Rules, rules, rules!

Canter vs. Jones in Rule Formation

Just Canter...

Rules should be applicable throughout the school day and age appropriate; if rules are too specific, they may confuse students when they encounter situations in which rules can be "broken." For example, a cell phone rule will not apply to Kindergartners, but high school students need to have cell phone boundaries established; however, saying "No cell phones" will confuse students if they are allowed to use them in the cafeteria or in certain activities in class. A more appropriate rule may be "Cell phones may only be used with permission." The range of rules should also be inclusive of situations in which discipline will be necessary for enforcement and address behavior in the classroom. Canter also posits that consequences should also be as clearly established and definitely pre-planned to prevent teachers from making unprofessional consequences out of emotional reactions.

Just Jones...

Jones emphasizes that rules should be minimal, easily enforced, positive, and easily viewable in the classroom. Jones also emphasizes that rules are most effective when coupled with established classroom procedures and routines, as well as strategies that establish behavioral limits with students (Limit Setting), teach students to help each other obtain a common goal (Responsibility Training), and a prepared strategy for more extreme circumstances (Backup Systems). Limit Setting, Responsibility Training, and Backup Systems are all forms of consequence enforcement when rules are broken or behavior is inappropriate; these strategies are not necessarily always punitive in nature, but they definitely are examples of negative reinforcement (i.e. Limit Setting's standing near and redirecting the student through positioning and words) and positive reinforcement (i.e. Responsibility Training's allowing students to earn rewards as a class).

How are they similar?