Both Tools for Teaching and PBIS focus on the prevention of discipline problems. And both programs focus on practical, research-based procedures that have been proven in schools and classrooms.
In PBIS the language of prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary) is superimposed over a broad range of behavior management procedures as an organizing principle. To help align Tools for Teaching with PBIS, it will be helpful to first clarify what PBIS means by primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention.
Individualized behavior management programs are based on a functional analysis of behavior (i.e. behavior modification). Group interventions, in contrast, usually teach social skills and include “social skills clubs" or a targeted behavior education plan. The decision to use secondary prevention is typically made by the school’s planning team and/or behavior support team.
| The PBIS Pyramid
Images courtesy of Fred Jones
As with PBIS, to appreciate the prevention of discipline problems in Tools for Teaching, it will be helpful to understand the issues being addressed. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, my colleagues and I were part of the “behavior modification revolution," in which we learned that severe problem behaviors could be reduced or eliminated with well-designed contingency management programs. One by-product of that experience for me was an appreciation of how expensive those programs are. They require the pinpointing of critical behaviors, the design of a data system to record the behaviors, the design of an intervention program, data taking, delivering contingencies and, frequently, the redesign of the program to improve results -- all of which require a lot of the teacher’s time and my time. Next, I looked around the classroom and made a quick tally of the problems waiting to be addressed. My simple conclusion was that the traditional behavior modification technology was too labor intensive to solve more than a few of the management problems faced by teachers in typical classrooms, to say nothing of special education.
At about this time, I had the opportunity to observe two “natural teachers" who, without the use of any formal programs whatsoever, made students with histories of severe behavior problems function as orderly, productive, and respectful class members. And they made it look easy! The breakthrough was seeing that managing the entire classroom could be cheaper than managing a single student. That experience led me to focus on the classroom rather than on the individual student as the critical unit of intervention.
Further observations revealed a high level of time wasting and “goofing off" in almost all classrooms. Only rarely did that goofing off escalate into an office referral, yet, during every class period, goofing off destroyed vast amounts of learning time while stressing the teacher.
In addition, when office referrals did occur, they often grew out of small problems that were mishandled by the teacher. The most common example was the teacher becoming embroiled in the student’s backtalk by arguing. Effective classroom management, therefore, appeared to be a direct route to preventing office referrals while reducing teacher stress.
Intervention strategies evolved over a period of years based on a detailed systems analysis of the classroom. In last month’s segment, I described those elements of classroom structure most directly related to the primary prevention of discipline problems -- particularly aspects of the instructional process. By way of review, those topics include:
PBIS defines secondary prevention largely in terms of individualized behavior management programs to eliminate persistent problems or group interventions to teach social skills. Individualized programs typically involve incentives for appropriate behavior.
Once again, the objectives of Tools for Teaching are perfectly aligned with PBIS, but its separate developmental history provides a different perspective. For decades, the “pot of gold at the end of the rainbow" for incentive management in terms of cost containment has been group incentives. Imagine one group program that could do the work of dozens of individualized programs.
It sounds good, but nobody could get it to work. There were steep technical hurdles. Group incentives are by nature “all for one and one for all." What if the group doesn’t feel like working together? What if one kid in the classroom feels like throwing a monkey wrench into the whole system just to prove that he or she is in control? What if some kids want the incentive and others don’t?
Tools for Teaching provides the solution to the technical problems of group management in a program called http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/jones/jones037.shtml Responsibility Training. Responsibility Training has built-in fail-safe mechanisms that avoid the pitfalls of group incentive systems, while enabling the teacher to train the entire class to cooperate in carrying out classroom routines quickly and efficiently.
Incentive systems, when properly understood, represent teaching paradigms. To train students to cooperate, you need a group management program that structures peer interactions so enlightened self-interest equals cooperation. Responsibility Training does exactly that. In so doing, it serves the goal of social-skills training, while representing very little cost to the teacher.
As incentive systems go, Responsibility Training is fairly complex, due to the fail-safe mechanisms that keep it from being defeated. It is described in great detail in chapters 20-23 of Tools for Teaching for anyone wishing to implement it in the classroom.
At its simplest level, Responsibility Training teaches students to be responsible with time. We want them to save time for learning rather than wasting it with dawdling.
The class cannot learn time management, however, without having time to manage. To start the program, therefore, we give the class an “allowance" of time. To serve as a reinforcer, it must be time for something the students want. Call it http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/jones/jones037.shtml Preferred Activity Time, or PAT.
I will describe an example of Responsibility Training from a self-contained classroom. It works equally well in departmentalized settings, but it would take more space to describe.
Let’s imagine a fifth grade teacher beginning the day with the following announcement.
“Class, before we start the day, I want to point out the art materials on the project table over by the window. The art project will be your PAT this afternoon.
“As always, I have set aside twenty minutes for PAT at the end of the day. You know, however, that once you start a project like this, you always wish you had more time. Well, you can have more time. All of the bonus PAT that you earn during the day will be added to the art project."
The students can see clearly that all their hustle throughout the day will translate into art -- which brings us to the topic of bonuses. The particular PAT bonus that produces hustle is called a “hurry-up bonus."
Let’s look at a hurry-up bonus as it applies to a lesson transition. Lesson transitions are a major source of lost learning time due to dawdling. A typical lesson transition takes five minutes. If the class hustles, it takes about thirty seconds. Let’s follow the action as our teacher announces a lesson transition.
“Class, before you get out of your seats, let me tell you what I want you to do during this lesson transition. First, hand in your papers by laying them on the corner of my desk. If you need to sharpen your pencils, now is the time to do it. If you need a drink of water, now is the time to get it.
“I want my clean-up committee to erase my boards and straighten up the books on the shelf. I want everybody to pick up any paper you see laying around the room and get your desks back on their marks.
“I will give you two minutes to get that done. But you know from past experience that you can get it done in less than a minute. So, let’s see how much time you can save. All the time you save will be added to your PAT.
“Let’s check the clock." (Pause until the second hand passes the six or twelve.) “Okay, let’s begin."
The teacher immediately begins to work the crowd to keep students moving while breaking up any chit-chat over by the pencil sharpener. As students take their seats, our teacher heads to the front of the classroom only to spy a piece of paper on the floor not far from a student who is still standing. The teacher says,
“Class. There’s a piece of paper over there on the floor." (pointing)
The student says, “It’s not mine.">
The teacher shrugs. But several students, already seated near the student who is standing, whisper,
“Hey, man, just pick it up.">
Welcome to one of the key features of group incentives -- “all for one and one for all." When students share a vested interest in hustle, they use their peer pressure to make sure everyone hustles. That removes the burden of management from the teacher. Yet the form that peer pressure takes is gentle -- usually “urgent whispers." To get snide would not be cool. Besides, we have additional fail-safe mechanisms should anyone get bossy.
As the last student sits down, the teacher says,
“Thank you, class, for doing such a good job. Let’s check the time. You saved one minute and twenty-seven seconds. Let’s add that to your PAT tally."
The teacher walks to the board and adds a minute and twenty-seven seconds to the PAT tally. The students are all smiles.
Of course, if the students dawdle beyond two minutes, they could lose time. While being logical, that is also a fail-safe mechanism. Without the possibility of losing time, it would not be “cool" to tell your buddy to hustle. You would look like a “suck-up."
But, even though it is possible to lose time, the system is rigged so students come out ahead. You give in minutes, but you take away in seconds, and taking away rarely occurs after the first week. Time-loss remains in the background -- a possibility more than an actuality.
Yet, the possibility of time-loss introduces the possibility of abuse by negative teachers who think discipline equals punishment. For that reason, Responsibility Training, to be successful, must rest on a solid foundation of training in the skills of primary prevention.
This simple example of Responsibility Training is meant to give a flavor of the program rather than to serve as a guide for implementation. It does, however, illustrate how an incentive system can serve to teach social skills -- in this case, cooperation to support the teacher’s management goals. That constitutes a form of secondary prevention analogous to targeted social-skills training. Yet, Responsibility Training teaches everyone simultaneously, while saving time and energy rather than consuming it as a teaching exercise would.
Tools for Teaching should be considered, however, as a supplement to the procedures described in the PBIS literature, not a replacement. In dealing with the wide-range of “squirrelly" behaviors possible in a classroom, you will need all the ideas you can find.
Nevertheless, the four decades of work that have gone into Tools for Teaching have produced some significant breakthroughs. Broad areas of classroom functioning not previously considered part of discipline management have been placed in the service of primary prevention. And advanced group incentive systems have been harnessed to serve the goals of secondary prevention.
Perhaps the greatest breakthrough, however, is in reducing the cost of behavior management. To paraphrase many administrators and school psychologists who have served at sites implementing Tools for Teaching over the years,
“When classroom teachers deal effectively with management problems when they are small, it eliminates most of our IEP meetings and most of our office referrals.">
Next month, we will look at tertiary prevention. How can the teacher deal successfully with the most oppositional students quickly and easily while harnessing the power of the peer group?