[From Rick Marken (980813.0830)]
Tim Carey (980813.1245)]
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.
I think it would be very interesting to get some data on
what teachers actually say -- and what happens when they say
it. My guess is that it probably doesn't matter whether or
not teachers say exactly what they are supposed to say when a
kid disrupts. I think what's important is that the teacher
not "push back" when a student disrupts. As I've said, I think
that what makes RTP so successful is that it shows teachers
how to remove disruptive kids from class without exacerbating
(and sustaining) the disruption.
When a kid disrupts, by talking loud in class, say, he is
"pushing" on a variable the teacher is controlling, such as
the level of loudness in the class. One way for the teacher to
deal with this disruption -- apparently the most common way in
schools today-- is to "push back" against the disturbance. The
teacher "pushes back" by saying things like "Johnny, please
be quite" or "Johnny, please settle down so the other kids
can learn". Of course, Johnny is likely to push right back
against the teacher's push: he finds new, more annoying ways
to disrupt. The teacher then pushes back even harder: "Johnny,
be quiet right now or I'll paddle you; then I'll call your parents";
and so on. The conflict builds and what was a small disruption
ends up as a sustained fight that effectively cancels class
for the rest of the students; indeed, some other students are
likely to join into the conflict and before you know it you've
got yourself a non-RTP classroom.
When a kid disrupts in RTP, the disruption is _not_ delt with
by _pushing back_. It's delt with by _changing the subject_. A
great way to change the subject is to ask the RTP questions: "What
are you doing?", "Do you know the rules?", etc. These questions
don't "push back" against the disruption; they just change the
subject. Apparently, these questions (especially "What are
you doing?") really bring the kids "up short". The disrupting kid
can't "push back" against such questions by increasing the
disruption.
Once the teacher has brought the kid "up short" with the
questions, the conflict between student and teacher has (for the
time being) been largely defused. If this is the second disruption,
the trick is now to get the kid out of the class and into the
RTC room without creating a new conflict. Apparently, getting
the kid out is no big problem; but the teacher has to play
it the way it plays; the goal is always to get the kid to do what
you want him to do without "pushing" too hard: friendly coercion.
So I think what probably does the trick in the RTP classroom --
what allows the teacher to remove disruptive kids without
creating conflict -- is "not pushing back". I think the
effective RTP teacher avoids "pushing back" against the
disruption. Indeed, the effective RTP teacher probably only
needs to mention the disruption to the kid once -- the first time
it occurs. That's probably why it's a good idea to give the
kid "two chances". After the first disruption the teacher can
say something like "We agreed that X is against the rules; do
you know that if you do X again you will have to go to the RTC?",
where X is the disruption (making noise, throwing things, whatever).
So the first disruption gives the teacher a chance to note what
the problem was (a mild form of "pushing back" against it). The
second time the disruption occurs, the teacher deals with it by
changing the subject: "What are you doing?", "Is what you are
doing getting you what you want?"; almost anything that doesn't
deal directly with the disruption itself (like saying "Stop doing X").
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")
This makes sense; when the teacher says "what are you doing" it
sort of "spoils the fun" for those kids who are "spoiling for a
fight" (conflict). Once the kids see that the teacher is not
going to "play along" and "push back" against the disruption,
a lot of the disruptivness probably stops immediately.
The fact that kids rarely "push back" when they are asked to
go to the RTC is very interesting. Why no resistance? My own
experience in school is consistent with this observation; I
can't recall a case where even the "worst" kids resisted being
sent to "study hall". My guess is that the disruptive kids
want to be anywhere _but_ in class -- so they are willing to
go to the RTC when sent. Once they realize that the RTC is no more
fun than the classroom -- and that the conflict game is no longer
being played in class -- they are aparently willing to go back
to class and put up with it -- or even like it.
One kind of data that would speak to my hypothesis (that part
of the success of RTP depends on a teacher's ability to avoid
"pushing back" against disruptive students by changing the
subject) would be transcripts (better, recordings) of interactions
between RTP teachers and disruptive students. We could see whether
successul interactions (the ones that don't accelerate into
full blown conflict) result _only_ when teachers say "exactly"
what they are supposed to say; or whether these successful
interactions happen when (as I suspect) teachers avoid "pushing
back" by _any_ means.
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken