I see you have chosen

[From Rick Marken (980811.1520)]

Bruce Nevin (980811.1612 EDT) --

If the teacher said to a student who is doing appropriate class
work without disruption "I see you have chosen to let me teach
and students learn, as we agreed," would you find that
objectionable?

Sure. You still haven't Tested to see if "letting the teacher
teach" is what the student has chosen (is controlling for).

How about if the employer finds the employee goofing off and
says "I see you have chosen for me not to pay you."

Still no cigar. The employer doesn't know that the employee
now intends not to be paid. The employer can Test his conclusion
easily in this case by giving the employee his pay and seeing if
the employee rejects it (choses not to be paid).

What on earth do you see wrong with the RTP application of
PCT here?

It's wrong to tell the student "I see you have chosen to go to
the RTP room" because it's likely to be a lie; the kid has not
necessarily chosen to go to the RTC room and you have not Tested
to determine that that is what the kid wants. The statement is
not an application of PCT; indeed, PCT shows that saying it is
clearly a mistake (as I noted in my post [Rick Marken (980911.1415)]
to Isaac).

Particularly given all of the evidence that it works

There is no evidence at all that saying "I see you have chosen
to go to the RTC room" has anything to do with the unquestioned
success of the RTP program. My guess is that, at best, it is
irrelevant and at worst it leads a kid to dislike the teacher.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Chris Cherpas (980811.1830 PT)]
Bruce Nevin (980811.1612 EDT), et al...

I hate it when someone else defines my behavior as making a
"choice" between A and not-A, when I have no interest in
either. They set up these categories so they can refer back
later and say, "So, I see you've chosen not-A" (negative or
positive, I really don't care). It's akin to a "false dilemma."
Not only am I supposed to accept an apparent theory of
psychology wherein behavior can be conveniently described
as "choice" (very convenient for a coercer), I am supposed
to accept these particular "choices" as accurately describing
something I am doing.

When it is a teacher addressing a student in a public school
(a form of government conscription to begin with) it's not only
deceptive, it teaches deception. Behavior mod is more honest:
You hit somebody again and I squirt you in the face with
spray mist. No phony forced agreements here: when you're
bigger and stronger than somebody else, you too can squirt
them in the face if you don't like what they're doing.
Neither is ideal.

I wonder what people really expect when a group of kids
is herded together to do something that is often not even
inherently a group activity. It's hard to play tennis
by yourself, and for many, it may be just as difficult
to sit with a big group of people to get some instruction
on, say, rational numbers.

Best regards,
cc

[From Bruce Nevin (980811.2243 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980811.1520)--

me (980811.1612 EDT) --

If the teacher said to a student who is doing appropriate class
work without disruption "I see you have chosen to let me teach
and students learn, as we agreed," would you find that
objectionable?

Sure. You still haven't Tested to see if "letting the teacher
teach" is what the student has chosen (is controlling for).

How do you Test to find out another's intentions in such a situation? One
way is to make an attribution and see if the person resists it. Brian
Thalhamer did this in his self image study. So any attribution of
motivation to the student by the teacher is a potential disturbance that
the student could resist. The student could say "huh?" The student could
say "Where did you get that idea?" The student could perceive it as
condescending or demeaning and say something to that effect, if not to the
teacher then to others. There would be some evidence that sceptics among
the faculty, parents, students, and outside observers--there must be some
around who are sceptical of this latest school reform bandwagon and this
consultant who is just like the others, he's only here to make a buck and
complicate our lives--would not let slip by unnoticed.

How about if the employer finds the employee goofing off and
says "I see you have chosen for me not to pay you."

Still no cigar. The employer doesn't know that the employee
now intends not to be paid. The employer can Test his conclusion
easily in this case by giving the employee his pay and seeing if
the employee rejects it (choses not to be paid).

As above, the Test is already happening: the employee can say "No way! I
want to get paid!" or "Oops! Sorry boss!" or "Screw you, and screw your old
job too!"

What on earth do you see wrong with the RTP application of
PCT here?

It's wrong to tell the student "I see you have chosen to go to
the RTP room" because it's likely to be a lie

If it's a lie what's to stop the kid from saying so, if not to the teacher,
then to someone else, like Tom maybe, or another kid, so that eventually
even folks like us find out about it in one of those many RTP schools--but
we haven't. I think this is strong evidence that it is unlikely to be a
lie, and that in fact it does serve as a reminder of something that the kid
does in fact agree about, going up a level as I described (and as you
ignored).

the kid has not
necessarily chosen to go to the RTC room and you have not Tested
to determine that that is what the kid wants.

The very saying of it is a Test. The kid or any other kid can contradict
it, and if not then and there to the teacher, then some other time and
place to someone else. Has this ever happened? Maybe I'm wrong, and it
happens all the time. That would vindicate you. If it is a blatent lie,
some kid in some RTP school must have let the cat out of the bag. Good
empirical check of assumptions there. How about it, RTP folks, any data on
this?

The statement is
not an application of PCT; indeed, PCT shows that saying it is
clearly a mistake (as I noted in my post [Rick Marken (980911.1415)]
to Isaac).

To repeat some of what you ignored in my (980811.1612 EDT):
............................. Begin quote .................
Remember, this is the second disruption of the same kind [in a short span
of time]. At the time of the first [disruption], the teacher reminded the
child of the commitment and of the two choices. Immediately afterward comes
the second disruption. It is this context that gives the child's action the
meaning that is assumed in the question. The question refers to a higher
level of control. After the first disruption, the teacher and the child
went up a level to talk about why they are there in the classroom, by way
of remembering earlier discussions and agreements about what all this
school and class and student-teacher business are about. At that level, the
child's specifically repeating the disruption immediately after that
discussion is most definitely the child's choice. [This is an
overstatement; it could also arise from loss of control due to internal
conflict. In that case the statement "you have chosen" would be false, but
would still take the issue back up a level again.] The statement "I see you
have chosen" specifically does take the issue back up a level to that point
of control at which the child made that choice. The child is asked to take
responsibility for having made that choice. The child is not punished for
making this choice. It is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable choice to
make. By going up a level, the teacher makes that choice explicit. Usually
the motives for "misbehavior" and disruption are not made explicit, and the
disrupters and those disrupted do not go up a level, instead they typically
become embroiled in conflict on the lower level at which the disruption is
taking place.
............................ End quote .................

If the teacher and student did not go up a level there would be conflict.
The student might have to be compelled forcibly to leave the room. But we
are told this does not happen. This seems to me to be strong evidence for
going up a level rather than telling a lie that the student perceives as
condescending (your words, lie and condescending).

Particularly given all of the evidence that it works

There is no evidence at all that saying "I see you have chosen
to go to the RTC room" has anything to do with the unquestioned
success of the RTP program. My guess is that, at best, it is
irrelevant and at worst it leads a kid to dislike the teacher.

Above is a restatement of the evidence as I see it: not only that it works,
but how it works, and that the consequences were your interpretation true
do not actually occur. A condescending lie would lead to conflict and
forcible removal of at least some children. A condescending lie would be
talked about by the children with expressions of their bad feelings about
it. At least some kids would dislike the teacher who said condescending
lies about them. I have heard of no such thing, indeed, I have heard only
the opposite. RTP folks could say if there is any such evidence. Tim?
Others? What are the data here? Anyone in touch with Tom?

All that said, other words could be used, of that there can be no doubt.
There is nothing magical about the phrase "I see you have chosen". There
could be an explicit reminder, "You're doing X again. We just talked about
that. We agreed that if you did X again while we're all doing Y in the
class you should go to the RTC. So that's what's happening now, right?" I'm
sure it could be phrased to contain no PCT illegalism. And be long-winded,
awkward, possibly embarrassing, difficult for the teacher to remember
exactly, therefore variable from one occasion to another, probably
inconsistently applied (it slips easily into the kind of discussion that
happens with the first disruption), lots of other problems. Remember, this
has to meet all kinds of pragmatic requirements in the classroom. PCT
legalism is only one consideration.

Absent any evidence for your interpretation--you have advanced none--and
given the evidence I have suggested for my interpretation--no reports of "I
see you have chosen" escalating to full-blown conflict, forcible removal,
etc., no reports of students feeling condescended to and disliking their
teachers for it, rather the contrary -- I believe that in this matter you
are wrong. But let the people with actual experience in RTP schools speak
directly to the issue, please.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Nevin (980811.2319 EDT)]

Chris Cherpas (980811.1830 PT) --

I hate it when someone else defines my behavior as making a
"choice" between A and not-A, when I have no interest in
either. They set up these categories so they can refer back
later and say, "So, I see you've chosen not-A" (negative or
positive, I really don't care). It's akin to a "false dilemma."
Not only am I supposed to accept an apparent theory of
psychology wherein behavior can be conveniently described
as "choice" (very convenient for a coercer), I am supposed
to accept these particular "choices" as accurately describing
something I am doing.

I agree with you. I also have these feelings in the circumstances that you
are describing.

Does the student in an RTP school have no interest in either of the two
choices? Are these categories set up by the teacher without participation
and buy-in from the students? Do RTP students have the feelings that you
have described about this presentation of choice? Are we projecting onto
RTP schools memories of our own unpleasant experiences in definitely
non-RTP schools?

Some other phrase could be used. What phrase or question would satisfy the
pragmatic requirements of the program and not be perceived as conflicting
with PCT? It should be brief, a succinct reminder of previous agreements
and of the "What are you doing?" discussion that followed the first
disruption, which took place only a little while ago, it should go up a
level just as that discussion did. Any positive contributions?

  Bruce Nevin

[From Tim Carey (980812.1835)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980811.2243 EDT)]

A great post Bruce, I appreciate the time you took although I dread to
think what this means about your dissertation .....

Just to give some perspective to people who aren't familiar with the
process .... in a school of 620 kids, Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon found that
about 400 kids had NEVER been to the RTC; a further 170 had been ONCE;
about 40 kids had been 2-6 TIMES; and about 10 kids had been more than 6
times. The 10 kids are the ones who are referred to as frequent flyers and
are the ones who are given extra support in terms of succeeding in class.
These proportions have been found to be remarkably similar across schools
regardless of ethnic mix, location, socio-economic status, etc.

Since you asked me for some evidence I'll supply what I can. I've had a lot
of experience in one school and less experience in other schools in the
area that I live in. The school that I'll talk about is Minimbah State
School, my wife (Margaret) is the RTC teacher though so I have ready access
to their data :wink:

The school is a new school that started up in January 1997. It has about
550 kids and is growing. While the school is not in a designated lower
socio economic area there are a large number of single parent families in
the school and a disproportionate number of special needs kids (learning
disabled or worse). Also, since it is a new school most of the other
schools in the district "encouraged" their most problematic students to
enrol in this school so their are quite a few behavoiur problems.

I should also say at the outset that this is NOT an accredited RTP school.
There are currently no accredited RTP schools in Australia and this one is
probably the closest I've seen so as far as my data goes it will have to
do. They have been working at the process since November 1997.

empirical check of assumptions there. How about it, RTP folks, any data

on

this?

Since I'm the only RTP folk on the CSG you're stuck with me I'm afraid :wink:

Margaret reports that occasionally a kid will turn up at RTC and will
complain that they didn't choose to come. With these kids Margaret says
that typically the teacher hasn't used the process correctly and it is this
that the kids are complaining about. This is most likely to happen with
supply teachers when a regular teacher is away. I've tried to nail Margaret
down on numbers and she estimates about 10 kids this year (since January)
have had this complaint. The kids have been taught the process and they
know when it is and is not being used correctly.

Apart from these kids, there is one kid who complains that he didn't choose
to come. This is one of the frequent flyers (a kid who makes frequent trips
to the RTC) and he externalisers all his behaviour and sees himself as
having very little control over his environment. Margaret reports that he
usually makes these complaints when he is angry and when he has calmed down
and is ready to plan he often reports the part he had to play in coming to
the RTC.

Further, there has been one kid since the process started who refused to go
to the RTC. He is an intellectually disabled kid and he has refused to go
to the RTC twice. In both instances the principal chatted with him and
explained what he had done and what the process is and he then went to RTC.

the opposite. RTP folks could say if there is any such evidence. Tim?
Others? What are the data here? Anyone in touch with Tom?

Is the above what you were meaning?

Also, Margaret reports that when kids are angry when they arrive at RTC
they are typically angry because they are disappointed with themselves.
They were usually working on a plan and had a goal to achieve and they
failed to achieve it.

sure it could be phrased to contain no PCT illegalism. And be

long-winded,

awkward, possibly embarrassing, difficult for the teacher to remember
exactly, therefore variable from one occasion to another, probably
inconsistently applied (it slips easily into the kind of discussion that
happens with the first disruption), lots of other problems. Remember,

this

has to meet all kinds of pragmatic requirements in the classroom. PCT
legalism is only one consideration.

The primary purpose of the RTP is to increase learning time for students in
the class so whatever is said would have to be brief so that the teacher
could get on with helping the kids in the class learn.

Thanks for the post Bruce, I hope this has been of some help. If you want
other kinds of data let me know and I'll put Margaret to the task of data
collection :wink:

Regards,

Tim

[From Bruce Nevin (980812.0647 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980812.1835)--

Thanks, Tim, that's very helpful. It's especially interesting that teachers
do not follow Ed's formula of questions and phrases exactly. Perhaps one
reason they change is discomfort with the phraseology. Some of this may be
Aussie vs. American idiom, but maybe they agree with us that "I see you
have chosen" is problematic in ways that we have been discussing.

If you want
other kinds of data let me know and I'll put Margaret to the task of data
collection :wink:

It's up to researchers and modellers to say what kind of data they need.

Rick, does Tim's report bear out your predictions? What kinds of data from
Tim and Margaret would be most useful and informative?

  Bruce Nevin

[From Rick Marken (980812.0800)]

Chris Cherpas (980811.1830 PT) re: a teacher saying "I see you
have chosen..." to a pupil:

When it is a teacher addressing a student in a public school
(a form of government conscription to begin with) it's not only
deceptive, it teaches deception.

Thank you. Excellent.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Tim Carey (980813.1245)]

Thanks, Tim, that's very helpful. It's especially interesting that

teachers

do not follow Ed's formula of questions and phrases exactly. Perhaps one
reason they change is discomfort with the phraseology. Some of this may

be

Aussie vs. American idiom, but maybe they agree with us that "I see you
have chosen" is problematic in ways that we have been discussing.

I may have mislead you a little. I can't tell you for certain whether or
not teachers actually say "I see you've chosen to leave". Maybe they do and
maybe they don't. The reason the kids get annoyed, in general, is because
they weren't asked the questions period. There are close to zero complaints
from kids who have been through the questionning procedure.

If kids complain at all they are more likely to complain about the first
part of the procedure (where they are asked "What are you doing ...etc")
than the part of the procedure where they are told they have chosen to
leave.

Regards,

Tim

[From Kenny Kitzke (980813.0845 EDT)]

<From Tim Carey (980813.1245)>

Thank you for some data about the functioning of RTP in practice. It
should not be difficult for any PCTer to understand why Rick, or me or
anyone who has not personally experienced RTP in action, would have
perceptions about RTP that are merely in their mind, quite apart from any
observable reality.

I also appreciate your tone. It is educational instead of confrontational.
You make a valuable contribution on this forum. Your zeal for PCT is high
gain and contagious.

<The reason the kids get annoyed, in general, is because
they weren't asked the questions period. There are close to zero complaints
from kids who have been through the questionning procedure.

If kids complain at all they are more likely to complain about the first
part of the procedure (where they are asked "What are you doing ...etc")
than the part of the procedure where they are told they have chosen to
leave.>

I would hypothesize that children who accept the two restricted choices
they find as reasonable and acceptable do not experience coercion from the
question, "I see you have chosen to leave and go to the RTC?" Do you agree
with this hypothesis?

When people ask, "What are you doing?" after a class disruption, there is a
perjuritive context that also requires a potentially embarrassing public
acknowledgment. Most people I know resist such treatment.

I tend to agree with you about which teacher statement produces greater
conflict for students. The first question could be changed to "What do you
percieve you are doing?" It strikes me this is truthful and consistent
with PCT and would not detract from RTP. Do you disagree with this
improvement suggestion? What would your bride think of the significance of
this small change in the process?

I know you have agreed that the use of RTP can involve coercion. Your
objection seems to be about characterizing an inanimate system (such as
public education or RTP) as coercive.

I'd like to briefly explain this concept. For me, this comes from the
science of "systems thinking" as taught by W. Edwards Deming, the quality
guru and statistician. Basically, people work in a system. The system
represents the rules or norms that apply to the work (actions) of those
people.

When a system, acting through people in authority, can use its decreed or
usurpted power to enforce the behavior of the people as they desire it to
be, it is a fundamentally a coercive system. This does not mean everything
done in the system is coercive. Teacher RTP action may be cooperative and
helpful to the student as you have pointed out many times to little avail
for those who want to define coercion based on the intention of the coercer
alone.

When a person in authority in the system (teacher, principal, truant
officer) purposely uses this system's power against the will of a student,
I see coercion. If a student knows and accepts that disrupting the class
is against the rules and requires a trip to the RTC, there is no coercion.
The student is simply controlling his own perceptions for what is proper
and doing so willingly.

Let me try an example to see if you can understand "systems thinking." A
compulsory attendence public school system is a fundamentally coercive
system because it can make a child come to school or be otherwise
institutionalized against the will of a student.

My Church system has no ability to make me come to its services. It is not
a fundamentally coercive system. For working in my Church system, I am
free to attend or stay home or go and attend another congregation.

The Church system (pastor, elders and members) do try to encourage, even
intimidate, me to behave the way they want me to: attend services with
them. This is not coercion to me because they cannot use force to make
sure I attend. I go willingly every Saturday unless other perceptions of
mine (feeling sick, attending a 10 year family reunion, etc.,) take
priority. I am a free, autonomous Church system member.

I wish students would attend school, and not disrupt the class, *because
they want to*. We are in a world that perceives differently. I see RTP as
one way of positively changing that world so that more students who want to
can learn more.

But, there are other ways to skin the learning cat. However, these may be
resisted by the people in authority in the school system because they
threaten their reference for control and self-worth, which they may want.

Please keep sharing with us, Tim. Ask all the questions you want.

My best wishes to the newly-weds! Hope there is no coercion yet in the
marriage interaction. :sunglasses:

Kenny

[From Bruce Gregory (980813.1233 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980813.0938 EDT)

What does the teacher
change the subject to? Not to baseball scores or the weather, but to
whatever the kid is doing. To talk about what she is doing, the kid has to
go up a level. I think that's where the rubber meets the road. MOL
continues in the RTC. The process of making a plan sounds to me like
applied MOL.

I suggest you re-read Bill's description of MOL and going up a level. I see
no connection between these and RTP.

Bruce Gregory

[From Bruce Gregory (980813.1310 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980813.1244 EDT)

Bruce Gregory (980813.1233 EDT)

>I suggest you re-read Bill's description of MOL and going up a
level. I see
>no connection between these and RTP.

Are you saying that when the student thinks about what she is doing and
answers the question "what are you doing?" she is not going up a
level? Are
you saying that she can think about an intention at the same level as the
intention itself?

If I am driving and you ask me what I am doing, I have no reason to assume
that I must go up a level to answer you. If you asked me why I am driving
the car, I would have to attend to the Plan that I am exercising, but this
does not obviously require that I go up a level either. Above the level of
program, there are presumably levels of principles and systems. I do not
seem to have to access these to answer the questions "what are you doing?"
or "why are you doing this?" As Bill describes the MOL is extremely
non-directive and so apparently very different from the RTP process.
However, I am not expert at either MOL or RTP.

Bruce Gregory

[From Rick Marken (980813.1100)]

Bruce Nevin (980813.0938 EDT) --

So far we've seen no evidence that the phrase "I see you have
chosen" is a disturbance to the kids

It may not be a disturbance to the kids (the kids are probably
used to this kind of cant from adults and so just ignore it
anyway); but it _is_ a disturbance to _me_. I can see that
this statement is a lie and I would prefer that a program that
claims to be based on PCT not make this lie a central feature
of it's process.

What does the teacher change the subject to?

I suspect almost anything would do; the main thing, I think, is
to avoid pushing back directly on the disruption. That is, if
X is the disruption, don't say anything opposed to X, like
"Stop doing X" or "X is against the rules".

Not to baseball scores or the weather

Actually, I think this would work, if done with the proper tone.
All the teacher has to do is push on a variable other than
the one involved in the disruption. This might be a good RTP
experiment; see if the teacher can defuse disruptions and, if
necessary, get the disrupting kid to the RTC, by asking about
sports or the weather. I bet they can.

To talk about what she is doing, the kid has to go up a level.

I agree. But I now think that the "going up a level" part is
unnecessary; I think the questioning would work if the kid
(actually, the kid's consciousness) went anywhere -- up a level,
down a level, to the side, whatever -- as long as it's away
from the system doing the disrupting. But, again, this is
testable; have any tests been done? Tim?

I think that's where the rubber meets the road. MOL continues in
the RTC. The process of making a plan sounds to me like applied
MOL.

I don't think so. I would bet that the plan is one of the irrelevant
components of RTP. But maybe I'm wrong. Is there any data comparing
RTC programs that are equivalent in all respects except that in one
no plan is made in the RTC and in the other it is? Tim?

I think there is evidence that what happens in the RTC does
matter; if the RTC teacher is a jerk I think you've got problems.
What I would like to see is RTP programs compared that are the
same _in all respects_ (including having the same teacher in the
RTC room, if possible) but without "the plan" in one case.

Bruce Gregory (980813.1222 EDT)--

Can I assume that "not pushing back" means that the teacher
ceases controlling the variable that the student is disturbing
and begins to control another variable?

In a sense, yes. But I don't think the teacher really _ceases_
controlling the variable that the student is disturbing; the
teacher acts _as though_ she has stopped. She still wants no
disruption but she does a a little "feint" (like a halfback
blocking to make it look like run then rolling off to catch
the pass on a draw).

The teacher doesn't "push back" against the disruption right
way; she makes it look like she cares about something else -- like
the students opinion about what he's doing or what the rules are
or whatever. For some reason (and I think it might have to do
with the fact that we have trouble controlling certain variables
at the same time) most kids apparently stop disrupting in order
to control for "answer the teacher's questions" or whatever.

If the kid returns to controlling for the disruption (the "second
offense") the teacher shows that she is still controlling for "no
disruption" by "pushing back", but this time quickly and efficiently,
with no attempt to actually stop the disruption in class; she just
sends the kid to the RTC room. Apparently, most "second time
offenders" want to get out of class anyway becuse they don't
protest being sent to the RTC; if they did protest, I presume the
teacher would move on to stiffer measures (call a strong person
to physically remove the kid); the teacher does "push back"
(and controls for "no disruption") just as the half back does
turn to make the catch -- but she tries to do it while the
kid is controlling for something else (besides disruption) --just
as the half back tries to turn to catch while the defensive end
is trying to stop the run.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Nevin (980813.0938 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980813.1245) --

So far we've seen no evidence that the phrase "I see you have chosen" is a
disturbance to the kids--given some uncertainty as to how much the teachers
actually say it.

My suggestion was that the phrase reminds the kid about the questioning
procedure that took place a short while earlier, and this helps him go up a
level. If this is so, and someone tried to prevent the kid from going to
the RTC, he would respond on the level of agreements about procedure, "wait
a minute, I thought the next thing was for me to go to the RTC. What are
you doing? You're not doing it right." But that kind of disturbance
(preventing him from going) would disrupt the thing being observed, that
is, the normal process of a class in an RTP school. The whole point is not
to disrupt the class. The experimenter introducing the disturbance ought to
go to the RTC! Aren't there less obtrusive ways of determining whether a
person has gone up a level? My suggestion was that if the kid did not go up
a level, he and the teacher would be in conflict, and the kid would leave
reluctantly, sulkily, etc., under force or the threat of force; if he did
go up a level, he and the teacher would be in agreement and he would leave
willingly, to do something that without force or the threat of force he
freely intended to do. It sounds like you have told us, Tim, that those few
kids who go angrily have not gone up a level and are in conflict with the
teacher. Perhaps for them the procedure has become coercive?

If the phrase "I see you have chosen" is a reminder that takes the
interaction up a level, then there is a discrepancy between its intended/
perceived meaning and the literal meaning of the words. This happens all
the time, as when my wife asks me "do you feel like fixing the compost bin?
The skunks have torn into it again." No I do not feel like it, it's a yucky
mess, and my feelings, which is what you're literally asking about, have
more to do with being ticked off at the damned skunks and impatient with
the interruption to what I really want to be doing. But the translation is
"Please fix it," and if I reply along the lines I just said, she and I will
be in conflict because it will sound to her as though I'm refusing to do
it. (I'm not saying this genteel politeness locution has anything to do
with going up a level.) Linguists talk about this under the label
"pragmatics". Deborah Tannen's popular books give many examples.

We are much concerned with the literal meanings of words here in CSG-L.
When we're talking about how people actually use words in social settings
such literal mindedness is liable to be off the mark. The phrase could and
probably should be improved. We're probably off base to call the teachers
who use it hypocritical liars and coercers on account of it.

The discussion after the first disruption brings the kid's attention to
what she is doing, so that she then has to go up a level in order to talk
about it. At that level she agrees that one way to go to the RTC would be
to disrupt again. At the second disruption, any reminder of that agreement
would do as well.

Kenny Kitzke (980813.0845 EDT)--

The first question could be changed to "What do you
percieve you are doing?"

I think it's a complication that could be confusing. "What are you doing"
refers to intentions and "what do you perceive you are doing" sounds like
perceptions of one's actions. In literal terms, it's all perception, what
distinction is being made? In pragmatic terms, if you mean "what are *you*
doing as opposed to what you imagine I think you're doing" that's a point
of view problem that this change doesn't solve.

Rick Marken (980813.0830)--

Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines. What does the teacher
change the subject to? Not to baseball scores or the weather, but to
whatever the kid is doing. To talk about what she is doing, the kid has to
go up a level. I think that's where the rubber meets the road. MOL
continues in the RTC. The process of making a plan sounds to me like
applied MOL.

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Nevin (980813.1244 EDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980813.1233 EDT)

I suggest you re-read Bill's description of MOL and going up a level. I see
no connection between these and RTP.

Are you saying that when the student thinks about what she is doing and
answers the question "what are you doing?" she is not going up a level? Are
you saying that she can think about an intention at the same level as the
intention itself?

  Bruce Nevin

[From Bruce Gregory (980813.1556 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980813.1100)

I don't think so. I would bet that the plan is one of the irrelevant
components of RTP. But maybe I'm wrong.

If the plan is irrelevant, do you have any suggestions as to why students
who develop plans seem to have low recidivism rates?

Bruce Gregory

[From Tim Carey (980814.0640)]

[From Kenny Kitzke (980813.0845 EDT)]

Hi Kenny,

Thanks for your post, there have been some great posts this morning from
you and others (Bruces G and N, and Rick) re RTP. I'm in a bit of a rush
this morning so if I don't get to everyone's at the moment I'll answer them
later.

I would hypothesize that children who accept the two restricted choices
they find as reasonable and acceptable do not experience coercion from

the

question, "I see you have chosen to leave and go to the RTC?" Do you

agree

with this hypothesis?

For the benefit of people who don't know, a typical RTP interaction would
go like this:

Let's say a kid starts talking to the person beside him ....

Teacher: John, what are you doing?
John: Talking
Teacher: What is the rule about talking?
John You have to put your hand up if you want to talk (or whatever the
local class rule is)
Teacher: What happens if you break the rule?
John: I have to go to the RTC
Teacher: Is that what you want to happen
John: No (at this point some kids occasionally say "Yes" so they would go
now)
Teacher: What do you want to do now?
John: Get back to work
Teacher: What happens the next time you disrupt in any way?
John: I'll have to go to the RTC

The teacher then gets on with whatever they were doing. The very next time
the kid disrupts (say he gets up and walks around) the teacher says: "John,
I see you've chosen to leave"

Again, this is the "pure" dialogue. The first seems to be what kids
complain about if that is not done correctly. And I guess the choice thing
gets a bit confusing because in the first part the kid is never actually
offered a choice explicitly. He is just asked what the procedure is. The
teacher at no point (as you can see for yourselves) says "You can choose A
or B"

I tend to agree with you about which teacher statement produces greater
conflict for students. The first question could be changed to "What do

you

percieve you are doing?" It strikes me this is truthful and consistent
with PCT and would not detract from RTP. Do you disagree with this
improvement suggestion? What would your bride think of the significance

of

this small change in the process?

The problem I see with this is that the kid needs to learn how _others_
perceive his behaviour based on the idea that what we might perceive we are
doing from our own internal perspective might be really different from how
others perceive our observable actions. If we are going to live
harmoniously in a social group I think it's important to learn how to
control perceptions that are important to us while minimising the amount we
disturb other people's ability to do the same thing. Largely, I think the
rules of wherever we are serve the function of telling us how we can do
that in that particular environment.This might be really screwy
theoretically but that's why I'm throwing it out onto CSGnet, I'd be
interested in what others think.

When a system, acting through people in authority, can use its decreed or
usurpted power to enforce the behavior of the people as they desire it to
be, it is a fundamentally a coercive system.

Again, Kenny, I don't think "systems" use their decreed or usurped power. I
think people do.

When a person in authority in the system (teacher, principal, truant
officer) purposely uses this system's power against the will of a

student,

I see coercion. If a student knows and accepts that disrupting the class
is against the rules and requires a trip to the RTC, there is no

coercion.

The student is simply controlling his own perceptions for what is proper
and doing so willingly.

Agreed.

Let me try an example to see if you can understand "systems thinking." A
compulsory attendence public school system is a fundamentally coercive
system because it can make a child come to school or be otherwise
institutionalized against the will of a student.

I see this as problmatic for a couple of reasons. If I accept that it
really is a coercive system then I find it hard to explain truants and
street kids. And of course it would only be coercive until the kids were 15
when (at least in this country) they are no longer required by law to
attend school. Also, when people talk about a law or a system being
coercive I get the idea that it's supposed to be coercive _all_ the time
for _everybody_ and this seems to deny the subjective experience of many
individuals.

I wish students would attend school, and not disrupt the class, *because
they want to*.

Many do.

My best wishes to the newly-weds! Hope there is no coercion yet in the
marriage interaction. :sunglasses:

Wow!! Has this ever been a learning curve :wink:

Regards,

Tim

[From Rick Marken (980813.1410)]

Bruce Gregory (980813.1556 EDT) --

If the plan is irrelevant, do you have any suggestions as to
why students who develop plans seem to have low recidivism rates?

My understanding is that kids are not allowed to return to the
classroom until they have completed a plan and had it _approved_
(another example of non-coercion?). So, as far as I know, the
_only_ recidivists (kids who return to the RTC) are the kids
who have completed an acceptable plan. Therefore, the students
who develop plans have _both_ the lowest and the highest recidivism
rates. I explain the low recidivism rates for students who develop
plans in the same way as I explain the high recidivism rates for
the same students: they are the only students who could possibly
be recidivists;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken

[From Bruce Gregory (980813.1732 EDT)]

Rick Marken (980813.1410)]

My understanding is that kids are not allowed to return to the
classroom until they have completed a plan and had it _approved_
(another example of non-coercion?). So, as far as I know, the
_only_ recidivists (kids who return to the RTC) are the kids
who have completed an acceptable plan. Therefore, the students
who develop plans have _both_ the lowest and the highest recidivism
rates. I explain the low recidivism rates for students who develop
plans in the same way as I explain the high recidivism rates for
the same students: they are the only students who could possibly
be recidivists;-)

I was referring to Tim's figures:

Just to give some perspective to people who aren't familiar with the
process .... in a school of 620 kids, Ed Ford and Tom Bourbon found that
about 400 kids had NEVER been to the RTC; a further 170 had been ONCE;
about 40 kids had been 2-6 TIMES; and about 10 kids had been more than 6
times. The 10 kids are the ones who are referred to as frequent flyers and
are the ones who are given extra support in terms of succeeding in class.
These proportions have been found to be remarkably similar across schools
regardless of ethnic mix, location, socio-economic status, etc.

I take it that your conjecture is that the same figures would be achieved if
the kids worked cross-word puzzles in the RTC. An interesting possibility.
It seems unlikely to me, but you never know until you try.

Bruce Gregory

[From Tim Carey (980814.1220)]

[From Bruce Nevin (980813.0938 EDT)]

freely intended to do. It sounds like you have told us, Tim, that those

few

kids who go angrily have not gone up a level and are in conflict with the
teacher. Perhaps for them the procedure has become coercive?

Yep, that could well be an accurate account of what is going on. Margaret
reports that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, the kid usually
settles down and once they have done that are prepared to talk about the
part they played in ending up in the RTC. It's likely at the time though,
these kids may well say they were being "made" to go to the RTC.

Regards,

Tim

[From Tim Carey (980814.1225)]

[From Rick Marken (980813.1100)]

It may not be a disturbance to the kids (the kids are probably
used to this kind of cant from adults and so just ignore it
anyway); but it _is_ a disturbance to _me_. I can see that
this statement is a lie and I would prefer that a program that
claims to be based on PCT not make this lie a central feature
of it's process.

I thought we had already established that it may or may not be a lie from
student to student. If you were a teacher in an RTP school and you
violently objected to this statement you could probably say something else.

the one involved in the disruption. This might be a good RTP
experiment; see if the teacher can defuse disruptions and, if
necessary, get the disrupting kid to the RTC, by asking about
sports or the weather. I bet they can.

It's possible that this could work although I'm not sure how a teacher
would get a kid to go to the RTC by engaging them in a conversation about
the weather or sport. Also, the purpose of this process is supposed to be
to increase learning and teaching time in class. Talking about sport or the
weather would seem to detract from that.

I agree. But I now think that the "going up a level" part is
unnecessary; I think the questioning would work if the kid
(actually, the kid's consciousness) went anywhere -- up a level,
down a level, to the side, whatever -- as long as it's away
from the system doing the disrupting. But, again, this is
testable; have any tests been done? Tim?

Not that I know of although I go along with what I think you're saying. I
think I mentioned in another post that what asking the first question seems
to do is to disturb another of the kids control systems - most likely the
"staying in class" one.

I don't think so. I would bet that the plan is one of the irrelevant
components of RTP. But maybe I'm wrong. Is there any data comparing
RTC programs that are equivalent in all respects except that in one
no plan is made in the RTC and in the other it is? Tim?

Not really, although that's another good suggestion. Actually, while
Margaret and I were in the U.S. another person was working in the RTC and
the plans the kids made with this teacher were superficial in the extreme
(plans like "I'll be good"). The return rate of kids during this time was
really high although this is confounded by the fact that it was another
person operating the room.

Generally, when Margaret plans with the kids, they establish a goal that
will help them succeed back in class e.g., "I'll follow the rules" or
something. Then they spend quite a bit of time talking about _how_ the kid
is going to do that. The kid usually comes up with 3 or 4 things and
Margaret might then talk to the kid about things that might prevent him
from achieving his goal like having someone crack a joke, or friends
wanting to talk to him, etc. The kid then negotiates the plan with the
teacher and returns to class. If the kid has made a couple of plans before
they have a goal chart where they record how successfully they are
achieving their goal and they report back to their teacher or Margaret a
couple of times a day (usually at the start of lunch) to let them know how
they're going.

I think that some of the important features of the planning process are:
the kid starts succeeding at something; the teacher and the kid start to
build a better relationship; the kid goes through the questionning
procedure several times (during planning and negotiating) so they become
very familiar with the idea of thinking about what they are doing in
relation to the rules and standards of the environment they are in.

With teachers who don't see the planning as important and don't spend time
with kids negotiating and monitoring their achievements, the planinng
process tends not to be as effective.

Some kids have experienced school as a really unsuccessful place to be. I
think this helps to change some of that.

I think there is evidence that what happens in the RTC does
matter; if the RTC teacher is a jerk I think you've got problems.
What I would like to see is RTP programs compared that are the
same _in all respects_ (including having the same teacher in the
RTC room, if possible) but without "the plan" in one case.

Yep. This is the problem with the anecdotal evidence I mentioned above.

Regards,

Tim