The Jones’s model has four legs to its “Chair of discipline and management”, namely (1) limit setting, (2) a backup system, (3) responsibility training and (4) omission training (Wolfgang 2009:58).
(1) Limit setting
Limit setting consist of actions taken by the educator to control the learner’s natural reflexes and prompt them back to work while learners are doing classwork or the educator is teaching (Wolfgang 2009: 59). When educators use the skill of limit setting, they use their bodies to say what their mouths were about to say (Manning & Bucher 2013: 128). Limit setting is used “to calm the learners and get them back on task” (Jones 1987:86). Jones (1996: 26-32) maintains that “Calm is strength. Upset is weakness.” The educator should never be under stress and regress to a fight-flight position, and he/she should never use silly talk, that is saying words that mean nothing. According to Charles (2002: 56), Jones postulates specific body language such as physical proximity, eye contact, posture and facial expression. Van Wyk (2000: 64) claims that discipline is ninety percent effective body language.
Jones (Van Wyk 2000: 65) noted that most misbehaviour occurred some distance away from the educator. Wolfgang (2009: 63) postulates that the educator may use three space distances, namely proximity-far, for across the room; proximity-near, when he/she is three feet or at the edge of the learner’s comfort bubble; and proximity-intimate when he/ she is inches from the learner’s face. This is a technique of signalling learners to desist and return to their work. “Proximity is accountability. Distance is safety” (Jones 1987: 57). The educator should keep an acceptable distance from the learner so that he or she may monitor each learner’s behaviour. Additionally, Manning and Bucher (2013: 129) assert that the educator can engage in camping out, or standing either in front of or behind a learner, to encourage the misbehaving learner to correct the behaviour.
88
According to Jones (1987: 90), eye contact is one of the most sensitive barometers of emotional calm or upset on a body. It conveys the message that the educator is in control of the teaching-learning situation and is committed to discipline. Expanding on this view Van Wyk (2000: 65) postulates that learners avert their eyes when educators look directly at them. This implies that learners realise that the educator, by so doing, takes continual note of their behaviour, be it good or bad. However, eye contact should be used with care due to cultural sensitivities, and as consistently stated by Van Wyk (2000: 65); it must be practised before it can be used effectively.
Facial and body expressions communicate many messages to learners. Charles (2002: 57) asserts that facial expressions can convey enthusiasm, seriousness, enjoyment and appreciation which encourage good behaviour, but they may also reveal boredom, annoyance and resignation which may encourage a lack of learner discipline. Furthermore, Van Wyk (2000: 66) states that slight shakes of the head can stop misbehaviour before it gets underway and frowns show unmistaken disapproval.
Wolfgang (2009: 63-70) identifies eight steps in limit setting. First, the educator must have his/her eye in the back of his/her head (with-it-ness). In other words, he/she must “check it out.” “Check it out” means the educator must keep his/her broad perceptions running even when he/she is focused on one learner or activity and he/she must ‘surface’ regularly to usually scan and check things out. Second, the educator should terminate instruction. Indeed, the Jones’s model cardinal rule is discipline comes before instruction. In other words, when the educator notices a learner misbehaving while he/she is instructing, he/she should stop the instruction to deal with the misbehaviour. Third, the educator should turn, look and say the learner’s name and ensure the latter has got the message and is not fooling him/her by the pseudo-compliance behaviour in the discipline poker game. Fourth, the educator must walk to the edge of the learner’s desk, never breaking eye contact, without saying a word to avoid losing the confrontation with the learner who will capitulate and get back to work. Fifth, the educator breaks the “comfort bubble of omnipotence”, that is he/she stands before the learner’s desk and signals to the latter a prompt to the desirable behaviour or the behaviour the educator wants the learner
89
to do. Sixth, the educator places his/her palms on the learner’s desk so that the latter realises that he/she is willing to camp out in front as long as it takes. Seventh, the educator camps out from behind. Finally, the educator’s moves out by walking back to his/her original position.
(2) The backup system
Jones (1987:256) defines a backup system as a series of responses designed to meet force with force so that the uglier the learner’s behaviour becomes, the deeper he/she digs his/her hole with no escape. “It is a carefully designed hierarchy of negative sanctions
which is designed as part of a larger management system to be used as infrequently as possible and for as brief a period of time as possible” (Jones 1987: 301). Manning and
Bucher (2013: 131) add that an effective backup system consists of a series of discrete procedures or responses arranged in ascending order so that educators or principals can deal effectively with a wide range of unacceptable behaviours. Jones (1987: 257-259)) identifies three levels of back-up namely, level 1, which consists of small backup responses that take place in the classroom and are private between the educator and the learner; level 2, which consists of medium backup responses mostly carried out by the educator but are more public; and level 3, which consists of large backup responses that is a time-costly process involving high public visibility and the participation of others such as a counsellor, the principal or even the judicial system. Wolfgang (2009: 75) states that in the level 1 back-up system the educator may adopt ear warning, that is he/she issues a non-public warning in the ear of the misbehaving learner and quiet time when the learner is requested to go to an out-of-the-way area to reflect on his/her action and to decide to change. According to Jones (1987: 258-259), the level 2 refers to school policy that consists of a school discipline code and a hierarchy of consequences such as time out, public warning, threat, being sent to the hall, detention after school, loss of privilege, parent conference, lowering the learner’s grade and extra homework. According to Manning and Bucher (2013: 132) the level 3 backup system requires the construction of a buffer between the school system and the legal authorities. Jones (1987: 281-301) recommends sending learners to the office (the office referral system) and corporal
90
punishment. Manning and Bucher (2013: 132) recommends psychological testing or therapy, a special remedial program, a rehabilitation program, referral to the child protection or social services or even prosecution in the juvenile court. Jones (1987: 301) even suggests more extreme strategies such as delivering a learner to a parent at work; accompanying the learner to school; calling the police; and expulsion.
(3) Responsibility training
Responsibility training is a tool for helping the educator to obtain positive or voluntary cooperation from the learner (Wolfgang 2009: 80). Jones (1987: 151) maintains that the goal of discipline is to train young people to become self-directing and to be responsible for their own behaviour. He adds that for the learners to demonstrate positive cooperation or responsible behaviour, these conditions must prevail, namely they are responsible for the time-currency that they earn, they are responsible for the control over the consumption of the time-currency, and they must be responsible for living with the consequences if they overcome and run out of time. The educator allocates learners a finite amount of time, the consumption or use of which depends on the learner’s behaviour. Jones (1987: 159) developed a system of Preferred Activity Time (PAT) to help the educator manage time. The system uses time as the reinforcer (the bonuses are more PAT; the penalties are less PAT). By giving and taking time the educator can hold the class responsible for the way the time is consumed. As such, learners develop cooperative behaviour, as it is a group accountability system. PAT is not free time to “kick back” (Jones 1987: 161). Wolfgang (2009: 83) comments that PATs are full activities that hold interest for learners but have embedded in them a routine of drill and practice, or content review of the subject matter. Jones (2000: 94) maintains that educators can use PAT in preferred instructional activities that the learners are fond of doing such as an art project, music project, learning games, computer laboratory work, and journal writing. The educator should use the Grandma’s Rule so as to hold them accountable for their behaviour; otherwise, there is the rule of penalties. A learner does not get his/her rewards or incentives until he/she demonstrates what the educator wants.
91
Put more clearly, “You have to finish your dinner before you get the dessert” (Jones 1987: 153). Yet, every penalty implies a corresponding bonus.
(4) Omission training
PAT bonuses and incentives are earned by the entire class. However, there may be some learners whose misbehaviour repeatedly ruins PAT for the rest of the class; and this may prevent positive cooperation. Omission training (OT) is an individualised program of incentives for the very defiant learner. “It is a generic name given to an incentive
program system that rewards the omission of an unwanted behaviour” (Jones 1987: 219).
When the learner misbehaves, the educator privately explains to him/her that he/she does not have to participate in PAT but he/she wants the learner to be successful with his/her own work and behaviour. The educator explains to the learner that he/she will use a timer and when he/she behaves well, he will earn time for himself/herself, and for PAT also for the class. Thus, he/she may be a hero and this is a strong incentive for good behaviour. When he/she misbehaves, he/she loses time for himself/herself, not for the class.
Jones (1987: 221-222) identifies the following steps for omission training: (a) abort the confrontation by removing the misbehaving learner from the responsibility training program, and deferring problem-solving to a non-public place at a future time; (b) estimate the OT time interval, that is the maximum duration of time in which the learner might reasonably be expected to act appropriately so as to earn rewards; (c) pinpoint target behaviours; (d) conference with the target learner; and (e) buying back into the responsibility.
Charles (2002: 64) suggests the following to introduce positive discipline in schools: (a) discuss limit setting with learners and formulate rules about behaviour; (b) explain to learners that when they violate rules, their behaviour will be corrected with body language; (c) discuss incentives and procedures for managing incentives, (d) discuss the backup system that will be used when learners misbehave seriously and refuse to comply with requests. However, Kohn (1996: 9) reports that secondary school learners may have
92
learned to rely on power rather than reason, to exhibit aggression rather than comparison, because they have seen adults doing this.
From the assumptions and principles of the Jones’ tools teaching model, the principal must provide professional development opportunities to educators on learner discipline management strategies that adopt a positive approach to discipline. Educators in the modern school need to be well equipped and trained about limit setting, compliance techniques and the use of rewards and penalties to maintain discipline among the secondary school learners. From the researcher’s teaching experience in secondary schools, it has been observed that educators with or without pre-service educator training do not have any training in effective classroom management. However, it is also obvious that the principal should also provide personal development opportunities to learners through the curriculum so that learners are equally concerned about their responsibilities as to their rights as learners of the school as an organisation.