Changing teachers

CSGnet Archive CSG2001
61

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.11 15:31 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.11.1000)--

the recommendation that students write a teacher-approved plan [...]
assumes
that RTC students really want to return to class and behave properly
and that their only problem is that they doesn't know how to do this.
While this may certainly be true for some students, I think PCT
suggests that students control all kinds of perceptions and we can't
_assume_ we know that any particular student is controlling any
particular perceptions. Some students may be willing to write a
plan to get back into class; some may not. PCT would recommend (I
think) against a "one size fits all" practice like "writing a plan".

"While they are in the RTC, Ford says students can sit quietly, or read, or do homework, or sleep. They can do anything, so long as they do not disrupt the RTC. Whenever a student decides she is ready, she works on a plan for how to return to class."
         -- Tom Bourbon
           appendix to W. T. Powers _Making Sense of Behavior_, p. 156.

This seems to answer the first objection. The students themselves express a desire to return to class when they are ready. The teacher is not assuming it.

What is this plan?

"In her written plan, the student describes what she did to disrupt the class, and works out a strategy that she thinks will help her avoid a similar situation in the future. The idea is for a student to learn how to control her own perceptions without unnecessarily disturbing other people while they control their perceptions. Some plans say the student will sit somewhere else in the classroom, away from her friends, or that she will ask a friend to help her through situations where she has had problems. Other plans say the student will ignore students who try to provoke him into disrupting, or that he will ask for a pass to go to the RTC whenever he feels like he is 'losing control.' There are many kinds of plans, and all of them are prepared by the students. The RTC teacher can help with a plan if a student requests assistance. When a student decides her plan is ready, then the RTC teacher looks through it to be sure it addresses all of the necessary subjects."
         -- Tom Bourbon (loc. cit.)

What means would you propose "for a student to learn how to control her own perceptions without unnecessarily disturbing other people while they control their perceptions"? What role is to be played by the teachers in your alternative proposal?

This creation of a "plan" is presented as the means, within the RTC school system, for getting back into the class. (We already know the student wants that; see above.) How does that process work, and what is the role of this "plan" in it?

"When the RTC teacher and the student agree that the written plan is ready, the student presents it to the classroom teacher, or to the person in charge of the area the student disrupted. The adult reads the student's plan and the two of them negotiate any points on which they disagree, or on which the teacher thinks the student might want to consider other options. When both of them are satisfied, the student returns to class."
         -- Tom Bourbon (loc. cit.)

What process would you propose for a student to return to class from the RTC? What role is to be played by the teachers in your alternative proposal?

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 10:02 AM 01/11/2001 -0800, Richard S. Marken wrote:

62

[From Rick Marken (01.01.11.1950)]

Me:

PCT would recommend (I think) against a "one size fits all"
practice like "writing a plan".

Stefan Balke (01.01.11)--

One possibility of another (not really new) way is that the
teachers give voluntarily some extra lessons only for all of those
students who have qualified themselves during the normal lessons
by non-disturbing, cooperative behavior.

The way you've worded this, it sounds like you might be recommending
a reward contingency, just like the one recommended in the "writing
a plan" scenario. In the "write a plan" scenario, the reward contincency
is: IF the plan is acceptable THEN you can return to class. In the
"extra lessons" scenario the reward contingency is: IF you don't
disturb THEN you get extra lessons. This approach to controlling
behavior can work, especially if you get buy-in from the students. If,
however, it is imposed unilaterally and enforced mechanically it could
make things seriously worse, disturbance-wise, especially if a student
really _wants_ the extra lessons (or to return to class) and really
_doesn't want_ to stop disturbing (or to write an acceptable plan).

Best

Rick

···

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

63

[From Stefan Balke (01.01.12)]

Me (01.01.11):

One possibility of another (not really new) way is that the
teachers give voluntarily some extra lessons only for all of those
students who have qualified themselves during the normal lessons
by non-disturbing, cooperative behavior.

Rick (01.01.11.1950):

The way you've worded this, it sounds like you might be recommending
a reward contingency, just like the one recommended in the "writing
a plan" scenario.

Me:

1.) I'm not sure whether my idea is a good one, it's just an idea. Maybe I'm
on the wrong track. Your questions are welcome.
2.) Whether a voluntary extra lesson is a reward, a punishment or something
between depends on the individual evaluation of each student.
3.) My internal start point is the question (and that is what I want to
create, the means are secondary): How can the school guarantee that students
who want to learn in a good learning atmosphere have the opportunity to
learn knowing that there are always some students which disrupt frequently
in the normal classroom setting.
4.) Do you think that this goal is desirable or what other leading idea
should be used to create a framework for school reorganization?

Rick:

In the "write a plan" scenario, the reward contincency
is: IF the plan is acceptable THEN you can return to class. In the
"extra lessons" scenario the reward contingency is: IF you don't
disturb THEN you get extra lessons. This approach to controlling
behavior can work, especially if you get buy-in from the students. If,
however, it is imposed unilaterally and enforced mechanically it could
make things seriously worse, disturbance-wise, especially if a student
really _wants_ the extra lessons (or to return to class) and really
_doesn't want_ to stop disturbing (or to write an acceptable plan).

Me:

The student has to decide what is more important for him: to disturb or to
have the extra lesson. Would this demand be unfair or otherwise wrong?

Me interest is to develop a model for a working school from the (H)PCT
perspective. I think in this context it is necessary to vote for a way which
has less problems than others. There will not be a way without any problems.

Best regards,
Stefan

64

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.12.0426 MST)]

Stefan Balke (01.01.12)]

Me (01.01.11):

One possibility of another (not really new) way is that the
teachers give voluntarily some extra lessons only for all of those
students who have qualified themselves during the normal lessons
by non-disturbing, cooperative behavior.

Rick (01.01.11.1950):

The way you've worded this, it sounds like you might be recommending
a reward contingency, just like the one recommended in the "writing
a plan" scenario.

Yes, this is a problem. If you start using the lessons as a reward for
non-disturbing behavior, then education becomes just a means to a different
end, making good classroom behavior the most important goal. I think it's
important to keep the focus on teaching and learning, with classroom
behavior being a means toward that end.

I don't have a good picture of this school situation. How old are the
students? Are they in class voluntarily? I'm thinking that I would ask the
disrupting students whether they actually want to learn anything, or
whether they would prefer not to attend classes at all, and then give them
what they say they want. If the problem is that they don't want to learn
and don't want to be there, there isn't any way to have them in class
without causing difficulties (without liberal use of duct tape).

In Ed Ford's program, "frequent flyers" are treated as having special
problems, and they are sent for individual counselling. The plan-making
scenario works only for students who really do want to be back in class and
want to learn something. If their problems are more serious than that --
one case Ed talks about is the boy whose big brother was selling him into
prostitution after school hours -- Ed's core approach is not likely to
work. You simply have to find out why these constant offenders are doing
what they do, and that takes one-on-one work.

Also, I think you have to look carefully at the school and the teachers.
What if you found out that the repeat offenders were also the most
intelligent students? What if the problem is that the teaching or the
subject matter is such a crashing bore that the only thing a bright student
can do to keep sane is cause some interesting trouble? You're not going to
cure that kind of problem by writing plans.

My own not-very-well-informed idea about Ed's program is that it succeeds
less because of the specific rituals he recommends than because of the
procedures that are displaced by this program. If you're trying to "ask the
questions" in a calm and neutral manner, you can't also be screaming at the
children and thinking up more effective rewards and punishments to force
them into line. The teacher's attitude, I would guess, is the most
important influence on classroom behavior. A tense, hostile, and punitive
teacher will preside over classrooms like pressure cookers always about to
blow their tops off. A
teacher who treats students like friends, with kindness and affection, and
who doesn't control them just for the sake of controlling, will have far
less trouble in class. If you think of students as autonomous control
systems with their own hierarchies of goals, and treat them as appropriate
to such an understanding of their nature, conflict will be minimized.
That's why it's important to understand PCT. Any students who still can't
fit peaceably into such an atmosphere have serious problems that can't be
handled in any simple way.

I'm acutely conscious of playing the armchair general, so I'll quit here.

Best,

Bill P.

65

[From Rick Marken (01.01.12.0820)]

Me:

The way you've worded this, it sounds like you might be recommending
a reward contingency, just like the one recommended in the "writing
a plan" scenario.

Stefan Balke (01.01.12) --

1.) I'm not sure whether my idea is a good one, it's just an idea.
Maybe I'm on the wrong track. Your questions are welcome...

Thanks. I completely concur with Bill Powers (2001.01.12.0426 MST)
comments about this. Reward contingencies like this are not really
"wrong". They just change the emphasis in the classroom from education
to good classroom behavior. I also agree with Bill's guess that:

The teacher's attitude...is the most important influence on
classroom behavior.

If you treat students "with kindness and affection, and [don't]
control them just for the sake of controlling" -- that is, if you
respect the students -- you will probably have far less trouble in
class, even if you implement reward contingencies, than you would
if you treat students as enemies by unilaterally and mechanically
enforcing reward contingencies.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

66

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.01.12 12:46 EST)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.12.0426 MST)--

In Ed Ford's program, "frequent flyers" are treated as having special
problems, and they are sent for individual counselling.

No disagreement, but there's a slightly different emphasis in Tom's description, and a superficial reader might be misled. While it doesn't follow directly from established PCT principles, because "attention" is not well modelled, it seems likely that kids having difficulty with high-gain control of perceptions outside of school will have difficulty attending to control of learning in school. Tom's evidence (sketched in MSOB) confirms that this is what is happening with socalled "frequent fliers." The fact that a few kids are in the RTC disproportionately often, and that on investigation these kids turn out to be dealing with extraordinary issues, justifies the presumption that a "frequent flier" probably has something going on that deserves a closer look. This closer look is not presented as the kid being sent for individual counselling (visions of a trip to the Guidance Counsellor's office here, and there's individual counselling available anyway in the RTC), but rather as a special "intervention team" of people in the school, community, and family finding out what is going on with the kid and then helping the kid gain control. Tom says

"When people understand the basic concepts of RTP, they interpret frequent trips to the RTC as evidence that a student is trying to control perceptions of a serious problem in his or her life. The adults then devote special attention and resources to helping the "frequent flyer" make it through a difficult time. Ed Ford recommends that frequent visits to the RTC call for an "intervention team" to determine what is happening in the student's life, and how to help the student. The intervention team comprises people who might offer insights into the child's life or who might be able to help the child through a difficult time. It might include people such as the RTC teacher, teachers or members of the school staff who have detailed knowledge about the student or with whom the student feels comfortable, the student's parent(s) or guardian(s), and resource people from the school (such as a counselor or psychologist) or from the community (such as a probation officer or case worker)."

After this passage, he describes some of the "horrendous" problems that such intervention has turned up.

         Bruce Nevin

···

At 05:07 AM 01/12/2001 -0700, Bill Powers wrote:

67

[From Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.12.0426 MST)--

In Ed Ford's program, "frequent flyers" are treated as having
special problems, and they are sent for individual counselling.

Bruce Nevin (2001.01.12 12:46 EST)

This closer look is not presented as the kid being sent for
individual counselling...but rather as a special "intervention
team" of people in the school, community, and family finding out
what is going on with the kid and then helping the kid gain control.

I wish you two would be more careful. You are talking as though
these are "empirical facts". Since neither of you has seen an RTP
school in action, I think you should carefully avoid making these
claims. Bill, what you should have said is: "frequent flyers are
_said to be_ treated as having special problems, and _it is
recommended_ that they are sent for individual counselling". And
Bruce, what you should have said is: "This closer look is not _said
to be_ presented as the kid being sent for individual counselling...
but rather _it is said to be presented_ as a special intervention
team". I know, from context and experience, that you both _meant_
to be talking hypothetically. I just don't want there to be any
unpleasant misunderstandings. I speak from painful experience.

By the way, I think saying that one is "sending a kid in for
individual counseling" sounds a lot better than saying that one
is "bringing in a special intervention team to deal with the kid".

Tom says

"When people understand the basic concepts of RTP, they interpret
frequent trips to the RTC as evidence that a student is trying to
control perceptions of a serious problem in his or her life.

I'm glad that the "frequent fliers" get this kind of special
treatment. But I also feel sorry for those kids (in _any_ school)
who have similarly serious problems but who happen to manifest those
problems by being completely withdrawn in class. Students who manifest
their problems by quiet withdrawl will go unnoticed where the main
focus is on students who disrupt.

Best regards

Rick

···

--

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

68

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0113.1810)]

Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)

I'm glad that the "frequent fliers" get this kind of special
treatment. But I also feel sorry for those kids (in _any_ school)
who have similarly serious problems but who happen to manifest those
problems by being completely withdrawn in class. Students who manifest
their problems by quiet withdrawl will go unnoticed where the main
focus is on students who disrupt.

Needless to say, I am deeply moved by your compassion.

BG

69

[From Bruce Nevin (01.01.13 110:50 EST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)--
>what you should have said is: "This closer look is not _said
>to be_ presented as the kid being sent for individual counselling...
>but rather _it is said to be presented_ as a special intervention
>team". I know, from context and experience, that you both _meant_
>to be talking hypothetically. I just don't want there to be any
>unpleasant misunderstandings. I speak from painful experience.

I referred to evidence gathered by Tom Bourbon. Maybe you overlooked the attribution "Tom's evidence (sketched in MSOB)"; for whatever reason, you left it out of what you quoted. Did I say something that contradicted or went beyond what Tom said in MSOB? I didn't intend to, and I would welcome your corrections if I did. Please be specific.

>I also feel sorry for those kids (in _any_ school)
>who have similarly serious problems but who happen to manifest those
>problems by being completely withdrawn in class. Students who manifest
>their problems by quiet withdrawl will go unnoticed where the main
>focus is on students who disrupt.

I don't see any mention of this in Tom's appendix to MSOB, but from Tom's description it does not sound like the main focus in the classroom is on students who disrupt, the opposite, rather, so I would guess that the classroom teacher has more time to become aware of and engage with such students. Are you interested enough in this to ask what actually happens with such students in RTP schools?

  Bruce Nevin

···

At 12:14 PM 01/13/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

70

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.14.0324 MST)]

Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)--

Since neither of you has seen an RTP
school in action, I think you should carefully avoid making these
claims. Bill, what you should have said is: "frequent flyers are
_said to be_ treated as having special problems, and _it is
recommended_ that they are sent for individual counselling". And
Bruce, what you should have said is: "This closer look is not _said
to be_ presented as the kid being sent for individual counselling...
but rather _it is said to be presented_ as a special intervention
team".

Yes, you are right. It's all too easy to slip out of a discussion of what
has been _reported_ and to start logically interpolating and extrapolating
while speaking as if from personal knowledge. There's an almost
irresistable temptation to come on as an authority. You remind us of how
dubious is the value of discussions like these, which are based heavily on
imagination.

Best,

Bill P.

71

[From Stefan Balke (01.01.14)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.14.0324 MST)

Yes, you are right. It's all too easy to slip out of a discussion of what
has been _reported_ and to start logically interpolating and extrapolating
while speaking as if from personal knowledge. There's an almost
irresistable temptation to come on as an authority. You remind us of how
dubious is the value of discussions like these, which are based heavily on
imagination.

Be sure that I value your "arm-chair imaginations" very high. I can't think
of a better help in the further development of the program in Germany. I'm
traveling from school to school and speak and listen to many teachers. This
gives me the impression that the closer the people are involved in the
practical work the less they have the possibility to look _about_ the matter
without prejudice and own interests.

BTW, what is "use of duct tape"?

I think one practical problem with PCT is that it shows very clear the
_limits_ of our attempts to change people, and that this limits are hard to
accept. Other theories and religions are more generous. They give promises
and recipes how to motivate or change people. PCT provides both insight and
disillusion.

For me the discussion on this thread leads to the conclusion that there are
no miraculous recipes full of mystery and that the positive personal
relation between a teacher and the student was, is and will be a core
variable. And this is true in every school (whether using RTP or not). The
difference in a RTP school is, that the school has a clear concept with less
logical contradictions. Writing plans is only one possible method within
this concept. The success of a school program must be measured in comparison
of schools using other or no program.

For me the remaining question is: how can a teacher learn to build up or
maintain a positive relationship to students which show disrespect. I think
this must be a professional relationship instead a personal one. Bill said
that the perception comes first in the construction of a new control system.
What perceptual variable could that be in this case? Is it something like
the degree of being liked/accepted/respected by the students?

Best regards,
Stefan

72

From Ray (01:01:14 730 CST Aust.)

Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)–

I also feel sorry for those kids (in any school)

who have similarly serious problems but who happen to manifest
those

problems by being completely withdrawn in class. Students who
manifest

their problems by quiet withdrawl will go unnoticed where the
main

focus is on students who disrupt.
The focus is on disruptive students in the
writing here. Teachers also consider the other students. If you listened
to teachers talking about students there is a whole range of behaviours
that alert teachers to ask questions about their welfare. The welfare of
students in general isn’t the focus here. Withdrawn students are noticed
and do concern teachers. Students who come late. Even students who are
doing well. Teachers reflect on a range of things to help provide their
students with the opportunities and resources to succeed at school and
with life. Teachers will consider lots of things when looking to
see how best to help students learn and live. Teachers on the whole are
a hard working, caring and resilient group. The focus here, however, is
on FF. What is that you wish to discuss?
Ray

···

At 12:14 PM 01/13/2001 -0800, Rick Marken wrote:

73

Bill Powers wrote:

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.14.0324 MST)]
Rick Marken (01.01.13.1212)–

Since neither of you has seen an RTP

school in action, I think you should carefully avoid making these

claims. Bill, what you should have said is: "frequent flyers are

said to be treated as having special problems, and _it is

recommended_ that they are sent for individual counselling". And

Bruce, what you should have said is: "This closer look is not _said

to be_ presented as the kid being sent for individual counselling…

but rather it is said to be presented as a special intervention

team".

Yes, you are right. It’s all too easy to slip out of a discussion of
what
has been reported and to start logically interpolating and extrapolating
while speaking as if from personal knowledge. There’s an almost
irresistable temptation to come on as an authority. You remind us of
how
dubious is the value of discussions like these, which are based heavily
on
imagination.
Do you mean discussions like those teachers
have regularly that are about real life and are very complex? Is
it easier to discuss created situations that can be easily converted to
mathematical formular and logic?

Ray

74

[From Rick Marken (01.01.14.1500)]

Ray (01:01:14 730 CST Aust.)

The focus is on disruptive students in the writing here. Teachers
also consider the other students.

That's great to hear. And I figured as much. What I said was not
meant to impugn teachers. It just made me realize that the kids
who disrupt are the lucky ones, in a way; they are the squeeky
wheels that get the extra care. I actually remember feeling this
as a kid because my brother was the squeeky wheel; I was just as
troubled as he was (maybe) but I (believe it or not) suffered in
silence: the model child;-)

Teachers on the whole are a hard working, caring and resilient
group.

And a group I respect (and even love on an individual level: my
wonderful son is planning to start work as a high school math
teacher this year). Teachers are the most important people in our
society, in my view, and they should be paid twice what lawyers
are paid (and lawyers should be paid 1/2 what teachers are currently
paid).

Best regards

Rick

···

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

75

[From Bill Powers (2001.01.15.0104 MST)]

Stefan Balke (01.01.14)--

BTW, what is "use of duct tape"?

Duct tape is a sticky strong cloth tape about 5 cm wide, silver-colored on
one side, used for many things, including binding the hands and feet of
victims of crimes. I did not _really_ recommend its use for controlling
disruptive students.

Best,

Bill P.'

76

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.0509)]

Bill Powers (2001.01.15.0104 MST)

Duct tape is a sticky strong cloth tape about 5 cm wide, silver-colored on
one side, used for many things, including binding the hands and feet of
victims of crimes. I did not _really_ recommend its use for controlling
disruptive students.

Why not? It seems to me that it allows teachers to get on with the task of
teaching and thus accomplishes the most important function of RTP, in
Rick's view at least. Assuming it were done with proper respect for the
student as an autonomous control system, it seems to have real
possibilities. It's easy to model, too.

BG

77

[From Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.1019)]

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 09:59 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.0509)

Why not [recommend use of duct tape]? It seems to me that it allows
teachers to get on with the task of
teaching and thus accomplishes the most important function of RTP, in
Rick's view at least. Assuming it were done with proper respect for the
student as an autonomous control system, it seems to have real
possibilities. It's easy to model, too.

Are you trying to provoke an argument by ridiculing of "Rick's Teaching
Program (RTP)" (Rick Marken 991216.1500), in which a disruptive student is
gently and respectfully removed from the classroom so that the teacher can
get on with teaching?

Hardly ridiculing. Simply suggesting a way to facilitate the process.

Are you saying that in the RCR ("Rick's Chat Room")
duct tape would do? This does not seem consistent with Rick's prescription
of a highly qualified teacher/counsellor with a 10:1 teacher-student ratio
per RCR. Rick also emphasized that it is not the teacher's job "to teach
the kids the rules and how to be responsible" so presumably that is not the
RCR teacher's job either.

I thought that binding the obstreperous students with duct tape might make
them more amenable to engaging, even unwittingly, in MOL. Perish the
thought that anyone would endeavor to teach the kids the rules or how to be
responsible.

···

At 05:09 AM 01/15/2001 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:

At the time (Bruce Gregory (991217.1051 EST)), you asked how "gently >removing" would be accomplished, what they would do if a student just said
"no", and how teachers would avoid counter-control once students realized
they were controlling for "gentle". Is this what you meant by your
reference to duct tape?

That's exactly what I had in mind.

BG

78

For me the remaining question is: how can a teacher learn to build up or
maintain a positive relationship to students which show disrespect. I

think

this must be a professional relationship instead a personal one. >
Best regards,
Stefan

Stefan,
It takes an extraordinary teacher to have a positive relationship with most
students when the context is secondary schools with 1500 students where
teachers are expected to "know" over 100 new students every term. All this
while one successful alternative, "schools-within-a-school" has been around
for 40 years.
David Wolsk
Victoria, BC Canada

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Stefan Balke <sbalke@NIKOCITY.DE>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.UIUC.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 10:49 AM
Subject: Re: Changing teachers

79

[From Rick Marken (01.01.15.0850)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.0509)

Why not [recommend use of duct tape]? It seems to me that it
allows teachers to get on with the task of teaching and thus
accomplishes the most important function of RTP, in Rick's
view at least.

My experience with the duct tape approach (seeing it used on
others) is that it is a violent and humiliating procedure. It
is just the ultimate forcible approach to making kids "behave
properly" in class. It has nothing to do with my view of how
to remove disruptive kids from class.

Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 09:59 EST)--

Are you trying to provoke an argument by ridiculing of "Rick's
Teaching Program (RTP)" (Rick Marken 991216.1500), in which a
disruptive student is gently and respectfully removed from the
classroom so that the teacher can get on with teaching?

He may have been. Maybe he didn't understand the approach I
described. I don't have a copy of that post; perhaps you could
re-post it. I'd like a copy myself.

At the time (Bruce Gregory (991217.1051 EST)), you asked how
"gently removing" would be accomplished, what they would do if
a student just said "no", and how teachers would avoid counter-
control once students realized they were controlling for "gentle".
Is this what you meant by your reference to duct tape? It might
help to be explicit.

I can't imagine that Bruce G. was suggesting this. Applying
duct tape is hardly gentle and certainly not very respectful.
I think I explained what I had in mind by "gently removing";
I would do exactly what is _said to be_ done in the RTP (sans
the "I see you have chosen to go to the RTC" tactic). I would
tell the student that he or she had violated the rules and,
therefore, must leave class and go to the RTC. If the student
says "no" I would do what Ed said (to Bill) is done in the RTP;
I would ask gently a couple more times and then have the student
removed using whatever force is necessary. I would expect such
force to be needed rarely, as it apparently is in RTP.

In my program, teachers would not worry about avoiding counter-
control because it's just not a big deal. It can't really be
avoided anyway (RTP claims to the contrary notwithstanding)
and it certainly doesn't hurt anything. As soon as you have
rules that you will consistently enforce there can be "counter-
control". For example, in RTP, if a kid knows that the rule is
"If you disrupt twice then I will say "I see you have chosen to
go to the RTC"" then any kid can make the teacher say "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC" by simply disrupting twice. In
my version of RTP, if a kid knows that the rule is "If you
disrupt twice then I'll politely ask you to leave the class"
then any kid can make the teacher politely ask them to leave
the class by simply disrupting twice.

As I recall, my version of RTP was exactly the same as RTP
(as described). The only difference was a change in a couple
of recommended practices (like removal of the "I see you have
chosen..." tactic) and in some of the ways the program is
described (for example, my RTP is described as a conflict
reduction program rather than as a program that teaches kids
to think responsibly).

Best regards

Rick

···

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

80

[From Bruce Nevin (2001.0115 09:59 EST)]

Bruce Gregory (2001.0115.0509)

Why not [recommend use of duct tape]? It seems to me that it allows teachers to get on with the task of
teaching and thus accomplishes the most important function of RTP, in
Rick's view at least. Assuming it were done with proper respect for the
student as an autonomous control system, it seems to have real
possibilities. It's easy to model, too.

Are you trying to provoke an argument by ridiculing of "Rick's Teaching Program (RTP)" (Rick Marken 991216.1500), in which a disruptive student is gently and respectfully removed from the classroom so that the teacher can get on with teaching? Are you saying that in the RCR ("Rick's Chat Room") duct tape would do? This does not seem consistent with Rick's prescription of a highly qualified teacher/counsellor with a 10:1 teacher-student ratio per RCR. Rick also emphasized that it is not the teacher's job "to teach the kids the rules and how to be responsible" so presumably that is not the RCR teacher's job either.

···

At 05:09 AM 01/15/2001 -0500, Bruce Gregory wrote:

At the time (Bruce Gregory (991217.1051 EST)), you asked how "gently removing" would be accomplished, what they would do if a student just said "no", and how teachers would avoid counter-control once students realized they were controlling for "gentle". Is this what you meant by your reference to duct tape? It might help to be explicit.

         Bruce Nevin