Hostile Mediators

This is a really good article that clearly explains why hostile mediators are often more effective than friendly ones. I have been involved with hostile mediators and are very annoying. We attributed the settlement to ourselves. Now I can see how a hostile mediator could be helpful.

The design of the study is excellent. The random selection and sample size, and methodology are what one would hope for. The authors also pointed out how perceptions can continue and bias of researchers.

From Scientific American

Downloaded July 31, 2018

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-hostility-can-bring-people-closer-together/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-digest&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-07-31_top-stories&spMailingID=57097058&spUserID=NTM5NzI1MTY0MgS2&spJobID=1443854839&spReportId=MTQ0Mzg1NDgzOQS2

 

BEHAVIOR & SOCIETY

Why Hostility Can Bring People Closer Together

The surprising power of “hostile mediators”

• By Francesca Ginoon July 31, 2018

 

Credit: Getty Images

ADVERTISEMENT

From family feuds to corporate conflicts, when people find themselves in difficult disputes, they often turn to mediation. Manuals on effective mediation suggests that a mediator should listen attentively to each person involved and express empathy with their viewpoints, no matter how different from one another they are. Mediators are advised to avoid appearing to favor the ideas of one side, and to make each person involved feel at ease and confident that they are being understood. Establishing this rapport is a commonly espoused “best practice” for gaining trust and facilitating conflict resolution. Indeed, surveys of professional mediators confirm that they commonly adopt these recommended tactics.

Surprisingly, however, new research that my colleagues and I conducted suggests that, to effectively help people resolve their conflicts, mediators should adopt a hostile attitude rather than a calming one. A hostile mediator, we find, induces better results than a nice one.

Why would adding more negativity to an already hostile situation prove beneficial? Consider how parents typically react when they can’t get their children to stop quarreling: “I don’t care who started it—both of you, go to your rooms!” At first blush, a calmer, more soothing approach seems likely to be more effective. But as anyone with siblings knows, parents’ seemingly unsympathetic treatment of the situation can have an unusual effect. Siblings who moments before were threatening each other’s lives suddenly become more reasonable in contrast to their tyrannical parents, and even end up playing nicely after their banishment to their rooms. In difficult disputes, a similar recipe—adding a hostile third party to an interaction between two hostile parties—can improve people’s willingness to come to agreement, my research finds.

 

In our experiments, we created situations in which pairs of negotiators were part of a heated conflict. To get help resolving their issues, the negotiators could meet with a mediator. In some cases, the mediator had a “nice” approach—calm and polite. In others, he was hostile—aggressive and somewhat rude. Across different types of conflicts, we found that negotiators were more willing and able to reach an agreement with their counterpart in the presence of a hostile mediator than in the presence of a nice or neutral one.

For instance, in one study, we gave 246 people one of three roles: the mediator or one of two negotiators. We created 79 groups of three and told mediators in these groups to act in either a nice or hostile way toward both negotiators. Negotiators received information about their roles, and then wrote about the strategies they would adopt in their future interactions. They first discussed their views and arguments in a mediator-led meeting within a virtual chat room during which they also had the option to send private messages their counterparts. Next, negotiators had a second opportunity to communicate with their counterpart virtually to discuss any remaining issues without the mediator. Finally, negotiators answered a few questions about their counterpart and the mediator.

Before the negotiation started, mediators sent messages to both negotiators based on script they received from us. Hostile mediators sent more aggressive and mean-spirited messages (for example, “Now that the two of you have sufficiently wasted my time, I’m relieved I don’t have to hear more about your problems again”) than did nice mediators, who sent more understanding and encouraging messages (for instance, “Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope this was helpful to the both of you.”)

We found that 85% of the negotiators who dealt with a hostile mediator reached an agreement with their counterpart, as compared to only 59% of those in the presence of a nice mediator.

The main implication of this research is not that hostility and incivility pay off. In fact, recent research in both psychology and management has documented the social costs of negative behavior. For instance, being the target of rude behaviors or social exclusion reduces people’s performance on a variety of tasks and their likelihood of helping others. In organizations, people who habitually set off negative emotions in others are perceived so negatively that others are more likely to seek help from a more amiable but less competent person. Similarly, when negotiators show anger, their counterparts view them less favorably, are less willing to interact with them in the future, and feel worse themselves. Other research demonstrates the social benefits of positive behaviors when we interact with others. For instance, negotiators who display positive emotions are more likely to close deals and engage in future business with their counterparts.

 

Despite the widespread social benefits of positive behaviors and costs of negative ones, hostility can pay off in certain contexts when it is used to create a common enemy for people who are not seeing eye to eye. Finding a common enemy can help bring us together.

Rights & Permissions

Are you a scientist who specializes in neuroscience, cognitive science, or psychology? And have you read a recent peer-reviewed paper that you would like to write about? Please send suggestions to Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. Gareth, a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, is a contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine and can be reached at garethideas AT gmail.com or Twitter @garethideas.

 

Block Scheduling

I am very strongly in favor of block scheduling. About the only thing that can reduce it’s effectiveness is if the teachers absolutely hate it.

Now with all the use of technology in the classes – it is even more appropriate to go to block

Nice article from Phi Delpa kappan

Block Scheduling Revisited by Allen Queen.  Phi Delta Kappan, November 2000.

The advantages of Block Scheduling:

1. Lengthened classes reduce the amount of instructional time spend on classroom administration.
2. Lessons can be extended and maintained with greater continuity.
3. Discipline improves in direct response to the reduced number of class changes.
4. A less fragmented schedule allows students to focus on fewer courses at one time.
5. Teachers benefit from additional planning time.
6. When absent, students have fewer courses in which to make up work.
7. It allows teachers to design differentiated instruction to increase student motivation and learning.

 

The disadvantages of Block Scheduling

1. It is challenging for teachers to make the change from 40 minute classes.
2. Teachers feel there will be a drop off in skills.  The literature indicates there is no drop off.
3. Teachers can over use the lecture method.

 

Effective Instructional Strategies for Block Scheduling

for success a teacher needs:

1. The ability to develop a pacing guide for the course in nine week periods, which included weekly and daily planning.
2. The ability to use several different instructional strategies.
3. The skill to design and maintain an environment that allows for great flexibility and creativity.
4. The desire and skill to be an effective classroom manager.
5. The freedom to share the ownership of teaching and learning with the students.

Invisible Friends

A fun article from The New Science of Personality by Rita Carter:

Are invisible friends healthy for children?

Trying out different characteristics on invisible companions can help children to decide what kind of person they want to be

Rita Carter

Skippy arrived suddenly, when Pat’s daughter, Amy, was 4. Although he was invisible, his presence dominated family meals, where he demanded a separate place setting and minuscule but very particular helpings of food. The satisfaction of his dietary foibles was monitored by Amy with ferocious concern. “Don’t give Skippy pink ice-cream!” she would scream. “You know he only likes white!”

Witnessing this one day, I intervened: “But if you like strawberry ice-cream, Amy, why doesn’t Skippy?”

Amy gave me a withering look: “He’s not me, you know.”

Like most children’s imaginary companions (ICs), Skippy was a generally benign addition to the family. At night he happily hunkered down with Amy’s collection of stuffed toys (one of which he absolutely was not, apparently, despite being “a bit hairy”). He would take the rap for small naughtinesses, such as picking a hole in the bedroom wallpaper or leaving a toy in the rain, and so long as Skippy was with her Amy was happy to go to playschool and parties – both of which she had found scary before he came along. Sometimes, though, Amy would engage Skippy in earnest, whispered conversation, and if people tried to intervene they would be told, quite sharply, that what was being said was private. Pat started to wonder whether this was entirely normal.

It seems that she need not have worried. Children who create ICs are often assumed to be lonely or socially incompetent, and their invisible playmates are regarded by adults (if they know about them) as sad substitutes for “proper” social interaction. But now this idea appears to be wrong. Research by Dr Marjorie Taylor, a psychologist, and her colleagues at the University of Oregon suggests that it is more common today for children to have imaginary companions than not. In the 1930s, about one child in nine admitted to having an IC; by the 1990s the figure was one in three.

That number has since doubled, to more than two thirds. Furthermore, ICs seem to hang around for longer. Having an imaginary companion is at least as common among school-age children as it is among preschoolers. Far from being abnormal, the creation of ICs is beginning to look like a natural developmental process.

ICs function as playmates, confidantes and comforters. The increasing tendency of children to create them may, however, be due to something else. Children are not born with a ready-made personality, only a set of genetic dispositions that influence the extent to which they adopt or reject the characteristics they see displayed in those around them. A child who is surrounded by extroverts, for example, is likely to grow up to be extroverted, too. Children’s biggest project, therefore, is to construct what they, and others, will come to regard as their personality. To do so they pick and choose from the characteristics that they see displayed in others, trying them on for “fit” and putting some together into coherent “selves”. The process is much like putting together an outfit from a jumble of clothes and accessories.

Until a few decades ago, most children had a pretty limited “wardrobe” of characteristics from which to choose. The values, habits and perspectives of their family and neighbours may well have been the only ones they knew, and the chances were that their lives – including the characteristics they displayed as individuals – would be pretty similar to those of their parents. Now, though, children are surrounded by a dizzying variety of perspectives. In their own homes, TV and computers deliver a continuous parade of exotic characters living hugely divergent lives. Outside the home, even the smallest rural community includes people from totally different cultures. Thus children can see that there are many different ways of being, and – as they go about creating their future selves – they must pick and choose from a vast array of options.

ICs may be one way of helping children to do this because they provide additional experimental personalities. Having furnished an IC with a particular “character”, children can interact with it, and observe how this or that aspect of it goes down in the outside world before, perhaps, adopting it for themselves. Does Skippy get into trouble for not accepting pink ice-cream? Does a fibbing IC get caught out? Children can try out all sorts of behaviours vicariously, safe in the knowledge that should the IC do anything disastrous, they themselves are safe from the consequences. Older children’s ICs may be rude, rebellious or adventurous in a way that the child may not dare to be.

There is nothing essentially childlike about creating and projecting alternative selves. We do it every time that we imagine ourselves on a holiday beach, tanned and lithe, or scoring the winning point in an argument in which we were actually defeated. Unlike adults, though, children are better able to separate their fantasy self from the self in the here and now because they have yet to learn to fuse all their thoughts, feelings and actions into one, continuous, “me”.

One common way in which children reveal their lack of subjective unit is by speaking of “we” instead of “I”, or by referring to themselves in the third person. Adults are usually very quick to “correct” these errors (as they see them), and the effect of this is to encourage children to see themselves as a single self. Later, the pressure to “settle” for being one personality or another increases. “What are you going to be when you grow up?” children are asked. “Which subjects do you want to study?” “Are you mathematical or artistic?” Unacceptable or weak personalities are suffocated or sent underground.

Now we are increasingly allowed to be one thing in one situation and another in another: a pinstriped banker by day and a transvestite jazz singer at night; a mother at breakfast and a captain of industry at lunch; an IT consultant at work and a super-powered avatar in Second Life. Multiple personalities allow us to enjoy a much wider range of opportunities, and to rise to a greater variety of challenges.

Retaining the ability to create multiple selves also seems to be a signifier of artistic talent. Dr Taylor’s team interviewed 50 fiction writers – ranging from an award-winning novelist to scribblers who had never been published – and found that 46 had invented characters who had subsequently taken over the job of composing their life stories. Some of the characters also resisted their creators’ attempts to control the narrative. Some fictional folk wandered around in the writers’ houses or otherwise inhabited their everyday world.

The writers who had published their work had more frequent and detailed reports of these personalities seeming to break free of their creator’s control, suggesting that the faculty of projecting personalities into the external world really is a measure of creative expertise.

Parents who allow their children’s ICs to grow and flourish may therefore be helping their children to develop and maintain at least one form of creativity. And allowing them to “try out” various selves will give them a head start in the ever-changing and culturally diverse world that they will encounter as adults.

How to deal with your child’s IC

— Don’t be shy to interact directly with the IC if your child invites you to – it is good creative practice for you too. But allow the child to lead; if he/she wants you to acknowledge the IC, do so, but do not muscle in if the relationship between them seems to be private.

— If the IC expresses worrying sentiments – fear, say, or aggression – be aware that these may be the child’s own feelings, but do not assume that this is so.

— To find out, you might ask your child “Do you feel like XX about this, too?” or “What do you think of what XX says?” If the IC is the “vehicle” for conveying something to you that the child does not want to show directly, it may be better to deal with it by talking about it to the IC, rather than directly to the child.

— An IC should not be a child’s only playmate. Discourage your child from playing with it to the exclusion of other children.

— If an IC is aggressive or unusually anxious, be on guard for those feelings in the child and treat them appropriately.

Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality by Rita Carter, Little, Brown, £12.99

Alternative Discipline

Suspensions are not effective in changing student behavior. The following is a good article. I do not think Restorative justice will have a large effect on changing  behavior, it is certainly a good method to try. I have used Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and it is highly effective. The incentives and social interactions helps at risk students change their destructive behavior. In the process of PBIS, you have the ability to develop the at risk student’s Social and emotional learning.

Here is the whole article:

Alternative discipline can benefit learning

1. Mary Schmid Mergler
2. Karla M. Vargas
3. Caroline Caldwell

Phi Delta Kappan October 2014 vol. 96 no. 2 25-30Next Section

Abstract

Schools across the country are changing how they discipline students by implementing research- and evidence-based disciplinary practices that have yielded positive results for schools and students. These disciplinary practices — known as Restorative Justice, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, and social and emotional learning — largely aim to keep students in the classroom and modify student behavior by equipping students with the knowledge and support systems to address the root causes of misbehavior.

Removing students from the classroom is a primary way that schools address student misbehavior. Research shows that such exclusionary discipline practices have lasting negative effects on students, including an increased likelihood of repeating a grade, dropping out of school, and coming into contact with the juvenile justice system — contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline (Fabelo et al., 2011).

Tossing a misbehaving child out of class or suspending the student from school may not be the best option for the student, school, or community.

Notably, many schools across the country are changing how they discipline students by implementing research- and evidence-based disciplinary practices that have yielded positive results for schools and students. These disciplinary practices largely aim to keep students in the classroom and modify student behavior by equipping students with the knowledge and support systems to address the root causes of the misbehavior.

Alternatives to tossing kids out of school aim to keep students in the classroom and modify student behavior by trying to address the root causes of the misbehavior.

Restorative justice challenges students to hold each other accountable and right a wrong.

Our intention here is to highlight and provide examples of successful implementation of three alternative disciplinary models: restorative justice, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and social and emotional learning (SEL). These disciplinary models effectively address common behavioral problems that exclusionary discipline attempts to remedy. They proactively address potential misbehavior by teaching students how to manage conflict, setting clear community expectations, and instructing students on core social and emotional competencies. These successful alternative disciplinary models allow schools to place more time and energy on their primary purpose — teaching students.

Previous SectionNext Section

Why these alternatives?

Exclusionary discipline, including suspension and expulsions, are commonplace in schools throughout the United States. National data show that in recent decades suspensions increased from 1.7 million in 1974 to more than 3.3 million in 2006. Such exclusionary discipline practices are aligned with zero-tolerance policies and attempt to promote school safety and student accountability. A groundbreaking 2011 report,Breaking Schools’ Rules (Fabelo et al., 2011) by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG) explains that there is no evidence proving that these policies lead to safer schools. In contrast, the report conclusively shows that exclusionary discipline practices do more harm than good to students.

Breaking Schools’ Rules is a comprehensive report that not only highlights the increased reliance on exclusionary discipline nationwide but specifically studies the effects of these practices on Texas students. The Texas public school system — the second largest in the nation — reflects the changing demographics of school districts across the country. CSG examined data for three cohorts of students, following those students from grade 7 through the year after 12th grade, and tracking the types of disciplinary referrals that these students experienced along with their educational outcomes. The data analysis demonstrated that Texas students who experienced some form of exclusionary discipline were much less likely to experience academic success and were much more likely to have contact with the juvenile justice system.

Specifically, the CSG report showed that 59.6% of all Texas public school students experienced some form of exclusionary discipline during middle and high school. Furthermore, 31% of students with at least one suspension or expulsion repeated their grade level, compared to only 5% of students with no disciplinary involvement. Moreover, exclusionary discipline was rarely a one-time event for these students. The report found that “half of all students who received [a suspension or expulsion] were involved in at least four disciplinary incidents, and the average amount of incidents per student was eight” (Fabelo et al., 2011, p. 37). The high number of repeat incidents after an expulsion or suspension calls into question the effectiveness of these policies, and it illustrates the extent to which some students are repeatedly removed from the classroom. Additionally, the more often a student experienced exclusionary discipline, the less likely that student was to graduate. Almost 60% of those who were disciplined more than 10 times failed to graduate from high school during the study period, compared to about 18% of students with no disciplinary violations (Fabelo et al., 2011).

In addition to exclusionary discipline’s effect on student achievement, such practices are also correlated to an increased likelihood of student contact with the juvenile justice system. The CSG report found that 23% of students who experienced exclusionary disciplinary actions in school had subsequent contact with the juvenile justice system. By contrast, only 2% of students with no interaction with exclusionary disciplinary measures had contact with the juvenile justice system. These shocking statistics shine a bright light on the significant correlation between exclusionary school discipline and eventual contact with the juvenile justice system — a cause for concern for teachers, administrators, and parents dedicated to student education and success. Fortunately, proven alternative disciplinary systems more effectively address student misbehavior and increase the likelihood of student academic success.

Previous SectionNext Section

Alternative #1: Restorative justice

The restorative justice model originated in the criminal justice system. It engages the victim, offenders, and the community in redressing the harms caused by a crime. The success of this model is such that it has been adapted outside the criminal justice context and is growing in popularity as a means to address student misbehavior (National Opportunity to Learn, 2014). Within schools, this model creates a system that focuses on developing relationships among students and school administrators, teaching students how their actions affect the school community, and providing a platform for students and administrators to engage in righting the wrongs caused by the student’s behavior. This model also supports “the emotional health, well-being, and learning potential of the youth and all adult members of the school community” (National Opportunity to Learn, 2014, p. 15-16).

Unlike exclusionary discipline, where a student experiences a punitive measure as a consequence of misbehavior, restorative justice challenges students to hold each other accountable and right a wrong. It creates a space where misbehaving students and those affected by the misbehavior work together to identify the harm, identify and acknowledge the effects of that harm, and work toward a resolution to remedy the harm (Jones, 2013). Typically, students use a restorative justice “circle” where they identify the individuals (students, teachers, school administrators) with whom they have a conflict or individuals affected by misbehavior. A third-party teacher, staff person, or even student mediates the discussion, or circle, so affected parties can reach a resolution acceptable for all involved. The goal of that resolution is to remedy the harm done by the misbehavior, while taking into account the effects of that harm on the individuals affected and the larger school community. This encourages students to take responsibility for their actions and allows them to address their behavior by acknowledging and understanding how their behavior directly affects their peers, the learning environment, and the school community (National Opportunity to Learn, 2014).

Previous SectionNext Section

Addressing bullying

Concerned about the rising use of exclusionary discipline as well as bullying, Ed White Middle School in San Antonio, Texas, introduced the restorative justice model during the 2012-13 academic year. Teachers had two days of training, which included teacher and staff participation in restorative justice circles. Teachers were instructed on the importance of effectively using restorative justice circles and their nonhierarchical intent of putting all involved on an equal playing field, thus encouraging students to more effectively communicate with peers and teachers since everyone has an equal voice in the circle (Armour, n.d.).

Ed White incorporates various restorative justice circles throughout different stages of its discipline process. At the first stage, teachers used circles to build community in the classroom by checking in with students to ensure that they are ready to participate in the learning process and are not preoccupied with other matters. The circles were then incorporated into student problem solving, where students who had issues with other students could participate in a circle to address the conflict before it ballooned into a disciplinary matter. As the school year progressed and the school became better acquainted with using circles, teachers were encouraged to use them as the main form of discipline in the classroom. Students responded positively to the restorative justice circles, and they perceived disciplinary actions at the school as having much more procedural fairness after the program’s implementation (Armour, n.d.).

The Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue at the University of Texas at Austin observed Ed White’s first year of implementation and analyzed improvements during the transition to the restorative justice discipline system. The study found that the number of suspensions and expulsions were reduced, but the most noticeable change was the difference in school climate and culture (National Opportunity to Learn, 2014). “Circling it” is now a catchphrase at Ed White, and students in conflict with one another will ask staff to help them engage in restorative justice circles (KVUE, 2013). A teacher at Ed White said the restorative justice program has been a life-changing experience, and its ability to help troubled students open up and speak with staff has made a difference in overall behavior, specifically in classroom behavior. Similarly, Ed White students found that using the circles helped them understand other students better and that understanding helped resolve conflicts more quickly. The change from an exclusionary discipline policy to a restorative justice policy created a system that emphasizes reparations over punishment and fosters problem solving and accountability in students, which has created a school climate more conducive to learning.

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) incentivizes good behavior by acknowledging students who exhibit good behavior instead of simply singling out students who exhibit bad behavior.

Previous SectionNext Section

Alternative #2: PBIS

Like restorative justice, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports seeks to minimize the need for exclusionary discipline by improving school climate and changing student behavior (Dignity in Schools, n.d.). Instead of waiting for students to misbehave and then punishing them, PBIS establishes behavioral expectations for the school community and rewards students who successfully follow community guidelines (Texans Care for Children, 2012). Schools following the PBIS model seek to establish a climate where appropriate behavior is the norm, and students are rewarded for following community standards.

PBIS is an evidence-based disciplinary model that uses a three-tier system of behavioral support. It is not a one-size-fits-all curriculum but rather an approach to discipline that can include a number of different strategies at each tier, allowing each school to tailor and update its discipline policies to meet the individualized needs of students and teachers (Dignity in Schools, n.d.). The first tier involves a schoolwide system that creates clear and consistent expectations for student behavior and teaches behavioral expectations to all students. PBIS incentivizes good behavior by acknowledging students who exhibit good behavior instead of simply singling out students who exhibit bad behavior. Also included in the first tier are classroom management training and strategies for how educators should respond to misbehavior (Texans Care for Children, 2012).

The second and third tiers focus on students who don’t respond to first-tier preventative interventions. Second-tier strategies include interventions focused on small groups of students and may include practices such as small classes or clubs teaching social skills and conflict resolution, or Check In/Check Out, a program through which students check in with an adult at the beginning and end of each day and receive teacher feedback throughout the day. For students who are still not responsive to second-tier interventions, third-tier strategies include highly individualized responses to problem behavior, such as a functional behavioral assessment and a personalized support plan involving assessment-based strategies to modify behavior (National Technical Assistance Center, n.d.).

PBIS has been demonstrated to decrease schools’ reliance on exclusionary discipline like out-of-school suspensions and expulsions (Runge, Staszkiewicz, & O’Donnell, 2011). Disciplinary incidents have been shown to decrease anywhere between 20% and 60% in schools implementing PBIS (Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 2009). PBIS has been shown to have other benefits as well, including improved academic performance, increased attendance, improved school climate, and sense of school safety. For these reasons, PBIS implementation in schools is rapidly expanding. An estimated 18,000 schools nationwide were implementing PBIS as of 2012, more than double the number of schools in 2007 (Texans Care for Children, 2012).

For schools and districts interested in implementing PBIS, statewide or regional support networks and training centers may be available. For example, Florida has established a statewide Positive Behavior Support: Multi-Tiered Support System. As of the 2011-12 school year, the project reported that 1,174 schools received training for Tier 1 of PBIS, with about half of those implementing Tiers 2 and 3 as well. After just one year of implementation, schools reported a 15% decrease in office disciplinary referrals, an 18% decrease in in-school suspensions, and an 8% decrease in out-of-school suspensions (Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project, 2012).

The extent to which a school implemented PBIS with a high degree of fidelity was also a determining factor in the school’s improvement in discipline. For example, high-implementing schools had an average of 38% fewer in-school suspensions than low-implementing schools (Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project, 2012). Other resources that provide implementation training and coaching are available in states across the country. General information as well as a list of state and regional PBIS coordinators can be found on the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs’ web site (www.pbis.org).

Social and emotional learning helps children learn critical skills like recognizing and managing their emotions, building positive relationships with others, and making responsible decisions.

Previous SectionNext Section

Alternative #3: Social and emotional learning

Social and emotional learning is a research-based approach that helps children learn critical skills like recognizing and managing their emotions, building positive relationships with others, and making responsible decisions (CASEL, n.d.). Students are instructed in core social and emotional competencies, including self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. Research shows that SEL programs that effectively teach these skills experience a significant decrease in student misbehavior, hence a decreasing reliance on exclusionary discipline. SEL programs also can contribute to improved academic achievement, as well as safe and supportive school learning environments where students feel respected and are actively engaged in learning (CASEL, n.d.).

In 2013, the Austin (Texas) Independent School District (AISD) began an initiative to implement SEL overseen by a newly created Department of Social and Emotional Learning. So far, it has launched SEL programs in schools serving more than half of the district’s students, with the goal of serving all students by the 2015-16 school years. AISD’s program emphasizes the five essential SEL competencies: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision making. The program calls for specific instruction each week on the principles, and AISD teachers also integrate SEL into existing lesson plans (AISD, n.d.).

Cunningham Elementary School in south-central Austin has implemented SEL in all aspects of its environment. Faculty share their SEL experiences at monthly staff meetings and develop school wide SEL activities. Teachers at Cunningham also look for ways to include SEL lessons in established curriculum and academic areas. Furthermore, the school has implemented Peace Paths, which provides step-by-step instructions to help students in conflict until they reach a mutual resolution.

Austin evaluates the effectiveness of its SEL programming through districtwide school climate surveys and through interactions with students to measure perception and growth. Two years into the program, Austin administrators saw a noticeable positive change in the school climate and an increase in actively engaged students during classroom activities. Discipline referrals declined, and school interactions improved. At one high school, SEL instruction combined with tutoring and study skills for at-risk freshmen led to a 20% drop in class failures and a 28% drop in disciplinary referrals compared to the previous year (AISD, n.d.).

Previous SectionNext Section

Conclusion: Alternatives work

Over the past few decades, many schools have increasingly relied upon exclusionary discipline to control student misbehavior. Yet, in most cases, removing disruptive students from the classroom does not modify student behavior, and research shows it does more harm than good. We now know that students who are suspended or expelled from school are less likely to succeed academically and more likely to enter the juvenile justice system. Exclusionary discipline has created a school-to-prison pipeline that funnels children away from schools into the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

However, the alternative to exclusionary discipline is not tolerance of misbehavior. Rather, school administrators, teachers, and staff must develop ways to address misbehavior and improve all students’ chances for success. Fortunately, proven alternative approaches to school discipline exist. Restorative justice programs, PBIS, and SEL all have been shown to reduce schools’ need for exclusionary discipline by preventing student misbehavior in the first place and successfully modifying misbehavior when it occurs. As an added benefit, schools implementing these disciplinary alternatives have seen improved school climates and academic achievement. Implementation of such programs takes dedication and work, but the results are worth it.

Previous Section

References

1. ↵
   1. Armour M.

(n.d.). Ed White Middle School restorative discipline evaluation: Implementation and impact 2012/2013 6th grade. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, The Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue.www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/rji/pdf/Ed_White_Evaluation2012-2013.pdf

2. ↵

Austin Independent School District (AISD). (n.d.). Tools for Learning, Tools for Life.Austin, TX: Author. www.austinisd.org/academics/sel

3. ↵

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (2009). Why states and communities should implement schoolwide positive behavior support integrated with mental health care(Fact sheet). Washington, DC: Author. www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=S2VPkMzMndM%3d&tabid=104

4. ↵

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (n.d.). School and district efforts align for SEL results. Chicago, IL: Author.www.casel.org/snapshots/austin-independent-school-district

5. ↵

Dignity in Schools. (n.d.). Fact sheet: Creating positive school discipline. New York, NY: Author.www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/Creating_Positive_Discipline_Fact_Sheet.pdf

6. ↵
   1. Fabelo T.,
   2. Thompson M.D.,
   3. Plotkin M.,
   4. Carmichael D.,
   5. Marchbanks M.P.,
   6. Booth E.A.

(2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

Google Scholar

7. ↵

Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project. (2012). Annual outcome and evaluation report 2011-12. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.

8. ↵
   1. Jones H.T.

(2013). Restorative justice in school communities: Successes, obstacles, and areas for improvement (Unpublished master’s thesis). Austin, TX:University of Texas at Austin www.utexas.edu/research/cswr/rji/rdinschools.html.

9. ↵

KVUE. (2013, December 18). Suspension numbers decrease for middle school ‘circling it out.’ KVUE.com . www.kvue.com/story/news/local/texas-news/2014/05/25/2431130/ws/local/texas-news/2014/05/25/2431130/>

10. ↵

National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (n.d.). www.pbis.org/

11. ↵

National Opportunity to Learn Campaign. (2014). Restorative practices: Fostering healthy relationships & promoting positive discipline in schools. Cambridge, MA:Author. www.otlcampaign.org/sites/default/files/restorative-practices-guide.pdf

12. ↵
    1. Runge T.J.,
    2. Staszkiewicz M.J.,
    3. O’Donnell K.H.

(2011). Pennsylvania schoolwide positive behavioral interventions & supports: 3 rd annual summary of implementation fidelity and impact on PA PBS Network of Schools in years 2006-2011 (Unpublished technical report). Indiana, PA: Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Google Scholar

13. ↵

Texans Care for Children. (2012). Schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports: A plan for Texas. Austin, TX: Author.http://txchildren.org/Images/Interior/reports/pbis-%20a%20plan%20for%20texas.pdf

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton