NCLB and Assertive Discipline

NCLB AND ASSERTIVE DISCIPLINE 1

1. With regard to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), describe

the basic principles, goals, and provisions of the law. Discuss

the consequences of NCLB, its effects on American schools and the

American educational system generally, and the extent to which it

has or has not met its goals. With reference to the correlates of

success and failure of educational reform efforts, evaluate and

analyze the extent to which NCLB has succeeded or failed.

2. Select another educational reform effort that we discussed in

class. Perform a similar analysis (to the one you have just done

for NCLB) with regard to the reform you have chosen.

Turgay OZKAN

University of Kansas


On Jan. 8, 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child

Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) with overwhelming support from

both the Democratic and Republican parties. President Bush

revealed his education reform plan with this new law, containing

the most sweeping changes to the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965. The Act

expanded the federal government's role in K-12 education. Each

states would set their own standards and pick their own tests. It

was passed in an attempt to increase accountability and school

achievement throughout the nation. The act contains the

President's four basic education reform principles: stronger

accountability for results, increased flexibility and local

control, expanded options for parents, and an emphasis on

teaching methods that have been proven to work.

The first principle is that NCLB cares increased academic

accountability of schools. Under No Child Left Behind, states aim


to actively close the achievement gap and ensure that all

students, including those who are disadvantaged, are able to

attain the education. Parents and communities get information

about state and school progress by observing annual state and

school district report cards. If schools fail to meet the

proficiency levels outlined by the state they must provide

additional resources to its students to ensure they can succeed.

These supplemental services are free tutoring or after-school

assistance; taking corrective actions. If the schools fall below

the identified proficiency level for more than five years

consecutively, then dramatic changes must be performed for the

administration and general functioning of the school (“Four

Pillars of NCLB,” n.d.).

The second principle is that NCLB gives increased

flexibility to state and school districts. The Act of NCLB allows

state and local level leaders to have greater control and

flexibility in their use of federal funds. For example, most

school districts can relocate 50 percent of the federal formula

grant funds they receive under specified programs. These programs


are “Improving Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational

Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools

programs” (“Four Pillars of NCLB,” n.d.). District leadership can

transfer the half of the fund under these programs to any one of

these programs, or to their Title I program, without receiving

permission. In this way, districts gain advantage to use funds

for their immediate needs, such as hiring new teachers,

increasing teacher pay, and improving teacher training and

professional development (“Four Pillars of NCLB,” n.d.).

The third principle is that NCLB supports academic programs

that have been proven successful through precise “scientific

research”. Federal funding is provided to support and encourage

scientifically proven educational programs a school uses. NCLB

supports programs and teaching methods only if they improve

student learning and achievement. (“Four Pillars of NCLB,” n.d.)

The last principle is that NCLB provides parents with

increased flexibility in school choice. Within the same district,

parents may transfer their children from low-performing schools

to better-performing public schools, including a public charter


school. Schools have to meet state standards at least two years;

otherwise, they are called low-performing schools. Transportation

is provided by the district to and from the new school. In

schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three

years, the students from low-income families are eligible to

receive supplemental educational services such as tutoring,

after-school services, and summer school. “Students who attend a

persistently dangerous school or are the victim of a violent

crime while in their school have the option to attend a safe

school within their district” (“Four Pillars of NCLB,” n.d.).

The overall purpose of the law is to “ensure that all

children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to

obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum,

proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards

and state academic assessments” (Act, 2001). The specific goals

of the law, as spelled out in the Federal Register issued on

March 6, 2002, are:


1. By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at

a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in

reading/language arts and mathematics.

2. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly

qualified teachers.

3. All limited English proficient students will become

proficient in English and reach high academic standards,

at a minimum, attaining proficiency or better in reading

and mathematics.

4. All students will be educated in learning environments

that are safe, drug free and conducive to learning.

5. All students will graduate from high school.

(“NCLBGoalsIndicators.doc,” n.d.)

Key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act are state

evaluations, adequate yearly progress (AYP), low-performing

schools, public school choice, additional educational services,

remedial actions, restructuring, highly qualified teachers, use

of research based practices. (“Exhibit 1. Key Provisions of the

No Child Left Behind Act,” n.d.)


States must implement annual testing of all students against

the states' reading and math standards in grades 3 through 8 and

at least once in grades 10-12, in science at three times within a

student's school career, including once in high school. All

students, including students with disabilities and limited

English proficient (LEP) students, must take state tests. States

must set annual targets and timeline for determining whether a

school, district, and the state are making adequate yearly

progress (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent of students meeting

the designated standards by the 2013 – 2014 school year. Title I

schools and districts must receive technical assistance followed

by sanctions for schools, and districts for failure to meet AYP

for two consecutive years. Districts must offer all students in

low-achieving schools the choice to transfer to a better-

achieving school. District must provide transportation. (“Exhibit

1. Key Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act,” n.d.)

District must provide additional educational services to

low-income students who attend a school that miss AYP for a third


year. If Title I schools miss AYP for a fourth year, districts

must implement at least one of the following corrective actions:

Replace school staff members who are relevant to the failure

to make AYP; implement a new curriculum; decrease management

authority at the school level; appoint an outside expert to

advise the school; extend the school day or year; or

restructure the internal organization of the school.

(“Exhibit 1. Key Provisions of the No Child Left Behind

Act,” n.d.)

If Title I schools miss AYP for a fifth year, districts also

must begin planning to implement at least one of the following

restructuring interventions:

Reopen the school as a charter school; replace all or most

of the school staff; contract with a private entity to

manage the school; turn over operation of the school to the

state; or adopt some other major restructuring of the

school’s governance. (“Exhibit 1. Key Provisions of the No

Child Left Behind Act,” n.d.)


All teachers that instruct core academic subjects in schools

must be “highly qualified” that requires teachers to have a

bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and verified

proficiency in each core academic subject that they teach.

Schools must use scientifically-based educational programs and

strategies. (“Exhibit 1. Key Provisions of the No Child Left

Behind Act,” n.d.)

After No Child Left Behind signed into law in 2002, American

education system transformed from curriculum and standards to

accountability and choice. (Ravitch, 2011) Test scores of

students in state reading and mathematics examination became the

critical assessment method for students, teachers, principals,

and schools. NCLB allows each states to determine their own

standards and test them every year for reading and mathematics as

well as every three years for science. The law put other

subjects, such as art, history, literature, geography out of

assessment. Subjects that was not assessed by testing system are

ignored in the school curriculum. Educators, naturally, consume

more resources through focusing on the topics that are more


heavily represented on the high-stake tests than non-tested

subjects, such as social studies, art and music. (Barlow, 2009;

Ravitch, 2011)

Test based accountability raised the state standardized

tests as the sole criterion to measure all schools. The annual

progress of schools is assessed by single standardized test

causes more emphasize on passing the test. This triggers spending

the more time on test subjects, the less time other curricular

activities (Dee & Jacob, 2011) and narrowing the curriculum

(Ravitch, 2011). When the test becomes high stakes, spending time

for test techniques in classroom dominates the other classroom

experience and lessens instructional time. I think that two

reasons provide this consequences. While the test scores do not

have an impact on students’ academic success in school, the

results of state tests affect everybody other than themselves.

Test measures only a students’ performance on annual multiple-

choice reading and math tests. On the other hand, teachers begin

teaching to the test because of the fear that their students will

perform badly in test. Using data from the Chicago public


schools, Jacob and Levitt (2003) found that high-stakes testing,

to a great degree, lead school personnel to deliberately

manipulate student test scores (Jacob & Levitt, 2003).

According to NCLB, one of the main reasons for the failure

of schools is ineffective teaching methods. NCLB proposes

scientifically proven educational programs as a solution. NCLB

supports programs and teaching methods only if they improve

student learning and achievement. Who will assess the quality of

this teaching methods? Do these methods give the same results

every classroom condition? The history of educational is replete

with forgotten reform movements, such as assertive discipline.

A major component of NCLB is highly qualified teachers for

each classroom. According to NCLB, a highly qualified teacher is

one who have a bachelor’s degree, full state certification, and

verified proficiency in each core academic subject that they

teach. Bachelor’s degree means that teacher is trained in their

particular topic not means that he or she is ready for all

situations in the classroom. Teachers must attain professional

education like other professions. I think that teacher quality is


of uppermost importance for students’ learning (Ravitch, 2011). I

advocate that teachers must be graduated from teacher education

school offering specialized training to prepare their students

for the requirements of their future working setting.

According to nearly three-fourths of the states and school

districts, state test scores in reading and mathematics are going

up, and the achievement gaps on these same tests are generally

narrowing or staying the same (Jennings & Rentner, 2006). The

data which are from mainly NAEP on national trends in student

achievement from 1992 to 2007 suggest that NCLB have increased

the math performance of fourth-graders. Black eighth-graders have

similar gains in the math performance. Long-Term Trend (LTT)

NAEP data provide achievement growth for 9- and 13-year-olds in

math and reading (Dee & Jacob, 2011).

Dee and Jacob (2010) argues that NCLB has had a positive

influence on elementary student performance in mathematics,

mainly at the lower grades but not a similar effect on reading

performance. They have found that NCLB has effected positively

traditionally disadvantaged populations, particularly Hispanic


students. Also, they argues that although international

comparisons do not provide reliable inferences about the impact

of NCLB, fourth-grade math achievement have been positively

affected by NCLB by looking at the comparative international

achievement data from the Trends in International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS). Moreover, TIMMS data provide no indication

that NCLB improved the reading achievement of young students

congruent with the national time-series evidence.

Although some researchers argue that students test scores

have increased in NCLB era, others are of different opinions.

Ravitch argues that half the nation's schools are considered

failing schools and NCLB guarantees that the number of failing

schools will grow every year. She says “If the law remains

intact, we can reasonably expect that nearly every public school

in the United States will be labeled as a failing school by 2014”

(“Ravitch: No Child Left Behind and the damage done - The Answer

Sheet - The Washington Post,” n.d.).

School administrators tend to hire effective teachers but

they are not firing the ineffective teachers because of teacher


unions. Administrators do not easily hire and fire teachers that

have union contract providing job security. If there were no

unions, local leaders could hire and fire ineffective leaders and

provide the target of hundred percent highly qualified teachers.

However, teacher unions’ contracts protect teachers against

arbitrary dismissals (Ravitch, 2011). Dee and Jacob (2010) have

found that by 2008, NCLB had increased the fraction of teachers

with a master’s degree by roughly 14 percent. They content that

many districts require teachers to have a master’s degree for

permanent certification.

No Child Left Behind dramatically expanded the federal role

in public schooling, for example per-pupil school district

expenditure. Dee and Jacob (2010) have demonstrated that NCLB

increased total current expenditure by $570 per pupil, or by 6.8

percent from the 1999–2000 mean of $8,360. Average teacher

compensation have increased by over $5,000, or by roughly 8

percent relative to the pre-NCLB mean of $79,577 (Dee & Jacob,

2010).


NCLB has made a major impact on American public education

since it signed into law in 2002. Although there is more testing

and more accountability scores on state mathematics tests have

risen. To reach the goal of all students will reach high

standards would be a miracle. We still face school shootings so

NCLB has not achieved yet the aim of safe educational

environment. The goals stated in the NCLB Act contain many worthy

and honorable ideas to improve American education system.

However, although all the noble ideals NCLB Act has, the

implication of the Act was a close failure in practice.

References:

Act, N. C. L. B. (2001). PL 107-110. In US 107th Congress.

Churney, L., & Entry, T. G. (1979). Student Protest in the 1960s.

Yale-New Haven Teacher Institute.

Barlow, D. (2009). Resources for educators. Education Digest, 74(5),

69–72.


Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left

Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management, 30(3), 418–446.

Exhibit 1. Key Provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.

(n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2014, from

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/titleI_final/exhibits/exhibit_01

.asp

Four Pillars of NCLB. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2014, from

http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html

Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of

the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating (No. w9413). National

Bureau of Economic Research.

Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. S. (2006). Ten big effects of the No

Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan,

88(2), 110.

NCLBGoalsIndicators.doc. (n.d.). Retrieved October 2, 2014, from

https://www.ade.az.gov/asd/nclblibrary/NCLBGoalsIndicators.d

oc


Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system: How

testing and choice are undermining education. Basic Books.

Ravitch: No Child Left Behind and the damage done - The Answer

Sheet - The Washington Post. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3,

2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-

sheet/post/ravitch-no-child-left-behind-and-the-damage-

done/2012/01/10/gIQAR4gxoP_blog.html

Roos, L. L., Roos, N. P., & Field, G. R. (1968). Students and

politics in Turkey. Daedalus, 184-203.

Assertive Discipline as a Reform Movement

For teachers and parents, discipline problems are the major

concern in school environment (Green & Gaikwad, 1992). What can

teachers expect and how can they effectively handle discipline

problems? The solution to this problem is the classroom

management combined with an effective discipline plan. Classroom

management is one of the most important parts of teaching for


teachers. Lack of effective classroom management will cause a

decrease in students’ learning and an extra stress and effort for

teachers in accomplishing the teaching process. There are a wide

range of discipline models available for teachers (Maag, 2012).

In this paper, I will analyze Canter’s assertive discipline model

which was most popular between 1970s and early 1990s.

Traditional approach to classroom management used to give

the most value to the order of the classroom for an effective

teaching. Nowadays, however, the management engaged with the

involvement of students to the activities that may have taken as

a mismanagement of the classroom earlier. Even though the modern

approach can be found the correct way of classroom management,

the importance of the discipline in learning process cannot be

denied completely.

To understand why assertive discipline was a well-respected

and widely used program (Cotton, 2001) we need to look at the

circumstances setting the stage for it. Classroom management may

not have discussed by the schoolmasters in traditional schooling

of the Early National period in the United States since education


was a face-to-face encounter (Butchart, 1995). According to

Buthchart, teachers maintained the order by relying on force and

fear, punishing misbehavior, correcting mistakes in lessons, and

proceeded their responsibilities based on the moral order of

their society.

Butchart (1995) argued that traditional schooling was

effected by some factors, such as the Enlightenment, American

republicanism, the market revolution of the eighteenth century

and industrialism. As a result of these factors, moral values

founded on changing social relations was appreciated in

education.

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, progressive

education movement became efficient in American schooling system.

Butchart stated that progressive teachers created a new form of

authority not based on “moral psychology of love and familial

nurture, but from a professional psychology of expertise,

detachment, scientific study, and a hierarchal

professional/client relationship” (174). He argued that in this

era child-centered, social efficiency and mental hygiene


practices and traditions penetrated progressive literature on

classroom discipline. At the end, progressive disciplinary values

was not based on democratic values but on developing market

place. (Butchart, 1995, p. 174-177)

Butchart highlighted a milestone for the history of

classroom management in the post-progressive era. Thus far,

educators’ expectations from discipline was of the benefit to

students, to teachers and, in the end, to society. However, since

1950’s, objectives of the classroom management models stressed

the immediate control of students. Researchers developed short

term goal of classroom management instead of long term effect on

social order. (Butchart, 1995, p. 179)

Most educated Americans defines “real school” as a place in

which teachers maintain strict discipline and regularly oversee

students in class (Tyack, 1995). Tyack argues that parents miss

“the good old days of drill and discipline” (p.17) because they

believe that kids would learn really something in schools.

Discipline was one of a main problems in schools during the

twenty years from 1969 to 1988. It was on the first place for


sixteen of the twenty years and always existed. Politicians

insistently demanded greater coherence and discipline in

schooling (p.32). In the late 1970s and 1980s, reformers tended

to solve the problems of “the mediocrity of academic performance,

the proliferation of elective courses, poor discipline, and lax

teachers” (p.53).

Assertive Discipline is a detailed approach to classroom and

school-wide discipline. Lee and Marlene Canter first published

their book, Assertive Discipline: A Take Charge Approach for

Today's Educator, in 1976. Assertive discipline is an outcome of

their professional efforts. They were working directly with

children who have behavior problems and advising teachers how to

handle effectively such children (Barrett, 1985). They developed

their model, originally based on nine major aspects. These are:

1- Teachers have the right to determine the environmental

structure, rules, and routines that will facilitate

learning.

2- Teachers have the right to insist that students conform to

their standards.


3- Teachers should prepare a discipline plan in advance,

including statements of their expectations, rules, and

routines and the type of discipline method to be used if and

when students misbehave.

4- Students do not have the right to interfere with others’

learning.

5- When students do not behave in a manner consistent with

teacher expectations, teachers can respond in one of three

ways: nonassertively by surrendering to their students,

hostilely by showing anger, or assertively by calmly

insisting and assuming that students will fulfill these

expectations.

6- Students choose to misbehave, and teachers should not accept

their excuses for such misbehavior.

7- Teachers should use positive and negative consequences to

convince students that it is to their benefit to behave

appropriately.


8- Teachers should not feel bad if forced to use harshly

negative consequences when necessary because students want

teachers to help them control themselves.

9- Teachers have the right to ask for help from parents and

school administrators when handling student misbehavior.

(Martella et al., 2012 , p.6)(SAGE Publications)

Malmgren et al. (2005) summarized the four main components

of the model. First, teachers should develop a set of rules for

the classroom. The rules must be observable and these rules must

always be in effect (Canter, 2001). Second, teachers should

determine a set of positive consequences for following the rules.

Canters advocate a “marble jar” as a reward. When everything goes

well, add a marble to the jar. When the jar is filled, provide

the entire class with a reward. Third, teachers should establish

a set of negative consequences for not following the rules. The

discipline plan will also set clear guidelines for consequences

if a rule is broken. There should be a defined discipline

hierarchy, meaning specific consequences established for breaking

a rule the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time and a consequence for a severe


misbehavior (Canter, 2001). Canter (2001) suggest that a

discipline plan include a maximum of five consequences for

misbehavior. For example, the first time a student breaks a rule,

the student is warned. The second infraction brings a 10-minute

timeout; the third infraction, a 15-minute timeout. The fourth

time a student breaks a rule, the teacher calls the parents; the

fifth time, the student goes to the principal. Finally, teachers

should implement the model with the students. On the first day of

school, teachers should make sure all students understand the

Discipline Plan (rules) and the Discipline Hierarchy

(consequences). The appropriate response from the teacher, either

supportive feedback or corrective action, is dependent upon the

student’s behavior being expected or unwanted (Canter, 2001).

Canters (2001) argue that Assertive Discipline model has

definite benefits to both the teacher and students. Model is a

proactive approach that the teacher builds a carefully planned

behavior management system to practice in classroom when kids are

being disruptive. The discipline hierarchy shows the responses

against the disruption occurred in the classroom. These rules are


aimed at stopping the disturbance so both the teacher and

students can get back to learning. Prior planning helps teacher

to give proper response automatically when disciplining a

student. With this way the teacher does not become emotionally

involved in the situation. An accepted discipline plan protects

the rights of both the students and the teacher in the classroom.

The discipline plan ensures that each troublesome student will be

handled in a reliable and rational manner, because the teacher is

responding to the specific actions and not the student. The

consistency and fair manner in which behaviors are dealt with

will guarantee positive relationships with students, an essential

part of a student’s ability and willingness to learn. The

inclusion of parents and administrator support, placement of

responsibility on students to act in appropriate manner and an

increase in students’ self-esteem are other benefits from this

model.

Canter (2001) insists that Assertive Discipline can be

effective on any educational level, with minor changes to

supportive feedback and corrective actions. As with any system or


pre-structured lesson plans, Assertive Discipline strategies need

to be adapted to fit each specific classroom. For example in

Early Elementary classrooms, rewards can come in the form of a

sticker, a ticket for a prize, and a note sent home parents.

Corrective actions in Early Elementary classrooms could be moving

a child away from the group, moving student closer to the

teacher’s desk or a note home to the parent. In Secondary

Education, rewards can come in forms of certificates, student of

the week posters, or a pass for a privilege in the classroom.

Consequences in Secondary Education would take the form of

writing in a behavior journal, staying after class or after

school, or being sent to administrator’s office (Manning &

Butcher, 2007).

Even after being taught the discipline plan, however, some

students will continue to misbehave. Three approaches are used to

work with these difficult students. First, a one-on-one problem-

solving conference is scheduled at which the student and the

teacher try to gain insight into the student’s behavior. This

meeting’s main goal is not to punish the student but to provide


guidance. Second, positive support should be used to build a

relationship. The teacher should show the student that he or she

cares about the student as a person and should make an attempt to

get to know the student on a more personal basis. The student

must feel that the teacher truly cares about him or her. Finally,

an individualized behavior plan should be developed that is more

specialized to the student’s individual needs compared with the

needs of the other students (Charles & Senter, 2005)

Since Assertive Discipline was introduced in1976, more

than1. 5 million teachers have attended workshops on this

discipline style (Canter, 2014). Research has been conducted on

the use of Assertive Discipline in both classroom and school

settings. Though Assertive Discipline has its detractors, many

studies (Nicholls & Houghton, 1995; Swinson & Cording, 2002)

indicated that, when appropriately implemented and used,

Assertive Discipline does produce positive results. For example,

the model is an effective tool in decreasing the number of

incidences of inappropriate and disruptive student behavior in

the classroom and school settings. Some researchers pointed out


that teacher attitudes toward student behavior were affected

positively through their use of Assertive Discipline. Nicholls

and Houghton (1995) showed that when teachers completed a

workshop in Assertive Discipline, student on-task behavior

increased, and the frequency of disruptive behavior decreased.

Rosemberg et al. (1997) proved that Assertive Discipline has a

positive influence on teachers’ behavior exerting over their

pupils' behavior. Swinson and Cording (2002) reported teachers

trained on the use of Assertive Discipline use more positive

feedback and praise over pupils who are seen as being disaffected

or very discouraged. Desiderio and Mullenix (2005) reported that

some researches on pre-service teachers trained in Assertive

Discipline indicated that they are being better prepared and more

assertive in dealing with students' inappropriate and disruptive

behaviors in the classroom. Chamberlin (1982) argues that

assertiveness can be learned, applied and used to achieve

discipline in the classroom.

However, there have been some dissenting voices. The

criticisms of Canter’s Assertive Discipline suggest that the


model is authoritarian and does not consider the student’s best

interest. They advocate that Assertive Discipline puts too much

focus on punishment and rewards and does not lead to real

behavior modification. One critic, Alfie Kohn (1996), states that

“Assertive Discipline, after all, is essentially a collection of

bribes and threats whose purpose is to enforce rules that the

teacher alone devises and imposes. The point is to get the trains

to run on time in the classroom, never mind whom they run over.

Everything, including the feelings of students, must be

sacrificed to the imperative of obedience:

Whenever possible, simply ignore the covert hostility of a

student. By ignoring the behavior, you will diffuse [sic]

the situation. Remember, what you really want is for the

student to comply with your request. Whether or not the

student does it in an angry manner is not the issue. (Lee

Canter's Assertive Discipline)

According to him, Assertive Discipline resembles a carrot

and sticks model, dangling rewards in front of students, or else

known as “control through seduction” .


Martin (1994) researched the adoption and implementation of

Assertive Discipline programme at a London school. He did not

find any obvious positive effect of implementation of Assertive

Discipline on pupil behavior. Palardy (1996) argued that the

model had four significant limitations. First, Assertive

Discipline only cures the indicators of problems, not their

underlying reasons. Second, the effects of the model on

disruptive behavior are seldom enduring and almost inevitably

temporary. Third, it has limited transfer value. Manipulation of

the school environment has uncertain effects on outside behavior

of students. Lastly, he stated that Assertive Discipline damages

self-discipline of pupils as an ultimate goal. Another critic of

Assertive Discipline, Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler (1988),

whose model called Discipline with Dignity, argues that Canter’s

model is severe and rigid in disciplining minor violations.

Render et al. (1989) reviewed the literature and found only

16 studies (10 dissertation, 3 journal articles and 3 other

reports) in which information was collected in scientific ways

and in which results were presented. He reported that scholars


studied assertive discipline were primarily beginning researchers

and they did not find strongly generalizable data. They argued

that there was no evidence that Assertive Discipline was an

effective approach suitable for school-wide or district-wide

implementation.

Some points of Assertive Discipline model attracts my

attention. First one is the concept of rights in the classroom—

the rights of students to have teachers help them learn in a

calm, safe environment and the rights of teachers to teach

without disruption. Second one is that Canters (2001) explain

that students need and want limits that assist their appropriate

behavior and that it is the teacher's responsibility to set and

enforce those limits. Third one is that unlike progressive

educators they insist that teachers have a right to help from

administrators and working together with parents in helping

students behave acceptably. Lastly, they provide teachers with a

workable procedure for correcting misbehavior efficiently through

a system of easily controlled corrective actions.


Over the years, the Canters (2010) continually modified

their popular approach to ensure that it remained effective as

social realities change. Earlier, they focused mainly on

teachers' being strong leaders in the classroom, but later moved

to greater emphasis on building trusting, helpful relationships

with students, providing positive recognition and support, and

taking a proactive approach to dealing with problems of behavior.

Lee Canter included an appendix consisted of two critical steps-

the real time classroom coaching model and establishing a

schoolwide assertive discipline program- in the latest version of

his book.

Canter (2010) explains the reason of new edition with

changing classroom demographics. He states that the composition

of classroom has changed, mainly concerning greater inclusion of

students with special needs who in the past would have been

taught in separate classrooms. He argues that increasing ethnic,

racial and linguistic diversity in today’s classroom settings

uncovers new expectations and different behavior standards based

on backgrounds.


After coming down of Assertive Discipline model, school wide

positive behavior support (SWPBS) has attracted attention from

2000 to the present. SWPBS is a systematic approach for

implementing proactive school-wide discipline. Over 7,000 schools

in over 37 states have implemented SWPBS. SWPBS aims at improving

school climate and preventing student problem behaviors across

all school settings. The SWPBS approach shares the same

behavioral framework and many behavioral strategies and

techniques in common with Assertive Discipline. These

similarities can be seen in Canter’s newest edition (2010). He

devotes a new section in his book on establishing school-wide

Assertive Discipline. He cites same research studies and articles

on SWPBS.

The differences of SWPBS from Assertive Discipline are (1)

building a culture within the entire school, (2) highlighting

early recognition and prevention of problem behavior, (3)

directly teaching appropriate social skills to all students, (4)

modifying or rearranging the school context when necessary to

prevent problem behavior, (5) using a three-tiered continuum and


(6) actively using data for decision-making. ("Kansas School-wide

Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Newsletter ", 2009)

Unlike Assertive Discipline, the SWPBS approach places

greater stress on school-wide system change. This includes the

implementation of a threetiered system of supports. SWPBS

suggests all students the support they need for achievement based

on a continuum of need and intensity. Tier 1 or Primary

Prevention is based on the assumption that all students can

benefit from well implemented, evidence-based practices for

improving student behavior. All school members work together to

improve academic and behavioral outcomes for all students. Tier

2 or Secondary Prevention provides additional interventions to

support students who have learning, behavior, or life histories

that put them at risk for developing chronic problem behavior.

Tier 3 or Tertiary Prevention strategies focuses on the

individual needs of students who exhibit ongoing patterns of

problem behavior and typically require intensive intervention

more than strategies implemented at Tier 1 or Tier 2. ("Kansas

School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Newsletter ", 2009)


School wide discipline programs have drawn attention of

reformers for over 50 years. Canters’ assertive discipline was

most popular between 1970s and early 1990s. From 2000 to the

present, school wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) has

attracted attention. Teachers and administrators can find some

beneficial techniques used in older discipline models. New models

establish their concepts by changing older models’ notions or by

creating completely the new idea. Whatever happens we cannot say

that the older models are entirely wrong.

References

Barrett, E. R. (1985). Assertive Discipline and Research.

Butchart, R. E. (1995). Discipline, dignity, and democracy:

Reflections on the history of classroom management (AESA

Presidential Address-1994). Educational Studies, 26(3),

165-184.

Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2001). Assertive discipline: Positive

behavior management for today's classroom. Santa Monica,

CA: Canter & Associates.


Canter, L. (2010). Assertive discipline: Positive behavior

management for today's classroom. Santa Monica, CA: Canter

& Associates.

Chamberlin, L. J. (1982). Discipline: An Assertive Approach.

American Secondary Education, 12(1), 2-4.

Charles, C. M., & Senter, G. W. (2005). Building classroom

discipline. Boston: Pearson.

Cotton, K. (2001). Schoolwide and Classroom Discipline. Retrieved

on April 10th, 2014 at:

http://educationnorthwest.org/webfm_send/530

Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Discipline with Dignity.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Desiderio, M. F., & Mullennix, C. (2005, December). Two Behavior

Management Systems, One Classroom: Can Elementary Students

Adapt?. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 69, No. 4, pp. 383-391).

Taylor & Francis Group.

Green, W. H., & Gaikwad, P.(1992). Models of Classroom

Discipline: An Overview.


Kansas School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) Newsletter .

(n.d.). www.swpbs.org. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from

http://www.swpbs.org/ schoolwide/ Training/ files/ Kansas_

School-Wide_Positive_Behavior_Support_Newsletter

Kohn, Alfie (1996) Beyond Discipline. Retrieved February 26,

2014, from

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/discipline.htm

Lee Canter. (n.d.). Center for transformative teacher training.

Retrieved February 25, 2014, from

http://www.transformativeteachertraining.com/lee_canter.php

Find

Maag, J. W. (2012). School-wide discipline and the intransigency

of exclusion. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(10), 2094-

2100.

Manning, M. Lee, and Katherine T. Bucher. Classroom Management :

Models, Applications, and Cases. Upper Saddle River:

Pearson Education, 2007

http://www.swpbs.org/


Martin, S. C. (1994). A Preliminary Evaluation of the Adoption

and Implementation of Assertive Discipline at Robinton High

School. School Organisation, 14(3), 321-330.

Nicholls, D. and Houghton, S. (1995), The effect of Canter's

Assertive Discipline Program on teacher and student

behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65:

197–210. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1995.tb01142.x

Palardy, J. M. (1996). Taking another look at behavior

modification and assertive discipline. NASSP Bulletin,

80(581), 66-70.

Render, G.F., Padilla, J. and Krank, H. (1989). What Research

Really Shows about Assertive Discipline. Educational

Leadership, 46(6), 72-75.

Ronald C. Martella, J. Ron Nelson, Nancy E. Marchand-Martella, &

O'Reilly, M. (2012). Comprehensive behavior management:

Individualized, classroom, and schoolwide approaches. (2nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243931

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452243931


Rosemberg, F.K.; Lapco, A. & Liorence, M. (1997) The teacher’s

role in the application of assertive discipline program for

student in Venezuela primary school. School Psychol Int.;

11(2): 143-146.

Swinson, J., & Cording, M. (2002). Focus on Practice: Assertive

Discipline in a school for pupils with emotional and

behavioural difficulties. British Journal of Special Education,

29(2), 72-75.

Tyack, D. B. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University

Press.

NCLB and Assertive Discipline

Documents

Transcript of NCLB and Assertive Discipline