Program Profile: Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline® (CMCD®)

This is a classroom and school reform model that emphasizes shared responsibility for learning and classroom organization between teachers and students. The program is rated Promising. The intervention group demonstrated statistically significantly greater improvement in reading and mathematics achievement on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills reading subtest from pretest to posttest at the end of the second year of intervention.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

Program Goals/Target Population

Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline® (CMCD®) is a classroom and school reform model where teachers and students jointly become responsible for learning and classroom organization. It is designed to improve student behavior, instructional management, and classroom climate, with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement.

The model seeks to address the needs of students, teachers, and administrative staff in schools from prekindergarten through 12th grade. The target population is inner city youth.

Program Components

CMCD® seeks to prevent disruptive behavior before it begins and diminishes productive time in the classroom. Though it is implemented initially in individual classrooms, the model is meant to be implemented as a schoolwide program. The components of the model are designed to foster a classroom environment that concentrates on active learning through a climate of respect and discipline. The model endorses five central themes: prevention, caring, organization, cooperation, and community.

The consistency management component concentrates on classroom instructional organization and planning arrangement by the teacher (seating arrangements, passing out papers, etc.). The teacher acts as an instructional leader, striving to create a predictable environment where distractions are reduced. For instance, lesson objectives and assignments are listed on the board daily, so students recognize and follow routine activities. The classroom thereby becomes an agent of change.

The cooperative discipline component expands leadership roles to the students by giving each student multiple leadership opportunities. For instance, students take over many of the tasks traditionally managed by teachers (e.g., tracking forms, passing out papers). Classroom meetings provide an opportunity for students to share their opinions, as well as learn how to solve disputes and work in groups. Together, the consistency and cooperative components are meant to create a sense of belonging for all students.

To be implemented, 70 percent of the staff must vote in support of the project. CMCD® is then phased in, in three stages: first in the classroom, then in the broader school environment (e.g., in common areas such as hallways or the cafeteria), and finally through the development of site capacity (e.g., through leadership training).

Study

Freiberg, Huzinec, and Templeton (2009) assessed the impact of the Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline® (CMCD®) model in 14 elementary schools located in an urban, low-socioeconomic status, minority community in the Southwest. All schools had a majority of either Hispanic or African American students. On average, 52 percent of the sample was Hispanic and 46 percent African American.

The researchers used an archival, post-hoc, quasi-experimental design to assess the impact of CMCD® on student achievement. A total of 700 students were randomly selected—350 from the CMCD® schools and 350 from comparison schools. The sample was stratified at the school campus level. Schools were matched based on mobility and percentage of enrolled African American, Hispanic, white, economically disadvantaged, and limited-English-proficient students. Schools were equivalent on racial profile and economic distribution.

Archival data was retrieved for results from the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Two years of data was collected. Two analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted to compare treatment and control students and to determine whether a significant difference existed between the two groups postintervention.

Teachers receive support from the program developers using face-to-face professional development and online coaching. Typically, Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline® (CMCD®) trainers conduct a 1-day, 6-hour workshop, “Preventing Classroom Problems Before They Begin” at the beginning of the implementation year. Shorter, 2-hour workshops are then conducted throughout the year. CMCD® trainers meet with teachers individually to provide feedback and support. Online coaching with CMCD® trainers through chat rooms and Web conferencing is available throughout the year. In addition, CMCD® Classroom Make and Take Packets and CMCD® Super Planners are provided to teachers throughout the year.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Brady, Michael P., Paul R. Swank, Ronald D. Taylor, and H. Jerome Freiberg. 1992. “Teacher Interactions in Mainstream Social Studies and Science Classes.” Exceptional Children 58(6):530–40.

Consistency Management & Cooperative Discipline® Web site. 2011.

Freiberg, H. Jerome. 1989. “A Multidimensional View of School Effectiveness.” Educational Research Quarterly 13(2):35–46.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Michael P. Brady, Paul R. Swank, and Ronald D. Taylor. 1989. “Middle School Interaction Study of Mainstreamed Students.” Journal of Classroom Interaction 24(2):23–42.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Michael L. Connell, and Jeffrey Lorentz. 2001. “The Effects of Consistency Management on Student Mathematics Achievement in Seven Elementary Schools.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 6(3):249–70.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Neil Prokosch, Edward S. Treister, and Terri A. Stein. 1990. “A Study of Five At-Risk Innercity Elementary Schools.” Journal of School Effectiveness and School Improvement l(l):5–25.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Neil Prokosch, Edward S. Treister, Terri A. Stein, and Kwame Asamoah Opuni. 1989. “Turning Around At-Risk Schools Through Consistency Management.” Journal of Negro Education 58(3):372–82.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Terri A. Stein, and Shwu–Yong L. Huang. 1995. “Effects of a Classroom Management Intervention on Student Achievement in Innercity Elementary Schools.” Educational Research and Evaluation l(l):36–66.

Freiberg, H. Jerome, Terri A. Stein, and Gale Parker. 1995. “Discipline Referrals in an Urban Middle School: Implications for Discipline and Instruction.” Education and Urban Society 27(4):421–40.

Slavin, Robert E., and Cynthia Lake. 2008. “Effective Programs in Elementary Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 78(3):427–515.

Swank, Paul R., Ronald D. Taylor, Michael P. Brady, Robin Cooley, and H. Jerome Freiberg. 1989. “Grouping Students in Mainstreamed Middle School Classrooms: Desirable and Less Desirable Outcomes.” NASSP Bulletin 73(516):62–66.

U.S. Department of Education. 1998. “Tools for Schools: School Reform Models Supported by the National Institute on At-Risk Students.” Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.