Assertive Discipline and ‘cooperative’ programmes alike (rewards, logical consequences) aim at compliance. ‘When a student doesn’t do what he is told, the problem may be with what he has been told to do.‘
Claim
Rewards and consequences produce compliance without ethical understanding. The deeper fix is curriculum engagement and involving students in making the principles. Teachers should examine their own need for control.
Targets
Canter, Assertive Discipline; Dreikurs & Grey, Logical Consequences; Albert, Cooperative Discipline; Curwin & Mendler, Discipline with Dignity.
Limits (Claude)
- No outcome data for his alternative.
- Doesn’t engage the PBIS / school-wide positive behaviour support evidence, which shows reductions in office referrals.
- “Give up control” is hard to implement where a school must meet a behaviour standard.
Apply in my context (Claude)
- Axloqiy baholash redesign: Kohn’s critique favours restoration and reasoning (what happened, who was affected, what now?) over point deductions. This supports the restoration design already planned.
- Carol Read’s pre-emption (Behaviour management is mostly pre-emption) is a practical meeting point: engaging, well-pitched lessons are Kohn’s “fix the curriculum” in classroom form.
Connections
Rewards undermine interest in the rewarded activity · Pitch tasks inside the ZPD and hand over support