from Joe Sierzenga via Ed Ford (950822)
First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Ed for all of his hard
work in developing a discipline program based on PCT in the public school
setting. Ed could have selected an easier setting to do his work, but I am
glad he cares enough about children to look toward the schools and our
future.
In opening my comments, I would like to frame the setting we call public
schools. For the most part we run on a factory model that follows an
agricultural calendar. Our work force started their apprenticeship at the
age of seven, are product oriented, and prescription driven. Many of the
instructional practices are founded in tradition and have little to do with
best knowledge. The organization views its' employees and students as mere
parts in a machine. The structure is hierarchial by design with little
attention given to systems thinking. Our schools are like flea markets, with
teachers setting up individual shops for 180 days with little awareness of
how they impact other members of the organization.
It is in this PCT rich environment (I wish) that Ed does what he does in an
attempt to help our students. I have focused my contribution around the last
post I received from Ed by Bill Powers. His bare-bone description seemed to
get to the heart of the issue.
Powers (950814.072 MDT)
If a student breaks a rule in class, the teacher asks the student what the
rule is and if the student is willing to obey the rule. If the student does
obey the rule, he or she can stay in class. If not, the student is sent to
another room until he or she does agree to abide by the rule, submitting a
plan which consists of apromise not to break the rule again. If the student
persists in breaking the rules or does not agree to go to the other room,
he or she is sent home or to the parent's place of work, or failing that is
turned over to the police.
If the above description is wht you hear Ed saying when he talks about his
program then the following components need to be communicated more clearly.
At the heart of Ed's program is the fact that he will not work in a school
where students are being hurt physically, verbally, or emotionally. The
public school environment is designed for tight control by all who function
in it. This fact is evident by the use of assertive discipline programs
that punish and reward students on predetermined frequency and duration
schedules.
What Ed offers via his program are the needed degrees of freedom in this
highly structured environment by which more individuals can achieve their
goals. (Basic principle of PCT)
In this program you will find relaxed alertness ( a term used in brain
compatible learning). It is defined as the process of developing an
atmosphere of safety and security where children are treated with respect
and kindness. (In the social skills class there are no time limits or
threats) What the condition of relaxed alterness does for the program is to
prevent a down shifting in the breain ( functioning at lower levels) by the
students and teacher. The functioning at lower levels prevents the ability
of the brain to process information at higher levels. Another component of
relaxed alertness is the concept of giving students choices or allowing them
to have a sense of control. The condition of relaxed alertness is developed
in the school culture by conducting student discussions or classroom
meetings and engaging students in genuine dialogue. This concept is the
foundation of the social skills room.
Ed incorporates into his program the condition of active processing that
engages the students in higher level thinking. To accomplish this he
utilizes the use of questions. By his questioning process students construct
their own meaning by connecting past experiences to new ones. With a student
in a state of relaxed alertness, the social skills teacher can work with the
student on a cooperative control plan (new term for the program, thanks
Rick) that is negotiated with the teacher upon the students return. This
process is a shift from power to empowerment; where the control of student
behavior is shifted to facilitator of self-control.
If not, the student is sent to another room until he or she does agree to
abide by the rule, submitting a plan which consists of a promise not to
break the rules again.
The student does go to another room (social skills room) but under a
different set of circumstances. Ed's program develops the conditions of
relaxed alertness (new term for a past practice) and active processing in
the school culture. Students choose to go to the social skills room because
it is a place that is safe and secure. A place where help will be given when
the student is ready. The only demand that is placed on the student while
in the social skills room is that it be a place of silent self-reflection.
When a student is ready to develop a plan, it is a plan generated by the
student through active processing (functioning at higher levels through
questioning), in a state of relaxed alertness, that will assist in the
larger goal of cooperative control between the student and the teacher.
If the student persists in breaking the rules or does not agree to go to
the other room, he or she is sent home.
I don't like sending people home when they refuse to cooperate in any
setting within the school. Until we can create the conditions, what
alternatives are there? Allow the child to disrupt the entire school. Ed's
program creates the most efficient way of helping students create a
perception of the school as a place they want to be. A student who is
having difficulty may go to the social skills room as many times as he or
she needs to. The goal is to achieve cooperative control between the
student and the teacher. It is not about complying to a set of entrenched
rules. The rules "no talking in class" is of no value if the student has not
set his or her own reference level of "no talking" in relation to the
teacher's "no talking" reference level and the other student's reference
levels of "no talking". If the program has one of compliance with little
consideration of why each member of the room may need to control for "no
talking" and have others control at times for the same reference level;
activities like class discussions, demonstrations, debates, presentations,
cooperative learning, assemblies and self-reflectin would not be possible.
A student may be sent home if he or she disrupts the social skills room or
refuses to go there. The only reason that this is necessary at this time is
that the school environment does not have another place for this student to
go to. Until students start perceiving the school as a place where they are
treated with respect and have control over what happens to them, this
program will be perceived as just another con job by the people in control.
It is only through the experiential levels that students will develop a new
concept of school, teacher, and discipline. This paradigm shift on the part
of students takes time. Unfortunately in public education we do not take
enough time before going on to the next thing (the problem of a product
driven system). The only other circumstance that may require a student to
be sent home is when he or she is in violation of board or state mandated
policies (boss reality).
now the teacher is officially permitted to set up a "behave or your out of
here" system, giving the child one warning and then, on the second
transgression, getting rid of the kid. Heavenly bliss! No more classroom
arguments and back talks.
Come on Bill, are you suggesting that trained professionals dedicated to
helping children would do such a thing? Well, I agree with your assessment,
but the way you describe it is only part of the process. Any student that
commits to developing a cooperative control plan must have a discussion with
the teacher on how they will live together in the classroom setting. Often
these exchanges result in public humiliation, words spoken in anger and
punishment delivered with the intent to do physical or emotional harm.
Having two people functioning at lower levels are not the conditions for
creative solutions.
The by-product of this classroom exchange leaves the teacher in a state of
anxiety and stress (conditions not conducive for learning). Ed's program
places this exchange in a more productive setting. It is done with respect
and in a state of relaxed alertness where both teacher and student are
functioning at the higher levels. Creative solutions can be found and the
relationhip between student and teacher is strengthened. The complete
opposite for the traditional approach.
LeEdna Custer remarked at the recent meeting that teachers were going right
back to their old ways, and that she planned to set up re-training sessions
much more frequently. All the teachers are remembering is two strikes and
your out of my hair.
It would seem to me that this would not surprise anyone who knew and applied
PCT. Teaching PCT to people who have atthe heart of their systems concept
the beliefs that behavior can be controlled by the use of punishment,
rewards, detentions, suspensions and having to pay penance for unwanted
behavior is not an easy task. What we are asking teachers to do is to
re-examine their beliefs and eliminate many of their old established ways of
thinking about discipline. In there place we are asking them to accept many
PCT concepts that are directly opposed to their current belief system. To
accomplish this is a shift from strictly focusing on compliance to the rules
to the importance of process and self-reflection through a questioning
process. Discipline is to be viewed as a teaching and learning opportunity.
The statement "two strikes and your out of my hair" is not a reference level
many teachers would not be controlling for (personal assumption based on the
tight control of planning minutes). Teachers place a high value on their
planning time and have very tight control for the reference level of 235
(oops!) planning minutes per week. If a teacher sent 10 students to the
social skills class, he or she must sit and dialogue with each student on
their cooperative control plan during the teacher's planning time. A
teacher abusing the system as you describe would be controlling for the
reference level of "out of my hair" but at the same time he or she would be
creating an error signal for the reference level of 235 planning minutes per
week. The end result is conflict within the system and reorganization would
occur.
It took me years of study to start looking at what we do in education
through PCT eyes. At times I question if I understand it at all. Having to
re-train staff in PCT and its applications to Ed's program will certainly
take longer than one or two years. What I believe is happening with the
staff at LeEdna's school is that they are experiencing some down shifting
(functioning at lower levels) because of the external demands of the school
system, lack of knowledge in PCT and its application, the high visibility of
being a model school, test scores, etc. Your perception of "two strikes and
your out" is only one possible solution. Only they know for sure what they
are controlling for.
The eight questions found on Ed's cards that engage the students in active
processing are used in the training sessions. These questions act as
reference levels for those who are at an awareness level in the training
process. People interested in being trained practice the questioning
techniques in a state of relaxed alertness through simple role plays with
totally compliant participants. It is through these experiences that the
concepts of how to question are examined. As a teacher, parent, student or
social skills monitor expands their knowledge base and comprehension of PCT
they tend to become skilled in the application of the questioning and the
program in general. Over time they connect old experiences with the rich
supply of new ones making active processing a creative experience.
In closing, the key to Ed's program is that it passes the "Rita test" (new
term for the program). This test is a reflection on a simple question.
"Would Rita understand?" Rita is a waitress at the local coffee shop. I
have watched Ed present his program in many communities in Michigan. Rita
does understand this program at a level that allows me to implement and
expand it into other areas in the school setting. Ed has taken a theory and
developed a mental model to be implemented in a school setting and its
possibilities explored. And, yes, Rita not only successfully learns to use
it with her kids, but her life and the life of her family evolves from chaos
to harmony. And she understands PCT at level at which she needs to operate.
And that testimony I have heard over and over again. And if PCT and its
modelers don't want to take credit for this, that's OK. Those of us in the
field must be controlling for a different reference level.
Joe Sierzenga, principal, Morrice Elementary School, Morrice, Michigan