We start with two key terms from the operant conditioning research of Skinner, Watson, and others: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement increases the frequency of a behavior (true for both positive reinforcement - such as adding or increasing behavior specific praise, and negative reinforcement - such as removal of a routing slip requirement and a student’s unpleasant feelings about them), and punishment decreases the frequency of a behavior (positive - such as adding requirement of a conference to engage in role-playing of how a situation could have been handled respectfully, or negative - such as removal of close seating proximity to preferred peers). Can you imagine how wholeheartedly educators would agree with each other about the need for punishment if we were all using the operant conditioning definition of the term? We’d say, “of course we need to respond in a way that will decrease the frequency of a given problematic behavior!” We’d all agree about wanting to reinforce positive, prosocial behaviors, too.
Consequences is a safer word to use when aiming for a solutions-focused conversation that doesn’t end in frustration. There are only a few frequently used versions of the term, and even when there are different perspectives about the type of consequence indicated for a given problematic behavior, most educators can agree that a response is indicated. There’s even agreement, usually, about using consequences to teach and shift problematic behavior.
Behavior theorists sometimes think of consequences from a more neutral lens, in terms of what happened immediately following a target behavior that’s informative about how it is maintained, or still functioning (serving a particular purpose) for a student. Is it attention-seeking? Does it allow the student to escape or avoid an undesirable activity or feeling? Is it happening for sensory reasons? Is it about obtaining a tangible object or activity? This version of the term consequences (what follows a target behavior) is very much alive - it is exactly the definition referenced for the collection of ABC (antecedent-behavior-consequence) data (required for Functional Behavior Assessments). Educators could consider using of various preventative strategies and structures (through comprehensive classroom management planning and behavior plan development) that influence antecedents and consequences in ways that promote positive behavior. Pre-planned action steps following a problematic behavior that will address the behavior, and hopefully reduce its likelihood of future occurrence, are a fit with this!
Research shows that consequences with a (colloquial-use) punitive feel often have the opposite of their intended effect, especially when used in isolation from reparative and teaching techniques (Otten & Tuttle, 2011). Many educators who use exclusionary or public shaming practices actually passionate about helping kids, and don’t have the following goals in mind, but they’re are at a loss for alternative, feasible-sounding consequences, or may be unaware of findings that:
- these approaches can actually reinforce disruptive behaviors (thereby exacerbating academic struggles),
- they neglect to teach students desirable alternative behaviors that lead to feelings of personal responsibility and life skill development, and
- they promote negative attitudes toward school / educators.
Logical consequences are educators’ best available options for reducing problematic school behaviors, especially when paired with use of preventative structures and strategies. Logical consequences “help students develop internal understanding, self-control, and a desire to follow the rules” (CPS, 2017). They are related, reasonable, and respectful - the three R’s (Nelson, 1985). Their purpose is to make mistakes into learning opportunities that repair harm, and to allow students to save face and maintain dignity (CPS, 2017, Responsive Classroom 1988, Otten & Tuttle, 2011). Student involvement in logical consequence identification aligned to their behavior can be helpful, especially when this conversation occurs “at a later, calmer moment” (CPS, 2017). Logical consequences are a clear fit with trauma-sensitive, restorative approaches.
But how, exactly? And what are some examples of logical consequences? The Chicago Public Schools Office of Social & Emotional Learning, in collaboration with the Embrace Restorative Justice in Schools Collaborative, compiled a tremendous, free and publicly accessible Restorative Practices Guide and Toolkit intended to develop their restorative school communities (CPS, 2017). Their toolkit is abound with relevant checklists, conversation guides, and templates for checklists, forms, questionnaires, interviews, along with an extensive annotated bibliography of literature and media on restorative practices.
Their Guide and Toolkit espouses the five Trauma-Informed Care Values, the International Institute for Restorative Practices’ (2003) five guiding principles, and fits with IIRP’s Social Discipline Window (sample graphic below), too.
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE CHECKLIST:
- Consequence is directly related to the behavior.
- Requires student to activity participate in the consequence.
- Repairs harm and/or is likely to prevent future incidents.
- Creates empathy and helps student understand the impact of his/her behavior.
- The student is actively involved in determining the consequences and/or understanding why the consequence logically follows the behavior.
An extensive list of “sample consequences that may logically follow frequent behavior issues” is included on page 107 of the 2017 CPS Guide and Toolkit.
A sample staff training on logical consequences is included on pages 108-111 of the Guide and Toolkit (CPS, 2017), and includes some helpful examples and non-examples of logical consequences for different age groups. One example from page 111: detention assigned for the day after problematic recess behavior occurs is less relevant and meaningful consequence than reteaching and practicing recess expectations as a more heavily supervised recess activity with a student, and allowing the student to re-join peers once able to demonstrate that the expectations are re-learned.
Logical consequences are related, reasonable, and respectful (the 3 R's), and teach students something specific in a way that helps them maintain dignity and save face (Nelson, 1985). When possible, allowing students some power and responsibility in identifying logical consequences (through use of restorative questions once the student is calm) can help with internalization of their role in creating a peaceful, just society.
Having the CPS Restorative Practices Guide & Toolkit’s long list of sample logical consequences (page 107), and so much more, at your fingertips may be just what you and your team need to inch slowly and sustainably toward those calm, focused, and hopeful discussions of educators’ yearnings.
Chicago Public Schools (2017). Restorative practice guide and toolkit. Retrieved from: https://blog.cps.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CPS_RP_Booklet.pdf
Nelson, J. (1985). The three R’s of logical consequences, the three R’s of punishment, and six steps for winning children over. Individual Psychology, 42, 161-165.
Otten & Tuttle (2011). How to Reach and Teach Children with Challenging Behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pryor, D. (1999). Applications of Adlerian principles in school settings. Professional School Counseling, 2(4), 299-304.
Responsive Classroom Newsletter (1988). Retrieved from: https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/punishment-vs-logical-consequences/