[From Bruce Nevin (991217.2341 EST)]
Rick Marken (991217.1600)]
There are the descriptions, quoted from Ed's writings:
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?"...
For students who stop disrupting when they answer the questions for
the first time, nothing else happens. After teachers use the RTP for
a while, the first question is often all they need. When the hear that
question, most students who are disrupting immediately stop...On the
other hand, if a student continues to disrupt after hearing the
questions for the first time, the teacher says, calmly, "I see you
have chosen to go to the RTC."
I agree that this could be seen as the description of a control
process. But it assumes no disturbances (so you never get responses
other than the expected ones).
This is one of the descriptions. It is incomplete. It is more a
prescription than a description, a guideline statement. Note that the
absence of any verbal response after the a question should be a disturbance
if the teacher is simply controlling this sequence of questions, but that
possibility is mentioned in the paragraph following the questions. How can
this be, if Ed's writings are training teachers to employ this as a
sequence of stimuli that will always get the same responses?
But in the real world there are
unpredictable disturbances, so the answer to the question
"What is the rule?" may be "Get bent" instead of "Don't disturb
other kids". If the answer to the question is "Get bent", you
would still (according to the above) continue with "Is that OK"?
I'm sorry. I don't see anything in the above about the student's responses
one way or the other. It seems to me that you are saying that it would not
be reasonable for the teacher to say "What is the rule?" or "Is that OK?"
if the student had just answered "Get bent!" to the first question. "Get
bent!" is not an answer to "What are you doing?" If the teacher were
calmly, respectfully asking "what are you doing?" with genuine curiosity
about what the student was controlling, and the student said "Get bent!" it
seems to me that the teacher would still not know what the student was
controlling.
And what if the result of saying "I see you have chosen to go to
the RTC" is a kid who "just says no"? So the above procedure
can only be seen as the description of a control process in which
the world is completely predictable; there are no disturbances.
I don't think this is a correct characterization of the real
world.
Do you believe that Ed was trying to describe a control process here? I
don't. I believe he was giving some guidelines. The RTP materials say quite
clearly that the program cannot be implemented without a qualified RTP
trainer on site. In other words, they say quite clearly that something more
than the words in the book is required.
Perhaps you have a valid criticism of Ed's writing here. I know from
experience that most any piece of expository writing can be improved.
Perhaps this passage could be improved by giving more examples of the
various ways in which students can respond to these questions, and maybe
even by giving alternative ways in which the dialog might unfold. Or maybe
it would be cumbersome at this place. (I think that it would be.) Is anyone
being misled by these alternatives being left out? Are any teachers
learning RTP as a fixed sequence of questions to be "emitted" irrespective
of what the student does? I see no evidence of that. I wonder why that is.
Perhaps it is because they are also being taught PCT. Perhaps it is because
there is more to the RTP training than this passage from Ed's writings.
Perhaps it is because the teachers are competent control systems, not S-R
devices receiving the stimuli in Ed's writings. What do you think?
I have no doubt that skilled teachers use Ed's "framework"
above as a _very_ loose guide for doing a type of controlling
that I call "gently removing"; they vary their actions, as
necessary, to get the disruptive kid out of class quickly
and with as little disruption to the rest of the class as possible.
I believe this is a skill that can be learned -- but I don't see
any merit in teaching such a control process as though it could be
carried out as a fixed set of steps.
It does not appear to be very loose in respect to the essentials: directing
the kid's attention to what she is controlling, then to the rules or
standards for the situation, then to the process for, as you say,
"removing" someone who continues to disrupt.
It is interesting to ask about uncooperative responses like "get bent" or
"no." From descriptions of RTP schools, it appears that they just don't
happen all that much. That is contrary to expectation in most schools that
I know. I wonder why that is? Are they whitewashing, making the program
look better, as a sales job? I don't think so. There are descriptions by
teachers, parents, kids, the bus driver, even the janitor, in the current
edition of the two main RTP books. Not all of them describe this core
process, but they together support the credibility of these descriptions.
Unfortunately, I can't quote any of these other descriptions, I don't have
my copies of the books with me, because I have lent them to people at my
daughter's school (still hoping). But you can read them for yourself, if
you want. You would have to get them first. It appears that a lot has
changed from the first edition.
The passage you quoted from Ed's writings is not how RTP is taught. It is
only a part of how RTP is taught. Consider this description from
http://www.respthink.com/rtp.html -- also by Ed, I believe:
............................. begin quote .............................
Q: What is the Responsible Thinking Process?
This unique discipline process is both non-manipulative and non-punitive.
It creates mutual respect by teaching students how to think through what
they are doing in relation to the rules of wherever they are. This gives
students personal accountability for their actions. The key component of
this process is its focus on how students can achieve their goals without
getting in the way of other students who are trying to do the same thing.
In short, it teaches students how to think and how to deal successfully
with the perceptions they are trying to control.
[...]
"What are you doing?" is the first RTP question, but it is always asked in
concert with the second RTP question, "What are the rules?" Together, these
questions prompt comparison between what the student sees himself doing and
the standards or rules that he maintains or that are maintained within the
community in which he lives. "What are you doing?" isn't just asking the
student to pay attention to his actions; it goes further, prompting him to
think about whether what he is doing is disturbing others, as defined by
the rules of the community in which he finds himself. What is the purpose
of rules, wherever we are? Rules act as guidelines to help us determine
whether our course of action is going to interfere with others around us
who are attempting to satisfy their own goals. If all of us follow
established rules or standards, we can deal with ourselves and others while
respecting the rights of others. The fundamental rule of every school
should be "You cannot violate the rights of others." Rules outlining
specific actions are less effective because they deal with specific
actions, rather than with the way students think. When a student is asked
the first two RTP questions, she looks at her system of values, of
standards, of how she thinks she and others ought to be treated, and the
standards for that treatment. She is asked to search within herself and
reflect on what she stands for, her goals, her beliefs, and how others
should be treated. This is really the heart of the process. People begin to
change their lives when they assess their own values and standards, when
they set their priorities, when they begin to examine their belief systems.
Educators often remark that when students are asked the RTP questions in a
calm, respectful, curious tone, quiet introspection often seems to occur.
It is as if each student looks into her own self and evaluates herself as
she is and as she wants to be, especially around others. In no other
program of which I'm aware do students do this. And this is where real,
permanent change in human beings takes place. This is what Perceptual
Control Theory (PCT) points to; RTP allows it to happen.
.............................. end quote ..............................
This description reflects Ed's attitudes towards social institutions,
perhaps. Bill has mentioned this. But the characteristic introspection by
the student is mentioned by more than one writer. That is very interesting,
isn't it? That instead of being defensive and aggressive the kid stops and
thinks. Remarkable, isn't it? I wonder why. You have an interest in being a
teacher. Maybe there is a secret here. Would you like it if people were not
defensive and aggressive when you talk or write to them, but instead
stopped and thought?
There are more descriptions of the process and of the teaching of RTP on
this web site. Descriptions give us the reports of people who have observed
how RTP is taught and how it is applied in the classroom. That is all I
have to go on. Even better, of course, would be actually to observe for
oneself. Maybe one would observe just how characteristic that introspective
pause is, or what happens instead. Maybe one would have some insight as to
why it occurs, or does not occur. Then again, maybe those who have been on
the scene could tell us some of these things, if we ask. What do you think?
Bruce Nevin
···
At 08:09 AM 12/17/1999 -0800, Richard Marken wrote:
A: A process that teaches discipline through responsible thinking.