Appendix A
An application of PCT:
The "Responsible Thinking Process"
by Tom Bourbon
Discipline programs for schools are a dime a dozen, and most of them aren't
worth
one red cent. Discipline programs reflect the theories their creators believe,
and
most of them believe that behavior is an effect produced by prior causes.
People
who believe those cause-effect theories usually treat other people like
objects
whose behavior is controlled by forces beyond their own control.
That is certainly what we see in schools. People in one large group
believe
that reinforcement from the environment controls behavior. They use discipline
programs that claim positive reinforcement allows teachers to control
students'
behavior. People in a second large group believe that thoughts control
behavior.
Some people in this group use discipline programs that claim positive
aphorisms
and slogans, and "cognitive exercises," allow teachers to control students'
behavior. Others in this group use programs that claim teachers can control
students' behavior by meeting all of their "psychological needs." People in a
third
major group believe that brain chemistry controls behavior. Members of that
group
often use discipline programs that come out of a bottle, in the form of drugs
that
experts say will control students' behavior.
Perceptual control theory (PCT), described by Bill Powers in this little
book, is different from all of those traditional cause-effect theories. Powers
explains that behavior is the way a person controls his or her own
perceptions.
There is a discipline program that reflects many of Powers's ideas. It is the
"responsible thinking process," developed by Ed Ford. I have been studying
Ford's
program for the past year and a half. Let me describe a little of what I have
seen.
Disturbances and disruptions
In Ed Ford's "responsible thinking process (RTP)," a disruption at school is
understood as an instance where one student, who is controlling his own
perceptions, disturbs perceptions controlled by someone else. Sometimes one
person intends to disturb another, but many times the disturbances are
accidental;
they are unintended side effects that occur while the "disrupter" focuses
attention
on the perceptions he intends to control. In either case, Ford says the
problem is not
the disrupter's behavior, for, as Powers showed in this book, when people
control
perceptions, they are often unaware of their behavioral actions. Instead, the
problems are the disturbance those actions cause for another person, and the
conflict that often follows the disturbance.
Ford's RTP produces effects like some of those in the method of "going up
a level" that Powers described in this book. The RTP is designed to draw a
disrupting student's attention away from his immediate controlled perceptions,
to
the consequences of his actions for other people, and to how his actions
relate to
the rules for how people should interact at school. In RTP, the rules are
guidelines
that let students know how they can control their own perceptions without
unnecessarily disturbing others, and how they can resolve conflicts that occur
when
they do disturb others.
Questions and the RTC
When a student disrupts, the teacher asks a few simple questions, in a calm
and
respectful voice:
"What are you doing?"
"What is the rule?," or "Is that OK?"
"What happens if you break the rule?"
"Is that what you want to happen?"
"What will happen the next time you disrupt?"
The questions afford a choice to a student who disrupts: either he can stop
disrupting and remain in the class, or he can continue to disrupt, and thereby
choose to leave the classroom and go to the "Responsible Thinking Classroom"
(RTC). For students who stop disrupting when they answer the questions the
first
time, nothing else happens. After teachers use the RTP for a while, the first
question is often all they need. When they hear that question, most students
who
are disrupting immediately stop and indicate that they understand what they
are
doing and how it violates guidelines for the ways people should treat one
another.
On the other hand, if a student continues to disrupt after hearing the
questions the
first time, the teacher says, calmly, "I see you have chosen to go to the
RTC."
In the RTC, the same rules apply as in the regular classroom, and the RTC
teacher uses the same questioning procedure with students who disrupt. If
students
disrupt the RTC, they go home. Schools cannot provide an infinite number of
places for students; either they are in class, or they are in the RTC. In RTP,
the
choice of where to be always remains with the student.
While they are in the RTC, Ford says students can sit quietly, or read,
or do
homework, or sleep. They can do any-thing, 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.
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.
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.
That is the core of Ford's program. It is used in schools in at least
eight
states, and in Australia and Germany. It is used with students in grades from
pre
kindergarten through high school. Some of the high schools are traditional,
some
are alternative schools, and some are in prisons for juveniles. The only
consideration given to grade levels is that the questions and plans are
simpler for
children in primary grades. Also, if they disrupt twice, younger students go
to a
secluded place in the classroom, rather than to the RTC. The program is used
successfully with all students, including ones "diagnosed" with various
intellectual
or emotional "disabilities."
The RTP is used in schools where more than 90 percent of the students are
White, and others where more than 90 percent are Hispanic, or Native American.
It
is used in schools where the largest percentage of students is Black, or
Asian. It is
used in "tough," inner-city schools, in suburban schools, and in isolated
rural
schools. It is used in affluent schools, and in schools where more than 80
percent
of the students qualify for free meals, or meals at reduced cost.
A brief review of results
Observations
A frequent comment from the faculty in a school where RTP succeeds is:
"Everything is so much quieter and calmer. Everyone is so much more relaxed"
That is exactly what I have seen during visits to schools.
Before I started observing Ford's program, I spent 27 years in
universities,
overlapping with 11 years in medical schools. I had no idea what I would see
in K-
12 schools. When I visited the first several schools that used RTP, I thought
to
myself: "They set me up. They picked schools that never had a problem." No
matter the time of day when I arrived, there were no students waiting to be
disciplined by administrators. Often, I could talk for an hour or more with
the
administrator in charge of discipline, and not a single incident required the
person's attention. I saw that phenomenon many times.
Before my visits, I thought many students might want to avoid regular
classes and spend all of their time in RTC, but instead, 95 percent to 98
percent of
the students who go to the RTC want to return to the regular classroom in the
same
day. I also wondered if RTP might produce students who behaved like "mindless
robots," sitting stiff and silent in their seats. Nothing could be further
from what I
saw in the schools. In cafeterias, on playgrounds, and in hallways, I saw
students
who were animated and pleasant, but who did not fight or try to bother others.
I
saw classrooms in which everyone was calm and "on task." I stood in hallways
for
hours, listening for the shouting and yelling that everyone told me I would
have
heard before the school started to use RTP. When someone did disrupt, I heard
teachers ask "the questions," calmly and inquisitively.
Many teachers told me, sometimes with tears in their eyes, that they were
teaching their subjects for the first time in many years, or that they had
been ready
to leave teaching before their school started to use RTP. Teachers and
administrators told me, excitedly, about how they have implemented curriculum
changes and innovative programs that they could not even talk about, when
discipline was a major problem in their school.
I have talked with many students and read many student surveys, some
from very young children. In the language of a young child in Michigan, a
common
theme is, "It (RTP) is good for kids. It helps bullies not be bullies any
more, but
they don't really get in trouble. It helps them learn to be nicer." A young
former
"bully" in Texas said, "It (the RTC) was good for me. Now I don't pick on
other
kids at school and I don't fight at home anymore. My mother likes that." Many
students at a rough high school in Arizona said that, in RTP, they were being
treated with respect at school for the first time they could remember.
I discovered another interesting way to gauge students' opinions about
the
RTC. Most schools hold "parents' nights" or "open houses," when parents visit
the
schools, often with their children. On those nights, I doubt that many
students ever
take their parents to visit a detention hall or an in-school suspension room,
but they
do take them to visit the RTC. One evening at an elementary school in Arizona,
25
students took their parents to RTC, to show them where they got help so they
wouldn't have problems at school. At a high school in a juvenile prison, nine
young men took their parents or guardians to RTC and told them, "this is where
they helped me straighten myself out." One young man who successfully worked
his way out of an alternative high school in Michigan brought his girlfriend
back to
see the RTC and he told her, "this is where I finally got myself together."
Those
unsolicited testimonials speak eloquently to the nature of what happens in the
RTC. Students might not want to go there, and they might say it is a boring
place,
but they view the RTC as a "safe haven" and a place where they receive help.
Data
There are data to support my observations. Here are a few examples. Ford's RTP
was developed at a school in Phoenix, Arizona (4th -- 6th grade). In the first
year of
the program, compared to the year before, physical assaults declined 62
percent,
possession of weapons declined 100 percent, fighting incidents declined 69
percent, and incidents of theft declined 27 percent. In the first year of RTP
at a
school in Illinois (K -- 5th grade), "serious acts of misbehavior" declined by
65
percent from the previous year. During the last four months of the year,
external
suspensions were an average 66 percent below the previous year.
At a correctional facility (prison) for juvenile males in Arizona, the
high
school began to use RTP in 1997. During the first four months of 1997,
compared
to the same period in 1996, disruptions decreased 52 percent in the school and
42
percent in the remainder of the facility. During the first year and a half
when a
"tough" high school in Arizona used RTP, there was a decline in disruptions
and
vandalism on the campus, and academic performance increased.
Special Education
Ed Ford's RTP has been used successfully with many special education students
whose "diagnoses" are intended to imply that the children cannot tell right
from
wrong, or that they cannot learn to "control their own actions." In a pre-
kindergarten class in Arizona, the children wear a wide array of diagnostic
labels.
They learn to answer questions like, "What did my eyes see your hands do? Is
that
OK? Is there a way you can play with the doll and not take it away from Tim?"
At
another school in Arizona, a class with children between five and eight years
old
also houses children with various diagnostic labels. The teacher uses
augmentative
devices, like pictures on the wall or speech synthesizers, to help nonverbal
students
identify what they did to disrupt the class, and to help them select a plan
for how to
avoid disrupting again. Children who continue to disrupt go to the RTC,
perhaps
accompanied by a private attendant and the equipment to meet their special
physical needs. There are no exceptions to the RTP program in that school.
In schools that use RTP, very young students with special needs
demonstrate that they know when they took a toy from another child. They also
select plans that call for them to share toys, or to take turns playing with
them.
Those students know when they have hit someone else, and they select plans
that
call for them to keep their hands to themselves, or to move away from people
they
might hit. What is more, the students are eager and proud to show the teacher,
or
visitors, that they are following their plans. Those students do not conform
to what
experts say they can and cannot do, or to what teachers were trained to expect
from
them, or to what their parents came to believe were their limitations.
At a school in Texas, many emotionally-disturbed students had spent
several years in special units, without ever returning to the regular
classroom. A
few months after RTP was introduced into their units, some of those students
were
in regular classrooms for three or more periods each day. At a school in
Mississippi, a young man diagnosed with autism and four other major disorders
was referred to a special unit that had just started to use RTP. When he
arrived in
the unit, he disrupted his class so often that he made as many as six visits a
day to
the room that was equivalent to the RTC. By the end of the year, the young man
went to the special room no more than once every two or three weeks.
Time and again, teachers who use RTP with special education students
discover that the children can do much more than mental health professionals
believe. Often, it becomes clear that traditional diagnoses create
expectations that
everyone helps the students meet. Thus, a student in Michigan, diagnosed with
"attention deficit hyperactivity disorder," was said to be "so out of control
that he
cannot function unless the teacher stands next to him." In fact, the young man
was
controlling the teacher's behavior by "making" the teacher stand where the
student
wanted him to stand. When the student was treated like all others in the
responsible
thinking process, he quickly "gained control over his own actions."
Similarly, when a disruptive autistic student was allowed to go to the
RTC,
he remained there quietly for a while. He decided to return to the classroom,
and he
made a plan to do so. Had the staff tried to prevent that student from leaving
the
regular classroom, he would have behaved as though he wanted to leave and to
be
alone; he would have confirmed traditional ideas about what autistic children
do
and why they do it.
Frequent flyers
After RTP begins to work well in a school, an interesting phenomenon appears.
Most students in the school never go to the RTC, and only a few students go
there
very often. The latter are often called "frequent flyers." In some schools,
many
teachers decide that frequent flyers prove that RTP does not work, and they
revert
to using various rewards and punishments to control students' behavior. When
they
do that, RTP is no longer in effect and discipline problems become more
serious.
There are some interesting data concerning frequent flyers. As an example
of the phenomenon, let us look closely at data from the juvenile correctional
facility in Arizona, during May 1997.
Total youth in facility............ 132
Youth who went to RTC.............. 58 (44% of all students)
Total visits to RTC................ 122
1 or 2 visits to RTC............ 33 students
(25% of all students,
37% of all visits)
4 to 8 visits to RTC............ 7 students
(5% of all students,
30% of all visits)
During that month, seven young men accounted for 30 percent of all visits to
the
RTC, and the staff knew about extraordinary circumstances for each of the
seven.
The young men were using the RTC as a safe and stable place, where they could
control their perceptions of difficult circumstances in their lives.
My data show that, when faculties become disturbed by "all of those
students who make frequent visits to RTC," they are usually talking about very
few
students. At the school in Illinois, there are 700 students. During all of
1996-97, 15
students (2% of all students) made 32% of all visits to the RTC. A school in
Arkansas (K -- 6th grade) started using RTP in 1996-97. There are 615
students, a
majority of whom never went to the RTC. Only 15 students (2% of all students)
made over one-third of the total visits to the RTC. A middle school (4th --
8th
grade) in Arizona started RTP in 1995. During 1996-97, there were 560 students
in
the school, of whom 256 (46%) never went to the RTC. Only 16 students (3% of
all students) made a third of all visits to the RTC during the year.
The way that faculty members deal with "frequent flyers" depends on how
well they understand the basic principles of RTP, and of perceptual control
theory.
In some schools, the faculty literally destroys RTP in an attempt to "make all
of
those students stop going to the RTC so often." Using the logic from cause-
effect
theories of behavior, they believe RTP should "fix" the students, or the
school, so
that no one will ever disrupt again. Those adults do not understand that
everyone
acts to control perceptions, and sometimes they cannot avoid disturbing
others.
They sacrifice the entire RTP program because they want to completely control
the
behavior of the most troubled two percent to five percent of the students. In
the
process, they ignore the large majority of students who do not disrupt at all,
or who
disrupt only once or twice a year.
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).
Some of the problems uncovered by intervention teams are horrendous. A
student in an elementary school disrupted to go to the RTC as a safe place,
following weekends when his older brother had sold him as a sex toy to older
men
the same older brother had anally raped the young boy, some time earlier.
The
courts decreed that a student in another elementary school should live with
his
mother, but that his father should assist with the boy's schooling. The boy
desperately wanted to be with his father; he disrupted often, in order to
create times
when his father would come to school with him. In another school, children
from
one family made frequent trips to the RTC after their father murdered their
mother,
in their presence. The children went to live with their grandparents. The next
year,
they made frequent visits to the RTC after their grandfather murdered their
grandmother, in their presence.
There are equally terrible stories behind many students who make frequent
visits to the RTC. Ed Ford's RTP helps identify students who are at special
risk,
and it affords a process to help them regain control of their own perceptions
during
extremely difficult times.
Conclusion
Many people wonder if it makes a difference to think about people as though
they
were living perceptual control systems. From what I have seen in schools that
successfully use Ed Ford's "Responsible Thinking Process," it makes a big
difference.