[From Bill Powers (2001.01.21.0558 MST)]
Stefan Balke (01.01.20)--
The teachers I know are not very interested in learning PCT, with a few
exceptions. They understand a control loop and the application to an
everyday classroom situation. But that's all. They are not ready to accept
PCT as a help to understand the nature of men as living control systems.
I think you have to state your position on this very clearly. If they agree
that the system they're using is not producing good social results, and
they are looking to you to provide some answers to their problems, then
they have to make a contract with you to try your whole method, not just
play around with the parts they like. The whole point of a PCT-based
program is to behave according to a certain understanding of how people
work. If you understand that people are control systems, you will not
bother trying to alter their behavior by putting pressure on them: they
will just push back. "Maybe you (the teachers) have some other explanation
for why your school is such a mess, but if you want me to help you, you at
least have to try out my explanation. I claim that you're causing the
problem and therefore have the power to solve it by changing the way you do
things."
Why
should they? PCT gives an explanation why they don't want to change. They
control for their beliefs. They are not willing to change their old
reference values concerning their philosophies of dealing with students.
Those who are already thinking and working in a respectful way will stay on
doing this and the others stay on their way. I don't see that a teacher at
an RTP school changes his overall view because of the RTP.
What PCT can do for you, even with people who don't understand it, is to
provide a scientific justification for saying things they might not agree
with. You can demonstrate the basic principles using rubber bands (you must
follow the demonstrations by making sure each person gets the point and can
apply the principles to real life). If they come to understand you, they
_will_ change their overall beliefs.
You have to keep hammering on the basic question: "Is what you're doing
getting you what you want?" I think I would make that an expected phrase:
"All right, people, what's the basic question here?" And they should all
answer out loud, "Is what I'm doing getting me what I want?" That should
settle a lot of arguments about doing things they way they have always been
done. The first thing required before change can begin is to admit that the
old way hasn't been working.
Also, you have to get the people to go up a level or two. You have to ask
straight questions: "Do you disagree with what I am saying? Are you going
to go on doing things the old way no matter what I say? Are you personally
supportive of this program, and willing to give it an honest try? If I
promise always to tell you the truth about what I think, will you promise
the same thing to me?"
RTP leads to a (short-time) reduction in their errors because they have a
means to get rid of the disruptive student by sending him to the RTC. The
sentence: "I see _you_ have chosen ..." means to the speaker "It's _your_
problem, not _mine_ , therefore I don't have to think about my beliefs, my
actions and their intended and unintended effects, this is your task." The
error reduction leads to the effect that the teacher doesn't reflect
himself.
Beautifully said. So how can you keep that from happening? Only by saying
it out loud: "Don't try to teach students responsibility by refusing to
take it yourself. Always be the first to set an example." And always,
always, go up a level. "Is this embarrassing for you? What are you thinking
about the idea of changing what you do? Does all this seem impossible to
do? Does it seem wrong, according to what you know or have been told?" And
of course other questions based on what they reveal to you. And "Is doing
it that way getting you what you want?"
It is necessary to talk regularly about PCT to improve the own
understanding. This leads to the idea that the teachers at a PCT-based RTP
school should have to pass an formal or informal examination on PCT (one
question could be": what are possible side-effects of the phrase: "I see you
have choosen... 
) and also the students would have to pass such PCT
exams.
I like this idea, but not as a basis for rewarding or punishing anyone. I
remember a physics teacher in college who announced that he was not going
to grade weekly quizzes: they were to be used strictly as checklists, to
see if we had understood what he wanted us to understand. I think everyone
started looking forward to those weekly quizzes: they really bolstered our
confidence. If you test people on their understanding of PCT, I hope you'll
do it that way. What about a question-answer-discussion column in a weekly
or monthly newsletter (perhaps via email)?
Once the students are interested in learning PCT it will also be
easier to talk about discipline problems. Bringing PCT to the schools means
to teach it. We have to make clear why the PCT view is more appropriate than
other views of behavior. The explanation should be of practical help for the
reader, who is not a scientist.
We hear a lot about Ed Ford's program, and not very much about Tom Bourbon,
who spends a great deal of his time at schools teaching PCT to everyone. It
_is_ possible to teach it. And according to Tom, success depends a great
deal on how well PCT is learned. I agree completely with you on this.
Best,
Bill P.
) and also the students would have to pass such PCT