Students who are upset are sometimes hard to get back on track. Leaving the room, crying, shouting, or withdrawing and hiding are signs that the student needs your support. Using W.A.I.S.T can help get a student back on track and engaged in instruction. Of course it might not work for every student in every situation, but the strategy does have a pretty good batting average!  Like all strategies, teacher tone is critical for success. Ensure you are using a caring supportive tone. This strategy does not work if we sound sarcastic or authoritative when addressing the student.

W- Wait. Wait 3-5 minutes before doing anything. Anyone upset needs time to process before dealing with feelings.

A- Acknowledge. Acknowledge their feelings, whether we feel they are justified or not. It is as simple as “You look upset.” “I can tell by your eyebrows you are mad.” 

I-Inquire. Ask what is wrong; but, only ask what is wrong. This isn’t the place to defend your actions or offer life advice. All we do here is listen.

S-Solve. We know the problem from the inquiry step. Now we solve it. However, remember that solving the problem doesn’t have to mean giving a student what they want. Sometimes we solve by solving how they feel. “I’m mad because I didn’t get to use the blue dice.” ‘Would you feel better playing a round with me?’ or ‘The blue dice are gone, what is your second favorite color? Let’s get those.’ Many times, student dysregulation stems from academic frustration. ‘Let’s look at it together’ or ‘Show me the problem’ even ‘Want some help?’ works to get students back to the task at hand. Working to solve the problem together is key. Ask yourself, “What can I do to help?”

T-Transition. After working together to solve the problem, a transition works well so that support isn’t cut off too abruptly. Tell the student what you are going to do and when you will be back to check on them. ‘I’m going to go check on the other group. I will come back when you have finished this problem.’ Or ‘I’m going to be at my desk, bring your work to me after you’ve finished the next problem.’

Using a systematic approach allows adults to know how to react consistently and gives students the predictability to know that an adult will help them solve their problems.

History tends to repeat itself. Can the Science of Reading survive?

Those of us who have been in the profession for a while know the story. Unfortunately, we know it too well. Schools attempt to raise literacy achievement and try something new. Five years pass and scores are the same. Everyone panics. So, schools try something new; and the pendulum swings.

I don’t want this premonition to be fulfilled. But, we have to look at what hasn’t worked to plan for what will. Let’s use the Common Core standards as a great example. Test scores weren’t where people thought they should be. Laws were passed. Publishers developed series and materials in a rush to meet the demand of every school district attempting to comply. We changed materials, which changed experiences for students. And nothing changed. The problem is that we changed materials without changing how we taught. We didn’t understand number sense. We didn’t understand direct instruction in comprehension strategies. We just used the materials.

Sadly, the current reading advancements are prone to the same fate. Unless we change how we intend to accomplish change, we are historically set up for failure. This has been the scenario: Reading scores are assessed as failing. A concerned population advocates for radical change. Administrators, boards, state officials, and curriculum directors go to conferences and are pressured to find the quick and easy fix. Program components are mandated and purchased. Teachers present the material to fidelity as directed by the publisher and well-intentioned principals. Here’s the new book teaching it the new way. Now go teach. Philosophy didn’t change. Expectations didn’t change. Knowledge didn’t change. Manuals changed.

Teachers were told that students couldn’t sound out words. So, they were given a basal, a workbook, and tons of worksheets. Success went unchanged. Teachers were told that the material wasn’t engaging enough, not authentic enough. So, they were given trade literature, dioramas, dress up days and SSR. Success went unchanged. Teachers were told students couldn’t sound out words, so the cycle continued. Teachers were told to take a little of this and a little of that. It didn’t work. Educators in the business long enough began to recognize the cycle and started to predict it. “This too shall pass” became the mantra for frustrated teachers and administrators.

And now this. Now we know better. But how do we break the cycle? How do we ensure that this next step toward reading success isn’t trapped in the failings of previous affrays? We talk classrooms, not politics. We educate, not argue. We support, not tear down. We do things different, or the cycle continues.

1. We educate, not dictate. The past practice has been to buy new programs, plop those resources into classrooms and expect magic to happen. We need to start talking about reading. We need to educate teachers and ADMINISTRATORS on reading, not programs. How many principals and curriculum directors are making decisions without a background in teaching reading at the elementary level? Tons. Districts need to put the priority on making everyone an expert in reading. However, making experts in the school to get information out to everyone else has historically been ineffective. It must be human nature, but, we need outside experts to come in to help make the transition effective. Publishers and program developers need to train in reading first, then the program.
2. Promote fidelity to learning, not the program. Every time the pendulum swung, the teachers were told the only way to see results was to use the materials with fidelity. Teach it all. Unfortunately, it was an unrealistic expectation as most programs assumed one was teaching reading for fifteen hours a day. Teachers had to rush through materials, use every last worksheet, use the language provided, and then move on. Successful students get bored and struggling students get left behind when we are faithful to the “book”. WE MUST BE SYSTEMATIC AND FOLLOW A SCOPE AND SEQUENCE. That is given. But, teachers need to be able to review for struggling students in a Tier 2 setting and move along successful students without leaving behind others. We need to give educators the training and authority to teach toward student learning outcomes and not page numbers.
3. Build program systems, not program manuals. Resources should come as a menu. If your student needs work here, then use this resource. It allows teachers to tailor-make instruction according to student needs and progress. Allow to account for student interest, time of year, and party days. Provide a systematic approach with teacher and student input.
4. Ensure equal attention to the 5 (or 6! See Table for Six?) components of reading. Reading curriculum needs to reflect the importance for addressing all five components of reading. Historically, a deficit was identified and the replacement curriculum over emphasized one component or another. Reading instruction needs to start with the five and build intentional instruction in each. Teaching systematic phonics without comprehension strategies has failed. Teaching engrossing vocabulary without word study has failed. This isn’t advocating a “Blended Approach”. Not by a long shot. Instead, we need to rely on scientific research to guide instruction in each component. Teachers must be able to recognize what component they are focusing on.
5. Move away from consumables. If we buy it, we feel we must use it. After all, elementary teachers are thrifty. It also promotes turning to the next page on the next day whether we need it or not. Move to a menu that matches skill deficits. This doesn’t mean ditching a spiraled curriculum or never reviewing. However, instruction needs to match student need if we are to truly make transformational change.
6. Make online components be teacher assigned. Online instruction can be useful. It can help with engagement and allow students to acquire new skills independently. However, it shouldn’t be up to an algorithm. We also know online programs haven’t solved the problem. Online tools, however, have potential. Ensure that the work students do is assigned by the teacher so that specific skills match deficits and that reinforcement of that instruction happens throughout the day. Online as a separate entity won’t make the grade.
7. Make district, building, team, and classroom goals based on strategies and practices and not percentages. “District XYZ will raise reading proficiency by 5% for the upcoming school year.” Sounds great. However, we almost NEVER talk about how we will do it. So much time is spent on percentages and goal making that we neglect to talk about what will change in our classroom. Data is great. But, it must guide instruction. Instead, make the goal to implement direct instruction in the seven comprehension strategies. Make the goal of integrating vocabulary rich text across the core. Make professional development the goal. Focus on changes in the classroom, then look for an increase in proficiency. After all, increases of 5% per year will take 12 years to ensure everyone can read. We can’t take that long. The only way we can do that is to dodge the pendulum.

If the science of reading proponents are going to “win the reading war” they will need to change tactics. Science isn’t the problem. Reading isn’t even the problem. There should be little debate about that. The main obstacle is the methodology in which the war is waged. I understand passion, believe me. Being passionate about a cause is commendable. However, passion doesn’t always lead to sound systematic change efforts. The science is solid, the tactics of those working in the name of SoR are not.

It isn’t the professional websites, webinars, or publications that are turning people away. Unfortunately, it is some of the Facebook groups, tweets, building “cliques”, and advocates that need to adjust their approach if the science of reading approach is to truly take hold. There are great educators advocating for an admirable cause. Tactics of some, however, will need to change to forward their position. Directing that profound passion to proven systematic change strategies will go far in redirecting schools and bringing educators together on the best practices in reading. Take them or leave them, here are some things that advocates may want to consider.

It can’t be us vs. them. There are two other major debates going on in this country and their tactics are the same. It is pro vs. anti. As we’ve seen over the past several decades, putting the concept into us vs. them never changes anyone’s mind. You are wrong, I am right thinking will galvanize those who think like you, but does little to change the minds of the other side. You can win over some undecided people, however, with us vs. them you risk the person agreeing with “them” at which point they are unlikely to come to your way of thinking. So, stop talking like that. Don’t bring the feeling of us vs. them to your conversation. Don’t “accuse” people of aligning with “them”. It does nothing for your cause. When I send someone to a message board to learn, please don’t accuse that educator of being “them”. We are all educators, we are one. Not two. Starting talking that way. It doesn’t mean giving up your convictions. Just change how you talk to people.

Stop demonizing. When a side comes across as saying there is absolutely nothing good about a particular group of people or concepts you immediately lose credibility with those who currently align to the those beliefs. You will win way more people over talking about the pros of your stance then you will with negative discussions about the other. For instance, if I’ve used something with success, and have experienced that success first hand, you telling me it is the worst thing on the face of the earth does little to make me want to listen further. Your tone goes a long way in getting someone else to listen. There are BETTER ways to do something. Sell it.

Stop attacking administration. Just stop. I’m trying to get educational leaders on board. They don’t need to hear, “Why is admin so pig-headed?” “If admin knew what they were doing…” “Principals are so clueless…” “If administrators weren’t so….”. You need administrators. Make a talking points sheet for them. Invite them. Don’t blame them.

Stop planting seeds of paranoia. This is reading. Not a conspiracy. Not spy vs. spy. Reading. Keep the focus on reading.

Stop personal attacks. People are being attacked by name. It doesn’t further your cause. It rallies your troops, but does nothing to bring new people inline with your effort.

Start using data. Start highlighting classrooms and schools using their actual scores. Stop spending time on how others fail and focus on how SoR succeeds.

Start using experts. Learn from how the experts spread their message. You have educational leaders in SoR that get their message across without chasing people away. I’ve seen too many posts of people leaving because it isn’t an inviting community. To win, it needs to be.

Start acknowledging success. If someone says something worked in their classroom, tell them great. However, let them know why SoR would work even better. Build them up to change, don’t belittle them into submission.

Read to listen, not respond. PLEASE read what people write, instead of skimming so you can develop some “witty” comeback that “proves your point.” I sent a reading specialist to a site. The discussion was about the five components of reading and why teaching each component was valuable. It completely aligned with SoR. This specialist said, “I agree, there needs to be a balance.” All someone saw was the word balance and this specialist was labeled and told she aligned with whole language and that she knew nothing about reading. So much for sending new people. The respondent didn’t even fully read before responding. We work hard getting people to listen. Don’t chase them away by not.

Assume positive intent. Everyone, no matter their view, is trying to do best by kids. Remember that. Everyone is working toward the same goal; to service students in the best way. Just because someone has different view doesn’t mean they don’t care about kids. Their practices can be improved, and they need your help, but don’t accuse them of not caring.

Be the Red Cross, not the Marines. Stop thinking war, start thinking resources and support.

Here’s my prediction. Some advocates won’t get past the title. I will be accused of being “whole language” because they won’t read past the title. I will get BLASTED as being anti SoR. Not the case. To promote SoR, tactics need to change. It doesn’t mean lose the passion, just channel it differently. Reading depends on it.

As a beginning educator, I did a ton of planning for my reading instruction. While teaching kindergarten, we had to create all of the instruction from scratch. We had no series, and really no guidance other than we knew we were going to teach a “letter a week”. We bought little leveled readers and phonetic readers, gathered trade books, found read alouds, and copied take home books. We had many important components of a good reading program. We were somewhat successful; all of our students knew their 26 letters and sounds and could sound out some words, knew rhyming, and enjoyed reading. My true growth came, however, when we transitioned to a reading series that brought an equal focus to phonics and comprehension.

Intentional Instruction relies on the premise that each of the five critical components of reading are purposefully and strategically taught. Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension are all vital to reading success. Here is how I used each text type to support Intentional Instruction in each realm.

Differentiated Text and Decodable Readers- These were purposefully used to instruct in Phonics and target specific skills students needed. Text were short and matched to the lagging skill. This is where new skills were introduced. This was instructional text.

Decodable Readers and Leveled Text- These were purposefully put out for student to read after the specific skills were taught. They were designed to be short enough that once a student decoded the text, they could be read through a few times to build fluency. This was practice text for fluency and decoding.

Basal Reader or Common Text (articles, etc.)- This was used to introduce or revisit the comprehension strategy. It needs to be an on-level or slightly above grade level text. All students use the common text. It needs to be short enough that it can be completed in 1-2 sittings. It is read aloud to students as they follow along. My primary purpose is not decoding or fluency with this text, so the first time through is teacher read. Subsequent reads can be independent or read aloud depending on student skill set. We never round robin read, as we are modeling fluency and focused on comprehension. This is also a text that we can work on vocabulary without losing the flow of the story. I considered this Teaching Text.

Interactive Read Aloud- This is a longer text where we model and demonstrate the seven comprehension strategies. We reinforce strategies without teaching new ones. We discuss vocabulary and rich text, but do not use the read aloud to introduce new vocabulary strategies so that the focus is on the text. The text should be above student level, this is where scaffolding and modelling takes place. This was Modelling Text.

Independent Student Text- This is the teacher guided/student selected text at student appropriate level where student independently practice the “whole package”. This is when teacher conferences revolve around deeper thinking and text engagement. This is not SSR or DEAR. Teacher/peer interaction is critical to independent text.

I did all of these in my classroom, but under the umbrella of teaching reading. When I became more targeted with what I was doing with each text, I became much more effective in my instruction.

The pendulum continues to swing. We decry all other forms of reading instruction to champion our beliefs and experiences on how to best instruct reading. Research tells us kids need systematic phonics instruction. Experience tells us kids need to experience success. Kids tell us they need to not be bored and want to read. However, we can’t seem to come together as a profession to design a program that is successful for all kids. Because we can’t. And that is our problem. At what point do we evaluate materials and systems and draw out the components that DO work, and not demean an entire system of work simply because we don’t believe in one part. That is how we are going to stop the pendulum. Intentional Instruction in the five components of reading, Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Comprehension, Fluency, and Vocabulary

I am cautious about two claims that we hear in the reading war. 1. “This program works better than everything else and has no flaws.” and 2. “That program is completely worthless and doesn’t have have anything positive to contribute.” Phonics is a must, but cannot be the only direct instruction students get. To say that Dick and Jane books don’t teach reading well would be ridiculous. Generations learned to read that way. But, we realize students also struggled to learn that way. However, what can we learn from what worked well? WHY did some students learn from Dick and Jane? Instead, some throw it out the window and discredit a whole system that historically worked for some students.

The pendulum swings when we teach phonics in a method that frustrates students and concentrates only word identification. Then, the system swings 180 degrees and focuses only on comprehension and authentic literature. For decades we’ve never come together to look at what works. Lucy Calkins does do something right. Students comprehend, are exposed to multiple texts, and enjoy reading. However, decoding and phonics to get them to that point are omitted. Instead of bashing, let’s look at how components are successful. We need to look at the five components of reading and draw upon the successful programs that address each. Only then can we build reading programs from the ground up and end the reading wars.

“Know Your Numbers” was an effective health campaign slogan used to impress the importance of cardio health screening. Here are some numbers related to effective reading instruction. Do you know them? Let the following help guide you as you delve into research, articles, strategies, and conversations!

5: Five components of reading-phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, comprehension, and vocabulary. An essential part of intentional instruction!

7: Seven explicit comprehension strategies- Comprehension requires instruction that is explicitly taught. 1. Inferring 2. Making Connections 3. Asking/Answering questions about the text 4.Summarizing 5. Visualizing 6. Monitoring Comprehension 7. Determining Important Information

44: 44 phonemes in the English language- Phonics needs to be taught explicitly and systematically. Access to a scope/sequence that teachers can use must include all 44 over the course of instruction.

7: Seven levels of phonemic awareness- Phonemic awareness is a learned skill. Teachers need to know where students are and where they need to go.

2: Two types of fluency building text- Decodable VS Predictable text are purposefully written and should be purposefully used for intentional instruction. Teachers need to know what the tools are and how to use them.

3: Three Terms of Phonics- Synthetic, Systematic, Analytic phonics are all terms being used to describe phonics instruction. Teachers should know the difference and how they are applied to reading instruction in the classroom.

Of course there are many more, but ALL teachers of reading should have knowledge of these basic concepts in their back pocket. Know your numbers!

Using the Five Components of Reading as a Guide to Planning

Do you base your instruction on the five components of reading? We all teach reading, but do we intentionally design our instruction around each component to ensure we are offering a “complete package”? Reading instruction, according to brain science, needs to be intentional, systematic, and comprehensive. My classroom changed when I changed my view of instruction. Previously, my reading instruction was a medley of phonics, comprehension, phonemic awareness, vocabulary, and fluency. I thought I covered everything, but I realized it was by chance. Teach the letter sounds, some blending, some decoding, integrate some writing, do some repeated readings, ask a few comprehension questions. I was sure I was offering a total package. UNTIL I started identifying which component was my focus. It was then that I realized that I was offering experiences, but not really instructing the skills of reading. I was using some great strategies, but everything was “jumbled” together. My instruction, and student learning, blossomed when I developed lessons that focused on the the components of reading instead of the activity. I still was able to do all the fun things I did previously, however, now by giving those activities focus and purpose those same activities had a substantial increase in effectiveness.

Determining instructional focus doesn’t mean the abandonment of reading series, resources, unit plans, or current routines. On the contrary, intentional instruction augments those opportunities currently offered to students. Most times, instructional focus can come directly from the resources themselves. The change in our practice comes with recognizing when resources provides that focus for us. Research based curriculum addresses each of the five components of reading, but, often doesn’t come out and tell us what they are addressing. The teacher’s guide will tell us the standard being targeted, but like the standards, doesn’t tell us which of the five components are receiving the attention. Most series are overwritten, requiring teachers to pick and choose what components they will relay to students. Identifying intentional instruction helps guide us in making those decisions.

Knowing the five components is critical to intentional reading instruction. 1. Phonemic Awareness 2. Phonics 3. Comprehension 4. Vocabulary 5. Fluency. Each component plays a crucial role in successful reading. However, without intentional instruction, it becomes easy to overlook a particular aspect of reading. Intentional design does not mean we only teach one component during the day. However, it allows us to plan for what should be new instruction, what should be remedial, and what should be practice. For instance, if I determine that phonics is the essential component of the day’s instruction and am introducing new skills, I would plan for reviewing the recently taught comprehension strategy rather than try to introduce a completely new one. Focus determined the newly presented information and the bulk of the instructional time.

Presented are some examples of how I modified activities and lessons after planning within an intentional instruction framework. Again, as in any elementary classroom, many things were happening during the reading block; but, intentional instruction ensured that I knew exactly what precise skills I would introduce and practice.

Phonemic Awareness: I determined that the intentional instruction would focus on rhyme. We practiced identifying rhyming words, played rhyming games, and sang some songs. However, identifying the focus drove my phonics lesson to be a review of the at word family and used initial letter replacement skills as phonemic awareness review skill to make rhyming words. Our selected text for the day included a mix of rhyme and non-rhyme stanzas that we used to identify rhyming words. These were texts they were familiar with, thus promoting fluency through repeated readings. Our independent reading consisted of predictable text that included rhyming and non-rhyme text to foster rhyme discrimination. Without intentional instruction, each activity would have been disconnected and would not have been a proper mix between new and reviewed information.

Phonics: A systematic approach to phonics determined that a new skill would be introduced. After introducing the skill, students were given phonetic readers for their independent reading that had a mix of review and practice. We spent a majority of our time on phonics activities like making words and developing a word bank that followed the newly introduced skill. Our comprehension strategy was reviewed during our read aloud.

Fluency: We did not introduce any new information or skills, but instead reviewed our phonics skills. Students were given repeated readings, familiar text, and leveled readers for practice. Comprehension strategies were reviewed during our read aloud with the teacher reading.

Comprehension: The teacher’s guide called for introducing one of the seven comprehension strategies. We used the Basal reader to introduce the comprehension strategy. A basal was the preferred text as it provided a complex text that could be started, analysed, and finished all in one sitting. Because the focus was on comprehension and not decoding, the text was read aloud by the teacher to the entire class. We later practiced the comprehension strategy in our read aloud. Independent reading was student selected, at level text. A majority of our time was spent in independent reading with student/teacher conferencing revolving around the application of the introduced comprehension strategy of inferring. Phonics work was review and practice for a single rotation during workshop.

Vocabulary: Vocabulary would be tied to a comprehension focus days. We would ensure that students are having above level text as a read aloud to identify words to add to their vocabulary. On this particular day, we reviewed two of the seven comprehension strategies but taught a new vocabulary strategy while connecting root words to our text. During workshop, students did short rotation of phonics review and a writing prompt focusing on vocabulary skill building.

Intentional instruction in my classroom took place during a 90 minute block. I would use the first 30 minutes for routines and then provide my direct instruction. The remaining 60 minutes used a Daily 5 model with four rotations: Reading, writing, word work, and differentiated reading. Determining which of the five components were serve as a focus helped drive the direct instruction and subsequent practice activities. While is may seem overly simplistic and obvious to some, Intentional Instruction in each of the five components of reading dramatically changed my classroom for the better.

Think about it. As teachers (or even parents) we have a hundred ways to let students know we don’t think too highly of their actions. We can (but shouldn’t!) yell at them, send them to the hall, give them extra work, call their parents, move them to another seat, make them apologize, send them to the principal, take away objects, keep them in for recess, or a host of other punishments or consequences that are used everyday in classrooms for one reason: We don’t like what they did.

Now, look at it from a student’s perspective. Teachers, like students, are humans; prone to make mistakes. Teachers, even when they are correct, are going to do things students don’t like. That’s right. Teachers are going to do things that students don’t like, just like kids are going to do things teachers don’t appreciate. What’s the big difference? What happens next.

Teachers “get” to act upon their disapproval. They get to do something about it. They get to try to correct it. However, a teacher does something a student doesn’t like? WE EXPECT THEM TO DO NOTHING. They aren’t to talk back, refuse, OR EVEN ROLL THEIR EYES because we consider it disrespectful. Now, I’m not call for a classroom coup. Students still need to follow directives, whether they like it or not. But, is it really appropriate or even feasible to expect them to not be able to express their displeasure with a decision or directive? Teachers get to tell students all the time that they don’t like what students are doing. Don’t students deserve the same?

The next time you get an eye roll, move beyond it. It isn’t disrespectful. It’s communication. A student is telling you they don’t like what you are doing or saying. They still have to conform, yes. But they should have a right to express their displeasure. Let it go. If they say, “whatever” after you ask them to get a pencil, as long as they get the pencil, let it go. Just count how many times YOU get offended during the day. Students deserve some voice. Blatant disrespect? We have to teach them respectful behaviors. An eye roll or “whatever”? Take it for what it is……student communication.

It happens. Students mess up in our classrooms and hallways and need to be redirected. Often, that redirection can come with a dose of conflict. Resolving conflict is essential to maintaining or repairing a relationship in any setting; but, is absolutely imperative in the crucial student/teacher interconnection. Many times our words and actions perpetuate the situation, not solve it. Teachers who intentionally resolve with a student not only avoid escalating the situation and damaging the relationship, but also help foster the process of teaching the students the skills and expectations so the behavior decreases in the future.

Let’s look at an example: You send a student to the back table because they were talking to their peer while you were trying to instruct. You get the class going on the work and then approach the student to reintegrate the student back into the classroom setting.

Sit down with the student. Standing puts adults in a “superior” posture and automatically escalates some students. Many times, our unintentional body language conveys a negative message. Standing is also one step closer to the flight instinct for highly dysregulated students. Sitting puts the adult and student on an even playing field.

Don’t revisit the past. Resolving is about preparing us for future encounters, not fixing past transgressions. The student yelled, you dealt with it, now move onto the resolve step. Restating the student’s actions will only serve to: A) Remind them they did something wrong (which they already know). And B) Make the student think that the slate isn’t clean and that the consequence given wasn’t severe enough.

Apologize unapologetically. “What? Me apologize? It was the student who was wrong!” Yes, this can be a difficult step to comprehend. However, you aren’t wishing you didn’t apply the consequence, only sorry that it had to happen. We say “Sorry” all the time for things we didn’t do. “I’m sorry to hear about your dog.” “I’m sorry you don’t feel good.” “I’m sorry your flight was canceled.” This falls under the same category.  The Unapologetic Apology is also the only time one uses the word “you”.

I’m sorry I had to raise my voice at you when you were lifting the tables.

I’m sorry I had to send you in the hall during science.

I’m sorry you had to go to the back table during snack time.

I’m sorry you missed part of lunch yesterday.

That’s it. No justification for your actions, and no blaming the student. You simply state what you did as a result of their action. You are sorry because you truly wish you didn’t have to do it.

State the expectation in a positive. This is where you generically state the expectation the student did not meet. You DO NOT retell what the student did. You also do not accuse, blame, or argue with the student over what did or didn’t happen. In fact, you don’t talk about the student at all!

We all just really need to be safe in the science lab.

We all just need to be respectful to each other.

I just need to ensure that everyone completes the assignment.

We all just need to be responsible with our materials so we are ready for class.

We all need to stay in the classroom unless we have permission.

Walk in with the student. This is where you show the student that everyone, including you, are ready for a fresh start. This is your invitation to the student to join the class with a clean slate and that your positive relationship is intact. This is also where the smile counts. Your body language, demeanor, tone of voice, eyebrows, and inflection all play a crucial part in letting the student know you are still on their side.

Let’s go get some math done.

I think you will like this story, let’s head in there.

You’ve got this.

We are going to have a great day.

Thanks for your help.

This is going to be fun.

Be on the lookout. Watch intently for the student to be following the expectation and then pounce on them like a kindergartener on a graham cracker. Try to catch them following the expectation and then appropriately praise them. A quiet “nice job”, a pleasant look, a positive tap on the shoulder, a heartfelt thank you all will do wonders to restore your relationship while still maintaining expectations.

The whole resolving process will take less time in real life than it did to read this. However, ensuring that you still have a positive relationship with students is one of the single greatest indicators of future success. You, and your student, will be glad you took the time and effort to finish strong.