Changing teachers

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
21

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.07 23:21 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.07.1120)--

Me some time ago:

> Isn't this a clear _mistake_ in the RTP program that could
> easily be fixed by simply eliminating the requirement that
> teachers say "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room"?

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.07 13:20 EST)

> Here, you are not saying that others report that some RTP
> teachers say this, etc., you are saying that use of this phrase
> is a requirement

Yes. It's a requirement. It's one of the things the RTP literature
says the teacher must do in order to be doing RTP.

The requirements are specified by the trainers, not just the literature. Also, the status of this unhappy "I see that you have chosen" phrase in actual RTP practice is in question, so we can't well say again that it is a requirement without begging the question.

> and that it is said to all disrupting kids

Oops. You're lying again, Bruce (though possibly unintentinally this
time since you might not understand requirements development). I
didn't say it _was_ said to all kids. I said it was a _requirement_
that it be said. In my business (space systems requirements
development) you learn that ...

You quoted only that part of your (980911.1415) post that is about it being a requirement. Here's the part about it being said to all disrupting kids:

Rick Marken (980911.1415)--

it seems rather unlikely [...] that _all_
(even most) kids disrupt in order to get to the RTC room, as the
phrase "I see you've chosen to go to the RTC room" -- the phrase
said to all disrupting kids -- implies.

"'I see you've chosen to go to the RTC room' -- the phrase said to all disrupting kids" presupposes that the phrase is said. (Actually, it's even more explicit than a presupposition, but leave that.) You say you didn't mean this, but that is what your words say.

Rick Marken (01.01.07.1120)--

Just because
Ed requires the "chosen" tactic doesn't mean that this tactic is
actually used; and I never claimed that the tactio was actually used.

Here's a relevant quotation from Rick Marken (980911.1415):

When the
teacher says "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC room"
the teacher is "prima facia" assuming that the student intends
to go to the RTP room

This is another presupposition, kind of like the "Have you stopped beating your wife" gotcha joke. You said "when", not "if". "When you beat your wife, she doesn't like it" presupposes that you beat your wife. "When the teacher says X she is assuming Y" presupposes that the teacher in fact says X.

On trying to get Ed to revise his books by e.g. kvetching at Bruce Gregory in Rick Marken (2000.12.24.1250): C'mon, Rick, is that an effective way to get what you want?

> I don't think anyone disagrees with such criticism.

Then why is no one agreeing with me and, more important, removing
this recommendation from the literature?

I agree with you that the "I see you have chosen" phrase is inappropriate and that it should not be recommended in Ed's books, but I have absolutely no influence with Ed Ford either. More than that, I agree with the analysis in Bill Powers (991115.1115 MDT), though not entirely with the conclusions. I believe that anyone, including children, can understand and agree to participate in a system of rules (as they do in games), and I believe anyone can accept that if they don't follow the rules they are out of the system of rules (or game). Bill has argued that this is too much to expect of children. So we have disagreed about that. As someone suggested, the whole "I see you have chosen" could be better phrased in terms of what the rules are and what the current possibilities are within the rules. ("You can take that knight and risk your queen, or you can sacrifice that pawn." And thence even "I see that you have chosen to sacrifice that pawn" but we don't like that because it has a different meaning if it is used outside the context of the reminders about what the choices are under the rules.) But all of this becomes moot if the taboo phrase is in fact not used, and so it boils down to saying that Ed's books could be better written.

And if this is no longer
a required part of RTP practice, why don't they tell us here on
CSGNet? It would be a nice way of showing how theory can inform (and
improve) practice.

Well, why is that? Why are they not here to tell us? Why won't they talk to you? Do you have a clue?

Rick Marken (01.01.07.1630)--

I think this "write plans" recommendation is inconsistent
with a PCT understanding of human nature. First, it's based on
the unlikely assumption that the student actually wants to get
back into class and behave like a mensch.

I think it is based upon observation of what students do in the RTC and in the regular classroom in an RTP school. Tom's descriptions in MSOB support this view. These observations explicitly say that students do want to get back into class. "95 to 98 percent of the students who go to the RTC want to return to the regular classroom in the same day" (MSOB 158). I bet that most of the exceptional 2 to 5 percent are also "frequent fliers," that is, kids dealing with exceptional disturbances, so they have more urgent learning to do than what is available to them in the regular classroom.

But I agree with you (if this is behind what you are saying) that the "plan" terminology is probably a relic of some other non-PCT counselling system in Ed's past, and that some other terminology would express PCT principles more clearly. In practical terms, if it works, and if it teaches kids a PCT meaning of "planning" in terms of reference perceptions, maybe it's OK.

Second, even if the
student actually does want to return and behave properly, the "make
a plan" approach assumes that it is possible to achieve this goal
by producing a preplanned set of actions or perceptions (the plan);
that is, it assumes no disturbances.

Is the "plan" a preplanned set of actions? Examples on the videos and in the books suggest no. But what is wrong with a preplanned set of perceptions, that is, reference perceptions?

I would suggest doing something like the method
of levels or negotiation.

I agree. I think this is a great suggestion. Negotiation seems to be very much part of the process. And I agree with you, the RTC teacher is expected to be a counsellor, so to the extent that some form of MOL is at the root of any effective counselling (an hypothesis we have entertained here) MOL may be involved in the process too. But it would be great to make all of this explicit as part of a prescription and as part of training. Maybe it already is. I bet that is one reason Tim has been very interested in MOL.

Think of it as a way to start a dialog about what
the student really wants rather than as a contract to be accepted or
rejected by the classroom teacher.

I don't think the "negotiation" to get back into the classroom can be simply dropped. The student and teacher have to re-establish their relationship. It would be valuable to understand better what this "negotiation" is about. Probably the teacher is controlling a perception of the student wanting to be back in the class, wanting to avoid disrupting others' control, and specifically understanding how to control whatever it was that was disruptive, and wanting to do so (as means of avoiding disruptions and staying in the class). It would be great to make that explicit in training and in the literature. I bet it already is.

I think these are great suggestions.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 11:26 AM 01/07/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:
At 04:37 PM 01/07/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

22

[From Stefan Balke (01.01.08)]

Rick Marken (01.01.07.1630)

I think this "write plans" recommendation is inconsistent
with a PCT understanding of human nature. First, it's based on
the unlikely assumption that the student actually wants to get
back into class and behave like a mensch.

Without a few rare exceptions all the students want to go back to the class
immediately. What they don't want is to lose their freedom to do or let what
they want. The core question is: which exchange can be arranged? The student
gives up a part of his privileges, but what can he get in return?

This return must be something, which is valuabel in the perspective of the
student and the teachers. What could that be? Grades, respect, a new role in
the class? Most of the frequently disruptive students are not keen on
something they can get from a disliked teacher. The rule is: If it's from a
disliked teacher: it must be bad or boring.

Second, even if the
student actually does want to return and behave properly, the "make
a plan" approach assumes that it is possible to achieve this goal
by producing a preplanned set of actions or perceptions (the plan);
that is, it assumes no disturbances.

That is a good description of the problem.

So my recommendation would be to dispense with the "write plan"
part of the process and do something different with the students
who are in the RTC. I would suggest doing something like the method
of levels or negotiation.

Yes, but isn't it required, that the students voluntarily takes part in this
process?

I would imagine that the kids in the RTP
are either in conflict (they want to go back to class and they
don't) or they just don't want to go back to class; they want to do
something else. Since the school system probably requires that the
students stay in school, I think the job of the RTC teacher should
be to do what is basically counseling or therapy with these kids.,
helping them find a way to be in school in a civil manner. That's
probably what the skilled RTC teachers actually do anyway; using the
"plan" as a point of focus for these therapy efforts. So it might
be OK to keep the "plan making" as part of the RTC but reconceptualize
what it's about. Think of it as a way to start a dialog about what
the student really wants rather than as a contract to be accepted or
rejected by the classroom teacher.

Yes, that's the way we work, if there is not much traffic in the
"Trainingsraum". But we can't make sure that this is the case.

So that's my recommendation: either substitute something like MOL
for the plan writing activity or make the plan writing an integral
part of working with the student to help him or her find a conscious
perspective from which "staying cooperatively in class" can become
one of the goals that can be set without getting into conflict with
any of the student's other goals.

The expression "staying cooperatively in class" could be a good basis for
discussions. It focuses on something which is very valuable: good
cooperation, because cooperation requires many of the other values we need:
empathy, friendship, trust, friendliness, common goals, tolerance etc. This
leads to the question: what work is actually done in the class, what is the
task that could be solved in a cooperate manner? This also leads to a
discussion about the contents of the lessons.

I'm really sorry that I don't speak German, Stefan. It seems unfair
to presume that these CSGNet discussions will always be held in
English. But I hope my English is not too esoteric and that my ideas
help you a little.

Rick, this post was really good!
(I think Bruce Nevin likes it too :slight_smile: )

Best regards, Stefan

23

[From Rick Marken (01.01.08.1330)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.07 23:21 EST)--

The requirements are specified by the trainers, not just
the literature. Also, the status of this unhappy "I see that
you have chosen" phrase in actual RTP practice is in question,
so we can't well say again that it is a requirement without
begging the question.

It is required, whether it is actually done or not. If the
"unhappy phrase" is not actually used by RTP teachers, it
doesn't seem like it would have been difficult for those
involved in the program (like Tom) to say "It's not used".
Instead, Tom told me "You have to see for yourself" which seems
like "begging the question" to me (in the sense of _avoiding the
question_, the question avoided being "Do the teachers use the
unhappy phrase?"). A simple "No, they don't use the phrase"
could have saved a lot of unnecessary arguing about "empirical
bases").

By the way, I dissent strongly from the notion that the RTP
program is OK regardless of how it is described because what
_really_ goes on is OK. I have no doubt that what really goes
on in RTP schools is, indeed, quite good. But most of us will
only know of the program by what is said about it. If much
of what is said about it is not OK then, I think, that's bad
for the program _and_ for PCT (since a big part of RTP is that
it is _based_ on PCT).

You, Bruce, (and others, including Bill) seem to be taking me to
task for making a big thing out of how the program is described
when you are confident (because Tom is on the scene) that every-
thing that is _actually_ done is completely consistent with PCT.
You get very mad a me for _supposedly_ claiming that RTP teachers
actually _do_ what the literature says they should do, as though
that were a bigger problem than what you are doing: claiming that
the RTP teachers _don't_ do what the literature says they do.

The problem with your claim can be illustrated by a question
I asked Bill P. in a private post: If the RTP literature said that
children were to be stoned if they misbehaved but the teachers never
really did that, would that mean that the RTP program is great and
consistent with PCT? Given what you have said to me about the fact
that what's really important is what's really going on in the program,
I think you would have to answer "yes". I happen to answer with
a hearty "no". And if I made the "mistake" of talking in a way that
could be taken as a claim that the children are really stoned in
the classroom, I think that mistake would be far less serious than
the mistake you make of saying the program is just fine because you
are sure that the teachers don't really do what the literature says
they are supposed to do.

"'I see you've chosen to go to the RTC room' -- the phrase said
to all disrupting kids" presupposes that the phrase is said...You
say you didn't mean this, but that is what your words say.

I think, in context, it was clearly implied that I was talking
hypothetically; that what I meant was " the phrase that is
_supposed to be_ said to all disrupting kids". Also, in his reply
(which you posted as well) Isaac had no problem with my presumed
"baseless empirical claim". Isaac said:

Of course, there are some children that do not intend to go to
the RT[C]; RT[C] is a unintended consequence. I have no say as to
whether this is good or bad.

So Isaac answered as though he also assumed that all teachers use
this phrase and that only some students really do not intend to go
to the RTC. So, in your example, Isaac was making baseless empirical
claims too (not the least of which being that some children do not
intend to go to the RTC). I bet we could find plenty of places in
the discussion of the "unhappy phrase" where you and many others
could be seen to have made "baseless empirical assertions" based on
a too literal reading of your language. If you want to misunderstand
someone, it's not really that hard to do.

I agree with you that the "I see you have chosen" phrase is
inappropriate and that it should not be recommended in Ed's
books

Finally!!

Me:

And if this is no longer a required part of RTP practice, why
don't they tell us here on CSGNet? It would be a nice way of
showing how theory can inform (and improve) practice.

Ye:

Well, why is that? Why are they not here to tell us?

Got me? Why?

Why won't they talk to you? Do you have a clue?

I don't know why they won't talk to me. Based on what clues I have,
however, it seems to have to do with the fact that the RTP people
don't want to hear any criticism or suggestions about their
program. I don't know why they don't. But they certainly don't
and they are controlling for that with _very_ high gain.

I think these are great suggestions.

Thanks. See, that wasn't so hard.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

24

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0108.1707)]

Rick Marken (01.01.08.1330)

I don't know why they won't talk to me. Based on what clues I have,
however, it seems to have to do with the fact that the RTP people
don't want to hear any criticism or suggestions about their
program. I don't know why they don't. But they certainly don't
and they are controlling for that with _very_ high gain.

High praise indeed from one of the premier control freaks of our time! (I'm
sure that has _nothing_ to do with the fact that people are reluctant to
discuss issues with you.)

BG

25

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.08 19:10 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.08.1330)--

Tom told me "You have to see for yourself" ... A simple "No, they don't use the phrase" could have saved a lot of unnecessary arguing

Tom can't assure you that no teachers in any RTP schools use those words. That's an empirical question to which it is not feasible and probably not possible to give you the answer. This incapacity to give absolute answers is one of the differences between science and philosophy or religion. For the same reason I question whether Tom said that as an answer to a direct question "Do any RTP teachers actually say 'I see that you have chosen to go to the RTC?'". I suspect that if you dug out his actual message you would find that the context was a more general question about what goes on in RTP schools. Tom is too good a scientist, I think, to have done otherwise. But I could be wrong. He might have been annoyed for some reason, and said that as a brush-off.

By the way, I dissent strongly from the notion that the RTP
program is OK regardless of how it is described

As I said, I agree that the documentation should be improved. Documentation can *always* be improved.

You get very mad a me for _supposedly_ claiming that RTP teachers
actually _do_ what the literature says they should do, as though
that were a bigger problem than what you are doing: claiming that
the RTP teachers _don't_ do what the literature says they do.

I'm not mad at you about seeming to say that RTP teachers are coercive. I do get annoyed with some things you do, such as your logic-chopping (an example below), your using an ostensively scientific forum to sling zingers and provoke arguments (the reason for my (2000.12.30.1637) starting this), and your placing "winning" above the comity that is essential for science as an activity that requires cooperation to progress and crucial for a nascent science trying to establish itself. (I won't catalog all the things that annoy me, because your pleasure in annoying people is far too evident and it would be foolish to help!) But except for my (2000.12.30.1637) I think I have not expressed my annoyance in my way of writing. I'm not denying or suppressing it. I have found it helpful to use my annoyance as a tool, kind of like one of those little devices for finding wall studs behind the plaster, and then to set the annoyance aside and reply from a very neutral, observant place.

If the RTP literature said that
children were to be stoned if they misbehaved but the teachers never
really did that, would that mean that the RTP program is great and
consistent with PCT? Given what you have said to me about the fact
that what's really important is what's really going on in the program,
I think you would have to answer "yes".

This is a false either/or dichotomy. Of course the RTP literature is part of the RTP program, and of course the RTP literature should be fixed. (Technically, you're basing a reductio ad absurdam argument upon a straw man. You use this argument form fairly frequently.)

> I agree with you that the "I see you have chosen" phrase is
> inappropriate and that it should not be recommended in Ed's
> books

Finally!!

Rick, I've been saying this for two years. Why are you pretending that you've convinced me of something?

> I think these are great suggestions.

Thanks. See, that wasn't so hard.

What's the point of saying "See, that wasn't so hard"? Are you saying that I have learned some lesson that you were teaching?

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 01:34 PM 01/08/2001 -0800, Richard S. Marken wrote:

26

[From Rick Marken (01.01.08.2010)]

Stefan Balke (01.01.08)--

Without a few rare exceptions all the students want to go back
to the class immediately.

You know, I forgot to ask the age of these kids. I was picturing
high school age kids (15-18 years). I bet you are dealing with
much younger kids. This certainly would make a difference in how
one might handles matters in the RTC, I would imagine.

Me:

I would suggest doing something like the method of levels or
negotiation.

Ye:

Yes, but isn't it required, that the students voluntarily takes
part in this process?

Sure. But the kids are under your control, more or less. in the
school situation; and the intent is to keep them in the school,
and in class if possible. I think there must be clever, non-conflict
magnifying ways to get the kids to buy in on activities in the RTC
that are MOL like. Just talking to them about what they want --
showing some interest in them as people -- might lead them to
voluntarily (and unwittingly) become part of what could become an
MOL dialog.

Rick, this post was really good!

Thank you. And all your posts have been great too. It's a pleasure
to talk with you.

Best

Rick

···

--

Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

27

[From Rick Marken (01.01.08.2110)]

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.08 19:10 EST)--

Tom can't assure you that no teachers in any RTP schools use
those words.That's an empirical question to which it is not
feasible and probably not possible to give you the answer.

I didn't need such assurance. I didn't (and don't) care whether or
not the teachers use "those words". I only questioned the respect-
fulness of using "those words". The empirical issue was a red herring.
But it certainly doesn't seem like it would have been beyond Tom's
empirical capabilites to report whether he had ever seen "those
words" used by teachers.

I do get annoyed with some things you do...(I won't catalog all
the things that annoy me, because your pleasure in annoying people
is far too evident and it would be foolish to help!)

I get no more pleasure annoying you than I presume you get annoying
me.

Ye:

I agree with you that the "I see you have chosen" phrase is
inappropriate and that it should not be recommended in Ed's
books

Me:

Finally!!

Ye:

Rick, I've been saying this for two years. Why are you pretending
that you've convinced me of something?

I am so sorry. I thought you had been disagreeing with me. My
mistake. I'd say welcome aboard but I guess you've always been
on board. Shiver me timbers.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

28

(From Ray Bennett [09:01:01 1315 CST. Aust.])

“Richard S. Marken” wrote:

It would be a nice way of

showing how theory can inform (and improve) practice.

I have been lurking while a number of you
seem t o be controlling for getting up each other’s nose. Actually I would
guess that you are after respect from each other. If that is what is wanted
and I know that at least Rick has suggested this (however I won’t look
back through the archives to check) and has asked what he needs to do to
get some, why don’t the others be clearer about what is needed in the future
instead of harking back to the past?
I want to be clear. I have attended a
RTP course, have read anumber of the books and have watched two of the
videos. I went back to my school and attempted to follow some of the ideas.
My school follows a limit setting approach and uses rewards and punishments.
In my classroom I did not follow the school procedures but instead used
the ones from Ed’s book. I could describe what happened if I had the time,
but I don’t think it necessary to make a couple of points.
1. I took the instructions from the book
as being essential. I asked the questions. I also said “I see you have
chosen…”
2. Many of the students began leaving
before I had finished the “I see you have chosen…”
3. We had class meetings at which the
students discussed life at school and matters relating to it. They raised
issues at this time. The issue for them was not the “I see you have chosen…”
but the working out of a plan. My situation was far from ideal and had
a number of complexities. The plan was worked out on their own and and
followed the steps from the book. they did this in a corner of the room
away from other students. We didn’t have a RTC.
4. I find it helpful to not only
to see how theory informs my practice but to also reflect on my practices
to see what theories could be inferred from them. It seems to me that PCT
is actually about this.
5. ‘Functional Grammar’ suggests that
it is how the language functions that indicates the grammar. Questions
are realised at times using declaratives and imperatives and not just using
interrogatives. In fact I would say that the students in my class realise
that I am declaing that I don’t like their behaviour when I ask ‘the questions’.
They also realise an imperative when I declare that I see they have chosen.
6. I would like to hear of more classroom
experiences[reflections] and have Rick, Bruce, Tom, Tim, Bill, Bruce etc…
clarify their theoretical base. Like Stefan, I too find Rick’s clarifying
helpful and challenging.
What do you have to say about all of this?

Regards,
Ray

···
29

[From Bruce Gregory (20001.0109.0625)]

Rick Marken (01.01.08.2010)

Sure. But the kids are under your control, more or less. in the
school situation; and the intent is to keep them in the school,
and in class if possible. I think there must be clever, non-conflict
magnifying ways to get the kids to buy in on activities in the RTC
that are MOL like. Just talking to them about what they want --
showing some interest in them as people -- might lead them to
voluntarily (and unwittingly) become part of what could become an
MOL dialog.

I trust you will post the results of your implementation of "unwitting" MOL
with disruptive students. I was completely unaware that studies of MOL had
proceeded to the point where it could be recommended as a routine classroom
intervention. Can you refer us to the literature describing how this was
done and what the results were? Are there any MOL schools we can observe?
Thanks.

BG

30

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.0707)]

(From Ray Bennett [09:01:01 1315 CST. Aust.])

5. 'Functional Grammar' suggests that it is how the language functions
that indicates the grammar. Questions are realised at times using
declaratives and imperatives and not just using interrogatives. In fact I
would say that the students in my class realise that I am declaing that I
don't like their behaviour when I ask 'the questions'. They also realise
an imperative when I declare that I see they have chosen.

The statement "I see you have chosen" can also serve to remind students
that their trip is the result of a choice on their part, not simply visited
upon them from on high. This point has proved a bit too subtle for some of
the more vocal experts on PCT and RTP, however.

BG

31

[From Bill Powers (2000.01.09.0636 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.0707)--

The statement "I see you have chosen" can also serve to remind students
that their trip is the result of a choice on their part, not simply visited
upon them from on high. This point has proved a bit too subtle for some of
the more vocal experts on PCT and RTP, however.

I think your subtlety does not extend quite far enough. In fact, students
have little say about which rules will be enforced in a school (although a
few schools reportedly do make an attempt to "give them input" to a very
limited extent-- they still have to go to school). So in fact the outcome
of the behavior _is_ visited on them from on high. If the people in charge
made a different rule, the outcome of the same behavior would be different.
So just who is responsible for the outcome?

If I make a rule saying that you have to give me a dollar every time you
write a sarcastic post, are you free to ignore that rule and not send me
the dollar? Of course you are; we are free and equal adults. But I could
choose to ignore that fact and send enforcers after you if you didn't pay
me the dollar. Would it then be your free choice to pay me the dollar?
After all, you would know the consequences of not paying it to me, so why
couldn't I claim that it's your responsibility if you get beat up, rather
than mine?

I'm not saying students get beat up for not choosing to go to the RTC after
the second offense. Probably the use of the phrase is humorous in many
actual cases, if it's used at all. And of course it's possible that some
students raise a token ruckus exactly in order to be sent to the RTC. But
what has always bothered me is that if a student really exercises free
choice and picks an alternative other than the ones presented (such as
going downtown for a coke), he or she will be forcibly prevented, then or
later, from carrying out that choice -- and knows full well that this will
happen. So how free is the choice when someone from on high dictates
arbitrary onerous conseqences for making or not making certain choices?

Whatever lesson is being taught in the RTP, I'm not convinced that it's
clear and sensible. It sounds too much like an easy answer to a tough
question.

Stefan Balke has raised a tough question: what do you do with
countercontrolling kids who go through the motions but don't buy into the
system? Kids who make plans to satisfy the adults, but have no intention of
living up to them? Obviously something needs to be done that can't be done
just by uttering a few set questions. There is no magic in questioning (as
Ray Bennett has pointed out). What needs to be done is to discuss the whole
school situation with these kids and find out whether there is anything
about being in school that is to their advantage. If there isn't, then
everyone has to face the facts: the students will be forced to stay in
school up to a certain age (I assume), so the real question is how their
stay can be made tolerable or even positive to everyone involved. This
might involve something of a conspiraccy between students and adults to get
around the system. And once the students and the adults find themselves on
the same side, even more interesting results might occur.

This is what it's like to go up a level or two. There's no trickery involved.

Best,

Bill P.

32

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1100)]

Bill Powers (2000.01.09.0636 MST)

Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.0707)--

>The statement "I see you have chosen" can also serve to remind students
>that their trip is the result of a choice on their part, not simply visited
>upon them from on high. This point has proved a bit too subtle for some of
>the more vocal experts on PCT and RTP, however.

I think your subtlety does not extend quite far enough. In fact, students
have little say about which rules will be enforced in a school (although a
few schools reportedly do make an attempt to "give them input" to a very
limited extent-- they still have to go to school). So in fact the outcome
of the behavior _is_ visited on them from on high. If the people in charge
made a different rule, the outcome of the same behavior would be different.
So just who is responsible for the outcome?

We've been around on this many times. Students have little to say about
which rules are enforced in school. We have little to say about which rules
are enforced in society. The outcome of our actions is visited upon us from
on high. "They" are responsible for the outcomes. "We" are the victims.

BG

33

[From Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)]

Ray Bennett (09:01:01 1315 CST. Aust.) --

Very nice post, Ray.

6. I would like to hear of more classroom experiences [reflections]
and have Rick, Bruce, Tom, Tim, Bill, Bruce etc...... clarify their
theoretical base.

Of course, my theoretical base is PCT. This gives me a particular
perspective (not necessarily the _right_ perspective, mind you; it's
just the perspective that results from my theoretical base, in which
I do have considerable confidence) on classroom discipline in general
and the RTP in particular.

5 to 18 years old are required to attend school. Most adults (like
me, for instance) accept this goal and send their kids to school.
So adults generally control for their 5-18 year olds being in school,
studying in class. Some kids don't want to be in school or to study
in class; these kids try to leave school or they do things that disrupt
class. These things are a disturbance to some of the perceptions most
adults (and probably many kids) are controlling. These disturbances
are called "discipline problems". Programs like RTP are designed to
solve these discipline problems, which means they are designed to bring
perceptions (such as perceptions of kids being in school and studying
in class) under control. That is, these programs are designed to get
the behavior of the kids under control.

PCT tells us that if this control were exerted arbitrarily -- if an
attempt were made to simply force the kids to behave correctly without
any consideration of the kids' own goals -- there would be violent
conflict. And, indeed, in many school there is quite a bit of violent
conflict between misbehaving students and the teachers who are trying
to keep them under control. There is very little such conflict in other
schools, in particular, according to reports, schools that approach
discipline (control of student behavior) using RTP. Since violent
conflict interferes with everyone's education, its avoidance in
RTP schools represents a great success for that program.

So why does the RTP program work so well? Since I have never seen the
program in action, I have to base my guesses on descriptions of how
the program is to be conducted and on reports of how it is actually
conducted. These descriptions and reports lead me to the conclusion
that there are three aspects of the RTP program that are crucial to
its success: 1) teachers are freed from the burden of having to try
to discipline (control) disruptive students _in class_ because they
are taught to send these students to a special room (RTC) where
someone else can deal with them in a humane and non-disruptive
manner 2) the teachers are taught to "respect" rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather than
resort immediately to raised voices or physical force, and 3) the
person in the RTC can counsel students having difficulties,
possibly helping these kids come to terms with the fact that they
must stay in school.

These are the things that make RTP work (from my perspective).
But some of the teachings in the RTC literature strike me as
being inconsistent with a PCT perspective on human nature. I
don't think these teachings are necessarily a problem for the
program, which obviously works despite there "flaws" (from my
perspective). But I think that's because _any_ discipline program,
even a behavior modification program, when implemented by decent,
caring people, will work. They work because, in practice, these
people will simply abandon (or augment as necessary) practices
that don't work out and will improvise, if necessary, practices
that do work.

So, for example, one of the RTP teachings that I think of as
a flaw is the recommendation to say "I see you have chosen..."
after a student disrupts the second time. This recommendation
is only a flaw from my PCT perspective. It is unlikely that
the use of this phrase would actually create any difficulties.
And, as you, Ray, note, the kids don't seem to care about it much.
I would imagine that only older kids might be affronted by it;
and even if they were, what can they do? I only suggest removing
this teaching because it would make the program more clearly
consistent with PCT; it would show a better understanding of PCT
by the RTP program and, hence, a more respectful attitude toward
the students themselves.

Another RTP teaching that I think of as a "flaw" from a PCT
perspective is the recommendation that students write a teacher
approved plan in order to get back into class. Again, in practice,
this recommendation probably doesn't create much of a problem;
some students may abuse it (as Stefan notes) and it may not be
the best way for the RTC person to spend time with the kids. But
doing it probably won't cause the schools to descend into chaos.
It's just that there are probably better ways, based on PCT, for
the RTC teacher to spend his or her time with the students.

Finally, another RTP teaching I have questioned is the notion that,
in RTP, teachers are not really controlling student behavior. Again,
there is probably nothing wrong with saying this. The only problem
I see is that it may be confusing to teachers who notice that they
_are_ controlling the students when they send them out of class or
ask them the questions. I think the teaching of RTP would be more
effective (and there would be fewer failed schools -- schools that
return to the chaos of in-class control) if teachers were taught
that they are going to control some aspects of student behavior,
in particular, whether or not the kids are going to be able to
remain in class or not, but not others, such as whether or not
the kids actually behave in certain ways in class. RTP does relieve
the teacher of the responsibility of forcing kids to behave in
particular ways _in class_; this alone probably eliminates most
in-class conflict and allows the teacher to spend time teaching
kids rather than trying to shape their behavior. I would just suggest
a clear, honest teacher training program that explains what the
teacher is and _is not_ supposed to do (control) in RTP.

Anyway, that's my point of view.

Best regards

Rick

···

from my perspective, I see that in most societies kids from about
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

34

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.09 11:24 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.08.2110)--

···

At 09:12 PM 01/08/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.08 19:10 EST)--

> Tom can't assure you that no teachers in any RTP schools use
> those words.That's an empirical question to which it is not
> feasible and probably not possible to give you the answer.

I didn't need such assurance. I didn't (and don't) care whether or
not the teachers use "those words". I only questioned the respect-
fulness of using "those words". The empirical issue was a red herring.
But it certainly doesn't seem like it would have been beyond Tom's
empirical capabilites to report whether he had ever seen "those
words" used by teachers.

OK. I thought when you said (01.01.08.1330) "If [it] is not actually used by RTP teachers, it doesn't seem like it would have been difficult for those
involved in the program (like Tom) to say 'It's not used'" that you meant that if it's not used you expected Tom and others to tell you that it's not used. It's good that you didn't mean that; they can't possibly do that.

         Bruce Nevin

35

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.09.1421 MST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930) --

Of course, my theoretical base is PCT. This gives me a particular
perspective (not necessarily the _right_ perspective, mind you; it's
just the perspective that results from my theoretical base, in which
I do have considerable confidence) on classroom discipline in general
and the RTP in particular.

...

The best post you have written on this subject. Some people (not I) might
argue with some of it, but nobody can take exception to it on social
grounds. This is the way to bury the dead past, which I highly recommend
since the corpse is becoming unpleasant.

Best,

Bill P.

···

From my perspective, I see that in most societies kids from about

5 to 18 years old are required to attend school. Most adults (like
me, for instance) accept this goal and send their kids to school.
So adults generally control for their 5-18 year olds being in school,
studying in class. Some kids don't want to be in school or to study
in class; these kids try to leave school or they do things that disrupt
class. These things are a disturbance to some of the perceptions most
adults (and probably many kids) are controlling. These disturbances
are called "discipline problems". Programs like RTP are designed to
solve these discipline problems, which means they are designed to bring
perceptions (such as perceptions of kids being in school and studying
in class) under control. That is, these programs are designed to get
the behavior of the kids under control.

PCT tells us that if this control were exerted arbitrarily -- if an
attempt were made to simply force the kids to behave correctly without
any consideration of the kids' own goals -- there would be violent
conflict. And, indeed, in many school there is quite a bit of violent
conflict between misbehaving students and the teachers who are trying
to keep them under control. There is very little such conflict in other
schools, in particular, according to reports, schools that approach
discipline (control of student behavior) using RTP. Since violent
conflict interferes with everyone's education, its avoidance in
RTP schools represents a great success for that program.

So why does the RTP program work so well? Since I have never seen the
program in action, I have to base my guesses on descriptions of how
the program is to be conducted and on reports of how it is actually
conducted. These descriptions and reports lead me to the conclusion
that there are three aspects of the RTP program that are crucial to
its success: 1) teachers are freed from the burden of having to try
to discipline (control) disruptive students _in class_ because they
are taught to send these students to a special room (RTC) where
someone else can deal with them in a humane and non-disruptive
manner 2) the teachers are taught to "respect" rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather than
resort immediately to raised voices or physical force, and 3) the
person in the RTC can counsel students having difficulties,
possibly helping these kids come to terms with the fact that they
must stay in school.

These are the things that make RTP work (from my perspective).
But some of the teachings in the RTC literature strike me as
being inconsistent with a PCT perspective on human nature. I
don't think these teachings are necessarily a problem for the
program, which obviously works despite there "flaws" (from my
perspective). But I think that's because _any_ discipline program,
even a behavior modification program, when implemented by decent,
caring people, will work. They work because, in practice, these
people will simply abandon (or augment as necessary) practices
that don't work out and will improvise, if necessary, practices
that do work.

So, for example, one of the RTP teachings that I think of as
a flaw is the recommendation to say "I see you have chosen..."
after a student disrupts the second time. This recommendation
is only a flaw from my PCT perspective. It is unlikely that
the use of this phrase would actually create any difficulties.
And, as you, Ray, note, the kids don't seem to care about it much.
I would imagine that only older kids might be affronted by it;
and even if they were, what can they do? I only suggest removing
this teaching because it would make the program more clearly
consistent with PCT; it would show a better understanding of PCT
by the RTP program and, hence, a more respectful attitude toward
the students themselves.

Another RTP teaching that I think of as a "flaw" from a PCT
perspective is the recommendation that students write a teacher
approved plan in order to get back into class. Again, in practice,
this recommendation probably doesn't create much of a problem;
some students may abuse it (as Stefan notes) and it may not be
the best way for the RTC person to spend time with the kids. But
doing it probably won't cause the schools to descend into chaos.
It's just that there are probably better ways, based on PCT, for
the RTC teacher to spend his or her time with the students.

Finally, another RTP teaching I have questioned is the notion that,
in RTP, teachers are not really controlling student behavior. Again,
there is probably nothing wrong with saying this. The only problem
I see is that it may be confusing to teachers who notice that they
_are_ controlling the students when they send them out of class or
ask them the questions. I think the teaching of RTP would be more
effective (and there would be fewer failed schools -- schools that
return to the chaos of in-class control) if teachers were taught
that they are going to control some aspects of student behavior,
in particular, whether or not the kids are going to be able to
remain in class or not, but not others, such as whether or not
the kids actually behave in certain ways in class. RTP does relieve
the teacher of the responsibility of forcing kids to behave in
particular ways _in class_; this alone probably eliminates most
in-class conflict and allows the teacher to spend time teaching
kids rather than trying to shape their behavior. I would just suggest
a clear, honest teacher training program that explains what the
teacher is and _is not_ supposed to do (control) in RTP.

Anyway, that's my point of view.

Best regards

Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

36

[From Rick Marken (01.01.09.1400)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.09.1421 MST) re: Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930) --

The best post you have written on this subject.

Thanks so much. I really appreciate you saying it.

This is the way to bury the dead past, which I highly recommend
since the corpse is becoming unpleasant.

Amen.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
MindReadings.com mailto: marken@mindreadings.com
www.mindreadings.com

37

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1719)]

Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)

Since this post has been blessed by Bill and is therefore now the received
view, I have a few questions.

PCT tells us that if this control were exerted arbitrarily -- if an
attempt were made to simply force the kids to behave correctly without
any consideration of the kids' own goals -- there would be violent
conflict.

Oh? That conflict could be entirely internal, correct?

And, indeed, in many school there is quite a bit of violent
conflict between misbehaving students and the teachers who are trying
to keep them under control. There is very little such conflict in other
schools, in particular, according to reports, schools that approach
discipline (control of student behavior) using RTP. Since violent
conflict interferes with everyone's education, its avoidance in
RTP schools represents a great success for that program.

Perhaps the conflict is simply internal in "other schools".

So why does the RTP program work so well? Since I have never seen the
program in action, I have to base my guesses on descriptions of how
the program is to be conducted and on reports of how it is actually
conducted. These descriptions and reports lead me to the conclusion
that there are three aspects of the RTP program that are crucial to
its success: 1) teachers are freed from the burden of having to try
to discipline (control) disruptive students _in class_ because they
are taught to send these students to a special room (RTC) where
someone else can deal with them in a humane and non-disruptive
manner

Suppose they don't want to go to the RTC room? Wouldn't this lead to
"violent conflict"? How would this conflict be dealt with?

2) the teachers are taught to "respect" rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather than
resort immediately to raised voices or physical force,

I don't get that feeling from the literature. Can you give a few references?

and 3) the
person in the RTC can counsel students having difficulties,
possibly helping these kids come to terms with the fact that they
must stay in school.

I thought the role of the person in the RTC was to help the student to
develop plans to re-enter the classroom. You seem to favor a
psycho-therapeutic model (MOL). Reasonable, perhaps, but not RTP as far as
I can tell.

These are the things that make RTP work (from my perspective).
But some of the teachings in the RTC literature strike me as
being inconsistent with a PCT perspective on human nature. I
don't think these teachings are necessarily a problem for the
program, which obviously works despite there "flaws" (from my
perspective). But I think that's because _any_ discipline program,
even a behavior modification program, when implemented by decent,
caring people, will work.

Oh? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

They work because, in practice, these
people will simply abandon (or augment as necessary) practices
that don't work out and will improvise, if necessary, practices
that do work.

The way we've modified our treatment of drug offenders? I know of no
evidence that people have any tendency to "simply abandon practices that
don't work". What did you have in mind? Politics? Northern Ireland? The
Mid-East? Africa?

So, for example, one of the RTP teachings that I think of as
a flaw is the recommendation to say "I see you have chosen..."
after a student disrupts the second time. This recommendation
is only a flaw from my PCT perspective. It is unlikely that
the use of this phrase would actually create any difficulties.
And, as you, Ray, note, the kids don't seem to care about it much.
I would imagine that only older kids might be affronted by it;
and even if they were, what can they do? I only suggest removing
this teaching because it would make the program more clearly
consistent with PCT; it would show a better understanding of PCT
by the RTP program and, hence, a more respectful attitude toward
the students themselves.

I find it odd that you equate understanding of PCT with a respectful
attitude toward anyone. As far as I can tell, the two are completely uncoupled.

Another RTP teaching that I think of as a "flaw" from a PCT
perspective is the recommendation that students write a teacher
approved plan in order to get back into class. Again, in practice,
this recommendation probably doesn't create much of a problem;
some students may abuse it (as Stefan notes) and it may not be
the best way for the RTC person to spend time with the kids. But
doing it probably won't cause the schools to descend into chaos.
It's just that there are probably better ways, based on PCT, for
the RTC teacher to spend his or her time with the students.

Examples of successful alternatives?

Finally, another RTP teaching I have questioned is the notion that,
in RTP, teachers are not really controlling student behavior. Again,
there is probably nothing wrong with saying this. The only problem
I see is that it may be confusing to teachers who notice that they
_are_ controlling the students when they send them out of class or
ask them the questions. I think the teaching of RTP would be more
effective (and there would be fewer failed schools -- schools that
return to the chaos of in-class control) if teachers were taught
that they are going to control some aspects of student behavior,
in particular, whether or not the kids are going to be able to
remain in class or not, but not others, such as whether or not
the kids actually behave in certain ways in class.

In other words, send the kid somewhere else, no?

RTP does relieve
the teacher of the responsibility of forcing kids to behave in
particular ways _in class_;

As does sending the student to the principal's office in a traditional
school, no?

this alone probably eliminates most
in-class conflict

Why doesn't this happen in traditional schools? Simply send the kid to the
principal's office. That should eliminate in-class conflict, no?

and allows the teacher to spend time teaching
kids rather than trying to shape their behavior.

What exactly do you think "teaching" is, if not shaping students behavior?
How would you know yoy had been successful unless the student's behavior
changed? Or is it unimportant to know if you are successful?

I would just suggest
a clear, honest teacher training program that explains what the
teacher is and _is not_ supposed to do (control) in RTP.

Perhaps you could take on that assignment, since the distinction is so
clear to you.

Anyway, that's my point of view.

Indeed.

BG

38

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.09.1715 MST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1719)--

Since this post has been blessed by Bill and is therefore now the received

view, I have a few questions.

If you have a few questions, ask them. What's the point of the "blessed"
and "received view" crap?

I have a few questions, myself.

Rick:

PCT tells us that if this control were exerted arbitrarily -- if an
attempt were made to simply force the kids to behave correctly without
any consideration of the kids' own goals -- there would be violent
conflict.

BG:

Oh? That conflict could be entirely internal, correct?

I don't follow that. If an attempt is made to _force_ kids to behave
correctly, doesn't that imply a conflict between the people involved? What
would the internal conflict be about, and in which party would it exist?

BG:

Perhaps the conflict is simply internal in "other schools".

There must be something you're not saying here. I don't understand how you
get "internal" conflict out of people pushing against each other.

BG:

Suppose they don't want to go to the RTC room? Wouldn't this lead to
"violent conflict"? How would this conflict be dealt with?

Most kids, according to Ed Ford's descriptions given to me, go willingly or
else don't put up any struggle. If a kid refuses to go, according to Ed,
security or the police are called, with the authority to use as much force
as necessary.

2) the teachers are taught to "respect" rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather than
resort immediately to raised voices or physical force,

I don't get that feeling from the literature. Can you give a few references?

That's interesting -- do you have in mind some RTP references which
recommend that teachers resort immediately to raised voices or physical force?

I thought the role of the person in the RTC was to help the student to
develop plans to re-enter the classroom. You seem to favor a
psycho-therapeutic model (MOL). Reasonable, perhaps, but not RTP as far as
I can tell.

Wasn't Rick stating some things he would recommend doing differently? This
was one of them, I think.

They work because, in practice, these
people will simply abandon (or augment as necessary) practices
that don't work out and will improvise, if necessary, practices
that do work.

The way we've modified our treatment of drug offenders? I know of no
evidence that people have any tendency to "simply abandon practices that
don't work". What did you have in mind? Politics? Northern Ireland? The
Mid-East? Africa?

You're referring to examples in which approaches clearly _don't_ work. Rick
was, as I understood him, speaking of cases in which behavior mod and other
methods _do_ seem to work -- where people will agree that they worked, at
least somewhat. An example is the practice, described in the behavior-mod
literature, of asking people's permission to use a behavior-mod technique
on them, and asking them what their goals are for their own future
behavior. There is nothing in theories of operant conditioning to support
such approaches, but practitioners have found them necessary if the
subjects are to get better.

I find it odd that you equate understanding of PCT with a respectful
attitude toward anyone. As far as I can tell, the two are completely
uncoupled.

"Respect" for another person means, to me, granting the other the same
independence I expect for myself, and understanding that the other person
has goals and tries to acnieve them just as I do. The opposite of respect
would be to make the other do as I wish, bringing to bear as much force as
necessary. This is why I agree with Rick's assessment. But perhaps you mean
something different by this term. Is that the case?

Finally, another RTP teaching I have questioned is the notion that,
in RTP, teachers are not really controlling student behavior. ...

In other words, send the kid somewhere else, no?

I don't see how that connects with what Rick said. I agree with him:
teachers, even in RTP, control children's behavior. They have goals for how
children will behave, and means to get the children to behave that way. One
of Ed Ford's great contributions was to redefine what constitutes a
"disruption," so that far less of a child's behavior became a reason to
exert control over the child. Forgetting to bring a pencil does not call
for being sent to the RTC. Only actually interfering with the teacher or
the rights of other students does.

Why doesn't this happen in traditional schools? Simply send the kid to the
principal's office. That should eliminate in-class conflict, no?

Sure. But is that the only concern? I see a difference between what's done
in the RTC and the scolding or detention the child gets from the principal
in traditional schools.

and allows the teacher to spend time teaching
kids rather than trying to shape their behavior.

What exactly do you think "teaching" is, if not shaping students behavior?
How would you know yoy had been successful unless the student's behavior
changed? Or is it unimportant to know if you are successful?

I would think that good teaching is far more concerned with shaping
students' perceptions than their behavior. Once students understand how
their perceptions will look when they succeed, they can learn what actions
to perform mostly on their own. Isn't it possible to determine what a
student is perceiving (and controlling) without requiring that a specific
behavior be produced?

Rick:

Anyway, that's my point of view.

You:

Indeed.

Have you decided that Rick is not supposed to express his point of view any
more? You in a bad mood or something?

Best,

Bill P.

39

[From Rick Marken (01.01.09.1750)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1719) --

I have a few questions [re: Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)]

I think these are all fair questions but I think it would be best if
people other than myself (and even Bill Powers) tried to answer the
ones they can. Bruce Nevin (2001.01.09 17:55 EST) has already made a
nice start.

Best regards

Rick

···

---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: marken@mindreadings.com
mindreadings.com

40

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.09 17:55 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0109.1719)

Rick Marken (01.01.09.0930)

2) the teachers are taught to "respect" rather than fight
with students; they are taught to ask questions first rather than
resort immediately to raised voices or physical force,

I don't get that feeling from the literature. Can you give a few references?

[...]

a
psycho-therapeutic model (MOL) [is] not RTP as far as
I can tell.

I think Tom's report of observations in the Appendix that he contributed to _Making Sense of Behavior_ (MSOB) is one reference for both of these points.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 05:19 PM 01/09/2001 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote: