The Ultimate Guide to In-School Suspension

In-school suspension (ISS) is often misunderstood as merely a holding tank for disruptive students—a place where they serve time away from their peers while falling further behind academically. After 14 years in education, with the last four dedicated specifically to transforming ISS programs, I've discovered that in-school suspension can be so much more. 

When implemented effectively, ISS becomes a powerful intervention that balances accountability with academic support while teaching crucial social-emotional skills. In this article, I'll share my firsthand experience creating and running successful ISS programs that benefit not just students, but teachers and administrators as well. You'll learn practical strategies for establishing structure, providing meaningful academic support, and implementing restorative practices that can turn ISS from a dreaded punishment into a transformative opportunity.

• How to design an ISS structure that balances accountability with academic support, transforming it from a mere punishment to an effective intervention
• Practical strategies for implementing clear expectations, consistent redirection, and documentation systems that maintain order without power struggles
• Techniques for providing meaningful academic support and closing skill gaps during ISS time
• How to incorporate social-emotional learning and restorative practices that help students develop better decision-making skills

When I first stepped into the role of ISS teacher, I had no defined roadmap. Like many schools, my district had an ISS program, but it lacked structure and clear purpose.

Students saw it as either a punishment to endure or, worse, a reward that let them escape the demands of regular classes. They slept, avoided work, and sometimes behaved worse in ISS than they had in their regular classrooms.

Coming from seven years at a therapeutic campus for students with emotional disturbances, I brought a different perspective. I saw ISS not just as a consequence, but as an opportunity for intervention—both academically and behaviorally. This vision wasn't immediately shared by everyone. Administrators viewed ISS primarily as a way to remove disruptive students, teachers doubted that meaningful work would be completed, and students had been conditioned to see ISS as "doing time."

Changing these perceptions required results. Within my first year, teachers began noticing differences. Students were returning to class with completed assignments. Some were even catching up on previously missing work. The conversations about ISS shifted from "it's a joke" to "what's different now?" Kids still intensely disliked going to ISS—as they should—but they were learning and growing from the experience.

By year two, my district began sending observers to see our model. Other ISS teachers, behavior specialists, and even educators from neighboring districts came to learn our approach. That's when I realized the transformative potential of a well-structured ISS program and why I'm passionate about sharing these practices with others.

The foundation of my approach is what I call the "ISS triangle"—a three-pronged framework that balances structure, academic support, and social-emotional learning. Each component is essential, but they're not equal in time allocation or sequence.

Structure forms the base of the triangle and takes up the largest portion of ISS time. Without strong structure, neither academic support nor social-emotional learning can be effective. Key structural elements include:

1. Physical environment: Desks arranged to minimize interaction, numbered for easy reference
2. Clear rules and expectations: Explicitly stated and reviewed daily
3. Consistent consequences: A predictable response to every behavior issue
4. Detailed documentation: Recording both behavior and academic progress
5. Efficient systems: For collecting assignments, tracking completion, and communicating with teachers

Structure creates safety and predictability. When students know exactly what's expected of them and what consequences will follow if they don't meet those expectations, they're more likely to comply. Structure also creates the conditions necessary for the next two components.

Academic support is the second largest component of the triangle. Without meaningful academic work, ISS becomes nothing more than a holding pen. Effective academic support includes:

1. Assignment collection systems: Ensuring students have appropriate work from day one
2. Completion monitoring: Tracking what students are working on and ensuring quality
3. One-on-one assistance: Providing individualized help when students struggle
4. Skill gap identification: Addressing foundational deficits that may contribute to behavior issues
5. Grade repair opportunities: Helping students catch up on missing assignments

The academic component transforms ISS from purely punitive to constructively interventional. It says to students: "Your behavior has consequences, but your learning still matters."

Social-emotional learning (SEL) forms the third side of the triangle. This component helps students develop the skills they need to make better choices in the future. Effective SEL in ISS includes:

1. Behavior reflection: Helping students understand their choices and consequences
2. Skill development: Teaching self-regulation, conflict resolution, and decision-making
3. Restorative practices: Repairing damaged relationships
4. Future planning: Creating strategies to avoid similar issues

I typically reserve SEL activities for the end of the day, after students have completed their academic work. This timing is intentional—it ensures that academic progress isn't sacrificed, and it places students in a more receptive mindset for reflection and growth.

The ISS triangle isn't just theory—it's a practical framework that balances immediate consequences with long-term development. By addressing both the behavior and its underlying causes, we create opportunities for genuine growth.

The other half of my methodology is based in trauma-informed teaching practices. Many students who end up in ISS have experienced trauma, and traditional disciplinary approaches can sometimes trigger or exacerbate trauma responses. A trauma-informed approach to ISS acknowledges this reality and creates an environment where all students can feel safe and supported.

Trauma-informed in-school suspension has four main components: Safety, Transparency, Collaboration, and Empowerment. Take a look at each in detail. 

Safety is the foundation of a trauma-informed approach. In my ISS room, this includes:

• Physical safety: A clean, organized environment free from threats or intimidation
• Emotional safety: Consistent, predictable responses that avoid triggering shame or fear
• Relational safety: Interactions based on respect and clear boundaries

Safety allows students to focus on learning and growth rather than self-protection or survival responses.

Transparency builds trust, especially for students who have experienced unpredictability or betrayal. I practice transparency by:

• Clearly explaining expectations and consequences
• Following through consistently on what I say I'll do
• Acknowledging mistakes when I make them
• Being honest about processes and decisions that affect students

This transparency helps students feel secure in knowing what to expect, reducing anxiety and defensive behaviors.

The goal is to keep the student connected to the learning environment. ISS should still be school. The first collaboration is between the classroom teachers and the ISS teacher so we have all of their assignments ready to go first period. If we don’t have their regular classwork available then they are automatically disconnected. 

It also communicates something to the student. It’s saying we want you to do your work but we don’t know where it is yet, here do this busy work until I can get your actual assignments. By our disorganization we’re communicating that academics are not really important in ISS. 

Teacher to student collaboration is next. I have the privilege of working one-to-one with students throughout the day. Compared to a regular classroom teacher, I get an eternity with my learners. I can provide unprecedented levels of support because I’ve built a structure where I don’t really have many behavior issues. In the process of working with students I’m giving one-to-one academic support but I’m also building a relationship at the same time. 

Targeted behavior intervention with zero loss of instruction is the minimum standard of my ISS room, not the top. Collaboration is how we get there. 

This collaborative approach helps students feel valued and respected, even in a disciplinary context.

We do not empower students by allowing them to flaunt our rules or by failing to hold them accountable. Instead, we give them efficacy over how they navigate their day of ISS. 

Because we have a system for getting their assignments, and we have a system for organizing and tracking assignment completion within the room, we can offer students a choice. 

"Where do you want to start today?"  Is what I ask my students. We do core content first, then electives. The student picks the order for themselves. This actually gives them more power than they would have in a regular school day where subjects are dictated by the hour. 

What you’ll find is, students will choose to start with either their most preferred subject, or their least preferred subject. It doesn’t matter because either way, we’re building momentum. 

The more they achieve, the more empowered they feel. We want them to leave ISS feeling accomplished, not three days behind in instruction. Don’t worry, they will still intensely dislike their time in ISS. We’re not taking away the consequence, we’re just removing the harm. 

Empowerment transforms ISS from a purely punitive experience into an opportunity for growth and development.

Traditional disciplinary approaches often involve confrontation and emotional escalation. A trauma-informed approach to redirection focuses on:

• Calm, neutral communication that doesn't trigger defensive responses
• Private conversations rather than public corrections
• Offering choices rather than issuing commands
• Focusing on behavior, not character
• Providing opportunities to save face and maintain dignity

These approaches reduce the likelihood of triggering trauma responses and help students develop healthier coping mechanisms.

When students behave in challenging ways, a trauma-informed perspective asks "What happened to you?" rather than "What's wrong with you?" This shift in perspective helps me:

• Recognize potential trauma triggers in the environment
• Understand that some behaviors are survival responses
• Provide appropriate support for students in distress
• Focus on skill development rather than punishment

This understanding doesn't excuse harmful behavior, but it does inform how I respond to it and the interventions I provide.

By implementing trauma-informed practices, I create an ISS environment that promotes healing and growth rather than further harm. This approach benefits all students, not just those with known trauma histories, by creating a more supportive and responsive educational experience.

DO NOT HAVE STUDENTS COPY THE ISS ROOM RULES. This does not effectively communicate your expectations. All it does is communicate that the environment in punitive. It also crushes any momentum you could be building when it comes to assignment completion. 

The first 20-30 minutes of the ISS day set the tone for everything that follows. I call this "Win the morning, win the day" because a strong start leads to a productive day for everyone.

My morning routine includes:

1. Creating a strategic seating chart before students arrive
2. Greeting each student by name at the door
3. Collecting cell phones immediately
4. Reviewing rules and expectations thoroughly
5. Explaining consequences clearly
6. Getting students started on their first assignment
7. Tracking each student's chosen subject

This routine takes time but pays dividends throughout the day. It establishes authority, communicates expectations, and eliminates ambiguity about what will and won't be tolerated.

How you deliver expectations matters as much as what you say. I use what I call my "teacher voice"—confident, clear, and authoritative without being aggressive or emotional. This isn't about intimidation; it's about communicating that I take my role seriously and expect students to do the same.

Students are remarkably perceptive. They can sense hesitation, inconsistency, or lack of confidence. By presenting a calm, assured demeanor from the start, I establish myself as someone who means what they say and follows through consistently.

I give essentially the same rules speech every morning, regardless of whether students have been in ISS before. This consistency ensures that everyone starts with the same understanding. My speech covers:

• The three-strikes policy and how it works
• The progression of consequences for breaking rules
• Cell phone and technology expectations
• Communication protocols (raising hands, no talking)
• Work expectations and procedures for requesting help
• Restroom and lunch procedures
• 
  

I don't rush through this. I make eye contact, use examples, and check for understanding. I want every student to know exactly what's expected of them and what will happen if they don't meet those expectations.

Once expectations are clear, I help students select their first assignment. Unlike traditional ISS programs that might begin with copying rules or busy work, I get students started immediately on meaningful academic tasks from their regular classes.

I give students some agency in choosing which subject to work on first. This small opportunity for self-determination helps reduce resistance while maintaining the structure of the day. Students must complete core classes before electives, but within that framework, they can set their own order.

This approach accomplishes several things:

• It respects students as learners
• It builds academic momentum from the start
• It reinforces that ISS is still school, not just punishment
• It gives students a small sense of control in a highly structured environment

By setting clear expectations and getting students immediately engaged in meaningful work, I establish the foundation for a productive day in ISS.

A clear, consistent system of consequences is essential for maintaining order in ISS. I use what I call the "three-strikes system," which provides multiple opportunities for students to correct their behavior while maintaining clear boundaries.

Despite its name, the three-strikes system actually gives students nine opportunities to adjust their behavior before being referred to administration:

1. First Verbal Warning: A calm redirection with no consequence
2. First In-Class Consequence: Loss of end-of-day reward
3. First Strike: Documented on behavior tracking form
4. Second Verbal Warning: Another opportunity to adjust behavior
5. Second In-Class Consequence: Copying classroom rules (busy work)
6. Second Strike: Documented on behavior tracking form
7. Third Verbal Warning: Final opportunity to adjust behavior
8. Third In-Class Consequence: Parent contact
9. Third Strike: Referral to administration for additional consequences (one to three additional days of ISS) 

This gradual progression allows students multiple chances to self-correct while maintaining clear boundaries. It also provides documentation for administrators and parents if further consequences become necessary.

Thorough documentation is essential to the three-strikes system. In my spreadsheet, I include detailed notes about:

• What specific rule was broken
• The student's response to redirection
• The time and context of the incident
• Any wait time or additional chances I provided

This detailed documentation serves multiple purposes:

• It helps me remain consistent in my responses
• It provides evidence if consequences are questioned
• It helps administrators understand patterns of behavior
• It gives parents specific information about their child's choices

When a student reaches their third strike, I can share this comprehensive documentation with administrators, showing the multiple interventions and opportunities provided before this point.

If we want emotionally regulated students, we have to model it for them. Perhaps the most important aspect of the three-strikes system is the emotional neutrality with which it's implemented. I never take student behavior personally, and I don't react emotionally when redirecting.

Instead, I calmly state:

1. What rule was broken
2. What consequence is being applied
3. What the student needs to do to avoid further consequences

This neutral approach prevents power struggles and teaches students that their behavior has predictable consequences, regardless of my emotional state. It also models emotional regulation, an important skill for many of the students who end up in ISS.

Despite the multiple opportunities provided by the three-strikes system, some students will accumulate all three strikes. When this happens, I:

1. Inform the student they've reached their third strike
2. Contact administration with detailed documentation
3. Continue monitoring the student until administration responds
4. Remind other students to ignore disruptive behavior

Even when a student strikes out, I maintain my emotional neutrality. This isn't about winning or losing—it's about maintaining a structured environment where all students can learn.

The three-strikes system isn't about punishment; it's about teaching accountability. By providing clear expectations, multiple opportunities for correction, and consistent consequences, we help students develop the self-regulation skills they need for success.

Redirecting student behavior is perhaps the most challenging aspect of running an ISS program. It requires a delicate balance of firmness and respect, consistency and flexibility. 

We cannot escalate. By this I mean, we cannot change our tone or posture toward the student while redirecting. If we do, we are communicating that the adult in this situation resolves conflict by escalating.  

All humans, tend to follow the path of least resistance. Knowing how you’re going to respond in every situation creates a default response. The default response is the path of least resistance. I can tell you everything you’re going to see in an ISS room and how you should respond. My rules cover it, which also helps. The student knows how I’m going to respond because I’ve covered it. Now it’s just about being consistent. 

1. State the behavior observed
2. Reference the specific rule that was broken
3. Provide clear instructions for what the student should do instead
4. Document the interaction in my tracking system

This straightforward approach removes ambiguity and emotional charge from the interaction. It becomes a simple matter of cause and effect rather than a personal confrontation.

When students talk without permission (a common issue in ISS), I respond with:

• Immediate redirection: "That's a verbal warning for talking. Remember, there's no talking in ISS without permission."
• Documentation of the incident
• Strategic seating adjustments if it becomes a pattern

I don't engage in discussions about the content of the conversation or whether it was "just a question"—the rule is no talking without permission, period.

Work avoidance takes many forms: staring into space, working extremely slowly, repeatedly asking to use the restroom, or claiming not to understand basic instructions. I address this by:

• Providing assistance: Never ask a student if they need help when you can just jump in and start helping. 
• Document refusal if the student doesn't comply
• Implement wait time between redirections to give the student space to comply
• Setting clear time expectations: "You have 15 minutes to begin your assignment before receiving a consequence."

The key is distinguishing between genuine confusion and deliberate avoidance, then providing appropriate support while maintaining expectations.

On one-to-one campuses, technology violations are common. Students might try to play games, message friends, or watch videos instead of working. I address this with:

• Immediate consequence
• Temporary technology restriction
• Alternative assignment (writing a reflection on appropriate technology use)
• Return of technology privileges after completion of the alternative assignment

Technology violations receive more serious consequences because they represent a deliberate attempt to avoid work and undermine the purpose of ISS.

When students respond disrespectfully to redirection, I maintain emotional neutrality and:

• Calmly restate the expectation: "I understand you're frustrated, but in this classroom, we speak respectfully to each other."
• Document without argument or escalation
• Give wait time to allow the student to de-escalate
• Move up the consequence ladder if the behavior continues

By refusing to engage in power struggles, I keep minor incidents from escalating into major confrontations.

One of the most effective redirection strategies I've discovered is the use of wait time. When a student is redirected, especially for a serious issue, I give them time to process and comply before moving to the next level of consequence.

Typically, I allow:

• 5-10 minutes for a student to begin working after redirection for work avoidance
• 2-3 minutes for a student to correct minor behavioral issues
• Up to 15 minutes for a student to de-escalate from an emotional outburst

This wait time serves several purposes:

• It gives students time to make the right choice
• It prevents rapid escalation through the consequence system
• It demonstrates respect for the student's emotional process
• It keeps me from responding emotionally or impulsively

Effective redirection isn't about control—it's about teaching students to recognize and regulate their own behavior. By modeling calm, consistent responses to challenging situations, we help students develop these essential skills.

While behavior management often takes center stage in discussions of ISS, I believe that academic support is equally important. Many behavior issues stem from academic frustration, and addressing these underlying issues can prevent future problems.

A major challenge in ISS is ensuring that students have appropriate assignments from their regular teachers. I address this through a digital infrastructure that facilitates communication between ISS and classroom teachers.

My system includes:

• A shared spreadsheet accessible to all teachers and administrators
• Tabs for each day of the week where teachers can add assignments
• Notification protocols to alert teachers when their students are assigned to ISS
• Clear deadlines for submitting assignments

This digital infrastructure ensures that students have meaningful work from day one, eliminating the need for generic "busy work" that reinforces the punitive aspect of ISS.

Once students have their assignments, I track their progress using:

• A spreadsheet that records which subject each student is working on during each period
• Completion checks to verify that assignments are finished correctly
• Documentation of any work avoidance or refusal
• Regular communication with classroom teachers about student progress

This tracking serves multiple purposes:

• It helps me identify when students are avoiding work
• It provides documentation of academic engagement
• It ensures that students are using their time productively
• It helps me identify patterns in work avoidance

Perhaps the greatest academic advantage of ISS is the opportunity for one-on-one support. With smaller class sizes and fewer distractions, I can provide individualized assistance that students might not receive in their regular classrooms.

When working one-on-one with students, I:

1. Assess their understanding of the assignment
2. Identify specific areas of confusion or frustration
3. Provide targeted instruction to address these areas
4. Build confidence through successful completion of tasks

This individualized support often reveals learning gaps that have gone unaddressed in regular classrooms. By identifying and addressing these gaps, I can help prevent the academic frustration that often leads to behavior issues.

Many students in ISS have significant skill gaps that contribute to their behavior problems. They might act out in class to avoid revealing that they don't understand the material, or they might disengage entirely because they feel overwhelmed.

During one-on-one work, I often discover these gaps:

• A seventh-grader struggling with Pythagorean theorem might not understand basic algebra
• A student avoiding writing assignments might have difficulty with paragraph structure
• A child disrupting science class might be unable to interpret data tables

When I identify these gaps, I take time to address the foundational skills before moving on to grade-level work. This might mean:

• Reviewing basic operations before tackling algebra
• Practicing sentence structure before writing paragraphs
• Explicitly teaching data interpretation skills

This targeted intervention can make a tremendous difference. When students realize they can understand material they previously thought was beyond them, their attitude toward learning often changes dramatically.

Many students who end up in ISS have missing assignments that have damaged their grades. I use ISS as an opportunity to help them catch up on this backlog.

My approach includes:

1. Reviewing the student's grade portal to identify missing assignments
2. Prioritizing assignments based on their impact on grades
3. Providing support as needed for completion
4. Communicating with teachers about completed work

This catch-up work often leads to significant improvements in academic standing, which can increase student motivation and reduce behavior issues upon return to regular classes.

By focusing on academic support alongside behavior management, we address both the symptoms and causes of many school behavior problems. This comprehensive approach is what transforms ISS from mere punishment to effective intervention.

Work avoidance is one of the most common issues in ISS. Many students who end up in ISS have a history of avoiding academic tasks, and they bring these habits with them.

Students use a variety of strategies to avoid work, including:

• "Forgetting" materials or assignments
• Asking to use the restroom frequently
• Claiming they "don't know how" to do the assignment
• Working extremely slowly or with minimal effort
• Creating distractions to avoid focusing on tasks
• Sleeping or putting their head down

Recognizing these strategies is the first step in addressing them. When I notice a pattern of avoidance, I document it and develop specific interventions.

Many work-avoidant students become overwhelmed by large assignments. I help them break these down into manageable parts using strategies like:

• The one-minute challenge: "Just work for one minute, then you can take a brief break."
• The small-chunks approach: "Complete just two problems, then we'll check them together."
• The first-step focus: "Let's just get the heading and first sentence done, then decide what's next."

These approaches help build momentum and overcome the initial resistance that often leads to complete avoidance.

Nothing combats work avoidance like success. When students complete tasks, even small ones, I make sure to:

• Acknowledge their accomplishment specifically
• Connect their effort to the result: "See how quickly you finished when you focused?"
• Build on their success: "Now that you've done the first part so well, let's try the next section."

This positive reinforcement creates a virtuous cycle, where success leads to increased effort, which leads to more success.

It's crucial to distinguish between students who can't do the work and those who won't. For students with skill deficits, I:

• Provide direct instruction on missing skills
• Offer scaffolding that gradually fades as they develop competence
• Celebrate small improvements to build confidence

For students engaged in willful avoidance, I:

• Set clear expectations for work completion
• Implement consistent consequences for refusal
• Provide structured choices within firm boundaries
• Document patterns of avoidance for further intervention

By recognizing the difference between skill deficits and willful avoidance, I can provide appropriate support while maintaining high expectations for all students.

Understanding why a student avoids work helps in addressing the behavior effectively. Common reasons include:

• Fear of failure: The student would rather not try than try and fail
• Skill deficits: The student lacks the foundational skills needed for the assignment
• Attention-seeking: Work avoidance gets more attention than quiet compliance
• Control issues: Refusing to work gives the student a sense of control
• Executive function challenges: The student struggles with planning and organization

When I identify the underlying cause, I can tailor my intervention accordingly. For example:

• For fear of failure, I might emphasize process over product
• For skill deficits, I provide targeted instruction
• For attention-seeking, I give more attention for on-task behavior
• For control issues, I offer structured choices
• For executive function challenges, I provide organizational scaffolds

By addressing the root cause rather than just the symptom, I can help students develop more productive approaches to academic challenges.

 While structure and accountability are essential, truly effective ISS programs also incorporate restorative practices that help students learn from their mistakes and repair damaged relationships.

I've found that timing is crucial when implementing restorative practices. Unlike some ISS programs that begin the day with reflection activities, I save these for the end of the day, after students have completed their academic work.

This timing works for several reasons:

1. It ensures that academic progress isn't sacrificed
2. It allows students to approach reflection from a place of accomplishment
3. It provides a natural transition back to regular classes the following day
4. It gives students time to regulate their emotions and gain perspective

By the end of the day, most students have settled into the ISS routine and are more receptive to reflection than they would have been in the morning.

One of the most effective restorative practices I use is circling. This involves gathering students in a circle and using a structured format to facilitate meaningful discussion.

The basic format includes:

1. Introduction: Explaining the purpose and ground rules of the circle
2. Check-in: A quick round where everyone shares how they're feeling
3. Topic introduction: Presenting a theme or question for discussion
4. Sharing rounds: Using a "talking piece" that's passed around the circle, giving each person an opportunity to speak without interruption
5. Closing: Summarizing insights and expressing appreciation

Circles work because they:

• Create a safe space for honest communication
• Teach students to listen without judgment
• Help students see perspectives beyond their own
• Build connections between students who might otherwise be isolated

In addition to group activities, I provide opportunities for individual reflection through:

• Structured reflection forms that guide students through analyzing their choices
• One-on-one conversations about patterns of behavior and alternative choices
• Goal-setting exercises that focus on specific behaviors to change
• Written apologies or explanations when appropriate

These individual activities help students take ownership of their behavior and develop concrete plans for improvement.

When a student's behavior has harmed others—whether peers or staff—restorative justice principles can help repair that harm. This might involve:

1. Identifying the specific harm that was caused
2. Understanding the impact on all parties involved
3. Taking responsibility for the choices that led to harm
4. Making amends in a meaningful way
5. Creating a plan to prevent similar harm in the future

This approach moves beyond simple punishment to address the root causes of behavior and the relationships that have been damaged.

It's important to note that restorative practices don't replace consequences—they complement them. Students still experience the consequence of being in ISS, but they also receive support in learning from the experience and making better choices in the future.

This balance is crucial. Without consequences, students may not recognize the seriousness of their behavior. Without restoration, they may not develop the skills to avoid similar issues in the future.

In my ISS program, I strive to maintain this balance by:

• Enforcing clear rules consistently
• Holding students accountable for their choices
• Providing opportunities for reflection and growth
• Teaching specific skills for better decision-making
• Supporting students in repairing damaged relationships

This balanced approach helps students understand both the impact of their choices and the pathways to better outcomes in the future.

 Despite its structured, disciplinary nature, ISS provides unique opportunities for relationship building. These relationships form the foundation for lasting behavioral change.

There's a paradox in ISS relationship building: the more you explicitly try to build relationships with students, the less authentic those relationships become. Instead, I focus on:

1. Being consistently fair and transparent
2. Providing genuine academic support
3. Listening without judgment
4. Maintaining appropriate boundaries

These behaviors naturally foster respect and trust, which are the building blocks of positive relationships.

Perhaps the most powerful relationship-building tool in ISS is simply listening. Many students who end up in ISS feel unheard or misunderstood. By truly listening to them, I communicate that they have value beyond their behavior.

Effective listening in ISS involves:

• Giving full attention when a student is speaking
• Asking clarifying questions rather than making assumptions
• Acknowledging emotions without judgment
• Avoiding the urge to immediately "fix" or lecture

This kind of listening creates space for students to process their experiences and develop their own insights, rather than simply receiving adult wisdom.

Relationship building in ISS often happens in small moments:

• Noticing a student's interest in a particular subject
• Acknowledging effort or improvement
• Sharing appropriate personal experiences related to challenges
• Remembering details from previous conversations

These small moments accumulate over time, creating a foundation of trust that can support more challenging conversations about behavior.

While relationships are important, appropriate boundaries are essential in ISS. I maintain boundaries by:

• Being warm but professional in all interactions
• Applying rules consistently to all students
• Avoiding overly personal disclosures or connections
• Remembering my role as both supporter and authority figure

These boundaries actually strengthen relationships by creating a safe, predictable environment where students know what to expect.

Strong teacher-student relationships have been consistently linked to improved behavior and academic outcomes. In ISS, I've observed that:

• Students are more likely to accept redirection from adults they respect
• They put forth more effort on academic tasks when they feel supported
• They're more willing to engage in reflection when they feel the adult genuinely cares
• They're more likely to implement suggested strategies from someone they trust

By focusing on building authentic relationships within appropriate boundaries, I create the conditions for behavioral change that extends beyond the ISS classroom.