penyajian kembali peraturan, dan alternatif pilihan tidak berfungsi,
langkah empat datang ke dalam bermain. Di sini, guru menetapkan beberapa bentuk
time-out, mulai dari isolasi dalam kelas untuk keluar kelas. Waktu habis menghantar
mesej yang jelas kepada masyarakat seluruh sekolah tentang perilaku non-
negotiable - dari gangguan kecil gigih untuk provokasi yang sedang berlangsung dan
mengancam keselamatan individu atau komuniti. Kecuali tidak berkesan diberikan,
masa-out bukanlah hukuman. Pelajar harus diberi tahu mengapa mereka menerima
time-out. Hal ini, menurut Glasser (1969), masa untuk merenungkan perilaku sendiri
dan untuk datang dengan penyelesaian untuk masalah yang boleh diterima oleh baik
pelajar dan guru.

Dalam kes yang paling ekstrem, dan jarang terjadi ini, guru perlu rencana krisis
untuk keluar-anak-kawalan. Sebuah sistem isyarat dari beberapa macam mungkin
diperlukan bagi pelajar berbahaya atau bagi mereka yang menolak untuk
meninggalkan kelas ketika diarahkan. Global kumpulan penyokong kesejahteraan
dan teknik kaunseling lain mungkin dipanggil. Penglibatan orang tua, jika praktikal,
boleh digunakan.

Review

Roger Tegas Disiplin meminjam model dari orang-orang dari disiplin lain, terutama
guru interactionalists lain. Dia kontras konsekuensi logik dan hukuman seperti
Dreikers tidak - menguntungkan konsekuensi logik. Dia menawarkan mencari
perhatian dan keperluan untuk dimiliki sebagai motif untuk kelakuan buruk. seperti
Dreikers tidak.

Dia memperluaskan atas Glasser Kualiti Sekolah kontras ciri-ciri antara atasan dan
pemimpin - menyokong sikap terkini. Dia menekankan nilai Peraturan dan
mengelakkan meminta pelajar nakal mengapa mereka berkelakuan seperti halnya
Glasser di Sekolah Tanpa Kegagalan (1969). Dia memaksimumkan pilihan
mahasiswa seperti halnya Glasser di Control Teori di Kelas (1986).

Rogers menyatakan bahawa disiplin merupakan faktor penting dari kepimpinan kami
di dalam kelas, pelajar memerlukannya. Bijaksana, Bahasa disiplin direncanakan
akan meningkatkan kualiti transaksi disiplin dengan mengurangkan pertukaran
emosional yang tidak perlu dan menumpukan pada isu-isu utama.

Maklumat lebih lanjut tentang model ini boleh didapati pada rujukan berikut:

* Rogers, WA 1993, Bahasa disiplin: Sebuah pendekatan praktikal untuk disiplin

kelas yang berkesan, Northcoate House, Plymouth.
* Rogers WA, 1989, Membuat Rencana Disiplin, Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.

Creating a Discipline Plan - William Rogers

Tuesday, 14 October 2008 22:18 | Written by Administrator | | |

Rogers states that a discipline plan is a conscious awareness of what one can, and
will do in a discipline transaction. Such a plan has a series of steps that define a
given course of action: what one will do and what one will say. Rogers proposes 19
steps which are arranged in terms of their degree of decisiveness of teacher action.

1) Tactical Ignoring of Behavior. 11) Physical Intervention.

12) Assertive Message or

2) Non-Verbal Messages.
Statement.

3) Casual Statement of
13) Isolation Within the Room.
Question.

4) Simple Directions. 14) Blocking Statements.

5) Question and Feedback. 15) Giving Simple Choices.

6) Rule Restatements, Rule

16) Time Out in the Room.
Reminders.

7) Distractions and Diversions. 17) Can I See You?.

8) Defusion. 18) Basic Contracting /

 Counselling Steps.

9) Taking the Child/Student

19) Exit Procedure.
Aside.

10) Clear Desist or Command.

The nineteen steps are, according to Rogers, the building blocks of a discipline plan.
They are balanced by a teacher's encouragement, sense of humour, curriculum,
personal manner and demonstrated care. Rogers recommends that when
developing a discipline plan, it is important to develop it within your own personality
and style. When using a plan, a teacher will be at different levels with different
students in the same lesson. He also states that the significant point is to be
prepared:

• prepared to better deal with frustration and uncertainty;

• prepared for likely (normal) disruptions;
• prepared not to get caught in long discussions;
• prepared to be decisive as may be necessary;
• prepared to enjoy teaching.

Rogers states that teaching is not all managing off-task behaviour, the more
teachers work at the relationship-building, the easier it is to teach, lead, direct
motivate and even correct. Students accept correction and direction far more
positively when the relationship is human. He further states that the classroom
environment should be fair as well as humorous now and then. Teachers should
make lessons as interesting, and clear as can be, and to employ respect and
encouragement within the classroom group.

Roger's Eight Protocols of Discipline:

1. Establish clearly the rights, rules, responsibilities with your class.

2. Intentionally minimise embarrassment and hostility.
3. Maximise students' choice over behaviour.
4. Develop and maintain respect
5. Be aware that our expectations affect our behaviour as classroom leaders.
6. Maintain a judicious sense of humour.
7. Follow up and follow through (consistency).
8. Utilise wider support (peers, admin, parents).

Roger's suggestions for Teacher Behaviour in Discipline:

• Maintain eye contact.

• Use a respectful voice tone (speak clearly and firmly).
• Watch proximity (not too close or overbearing in body language).
• Refer to the class fair rule. Avoid arguing, assert, take the student aside, give
clear choice or follow up later
• Use appropriate assertion (match teacher behaviour to level of disruption).
For further information on Roger's approach to developing a discipline plan refer to:

Rogers. W. A., 1989, Making a discipline plan, Thomas Nelson, Melbourne.

| top |
1) Tactical Ignoring of Behavior (TIB).

Rogers states that there are many low level disruptions that proceed from a students
desire to gain attention, these may include calling out, sulking, throwing tantrums,
persistent butting in, clowning, etc. He recommends that a teacher should tactically
ignore such behaviours for as long as he/she deems necessary. Rogers proposes
that TIB is a difficult step to utilise because of the frustration a teacher might feel
when the attention seeking behaviour exists. A natural occurence is for a teacher to
do something about these behaviours.

However, Rogers states that TIB is doing something, teachers are deciding:

* Which behaviours we can appropriately ignore. He states however, that

behaviour such as rudeness, arrogance, calling out, swearing, defiance, or
aggression should never be ignored.

* How long they (teachers) are prepared to ignore.

* What we will do then (next step) if TIB is not achieving its purpose, namely
negative reinforcement.

Rogers proposes that the purpose behind TIB is reinforcement. Teachers attend,
notice and reinforce on-task behaviour, while at the same time looking past and
around the disruptive students; treating the disruptions (for a time) as if they do not
exist (negative reinforcement). He states that if a teacher always notices student's
off-task behaviour they tend to over-reinforce it.

Students are aware when and why teachers are using TIB. TIB, of course, has to be
balanced by giving positive reinforcement when such disruptors show on-task
behaviour. Rogers states that when students are being tactically ignored, the teacher
is giving a clue, a defacto choice to the disruptor, to get his/her attention the way the
others are - reasonably on task.

2) Non-Verbal Messages (NVM). | top |

Rogers states that a simple eye-message can convey that a teacher is annoyed,
decisive, silently questioning, etc. Facial messages should be combined with our
verbal communication to communicate assertion, annoyance, frustration, resolution,
etc. A 'wink' with a smile, can often be a useful 'OK' message.
 3) Casual Statement ot Question (CSQ) | top |

Rogers proposes that effective discipline seeks to prevent unnecessary conflicts

arising. To casually ask a question or make a statement without making a big fuss
gives the student an easy, face-saving opportunity to get back into on-task
behaviour. Teachers will use this approach for low level dusruptions such as talking,
vacant look, time wasting, etc. A statement or question is made as if by casual intent
without any sarcasm or malice, such as:

"How's it working out?" or "Let's have a look at this É"

If it is more than a couple of students off-task, Rogers suggests that a teacher look
directly and firmly at one of the students, then 'eye-sweep' the group before asking
the question. CSQ as a first step is casual, non-hostile, and keeps a workable
relationship going with the students. If students start to procrastinate , argue or defy,
he suggests that the teacher move to more decisive steps.

4) Simple Directions (SD). | top |

Rogers explains that a simple direction should express a teacher's intent clearly and
simply, rather than getting involved in long-winded discussions. In all discipline, it is
important to remember to use the student's personal name. It mitigates, as it were,
the discipline transaction, as does "Excuse me MichelleÉ" "Please" or "Thanks".

Rogers proposes the use of SDs early in a discipline transaction:

* Establish eye contact

* Speak clearly, firmly, briefly

* Repeat if necessary

* Expect compliance

He also states that an SD is often a reminder to the student:

* "Paul, put the scissors away now!"

 * "Maria, pack up the sewing machine please".

When giving a Simple Direction to a group, eye-sweep the whole group, then speak
as if to two or three students.

5) Question and Feedback (QAF) | top |

Rogers states that it is useful sometimes to break into a disruption cycle, such as a
student who is off task or two students talking, with a question. One way of achieving
this is by the teacher moving up alongside the student/s and asking:

* "What is happening here?" or "What is going on?" or

"What are you doing?"

6) Rule Restatements, Rule Reminders (RR) | top |

Rogers proposes that with this step the teacher simply restates the rule to the
student or quietly reminds them of the relevant rule. RRs can be employed one-to-
one, to whole group, or to a small group. RRs remind the disrupting student/s of an
established rule.

A what question is an attempt to get some feedback from the student. Why questions
are rarely helpful when a student is in a group. Rogers proposes that why questions
are better used when taking the student aside or in contracting, conferencing steps.
Most students say "nothing" in answer to a what question. At that point it is better to
simply inform the student about what was heard or seen (teacher's feedback to the
student).

7) Distractions and Diversions (DD). | top |

Rogers states that teachers can often anticipate a disruption or problem, they can
then distract or direct the student. He suggests teachers can do this by:

* Inviting assistance.

* Asking a question.

* Simply moving close to the potential disruptor while working with other
students who might be nearby.
 * Asking them questions about their work.

* Giving them a task.

* Inviting another student to work with the disruptor.

* Asking the student to move before a possible disruption occurs.

8) Defusion (DEF) | top |

According to Rogers, appropriate, judicious humour can sometimes take the heat out
of a problem. Rogers cites an example of a student who drops a pencil box and
shouts "sh-t". The teacher could say "where?" Most students accept repartee or the
little bon mot. However, Rogers warns not all teachers can use this step. It relies on
a judicious sense of humour and a ready wit, but is very effective, maintaining a
good working relationship with students while keeping the heat down.

9) Taking the Child/Student Aside (TCA). | top |

Rogers suggests that with some students who are late, upset, teasing others, not
settling down, etc. (after appropriate warning) should be called aside. He suggests
that the teacher quietly call the child over from the group and speak to him/her away
from others. He states that TCA minimises hostility and embarassment, gives time
for a brief discussion and allows the student right of reply if they feel unjustly
targeted. He also suggests that the teacher be sure that the child knows what he/she
should be doing before he/she is asked to go back to their workplace, seat or group.
If the child is upset it may be appropriate to have a cooling off period before
resuming work.

10) Clear Desist or Command (CDC). | top |

Rogers suggests that this step would only be used where the child is clearly
engaged in significantly dangerous behaviour to themselves or to others.

11) Physical Intervention (PI). | top |

Rogers warns that PI should be used with extreme digression and only in line with
school policy and Education Department guidelines. Rogers further warns that we
need to remember that corporal punishment has been abolished.

12) Assertive Message or Statement (AMS). | top |

Rogers explains AMSs as the way teachers state their concerns or feelings about
the disruption as it affects the rights of class members (including the teacher's
rights). AMss distinguish between the student and his/her action, Rogers cites an
example of using what he calls "I" messages to convey the teacher's feelings "Paul.
I'm really angry at what you have said. You do yourself no credit by swearing like
that." AMs states one's rights, or protects others' rights by concentrating firmly and
decisively on the effect of the disruption. AMSs can be addressed to the whole
group, or on a one-to-one basis, but are most effective when used infrequently.

13) Isolation Within the Room (IWR) | top |

Rogers proposes that when a student will not settle down at his/her regular seat
he/she is given a choice (SC) to work quietly or move. He proposes that if the
student continues to behave incorrectly, he/she is asked to move across to an
isolation desk and work there. This is not a 'time-out' but a form of logical
consequence.

14) Blocking Statements (BS) | top |

Rogers suggests that if a student argues, procrastinates or becomes tiresomely

quarrelsome (the classroom lawyer), wanting to take the teacher everywhere rather
than take responsibility, the teacher can repeat the SD, RR or SC. Rogers defines
"Blocking' as a verbal stratagem that reasserts a teacher's fair direction using the
same form of words -repetitively.

Rogers cites some examples of using this "blocking" strategy, they are:

* Teacher: "David, go back to your seat please."

* Student: " But I was just gettin' a pencil!" (for the third time thinks the
teacher).
 * Teacher: "OK. Back to your seat please."

* Student: "You're always picking on me" (teacher baiting time).

* Teacher: (Not drawn) "Just get back to your seat David."

Rogers recommends that if a student continues to procrastinate, the teacher ought to

give thestudent a simple choice (SC).

15) Giving Simple Choices (SC). | top |

Rogers states that empty threats are pointless. He further states that it is far better to
put the student into a context where he/she has to choose the responsible
alternative. Choices enable students towards some measure of self control.

Choice over one's own behaviour is central to self discipline, self control and
tolerance to frustration. Rogers proposes that when a teacher phrases this 'step',
within the context of a choice, he/she (the teacher) is challenging the student to take
responsibility for his/her (the student) behaviour.

Rogers states that it is important when using an SC that it be phrased as a choice,

not a threat. Simple choices should be preceded by appropriate warnings or RRs or
SDs or QAF approaches.

Rogers proposes that when a teacher gives a simple choice, he/she are saying that
the situation is significantly disruptive; it is a form of final warning. Giving choices in
conflict situations is also a way of defusing the conflict by putting the responsibility
back onto the student. An example might be "Jason, if you won't work by the fair
rules of our room, we'll have to ask you to leave". The teacher may add "It's your
choice."

16) Time Out in the Room (TOR) | top |

Rogers states that the TOR is used to give the student time to cool off, settle down,
or perhaps to experience isolation as a result of on-going disruption. It is time for the
student to reflect on his/her behaviour during which they do nothing at the isolation
desk, or in the case of a small child, a corner in the classroom. Students are made
aware they can come back to their activity whenever they are ready to work by the
fair rules.
Rogers warns that TOR is a serious step and should be used judiciously. The normal
length of time out of the classroom is between 5 and 15 minutes. Rogers suggests
using TOR prefaced with a simple choice.

17) Can I See You? (CISY) | top |

Rogers recommends using CISY towards the end of the lesson, this is done to
remind the student that you will keep them back to explain their behaviour. It is a way
of following up and following through. It assures the student that the teacher is
geniune and consistent.

18) Basic Contracting/Counselling Steps (CCS) | top |

"What are you going to do about your behaviour Nathan?"

"What is your plan so you don't our class rules?"

"How can I help you with a plan?"

By utilising the time out process, Rogers suggests that the student is given time to
'cool off' and come up with an acceptable plan to deal with their behaviour. Contracts
would then be affirmed and applied in line with behavioural (logical) consequences.

Rogers proposes that if the student is being dealt with outside of class (having been
exited) then this approach to questioning is more effective because it focuses on a
student's responsibility. It can be combined with conflict resolution and reflective
istening, but the final stages need to move to "What are you going to do about your
behaviour?"

Steps beyond councelling, contracting, and parent conferencing may include:

* Suspension

* Welfare/support group

* Part-time school attendance

* Regional support (from psychologist, specialist teacher, social worker, etc.)

 * Inquiry procedures.

At each stage, Rogers states that teachers must firmly place responsibility (relevant
to the child's development) back on the child, while at the same time offering as
much support as possible.

19) Exit Procedure (EOR) | top |

When a student's behaviour is so disruptive that other student's rights are being
infringed, or a teacher's right to teach is being significantly disrupted, then a teacher
may need to exit the student/s. Any exit procedure would have obviously been
preceded by steps aimed at enabling the child to manage their own behaviour.

Rogers suggests that teachers may need to exit a student for:

*Aggressive behaviour that will not settle down

* Fighting

* Continual disruptive noise or clowning around

* Dangerous behaviour

* Tantrum behaviour that will not settle down after appropriate ignoring

* Or any behaviour that overtly continues to disrupt the learning/ behaviour

rights within the group.

Rogers proposes four questions must be answered when exiting a child, they are:

* Will it be a properly organised time-out process?

* Sent to the Deputy Headmaster?

* Sent to a coordinator?

* Notify the child's parents.

* Consequential warning?
 * Time out is essentially, time away from the group to rethink one's
behaviour and come up with an agreement to work by the fair rules, or
to follow consequences.

(i) Who actually exits the child?

It is problematic if it is left to the teacher, as a class could contain any number

of students to manage. It is especially difficult where the student is very
aggressive or angry. Rogers states that some schools may allocate a senior
person, or the teacher in the next class may quickly step in and remove the
child (if in doubt refer to the school policy regarding this aspect).

(ii) What will happen to the exited student?

(iii) What will be required of the student to re-enter the classroom?

* Verbal contract, verbal assurances?

The teacher needs to be assured that a clear exit procedure is school

policy (the school ought to have a policy regarding this aspect). Rogers
states that the teacher may need back-up, and some work on pre-exit
steps where an unhelpful pattern is observed (i.e. being exited for low-
level or badly-handled disruptions).

Rogers suggests that the student must realise that being exited is a
serious matter, and that he/she must renegotiate their entry back into
the room on a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities. At
all times the exited student should be spoken to in the language of
responsibility and choice.

(iv) If a student has a pattern of being exited - what then?