The William Rogers Discipline Model Written by John Andrius

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.

http://www.teachermatters.com/classroom-discipline/models-of-discipline/the-william-rogers-model.html