[From Rick Marken (950823.0930)]
Joe Sierzenga via Ed Ford (950822) --
Students choose to go to the social skills room because it is a place that
is safe and secure.
A student may be sent home if he or she disrupts the social skills room or
refuses to go there.
I'm not sure I see how this approach to dealing with students is based on
an understanding of people as perceptual control systems.
Ed Ford (950822) --
I've read the letters they've sent to the social skills room (on their own)
thanking Darleen for the help she's given them.
I would really like to read these letters. Could you post three of four of
them? If they are long perhaps just one or two. It would also be nice to know
something about the kids who wrote the letters; what were they doing in
class -- from their perspective and from the teacher's perspective; what led
them to select going to the social skills room over remaining in class. I
think this would be extremely valuable information for evaluating the program.
Bill --
What I wish another boy...HADN'T said when asked about his plan was
"keepmyhandstomyself"
Ed --
Bill, he was just repeating a rule. Is it not the place of schools to teach
rules?
I don't think so. Teaching a rule is like teaching a person to have a
particular goal (in this case, the goal of keeping one's hands to oneself).
I think schools should teach kids how to control, not what goals to control
for. This is because, in order to control for certain goals (like goals for
perceiving oneself living according to certain principles) kids may have
to vary other goals (like goals for perceiving oneself following certain
rules).
All I know is that where it has been implemented as I designed the program,
EVERYONE is happier, the children, the teachers, the administrators, the
entire staff.
I don't doubt that this is true. It sounds to me like your program is
extremely well received by everyone involved and I am very glad that this is
true.
What I'm having trouble with is the way your program is DESCRIBED. What you
(and Joe) SAY you are doing doesn't sound an awful lot different than what a
behavior modifier would say he or she is doing. I just don't see how your
DESCRIPTION of what you do relates to my understanding of people as
perceptual control systems. I think Bill Powers is having the same problem so
it's not just me: it SOUNDS like you are describing a behavior modifiaction
program using some of the language of PCT.
I think that IN PRACTICE your program is consistent with a PCT understanding
of the the nature of people and that it works because, by and large, you
allow the students to control in a way that respects the autonomy of the
teacher and of other students, too. I just don't see a lot of PCT in the
DESCRIPTION of the program; I don't see, for example, how an understanding
of PCT would lead to a DESCRIPTION of a program that includes, as important
components, 1) teaching students the rules 2) sending students to a
social skills rooms if they don't follow the rules and 3) allowing students
to return to class only after they have produced a plan for behaving
properly.
These elements of the program SOUND LIKE operant conditioning (control by
contingency). If this is ACTUALLY what is going on in the program and the
program is as well received by everyone as it appears to be then I would
conclude that PCT is wrong, behaviorism is right. I would also conclude that
I don't know why my PCT experiments came out the way they did or, for that
matter, why my kids came out so well;-)
Best
Rick