Assertive Discipline vs. Love and Logic

Assertive Discipline vs. Love and Logic

Becca Troike

CI 406

Fall 2013

Classroom management is a widely discussed topic in the field of education.  It involves “teacher actions to create a learning environment that encourages positive social interaction, active engagement in learning, and self-motivation” (Burden & Byrd, 2013, p. 224).  As a teacher it is important that you have control over your classroom so that students are provided with a safe and effective learning environment that is free from stress and distractions.  There are a variety of approaches that can be used to accomplish this task, but it is up to the classroom teacher to decide which approach or combination of approaches he or she will use.   In this book, I specifically look at two different classroom management approaches:  Lee and Marlene Canter’s Assertive Discipline and Jim Fay and David Funk’s Love and Logic.  Each approach will be discussed in terms of origin, how they are implemented, examples of use in the classroom, and how they are both similar and different.

Assertive Discipline was developed and created by Lee and Marlene Canter, whom both were working and studying in education related fields.  Out of a desire to research discipline problems in the classroom due to a student who’s disruptive behavior challenged Marlene, assertive discipline was born.  The Canter’s found that “when given clear expectations and consistent follow through, most children, even the very disruptive ones, are able to choose appropriate behavior” (Canter, 1992, p. xviii).  In creating this program, their goal was to help teachers gain control of their classrooms in a firm yet positive way (Canter, 1992).

The Assertive Discipline model centers around the various rights of the classroom teacher.  This includes the right to create rules that establish what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, the right to support students who are exhibiting appropriate, non-disruptive behavior, the right to teach students that they must follow these rules throughout the entire school year, and the right to ask for help from both parents and school administrators when dealing with discipline issues.  When establishing these rules, teachers must make sure that they are observable and enforceable all day long, and although it is the right of the teacher to create these rules, students should be involved in the establishment of them in some way.  In an elementary school classroom, examples of appropriate rules would be “follow directions, keep hands feet, and objects to yourself, do not leave the room without permission, and no yelling or screaming” (Canter, 1992, p. 53). 

If one were to walk into a classroom where this model is used, they would find an assertive teacher “who clearly and firmly communicates her expectations to her students, and is prepared to reinforce her words with appropriate actions.  She responds to her students in a manner that maximizes her potential to get her own needs to teach met, but in no way violates the best interest of the students” (Canter, 1992, p. 14).  Unfortunately many teachers find it difficult to be an assertive teacher because they doubt their ability to successfully deal with disruptive behavior.  However, with the skills and strategies suggested by the Canters, they can successfully become assertive teachers.

In order to put these principles into action, the teacher must develop a classroom action plan.  This plan makes managing behavior easier, protects the rights of students, and helps to secure support from both parents and administrators.  It consists of three sections, which are rules, positive recognition, and consequences.  As previously mentioned, rules must be observable, not vague, and elaborate on what expectations are necessary for students to follow throughout the entire school day.  Once these rules have been established, the teacher must determine how he or she will provide students with positive recognition.  Positive recognition is defined as “the sincere and meaningful attention you give a student for behaving according to your expectations,” and will help encourage students to choose positive behaviors (Canter, 1992, p. 57).  This recognition can be individual such as notes and phone calls to parents, physical rewards, and special privileges, or it can be whole class such as extra free time or recess and special projects or activities.  However, the consequences that teachers enforce in the classroom must be ones that students do not like, although they do not need to be harsh to be effective.  These consequences should also be placed on a tiered system.  The purpose of this tiered system is to place the teacher as the highest authority because “difficulties arise in the classroom system when teachers allow their students to have too much power or when it is unclear who is in charge” (Scarlett et al., 2009, p. 182).  For example, the very first time a student exhibits disruptive behavior they should be given a warning.  It is not until the behavior continues a second or third time that they should receive a consequence.  These consequences include things like giving a student a time out, keeping a student after class, or the loss of a privilege in the classroom.  If a student creates a disruption beyond that, the teacher should contact the student’s parents, and then the principal (Canter, 1992).  Although consequences must be enforced, “the key to Assertive Discipline is catching students being good – and letting them know that you like it” (Canter, p. 58).

For example, if a group of students is off task, the teacher would first provide them with a warning by reminding them what they are to be doing, while at the same time providing students who are behaving appropriately with supportive feedback.  This supportive feedback would be something like “thank you for reading quietly”.  If the students continue to be off task, the teacher would provide a consequence by not allowing them to leave right away when the bell rings at the end of class.  If this doesn’t work, the student should be held after class for a little bit longer.  Then, upon a fourth time disrupting the class, the teacher may move the student to another area of the classroom.  If the behavior continues to occur, the teacher should remind the student of the discipline plan, and tell the student that they will be receiving a phone call home.  If the behavior continues to escalate, the student should be sent to the principals office (Wolfgang, 2005).

This discipline plan must be explicitly taught to students.  The teacher must explain to students why classroom rules are necessary, teach the rules themselves, make sure the students understand the rules, explain how students who follow the rules will be recognized, explain why there are consequences and what those consequences are, and once again check for student understanding.  This is often done through role-playing so that students see for themselves what the rules mean.  It is important that this be done at the beginning of the year so that students know what is expected right off the bat; however, this plan needs to be revisited throughout the year so that students do not forget what is expected of them.  In addition, this discipline plan should be clearly posted within the classroom, and also sent home to parents so that they are aware of what you expect from their students (Canter, 1992).

Jim Fay and David Funk developed the Love and Logic model for classroom management in the 1980’s when the Love and Logic Institute was formed.  This model “puts teachers in control, teaches kids to think for themselves, raises the level of student responsibility, and prepares kids to function effectively in a society filled with temptations, decisions, and consequences” (Fay & Funk, 1995, p. vii).

Love and logic centers around four main principles.  These principles include “ student’s self-concept needs to be either maintained or enhanced, control is a shared commodity, consequences must be served up with compassion, empathy, or understanding, rather than anger, and thinking needs to be shared” (Wolfgang, 2005, p. 148-150).  The first principle stresses that a teacher must help students who have a poor self-concept find what strengths they have and how they can go about using them.  Even if a student exhibits a negative behavior, they must know that the teacher still views them as a worthy individual despite their wrong-doings.

 The second principle acknowledges that the teacher only controls as much as they need to in the classroom and allows students to have a choice.  Though students have choice in the classroom, this freedom of choice must be given within reason.  When establishing such a choice, there are a few rules to consider.  For example, teachers should not give a student a choice that they are not ready to follow through with, or if they are not ready to make the choice for the student if they do not do so in a timely manner (Wolfgang 2005).

The third principle revolves around the idea that teachers must be compassionate when they give students consequences.  Just because a student exhibits unacceptable behavior, does not mean that that student is incapable of redeeming his or her self. For example, when students are given consequences, they often feel some sense of hurt.  If a teacher delivers a punishment with anger in the sound of his or her voice, the student blames the teacher for the hurt they experience (Wolfgang, 2005).  For this reason, teachers should provide students with “the opportunity to be involved in the solution/decision making” and “give students the opportunity to develop a new plan of behavior (Wolfgang, 2005, p. 151).

The fourth principle requires that thinking in the classroom be a shared activity.  For example, “students should do more thinking than the adult and be involved in making decisions that affect his or her life” (Fay and Funk, 1995, p. 110).   This means that the teacher uses less assertive words or phrases and instead using questioning to prompt student thinking.  In order to encourage such thinking by students, teachers can use phrases like “how do you feel about…? Would you like my thinking on that?”, and On a scale of 1 to 10, how good a decision do you think that is?” (Wolfgang, 2005, p. 151). 

If students violate the rules that have been created for the classroom, teachers are required to enforce consequences; however these consequences are based on the main principles previously stated.   According to Fay and Funk, “kids will respond positively to a penalty when they see a logical connection between their behavior and what happens to then as a result of that behavior” (1995, p. 165).  This is why the same consequence may not work for all students in the classroom. When administering consequences it is important to keep specific guidelines in mind.  First, the consequence needs to be enforced at the time and place the misbehavior occurs, and the student needs to be involved in the development of the consequence.  As previously mentioned, it is important that the teacher remains calm when providing a student with a consequence.  The student should then have the opportunity to develop a new behavior plan, and also to make their own judgments about their behavior.  Once this plan has been set in place, the teacher should model appropriate behavior for the student, as many students will benefit from this (Kay & Funk, 1995).

For example, if a student is exhibiting a disruptive behavior such as verbally abusing another student, the teacher might respond by giving the student a choice by asking something like “would you rather show respect for other students or find another place to work?,” or saying something like “That’s sad, John. We have a rule in this class; we don’t use put-downs.  I would like to talk to you after class.  I worry about you when I see you putting other kids down” (Fay & Funk, 1995, p. 297).  

Preventative action is also an important part of any behavior management model.  Specifically, “Love and Logic offers disciplinary interventions as positive techniques that will often bring a student into appropriate behavior without having to make the situation into a major issue” (Kay & Funk, 1995, p. 309).  By implementing these interventions, the hope is that a student’s behavior will be self-corrected before a consequence needs to be enforced.  They are subtle actions that fall into the categories of looking, naming, questioning, commanding, modeling, and acting.  More specific intervention examples include “the ‘evil’ eye” which includes the teacher making eye contact with the student who is misbehaving without stopping the lesson being taught.  This tells the student that they are not behaving appropriately.  Another intervention is proximity.  During this intervention, the teacher uses physical space to stand near the student who is exhibiting inappropriate behavior.  For many students this redirects their behavior and gets them back on task.  These are only a few examples among many (Wolfgang, 2005).

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/09kgbgEtoq0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Both the Assertive Discipline and the Love and Logic model have similarities within their structures.  They are similar in the sense that both models are managing behavior and holding students accountable for their actions.  Each model also requires that consequences be enforced when a student breaks a rule that has been established by the teacher.  While consequences must be enforced, it should be done in a way that creates a positive teacher-student relationship.  Although both models share many similarities, they also have many differences.  For example, the teacher’s purpose in Assertive Discipline is to correct unacceptable behavior by telling the student exactly what their consequence will be in a firm manner; however, in Love and Logic the “teacher’s primary action is one of confronting through questioning while attempting to lead the student to logical and more productive social actions” (Wolfgang, 2005, p. 146).  These two ways of approaching student behavior are opposites in this sense.  Also, while Assertive Discipline requires that the same consequences be carried out for all students, Love and Logic believes that “’fair’ is often not identical treatment, but, rather, gibing what is needed” (Fay & Funk, 1995, p. 100).  While all rules are to be enforced, the consequences will vary depending on the student, which is a huge difference. 

After researching and comparing the Assertive Discipline and Love and Logic models, I realized that I use portions of each in my current placement as I am teaching.  If I were to look at the two models on spectrum scale, I feel that I would classify myself somewhere in the middle.  I believe that the model one uses in the classroom depends on the group of students they are teaching because not every model is going to work all the time.  For example, there are instances in my current placement where I must use Assertive Discipline, or my students would control the classroom, and no learning would take place.  If they get off task, I use an assertive tone and redirect their behavior, which relates to the Assertive Discipline model.  However, there are various students in my classroom who simply act out for attention because they are not getting it at home, or act out because their self-esteem is low.  In this situation, I believe I use more of a Love and Logic approach by using proximity and moving around the room to let my students know that I am paying attention to their behavior without addressing them in front of the whole class, and giving them the attention that they are looking for.

While all of the classes we have taken thus far are preparing up to be able to manage our own classroom, they have only given us general guidelines on how to create a positive environment and manage day-to-day tasks rather than how use the different models the readings suggest in depth.   I have learned that classroom management is something teachers should be putting forth effort to research.  When I began researching these two models I found myself surprised because I did not realize how much information there was on them and what their approaches really entailed.  This researched help me visualize how they can implemented in the classroom as well as how I already use various portions of them in my classroom.  If you have read this book, I urge you to continue researching these classroom management models as well as others to help determine what your classroom management philosophy will be.

Burden, P. R. & Byrd, D. M. (2013). Methods for effective teaching: Meeting the needs of all students, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Canter, L. (1989). Assertive discipline—more than names on the board and marbles in a jar. Phi Delta Kappan, 71. 57-61.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1992). Assertive discipline Positive behavior management for today's classroom . Santa Monica, CA: Lee Canter & Associates.

Fay, J., & Funk, D. (1995). Teaching with love and logic Taking control of the classroom . Golden, CO: Jim Fay and David Funk.

Scarlett, W.G., Ponte, I.C., & Singh, J.P. (2009). Approaches to behavior and classroom managment Integrating discipline and care . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc..

Wolfgang, C.H. (2005). Solving discipline and classroom management problems Methods and models for today's teachers (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..