Know Power, Know Responsibility: How to unleash the potential of every child in America

Part 1 — Chapter 4: Focus on Compliance

Author’s Note: I will publish additional sections of this book each week. You can find previously posted sections at the following links: Note to Parents of School Age Children and Note to Teachers, School Administrators, and Other School Staff here; Introduction here; Prologues Part 1 and 2 here; Prologues Part 3 and 4 here; Part 1-Chapters 0 and 1 here; Part 1-Chapter 2 here; and Chapter 3 here.

CHAPTER 4 — Focus on Compliance

As long as schools retain a significant focus on compliance, student achievement will be limited — not just for those who tend not to comply but for all students. Schools could instead be designed to maintain and foster students’ innate curiosity and build a commitment to learning. They could adapt to meet each student’s developmental readiness and current ability levels. Compliance would then cease to be a concern. Compliance — and enforcement of behaviors associated with compliance — is unnecessary where there is sufficient commitment.

There have always been expectations about children’s behavior, but the context and our response to misbehavior have changed. Up to and throughout the nineteenth century, children were expected to learn how to treat others and how to act in various settings, like church and school, from their families and from older children and adults. There was no formal instruction. Rather, the instruction occurred as needed. Children learned behavior much the way they learned to walk and talk — through experimentation and experience. They learned from observing others and from the reaction of others to their behaviors. And they learned by being corrected or directed by those around them — especially parents. Children still learn to behave this way.

Why, then, is it necessary for almost all schools to provide some form of instruction on conduct and behavior? Why do schools need conduct policies and extensive lists of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors along with related rewards and punishments? And why aren’t these necessary in most other settings that children frequent? It’s because factory model schools are unable to foster children’s sense of commitment.

Compliance vs. commitment

When someone is personally committed to something, their actions, decisions, and behavior will all correspond in ways that contribute to that commitment. The greater the level of commitment, the more significantly the actions, decisions, and behavior will support it. On the other hand, when there is a lack of commitment, there is no compulsion to act in a certain way. A reward or punishment becomes the only means of getting a desired behavior from someone who is not committed.

The best example of this is the realm of work. Most of us need to be employed. If the work is not something we truly enjoy and is not working toward a cause we’re committed to, then the pay must be sufficient to motivate us. We need a reward — sufficient pay — to comply with the expectations of our employer. Our employer may also need numerous rules and policies that drive our conduct at that job.

On the other hand, many of us are involved in activities that require work (effort) but for which we receive no pay. We may volunteer, serve on the board of a nonprofit, or coach a youth sports team. While there may be some form of reward for many of these things, that is not what drives us. We do these things because they contribute to a goal we believe in and to which we are committed.

The difference in these situations is compliance versus commitment. Where there is a commitment — such as to a cause or to pursuing something we truly enjoy — there is no need for a system that encourages or enforces compliance. However, when people are forced to do something to which they are not committed, a compliance system is needed.

The reason schools have instituted instruction in behavior and extensive systems for compliance is that few children are committed to school or to learning in school. Most don’t begin with a lack of commitment. In fact, many children are excited about the prospect of school and learning. Unfortunately, they discover that the methods and timeline of instruction in school do not match their readiness and the way they enjoy learning. Their commitment disappears and it becomes necessary to enforce a system of compliance.

Of course, the compliance system itself perpetuates the need for a compliance system. Since most students are willingly compliant, those who are not become the argument for needing the system. In addition, the compliance system is defended for bringing objectivity to how students are treated, because the system dictates the expectations and the consequences and many leave little or no room for differing or extenuating circumstances.

Systems of compliance create stress which interferes with learning

Systems of compliance are all about asserting control. They are meant to direct the conduct of those within their purview, meaning people in these systems must, in turn, relinquish their control. When humans lose their sense of control, they are subject to stress; when stress grows beyond a certain point, effective learning cannot occur. In their book The Self-Driven Child, authors William Stixrud and Ned Johnson provide an in-depth look at the numerous ways stress occurs for children and the detrimental impacts of stress on learning. (Johnson, 2018) One of their key points is this:

It is frustrating and stressful to feel powerless, and many kids feel that way all the time. As grown-ups, we sometimes tell our kids that they’re in charge of their own lives, but then we proceed to micromanage their homework, their afterschool activities, and their friendships. Or perhaps we tell them that actually they’re not in charge — we are. (Page 11)

Stixrud and Johnson go on to note the impact this stress has on learning:

Stress disorganizes the brain. It reduces brain wave coherence, the desire to explore new ideas and to solve problems creatively. It kicks our prefrontal cortex out of the driver’s seat and limits the flexibility with which we can pull ourselves together to learn. (Page 18)

This is why compliance systems are so harmful to students who are not likely to cause behavior problems. The students who have learned how to be compliant — who have internalized the system and want to avoid related punishments and earn related rewards — are the ones who stress about remaining compliant. They know they have given up control and are concerned about doing anything that appears inappropriate. When they, inadvertently or in a weak moment, break a rule, the impact of the consequences will be even more stressful.

On the other hand, students with regular behavior problems don’t care about the compliance system or its consequences. (See the sidebar “The Token Economy Student Conduct System.”) Rather, their stress and challenges with school performance stem more from a negative self-image.

“TEACHING” RESPONSIBILITY

A focus on compliance is often rationalized by claiming students must be taught to be responsible. Thus, students earn a grade for turning in work on time, being present at school, and behaving in class.

In truth, directed consequences do not teach or reinforce responsibility. Rather, they are a check on students’ priorities relative to the corresponding rewards and punishments. Most students are perfectly capable of meeting the expectations (being compliant) if the directed outcome is of sufficient value to the student. If the related reward or punishment is meaningful enough to the student, the student will comply. Those who don’t comply are either unable to do so or don’t find the reward or punishment sufficient motivation.

Students will only develop and strengthen their sense of responsibility through things over which they have power, and it will come from the natural consequences of their actions. Schools and teachers still have a role to play by helping students learn the norms and values that are important in our society, in their community, and in the workforce. However, imposing these on students and tying them to rewards and punishments robs students of the opportunity to develop a sense of responsibility.

See also “Fostering cooperation, collaboration, and respect for differing ideas and beliefs” in Chapter 15.

Systems of compliance stifle children

Another consequence of a compliance system is the muting of children’s inherent energy, curiosity, and creativity. Humans are born with a need to learn. Despite most early learning coming through failures — some of which, like falling while learning to walk, can be painful — humans persevere. Our early learning comes through observations, experience, and experimentation. It does not come in a structured, controlled environment.

Then children enter preschool or kindergarten and are directed what, when, and how they are supposed to learn. Compliance systems are enforced to maintain order so that instruction can be delivered according to the school’s schedule. Is it any wonder that students begin to sense a disconnect when they encounter formalized learning situations? And does this explain why formal learning situations are often chaotic until sufficient compliance measures are emplaced?

It is a testament to our children’s adaptability that we get compliance from so many so quickly, but this compliance comes at the expense of learning. Although instruction is being delivered, it doesn’t necessarily result in students learning the intended content or the intended scope of the content. Even worse, things known to be conducive to learning — such as control over what, when, and how — must be repressed in the interest of compliance and in order to keep instructional delivery on schedule.

Students who choose to be compliant see what happens to students who are not, and this reinforces their choice to be compliant. Even when children sense something isn’t right about the system or the instruction, their sense of self-preservation typically keeps them quiet. This learned compliance can carry over so students do not speak up when they are struggling with the instruction.

When the pace of instruction or the learning expectations don’t match a student’s readiness to learn or current developmental level — whether it is too fast or too slow — students may be afraid to raise concerns. They know what happens when students challenge the rules or expectations, so they may choose to stay quiet and make do with the situation. While most students still do well enough to continue, they learn significantly less than they would if their learning needs were being met or if the pace matched their levels of readiness.

Compliance vs. engagement

As noted, when students become committed to learning, their conduct aligns with whatever activities contribute to the learning. That is, they become deeply engaged in learning activities so that they are both learning deeply and displaying appropriate conduct. Compliance systems become irrelevant.

On the other hand, when students are not committed to learning — when they don’t have a fully internalized reason for learning — their levels of engagement will be lower. Besides implementing systems to gain compliance, schools (along with individual teachers as well as parents) implement systems to elevate students’ levels of engagement.

Grades and academic recognitions are tools meant to incentivize student engagement. Teachers may offer prizes or recognitions toward the same end, parents may offer cash or rewards for good grades, and students can earn scholarships — all of which may prompt better engagement. Sometimes the opposite approach is used, with penalties for low academic performance. At a certain point, the compliance and academic systems may become intertwined if the engagement level also becomes a conduct concern.

Building on the work of Robert Merton (Merton, 1968), Phil Schlecty developed a model of levels of engagement that helps illustrate what we regularly see in schools. (Schlechty Center, 2018) These are the levels of engagement Schlecty has identified:

• Engagement — The highest level, reflecting that a student has found personal meaning and value in an activity.
• Strategic Compliance — The extrinsic value of the activity is not embraced by a student, but the student substitutes his or her own value (e.g., a good grade, parent approval, college admission) as being sufficient to engage in the activity.
• Ritual Compliance — Activity has no personal value to the student and there are no meaningful substitutes; the student complies to avoid confrontation or some consequence.
• Retreatism — Student is disengaged, withdraws from activity, does not participate, and sees no point in doing so.
• Rebellion — Student is disengaged from directed activity and engaged in some other agenda; often viewed as acting out and encouraging others to rebel.

Anyone who has spent time in a classroom can remember students who fit into each of these levels. Unfortunately, it is rare to see students achieving the highest level of actual engagement. This is because students do not design their own education based on their own passions, needs, goals, and desires. Many students will engage at the “strategic compliance” level, but this doesn’t lead to deep learning. Far too many students are at “ritual compliance,” and those at the lowest two levels challenge teachers and other staff while detracting from the rest of the students.

Of course, only students at the highest levels of engagement even have a chance of learning at their full potential. The lesson for compliance, however, is that aiming for a model that engages students at the highest levels will also move children away from the disruptive levels of engagement.

Don’t some children still need a system of compliance?

Some would argue that certain children are so out of control they need a compliance system. I would counter it is impossible to design a compliance system that would be effective for every child; the evidence is present in nearly every school. If compliance systems worked effectively, there would be no conduct problems in schools. Even the highest-performing schools I’ve encountered still have conduct problems — except where compliance systems have been all but eliminated.

In many cases, the out-of-control behavior is a product of the compliance system and the instructional approach and expectations in the school. Other factors — such as learning disabilities, which can significantly increase student stress levels — may compound this. I have seen countless examples of out-of-control students who are in complete control in other environments.

In The Self-Driven Child, William Stixrud shares the story of a student with whom he worked who “struggled with math and had significant trouble regulating his emotions.” The student’s challenges were actually compounded by promises of rewards, which amped up his stress because he wanted to earn the rewards — but which then made it even harder to control his emotions.

With some exploration, Dr. Stixrud helped the student discover the heart of what was happening with his mind and emotions. They then developed a plan that put the student in control of the situation such that he was able to readily — and almost happily — work through the same math problems that previously caused uncontrolled outbursts. (Johnson, 2018, p. 243)

My own observations completely confirm this. Nearly every child I have ever encountered has demonstrated an understanding of proper conduct and an ability to demonstrate this conduct in certain settings — typically where there was no compliance system in place.

Some children, however, feel greater anxiety than normal when their sense of control is threatened. This can be for any number of reasons, but the bottom line is, the very compliance system meant to create order becomes the source of anxiety and literally represses some child’s ability to exert self-control. Their rational, thoughtful mind — the mind that could process the rewards and punishments at stake — is overwhelmed by their emotional mind. Increasing the rewards and punishments in an attempt to bring such children into compliance will actually have the opposite effect.

I would argue there is no child for whom a system of compliance is beneficial. Rather, the means of helping students maintain self-control — which could include extrinsic incentives — must be personalized for each student. Equal is not equitable in human systems because everyone is unique. Consequently, a school model that fosters children’s commitment to learning would also allow development of personalized systems that ensure necessary conduct. This would not be done in a vacuum but with adult mentorship and guidance helping students learn appropriate conduct in varying settings and situations.

THE TOKEN ECONOMY STUDENT CONDUCT SYSTEM

I experienced a “token economy” system as a middle school associate principal. The system assigned negative points to unacceptable conduct and awarded positive points for positive acts. When a teacher issued a referral for unacceptable conduct, the student lost the preassigned number of points. When a student did a positive act, she or he earned points that were deducted or banked.

Various point totals equated to preassigned consequences, such as detentions and suspensions. Students with negative points would also be ineligible for quarterly “reward days.” Once a consequence had been served, the points were reduced or eliminated. Students with banked points who received a referral would need to serve the corresponding consequence but would salvage reward day.

The system seemed great when I first arrived. I just assigned points when a referral came in and assigned the student the appropriate consequence. Easy peasy. Boy, was I wrong.

First, relationships and individual circumstances were removed from the equation. The system was designed for every staff member to treat every incident and student the same. Of course, no two students or staff members are the same, and neither are any two incidents. There were several inherent wild cards for every referral, but the system couldn’t function properly unless every situation was treated the same. Thus, the system had no integrity. Also, trying to build relationships with students and consider their unique selves complicated using the system, and the system sabotaged attempts to build relationships.

In addition, the system was conducive to manipulation. Once students knew the system, they could decide whether or not the conduct they were considering would be worth the corresponding cost within the token economy. Often, our students decided it was. They were well aware the consequences made work for staff members and that the cost to them as a student was reasonable for the pleasure of disrupting a class and inconveniencing staff members.

On the other hand, the generally well-behaved students who had an occasional slipup or outburst could get caught in the system in a disproportionate way. The system was essentially rewarding those who were of greatest concern and punishing those who were not of great concern, all in the name of trying to force compliance.

Continue with the next section of Know Power, Know Responsibility (Part 1 — Chapters 5 and 6), here:

You may also enjoy reading:

Kevin Miller is a Boomer who joined the Army during the Cold War and continues to serve. He has spent 30-plus years working in K-12 education as a teacher, administrator, and consultant and is now on a mission to reinvent our school model. His book Know Power, Know Responsibility provides the imperatives for a complete redesign of schools and the way to get there. See his website knowresponsibility.com to learn more.