# RTP

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475>\
**Category:** CSG1998\
**Created:** [April 27, 1998, 5:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475 "1998-04-27T17:13:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dag\_Forssell3](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@Dag\_Forssell3](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Dag_Forssell3)\
**Post date:** [April 27, 1998, 5:13pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/1 "1998-04-27T17:13:30Z")

</div>

[From Dag Forssell (980427 10.00)]

I forwarded RTP relevant posts on CSGnet Saturday to Tom Bourbon. Here are  
Tom's comments.

> **···**
>
> ==================
> 
> Subject: Re: RTP on CSGnet  
> References: \<199804251817.LAA02638@felix.scvnet.com\>  
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii  
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 
> Dag,
> 
> Thanks for sending the material from CSGNet.
> 
> I have as few questions and comments.
> 
> Cheers, Tom
> 
> > ===========================
> > 
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 17:06:50 -0400  
> > From: Bruce Gregory \<bgregory@CFA.HARVARD.EDU\>  
> > Subject: A Worked Example
> > 
> > [From Bruce Gregory (980424.1707 EDT)]
> 
> . . .
> 
> > Children are hierarchical control systems. So are teachers. Sometimes the  
> > former interfere with the efforts of the latter to exercise control. Since  
> > hierarchical control systems resist interference with the efforts to  
> > control, "disruptive" students pose a problem for teachers.
> 
> A more or less minor point. \*All\* control systems act so as to eliminate  
> the effects of disturbances to their controlled perceptions. \*All\*  
> control systems, even single loops, or loops all at a single level, not  
> just hierarchical control systems.
> 
> > The RTP process  
> > is based on the assumption that remaining with their friends is a system  
> > level controlled perception for most students.
> 
> Why would that reference signbal be at the systems level, if it exists  
> at all?
> 
> > A disruptive student is  
> > threatened with a major disturbance of this perception (being removed to the  
> > room where he or she must work out a plan to re-enter the classroom). If the  
> > unwanted behavior persists, this disturbance is applied.
> 
> As I understand it, when RTP is applied the way Ed ford intended it, the  
> focus is not on "\*the\* unwanted behavior," but on the occurence of  
> disruption, in the form of disturbances to others' controlled  
> perceptions.
> 
> > In order to regain  
> > the control of the "with my buddies" perceptual variable, the system must  
> > adjust the reference levels of lower level control systems. If it fails to  
> > successfully make these adjustments, the student experiences continuing  
> > large error signals and eventually is expelled. This process, unlike the one  
> > I described in an earlier post, is humanistic.
> 
> Ed's program, does not call for expulsion. In the states, expulsion and  
> suspension are usually mandated by the local school board for certain  
> major offenses. Tim Carey handled this subject very well in the next  
> post.
> 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 07:28:02 +1000  
> > From: Timothy A Carey \<t.a.carey@UQ.NET.AU\>  
> > Subject: Re: A Worked Example
> > 
> > [From Tim Carey (980425.0735)]
> > 
> > \> [From Bruce Gregory (980424.1707 EDT)]
> > 
> > Hi Bruce,
> 
> . . .
> 
> > The only change I would make to what you've written concerns the sentence  
> > below.
> > 
> > \> If it fails to  
> > \> successfully make these adjustments, the student experiences continuing  
> > \> large error signals and eventually is expelled.
> > 
> > Where RTP is most successfully implemented, my understanding is that school
> 
> > personnel work really hard at being continually "invitational" to the kids  
> > who are, at the moment, not controlling for whatever it takes to keep them  
> > in the classroom. I don't know that being expelled is actually part of Ed's  
> > program. In fact, the kids and/or their parents would be more likely to  
> > "self-expel" if they didn't ever develop a "strong" reference for being in  
> > class (in whatever form this might take).
> 
> That is also pretty much the way I understand what happens in RTP.
> 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 05:06:07 -0600  
> > From: Bill Powers \<powers\_w@FRONTIER.NET\>  
> > Subject: Re: A Worked Example (RTP)
> > 
> > [From Bill Powers (980425.0437 MDT)]
> > 
> > Bruce Gregory (980424.1707 EDT)--
> > 
> > \>Children are hierarchical control systems. So are teachers. Sometimes the  
> > \>former interfere with the efforts of the latter to exercise control. Since  
> > \>hierarchical control systems resist interference with the efforts to  
> > \>control, "disruptive" students pose a problem for teachers. The RTP process  
> > \>is based on the assumption that remaining with their friends is a system  
> > \>level controlled perception for most students. A disruptive student is  
> > \>threatened with a major disturbance of this perception (being removed to
> 
> the
> 
> > \>room where he or she must work out a plan to re-enter the classroom). If
> 
> the
> 
> > \>unwanted behavior persists, this disturbance is applied. In order to regain  
> > \>the control of the "with my buddies" perceptual variable, the system must  
> > \>adjust the reference levels of lower level control systems. If it fails to  
> > \>successfully make these adjustments, the student experiences continuing  
> > \>large error signals and eventually is expelled. This process, unlike the
> 
> one
> 
> > \>I described in an earlier post, is humanistic.  
> > \>  
> > Bill Powers:  
> > This is what one would deduce from Ed Ford's description of the process  
> > (all but the "humanistic" part). However, as it actually plays out, there  
> > are some significant differences. One is that the personal interactions  
> > between teachers and students are specifically constrained, as part of the  
> > RTP program, to be neutral or friendly, not punitive or revengeful. Even  
> > though the process is described as a punishment (taking away the privilege  
> > of being with one's friends), the children evidently do not experience it  
> > as punitive.
> 
> I'm not so sure that Ed describes the process as a "punishment." No, I  
> know he does not, at least not in any recent writings or presentations.  
> In the beginning, Ed did talk about a student moving to "more  
> restrictive environments," but even that way of speaking is less  
> frequent these days.
> 
> > On parent nights many of them take their parents to meet the  
> > teacher in the special classroom, and on occasion students will request a  
> > transfer to the special classroom in order to cool off and avoid creating a  
> > disruption.
> 
> That is a very informative phenomenon that I have heard about in all  
> kinds of schools, ranging from elementary and primary schools, to an  
> alternative school and a high school in a juvenile prison.
> 
> > In fact, nobody knows what role the desire to "be with my friends" plays in  
> > this process. I suspect that it's fairly minor.
> 
> I might agree with that idea, but I am not certain. I have \*many\*  
> unanswered questions about why good things happen in many schools where  
> people use RTP. I have even visited a few schools where it is obvious  
> that good things have happened, and it is equally obvious that most  
> people on the staff have mangled RTP almost beyond recognition. I have  
> not seen many schools like that. Indeed, in most schools where the  
> process is severely distorted, the situation reverts to its previous bad  
> state relatively quickly.
> 
> > The handicap under which RTP operates is that it's embedded in a coercive  
> > system that can't be changed without abolishing the whole school concept.  
> > The student who is determined to disrupt is in fact punished upon being  
> > handed over to the juvenile "justice" system, which does not use RTP. The  
> > system is basically coercive once the student fails to take advantage of  
> > the special classroom as expected, and it's coercive in that the student is  
> > simply not allowed the choice of staying in the classroom AND disrupting  
> > it. The adults are physically in charge, and the cops are called if there  
> > is any effective resistance to this state of affairs.
> 
> All true. RTP must operate in exactly that kind of system.
> 
> > In my view, what is most effective about RTP is that the teachers are  
> > taught that the students are autonomous control systems and basically can't  
> > be controlled by peaceable means -- so the teachers don't have to try. The  
> > teachers are taught not to lose their cool, and to treat the students (even  
> > offenders) with respect. What choices are actually possible for the student  
> > to make are treated as real choices; if the student doesn't want to make a  
> > plan for re-entering the classroom, for example, that's OK.
> 
> Yes. The feeling of calm that pervades a school where teachers learn  
> this "secret" is amazing. So, too, is the feeling of conflict in a  
> school where teachers insist on continuing the failed old methods to  
> "control" students' behavior.
> 
> > The main thing that changes as a result of RTP, I believe, is the way  
> > teachers treat the students. Classroom conflicts are de-escalated, and  
> > there is less for the children to fight back about. The level of tension  
> > seems to decrease markedly. Since the most dramatic initial change induced  
> > by RTP is in the teachers' behavior, I think we can conclude that by and  
> > large, there's not much wrong with the kids except ignorance of practical  
> > social behavior. RTP is really an adult therapy program, although you'd  
> > can't sell it by calling it that.
> 
> Excellent comments. As soon as most students sense the change in the way  
> teachers treat them, they change the way they treat teachers. A few hold  
> outs, on either side, continue to treat people on "the other side" in  
> the same old ways. A student who does that is called a "repeater" or a  
> "frequent flyer" by the staff. The same terms should be applied to  
> teachers.
> 
> > Best, Bill P.
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> > 
> > Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 08:19:13 -0400  
> > From: Bruce Gregory \<bgregory@CFA.HARVARD.EDU\>  
> > Subject: Re: A Worked Example (RTP)
> > 
> > [From Bruce Gregory (980425.0814 EDT)]
> > 
> > Bill Powers (980425.0437 MDT)]
> > 
> > \> This is what one would deduce from Ed Ford's description of the process  
> > \> (all but the "humanistic" part). However, as it actually plays out, there  
> > \> are some significant differences.
> > 
> > A very clear statement. Thanks.
> > 
> > Best Offer
> > 
> > ------------------------------
> 
> Dag Forssell  
> 23903 Via Flamenco, Valencia CA 91355-2808 USA  
> Tel: +1 805 254 1195 Fax: +1 805 254 7956  
> Alternative e-mail address:  
> 1) forssell@scvnet.com  
> 2) forsselltrans@compuserve.com

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 27, 1998, 6:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/2 "1998-04-27T18:31:54Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980427.1430 EDT)]

Dag Forssell (980427 10.00)

> I forwarded RTP relevant posts on CSGnet Saturday to Tom Bourbon. Here are  
> Tom's comments.

Pretty sneaky, Dag.

Tom said:

> A more or less minor point. \*All\* control systems act so as to eliminate  
> the effects of disturbances to their controlled perceptions. \*All\*  
> control systems, even single loops, or loops all at a single level, not  
> just hierarchical control systems.

Yes indeed.

> \> The RTP process  
> \> is based on the assumption that remaining with their friends is a system  
> \> level controlled perception for most students.
> 
> Why would that reference signal be at the systems level, if it exists  
> at all?

This is a good question, because it goes to the heart of something that is  
unclear to me. My conjecture is that need to be with one's peers is probably  
a genetically "hard-wired" for most primates. In this sense it may be the  
source of intrinsic error in the B:CP sense. At the same time it can  
apparently set the reference levels for control systems very high up in the  
individual. I am not sure how to describe this. Help, somebody?

> \> A disruptive student is  
> \> threatened with a major disturbance of this perception (being  
> removed to the  
> \> room where he or she must work out a plan to re-enter the  
> classroom). If the  
> \> unwanted behavior persists, this disturbance is applied.
> 
> As I understand it, when RTP is applied the way Ed ford intended it, the  
> focus is not on "\*the\* unwanted behavior," but on the occurrence of  
> disruption, in the form of disturbances to others' controlled  
> perceptions.

Yes, the disruption is what is being worked on rather than particular  
behavior.

Bill said:

> \> The main thing that changes as a result of RTP, I believe, is the way  
> \> teachers treat the students. Classroom conflicts are de-escalated, and  
> \> there is less for the children to fight back about. The level of tension  
> \> seems to decrease markedly. Since the most dramatic initial  
> change induced  
> \> by RTP is in the teachers' behavior, I think we can conclude that by and  
> \> large, there's not much wrong with the kids except ignorance of  
> practical  
> \> social behavior. RTP is really an adult therapy program, although you'd  
> \> can't sell it by calling it that.
> 
> Excellent comments. As soon as most students sense the change in the way  
> teachers treat them, they change the way they treat teachers. A few hold  
> outs, on either side, continue to treat people on "the other side" in  
> the same old ways. A student who does that is called a "repeater" or a  
> "frequent flyer" by the staff. The same terms should be applied to  
> teachers.

Both these comments are consistent with my suggestion that perceiving that  
one is respected is a key step in reducing conflict.

Best Offer

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 8:48am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/3 "1998-04-28T08:48:24Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980428.0241 MDT)]

Dag Forssell (980427 10.00)--

> > Bill Powers:  
> > This is what one would deduce from Ed Ford's description of the process  
> > (all but the "humanistic" part). However, as it actually plays out, there  
> > are some significant differences. One is that the personal interactions  
> > between teachers and students are specifically constrained, as part of the  
> > RTP program, to be neutral or friendly, not punitive or revengeful. Even  
> > though the process is described as a punishment (taking away the privilege  
> > of being with one's friends), the children evidently do not experience it  
> > as punitive.

Tom Bourbon:

> I'm not so sure that Ed describes the process as a "punishment." No, I  
> know he does not, at least not in any recent writings or presentations.  
> In the beginning, Ed did talk about a student moving to "more  
> restrictive environments," but even that way of speaking is less  
> frequent these days.

I know that he doesn't use the word "punishment", but what he describes as  
the reason why kids want to get back into class shows that he is conceiving  
this process as punitive (doing something to the kids that they don't like  
to make them behave better). He also speaks of taking privileges away,  
which are then restored when a plan satisfactory to the adults is made.  
This is "reward."

I hope that eventually these aspects of RTP will be eliminated, or at least  
acknowledged for what they are.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 9:00am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/4 "1998-04-28T09:00:01Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980428.0248 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980427.1430 EDT)--

> My conjecture is that need to be with one's peers is probably  
> a genetically "hard-wired" for most primates. In this sense it may be the  
> source of intrinsic error in the B:CP sense. At the same time it can  
> apparently set the reference levels for control systems very high up in the  
> individual. I am not sure how to describe this. Help, somebody?

I consider "genetic wiring" to be a last resort in explaining anything  
about behavior. Basically, adopting this idea is giving up on finding an  
explanation based on the present environment and organismic properties, and  
it raises the very difficult problem of how a gene can know what a "peer"  
is. Any species is quite likely to find itself in the company of peers,  
considering how organisms reproduce, so all organisms have problems  
relating to competition with others that have very similar requirements, as  
well as the potential for benefits relating to coordinated control by  
others with similar interests. Finding a state of minimum internal error  
must entail learning certain simple and obvious ways of relating to others;  
the mere fact that most higher organisms learn them does not in the  
slightest suggest that those learned behaviors are inherited.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 10:19am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/5 "1998-04-28T10:19:52Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (980428.2020)]

> I know that he doesn't use the word "punishment", but what he describes

as

> the reason why kids want to get back into class shows that he is

conceiving

> this process as punitive (doing something to the kids that they don't

like

> to make them behave better). He also speaks of taking privileges away,  
> which are then restored when a plan satisfactory to the adults is made.  
> This is "reward."
> 
> I hope that eventually these aspects of RTP will be eliminated, or at

least

> acknowledged for what they are.

I'm not sure whether this is elimination or acknowledgement Bill but at the  
moment in RTP we don't \_do\_ things \_to\_ kids to make them behave better. In  
fact we don't \_do\_ things \_to\_ kids to make them \_do\_ anything at all.  
Perhaps I'm just kidding myself and this may be just an issue with  
semantics but I believe this is an important point.

When RTP works well, it is the teacher's intent that I believe changes the  
most significantly. Teachers shift from an intent of controlling kids  
actions (and this can be a very cherished belief ... many teachers believe  
it is their job to control kids) to teaching kids who want to learn. When  
teachers ask the questions Ed recommends, they are \_not\_ asking them  
because they want the disrupting kid to behave differently. They are asking  
the questions because they want to find out whether the kid is interested  
in controlling for staying in class, or whether he/she needs to go  
somewhere else. And the teacher has \_no investment\_ in whichever way it  
goes. If the kid stays that's fine and if the kid goes then that's fine  
too.

I believe this lack of investment is a huge part of RTP when it is  
implemented successfully.

Another big part is that the kids control their own experiences to a very  
large degree. Sure they go somewhere else if they're not following rules  
(is this different to anywhere else in society) but they control how long  
they are out of action for. They can come back as soon as they ready to  
fulfill the requirements of the group. I don't know of any group in any  
society where there aren't at least some requirements on group membership  
and some kinds of sanctions if group membership is not adhered to.

Also, if a kid is out of the classroom for any length of time (say a couple  
of days) then an intervention team gets together to look at what level of  
support the kid needs in order to make it in school.

I started off as a dyed in the wool behaviourist working in special schools  
with severely disabled populations and the principles of PCT as they are  
applied through RTP seem pretty different from my behaviourist days of  
reward and punishment.

Cheers,

Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 1:53pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/6 "1998-04-28T13:53:22Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980428.0953 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980428.0248 MDT)]

> I consider "genetic wiring" to be a last resort in explaining anything  
> about behavior. Basically, adopting this idea is giving up on finding an  
> explanation based on the present environment and organismic  
> properties, and  
> it raises the very difficult problem of how a gene can know what a "peer"  
> is. Any species is quite likely to find itself in the company of peers,  
> considering how organisms reproduce, so all organisms have problems  
> relating to competition with others that have very similar  
> requirements, as  
> well as the potential for benefits relating to coordinated control by  
> others with similar interests. Finding a state of minimum internal error  
> must entail learning certain simple and obvious ways of relating  
> to others;  
> the mere fact that most higher organisms learn them does not in the  
> slightest suggest that those learned behaviors are inherited.

Thanks.

Best Offer

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 9:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/7 "1998-04-28T21:05:38Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980428.1449 MDT)]  
Tim Carey (980428.2020)--

> I'm not sure whether this is elimination or acknowledgement Bill but at the  
> moment in RTP we don't \_do\_ things \_to\_ kids to make them behave better. In  
> fact we don't \_do\_ things \_to\_ kids to make them \_do\_ anything at all.

What happens when a kid disrupts the second time, is told to go to the RTC,  
and refuses to go? What happens to a kid who refuses to go to school at  
all, or refuses to go home from the RTC when he or she continues to disrupt  
in the RTC?

Ed says that children want to get back into the classroom because they want  
to be with their peers. This means that sending them out of the classroom  
is "doing something to them" that they don't like. This is not a free  
choice of theirs because they are not offered the option of disrupting the  
second time AND remaining in the classroom with their peers, even if that's  
what they want to do.

You're applying RTC in the framework of a coercive school system; there's  
no way to get around that. I think you must acknowledge these coercive  
elements of the program, instead of saying "The nice part of RTC is ours;  
the coercive and punishing part is THEIR fault," meaning the law's fault or  
the school system's fault. If you are working within the law and the school  
system, you own all that goes with that, including the coercion. You could  
be opposing the coercive aspects of school and the law; if you don't oppose  
them you accept them. So accept them, and acknowledge them as part of RTC.  
That's the only honest thing to do, isn't it?  
RTC will be believable only to the extent that it is completely honest.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 9:55pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/8 "1998-04-28T21:55:30Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980428.1519 MDT)]

> He talks about letting them go to a place where they can devise a way to  
> function in class without disturbing others. They go to a place where,  
> if they ask for assistance, someone will help them devise a plan for how  
> to accomplish that end. Before a student goes to the special classroom,  
> he or she has already disrupted the class at least twice and has not  
> taken advantage of an opportunity to accomplish his or her ends without  
> disturbing others.

Fine, but as I asked Tim Carey, what if the kids disrupt again and want to  
stay in the classroom? Do they have that choice, or are they sent to the  
RTC whether they choose to go or not?

> It is always possible that classrooms could be defined in another way  
> than they are, perhaps as places where any person can do whatever he or  
> she wants, at any time, without regard to the consequences of those  
> actions for other persons. In that case, no child would ever be askd to  
> leave the classroom. Would that mean the end of "punishment" as you  
> describe it here?

Yes. Of course it would also mean failure of the program, because the  
progrem depends on the ability to take second-offenders out of the  
classroom whether they want to go or not. I think RTP needs to acknowledge  
what is actually going on, not try to make it sound like something else by  
choosing words carefully.

> > He also speaks of taking privileges away,  
> > which are then restored when a plan satisfactory to the adults is made.  
> > This is "reward."
> 
> "Punishment" and "reward" are not defined by the actions that one person  
> makes in the presence of another. They are defined by the reference  
> perceptions of the two people.

I agree. If I take away from you something \_you\_ want, and agree to restore  
it to you only if you do what \_I\_ want, that is reward no matter what gloss  
you put on it with words. Likewise, if I do something to you that you don't  
like, and continue doing it until you do what I want, that is punishment.

> If person A acts toward person B with the  
> intention of controlling the actions of person B, then A is likely to  
> talk about using "rewards" and "punishments." On the other side of the  
> interaction, the reference perceptions of person B determine whether  
> \*any\* event or object in the environment can appear to function as a  
> "reward" or a "punishment." Reward and punishment are not defined merely  
> by a person's actions.

No, they are defined by a relationship. When you send a child away from his  
peers despite his desire to stay with them, and allow him to rejoin them  
only if he does what you want him to do (make an acceptable plan), that is  
the classical form of reward. It works because the child is physically  
prevented from staying with his peers in the classroom, in the event that  
he or she chooses to disrupt the class AND stay in the classroom. That  
choice is not permitted.

> Students of all kinds, in the States and in Australia, have told me the  
> differences they perceive between the way people are treated in RTP and  
> in programs where adults do try to use obvious rewards and punishments  
> -- the kids call them "bribes" and they say they might go along with  
> bribes, but only for so long as they want to. And the kids describe,  
> perfectly, the counter-control they can exercise over adults who try to  
> use rewards and punishments.

Fine. It would be even better if those running the RTP program were  
completely honest with the kids, telling them what choices are NOT  
permitted, and what will happen (physical force) if the kids try to choose  
certain alternatives. The reasons you do this are quite obvious and no  
blame attaches; it's strictly a matter of working within the law and the  
rules of the school system, which the RTP people cannot easily change.  
After the second disruption, the child WILL GO to the RTC; no more choice  
is involved. Security will be called if necessary. In the RTC, a second  
distruption WILL result in the child being sent home; again, no choice  
remains, because force will be used as necessary. Around the structure of  
RTP and supporting it from beneath is a framework of physical force that  
says, "Thus far and no farther."

Counter-control doesn't work when overwhelming physical force is actually  
used. The child may say "I wanted to go home anyway," but that has not the  
slightest effect; once the decision has been reached to send the child  
home, the child's desires and behavior no longer influence the outcome. The  
child is treated as an inert object being moved from here to there.

> That is the clencher. Counter-control is possible only when one person  
> tries to control the actions of another, and that is the setting where  
> the concepts of "reward" and "punishment" are relevant. Students and  
> adults in RTP describe the \*absence\* of control and counter-control,  
> phenomena they know very well, often from years of experience with them.

I would rather see a situation where privileges are not removed and then  
restored contingent on a certain behavior. What you call this relationship  
is irrelevant; you can use "good" words or "bad" words, but it is still  
using reward backed up by force to control behavior.

Don't get me wrong. I don't mean "stop doing this." As far as I can see  
there isn't any other way, with the law and the culture being as it is.  
RTP is better than the alternatives. What I mean is that we should call it  
like it is. "Sorry, kids, you have to attend school until you reach a  
certain age, and if we're going to make this school a good place to be, we  
have to work within some pretty rigid rules, such as the two  
strikes-and-it's-off-to-the-RTC rule. And if you won't go, we make you go.  
Other than that, we'll try to help you all we can."

What do you do if a 4-year-old violates the rule about playing in the  
street? You grab the kid and remove the danger -- THEN you explain, or try  
to. We use coercion when it's necessary. Making RTP work requires some  
coercion, at the outer boundaries of the system. Within those boundaries  
it's as free as possible, but you can't ignore the existence of those  
boundaries.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [April 28, 1998, 11:57pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/9 "1998-04-28T23:57:15Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (980428.1654)]

Tim Carey (980428.2020)--

> And the teacher has \_no investment\_ in whichever way it  
> goes. If the kid stays that's fine and if the kid goes then that's fine  
> too.

An instance of what the Buddhists mean by "non-attachment".

> I believe this lack of investment is a huge part of RTP when it is  
> implemented successfully.

Sounds right to me.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 12:35am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/10 "1998-04-29T00:35:12Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (980429.1040)]

> What happens when a kid disrupts the second time, is told to go to the

RTC,

> and refuses to go?

Their options are to go on their own to the RTC or to go home.

What happens to a kid who refuses to go to school at

> all,

An intervention team is called and the personnel involve what the kid might  
be controlling for by staying at home and how best the school might be able  
to support the kid to succeed at school.

or refuses to go home from the RTC when he or she continues to disrupt

> in the RTC?

The school administrator is called. The administrator contacts the kids  
parents who come and get the kid. If they are not available the police may  
be called.

> Ed says that children want to get back into the classroom because they

want

> to be with their peers.

I don't know why kids want to get back to the classroom. To speak  
confidently about this wouldn't we need to do the Test for each kid to find  
out what it is they are controlling for by being in class?

This means that sending them out of the classroom

> is "doing something to them" that they don't like.

It is if you look at it as doing something to the kid. If a kid is aware of  
all his options and continues to behave in a certain way, isn't the kid  
doing it to himself? Are we "doing something" to all the other kids who are  
staying in the class? Are we keeping them there.

This is not a free

> choice of theirs because they are not offered the option of disrupting

the

> second time AND remaining in the classroom with their peers, even if

that's

> what they want to do.

What's a "free choice" Bill? I think every choice that we make has certain  
consequences that follow through with it. Interestingly, the people who  
seem to be able to make the free-est choices are the ones who follow the  
rules (or at least the ones who know which rules you can break and when you  
can break them)

> You're applying RTC in the framework of a coercive school system; there's  
> no way to get around that. I think you must acknowledge these coercive  
> elements of the program, instead of saying "The nice part of RTC is ours;  
> the coercive and punishing part is THEIR fault," meaning the law's fault

or

> the school system's fault. If you are working within the law and the

school

> system, you own all that goes with that, including the coercion. You

could

> be opposing the coercive aspects of school and the law; if you don't

oppose

> them you accept them. So accept them, and acknowledge them as part of

RTC.

> That's the only honest thing to do, isn't it?

This whole paragraphs rests on a huge assumption of what coerciveness  
actually is. I don't think of schools as coercive. Sure, in some schools  
(probably in too many) there are coercive elements and I know lots of  
teachers who are very coercive but I don't think of schools generally as  
coercive. I don't think there is anything inherently coercive about the  
"school system" (whatever that is) anymore than I think society is  
inherently coercive and I don't generally feel coerced when I go about my  
daily business. And when I do, it's generally because I feel that an  
individual is trying to coerce me, not a system.

Perhaps I just have a "Disneyland" approach to schools and coercion.

> RTC will be believable only to the extent that it is completely honest.

What's "completely honest"?

Cheers,

Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 9:41am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/11 "1998-04-29T09:41:27Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980429.0540 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980429.1610)

> I'm interested in this conversation Bill, I think I'm missing something  
> with coercion.

You are not the only one, Tim.

Best Offer

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/user_avatar/discourse.iapct.org/bnhpct/32/34_2.png) [@bnhpct](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/bnhpct)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 1:27pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/12 "1998-04-29T13:27:47Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Nevin (980429.0917)]

Bill Powers (980428.1449 MDT)--

> You're applying RTC in the framework of a coercive school system; there's  
> no way to get around that. I think you must acknowledge these coercive  
> elements of the program, instead of saying "The nice part of RTC is ours;  
> the coercive and punishing part is THEIR fault," meaning the law's fault or  
> the school system's fault. If you are working within the law and the school  
> system, you own all that goes with that, including the coercion. You could  
> be opposing the coercive aspects of school and the law; if you don't oppose  
> them you accept them. So accept them, and acknowledge them as part of RTC.  
> That's the only honest thing to do, isn't it?

I am very surprised to see you attributing agency to social systems.

&nbsp;&nbsp;Bruce Nevin

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 2:28pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/13 "1998-04-29T14:28:24Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980429.1028 EDT)]

Bill Powers (980429.0206 MDT)

> Not trying to change the situation by renaming the things you do  
> or blaming  
> others for them, but admitting that application of physical force  
> is always  
> one of the options you have, and that you threaten to use or actually use  
> it when necessary. Calling it something else, or saying that the kid is  
> actually doing it to himself or herself, is not honest. If you're  
> responsible for applying the force or the threat of force, you're  
> doing it,  
> not the kid.
> 
> Come on, Tim. It's RTP all the way, or not at all.

Let me guess. As a young man you were very impressed by \_The Fountainhead\_  
and \_Atlas Shrugged\_.

Best Offer

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 9:14pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/14 "1998-04-29T21:14:30Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (980430.0645)]

> [From Bill Powers (980429.0206 MDT)]

> Those are the options YOU want them to have. Actually, their options are  
> the full range of possible actions, including attacking the teacher,  
> vandalizing the room, going to the RTC, leaving the school to play

outside,

> and so on. Since they are in control of their own behavior, they can do  
> anything that is physically possible. If the child does not choose to go

to

> the RTC, the only way you can get him or her to go there is through the

use

> of superior physical force.

Again, Bill once they choose to walk through the front gate their options  
are limited. Just like if I choose to contribute to CSG my options about  
what I can discuss are limited. When I get married I have different options  
from when I was single. If I go to a Chinese restaurant I have different  
options than if I went to an Italian restaurant.

You could argue that if a child doesn't choose to walk through the front  
gate then we coercively force him to school. This isn't my experience in  
RTP schools. In RTP schools, if a kid is truanting for more than a day, an  
intervention team gets together to look at what the kid might be  
controlling for and how school personnel can help support the kid so that  
they might start succeeding at school.

> Again, the only way to get an uncooperative kid to go to the RTC, or

home,

> or anywhere else is to grab and drag him or her. And that is what you do,  
> or somebody does, isn't it? You either apply physical force, or threaten

to

> do so. If the child is given the option of walking or being dragged,

that's

> not much of a choice.

Generally, if a kid refuses to leave the administrator, then the parents,  
and then the police I guess would be called. Bill, it's difficult to  
explain what happens in an RTP school if your experience is only on  
traditional schooling. In RTP schools kids don't mind going to the RTC  
because they know they won't be in trouble and they are going to get help.

In my experience, people like to stick at things they're successful at. If  
kids are experiencing success at school, they seem happy to be there, and  
happy to go along with the rules. Are these kids still operating in a  
coercive school system? The focus of RTP is to help the kids succeed.

> No. If you have to apply physical force or the threat of it, you are

doing

> it to the kid. You can talk about it any way you like, but the fact is

that

> you are forcing the kid to obey you. The kid's options include anything

the

> kid can think of doing. It's only YOU who prevent him, physically, from  
> choosing some of those options if he tries to do so.

Perhaps our experience of schooling from Australia to the U.S. is getting  
in the way here. I don't know of any schools for example where security  
guards are employed. How is the threat of force communicated to kids or do  
you just assume that everyone knows they will be forced? I agree, that the  
kid's options include anything the kid can think of doing, for many kids  
all they can think of is following the rules. Is school coercive for these  
kids?

> Yes. It is against the law for them to leave the classroom and go home.

If

> they choose not to go to school, they will be physically forced to do so,  
> either at their old school or in a juvenile detention center with bars

and

> walls. So they are kept there whether they want to be there or not.

This hasn't happened in the RTP schools that I've been involved with. I've  
described the approach with the intervention team above. The attitude of  
the staff is one of invitation. Also, in Australia, parents are able to  
shift their kids between schools if they aren't satisfied with what's going  
on in one school.

> It's a choice made by the person instead of by someone else.

So if we ask a kid to leave and they do, have they then made the choice? If  
they leave their seat and walk on their own, unescorted to the RTC, I guess  
from your definition above we can assume they've made a free choice since  
they know they have other options.

> Of course. If a child likes school or sees the need for education later

in

> life, there's no problem. RTP has no problem with children who willingly

go

> along with the program.

So is it accurate to say, then, that RTP for these kids is operating in the  
framework of a coercive school system? Do these kids experience school  
coercively?

But it has no way to deal with those who don't

> except the usual application of overwhelming physical force, in the form

of

> law enforcement, either local security personnel or the police.

I've described the way above.

> Do you mean that children would all voluntarily go to school if they had  
> the choice of doing anything that they want to do? Some children would,

to

> be sure, but many wouldn't. The ones who don't want to be in school are  
> kept there anyway, against their wills.

Sounds again like lots of kids have lots of different experiences of  
school, some have references of coercive schools and some don't.

> will do something else as soon as they think they can. You have control

of

> their behavior only as long as you can maintain superior strength and

power.

At this point I'm reminded of a quote from Viktor Frankl: "We who lived in  
the concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts  
comforting others, giving away their last peice of bread. They may have  
been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be  
taken from a man but one thing: The last of his freedoms - to choose one's  
attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

It seems that PCT has gone out the window momentarily. How do you know that  
controlling someone's behaviour is \_necessarily\_ coercive? What if they are  
controlling for being restrained? Is the same act still coercive. This is  
the essential problem I am having ... you seem to be talking about coercion  
as though it is this real, concrete, entity.

Where does coercion reside for it to exist at all? Does it need to be the  
intent of the coercer \_and\_ also the understanding of the coercee? If the  
person doing the controlling has something like "safety" as their intent,  
is it still coercion? If the person being controlled has something like  
"attention"; or "distrating the teacher so my mate can steal her purse" is  
it still coercion?

> That's because you are a good law-abiding citizen who would pay taxes

even

> if there were no penalties for not paying them, who went willingly to  
> school as a child, who obeyed every adult command, who never drives over  
> the speed limit, and in general voluntarily does everything that those in  
> power dictate should be done. Right?

Right. And that's my point. Does this mean that I have really been coerced  
and I just don't realise it?

You support the idea that children

> ought to get an education and spend 6 hours a weekday in school, so it  
> never occurs to you that for some children, being in school seems like  
> being in jail.

Bill, I'm more than aware that for some kids being in school is like being  
in jail. From the kids I've worked with this has to do with the fact that  
they are failing miserably in school in all sorts of ways (e.g.,  
academically and socially). I've never worked with kids who were succeeding  
at school (in whatever that meant to them) and also didn't want to be  
there. It is constantly amazing to me that kids who are failing would still  
want to be in school.

The idea of just letting them run free and do whatever they

> please would strike you, I'm sure, as ridiculous.

I don't see the situation as dichotomously as you do. I don't think the  
only alternative to not wanting to go to school is to run free and do  
whatever they please.

> But all this just comes back to a justification for seizing those

children

> who do not want to be in school and forcing them to go to school whether  
> they want to or not, or threatening to do that if they won't go under

their

> own power. And of course I agree that this has to be done, and I support  
> doing it because I see no alternative. However, it is still coercion, so

I

> have to admit that I am advocating the use of coercion when all other  
> methods -- bargaining and reasoning -- fail.

Again, as I've said, this doesn't occur in the RTP schools that I'm  
familiar with. In fact, in the schools that use RTP well, teachers don't  
remind, or persuade, or coax or nag or convince or do any of those things  
to get the kids to stay in class. If they don't control for staying in  
class, they leave. If they're out for any length of time an intervention  
team gets together to look at what's going on for them and how we can help  
them succeed.

> I agree with that. It's always an individual, one who believes that laws  
> and rules must be enforced and chooses to be the one who enforces them.

The

> teacher may not physically remove the child who refuses to go to the RTC,  
> but he or she calls the security guard who has been hired to threaten to  
> apply physical force, or actually to do so if necessary.

We don't have security guards in Australian schools, at least none that I  
know of.

> \>What's "completely honest"?
> 
> Not trying to change the situation by renaming the things you do or

blaming

> others for them,

What's the situation ... do perceptions still count, or are we talking  
about some objective situation?

but admitting that application of physical force is always

> one of the options you have, and that you threaten to use or actually use  
> it when necessary.

Sure, if a kid is threatening the safety of himself or others he will not  
be permitted to do that and physical force will be used to prevent that  
from happening. How does this situation translate into the reference of  
"coercive school system" for every living control system that spends time  
in a school environment.

Calling it something else, or saying that the kid is

> actually doing it to himself or herself, is not honest.

Calling it physical force is an observation, calling it coercion is an  
interpretation (unless you've done the Test to find out what they're  
controlling for)

If you're

> responsible for applying the force or the threat of force, you're doing

it,

> not the kid.

So does this mean coercion exists (at that moment) in my head? Does it also  
exist in the kids head?

> -- he \_made\_ me hit him by stealing my book." You're saying "I didn't  
> coerce the kid. By breaking the rules, he \_made\_ me call security to

force

> him to leave the room."

Wouldn't I have to do the Test to know what I was doing to the kid. What if  
the kid was controlling for seeing who was strongest, am I still coercing  
him? What if the kid is actually controlling for going home on that  
particular day?

> Come on, Tim. It's RTP all the way, or not at all.

I couldn't agree more ... is it still "it's all perception" all the way or  
not at all?

Cheers,

Tim

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Bruce\_Gregory](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bruce_Gregory)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 9:52pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/15 "1998-04-29T21:52:18Z")

</div>

[From Bruce Gregory (980429.1753 EDT)]

Tim Carey (980430.0645)]

Marvelous post, Tim.

Best Offer

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 10:05pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/16 "1998-04-29T22:05:07Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980429.0305 MDT)]

Tim Carey (980429.1610)--

> I don't understand this concept Bill of being able to choose whatever you  
> like. Aren't my choices always constrained by the environment I find myself  
> in? If I find myself on a tennis court aren't my choices constrained? If I  
> choose to start kicking a soccer ball around, is it likely that other  
> people who are there to play tennis will permit this choice? Is this then  
> coercion?

You can choose to jump over a 30-foot wall if you please. Of course you  
will fail because nobody is able to do that, but there's nothing to prevent  
you from choosing that accomplishment as a goal. A student can choose to  
disrupt the class and stay in the classroom. However, when he tries to  
carry out this choice, he will find that the teacher, a guard, or a cop  
will prevent him from staying in the classroom, using force if necessary.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 10:09pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/17 "1998-04-29T22:09:34Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980429.1608 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (980429.1028 EDT)--

> > If you're  
> > responsible for applying the force or the threat of force, you're  
> > doing it, not the kid.
> > 
> > Come on, Tim. It's RTP all the way, or not at all.
> 
> Let me guess. As a young man you were very impressed by \_The Fountainhead\_  
> and \_Atlas Shrugged\_.

Guess again.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bill\_Powers1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Bill_Powers1)\
**Post date:** [April 29, 1998, 11:31pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/18 "1998-04-29T23:31:47Z")

</div>

[From Bill Powers (980429.1633 MDT)]

Bruce Nevin (980429.0917)--

> I am very surprised to see you attributing agency to social systems.

Then I need to expand on what I mean. There are laws, for example, about  
paying your taxes. If you try to avoid paying the taxes that the laws say  
you owe, the law prescribes punishments including seizing your person and  
putting you in jail. Coercion lies beneath all laws. Of course nothing of  
the sort would happen if it were not for individuals who have chosen to be  
the ones who detect violations, or carry out the enforcement of the written  
rules, including slapping the handcuffs on you if you resist. What makes  
the written laws effective are the people who support them and act to  
enforce them. If all those individuals changed their goals and ceased to  
play their parts in these procedures, "the legal system" would disappear.

When I speak of a coercive school system, I speak of two things: (1) a set  
of laws that prescribe attendance at school by children of certain ages, as  
well as sanctioning the use of force as an means of enforcing these laws,  
and (2) the people who subscribe to these laws and act to carry out their  
mandates. The people, of course, are what give the laws any effect.  
However, administrators are given no choice about carrying out the demands  
of the law: an administrator who flouts the laws that apply to school is  
subject to impeachment and loss of his or her livelihood, should anyone  
choose to prefer charges. That, too, is a form of coercion.

RTP itself is not based on coercion. That is, nowhere in RTP is there a  
principle saying that students are to be made to behave by physically  
forcing them to behave properly. However, at certain points in the RTP  
procedure there are situations in which one either uses physical force or  
permits a student to escape from the system altogether.

One of these points is found where a student disrupts a second time and is  
then expected to go to the RTC to work on the problem -- and to let the  
class return to normal. I'm quite aware that most students will obediently,  
even gladly, go to the RTC without further ado. There is no need for  
coercion; they go of their own accord. But the coercive machinery is always  
in place and ready to act, should any student refuse to go to the RTC. In  
that event, the student is removed by force, by adults who are larger and  
stronger than the student and who can call for added help if the student  
tries to resist. That machinery is there and everyone knows it. Only the  
foolhardy or the desperate would put it to the test, so the coercion may  
rerquire only the credible threat of force.

The other critical point is in the RTC. Ed recommends confining the  
students to carrels, forbidding them to move around the room or talk to  
other students, and so on. They can read, sleep, do homework, or look at  
the wall in front of them, or they can ask the teacher for help in  
formulating a plan for getting back into class. The students are basically  
in solitary confinement, except for interacting with the teacher. For the  
students who do work out a plan and do get back into class, there's no  
problem. But what of the students who refuse to obey the rules in the RTC?  
Their parents are called and asked to come remove the child from the  
school; if they can't or won't do this, the cops are called. Once again,  
there is the use of overwhelming physical force to overcome the child's  
resistance.

These critical points where coercion is always ready to be used are the  
legal and social framework within which any RTP program has to work. They  
are also what make the various steps of the program happen even when the  
child does not want to cooperate. After the second disruption, the child is  
out of the classroom or out of the RTC -- if necessary, removed by physical  
force. Without that bit of coercion, any determined disrupter could bring  
teaching and learning to a halt.

Best,

Bill P.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@R\_Marken](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/R_Marken)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 1998, 12:05am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/19 "1998-04-30T00:05:47Z")

</div>

[From Rick Marken (980429.1600)]

Tim Carey (980430.0635)--

> Actually Rick, Bill didn't say there was \_some\_ coercion, he said  
> that RTP operates within the framework of a coercive school system.  
> This was the only point I was objecting to.

A coercive system is simply a collection of individuals (its not an  
agent in itself, as Bruce Nevin correctly notes) who share common  
goals about the behavior of other individuals. A school system is  
a collection of teachers, parents and administrators who share  
some common goals about children; that the kids spent x amount of  
time in class, that they don't bring firearms to class, that they  
don't spit in the food, etc. etc. This system is coercive because  
the individuals in the system will act, if necessary, to control  
these perceptions of the kids' behavior. Even if action is  
never required -- even if all kids always spend x amount of time  
in class, never bring firearms to class, never spit in the food,  
etc -- it is still a coercive system; that is, individual members  
of this system are there, ready to act in order to bring these  
perceptions of behavior to the reference state.

Coercion is not a dirty word; we are all coercive to some extent.  
Parents, for example, have to be coercive; if they were not  
coercive their kids would not live even a few hours. Both my kids had  
to be coerced into drinking from the breast. Both also had to be  
pulled out of the path of traffic at one time or another.

Parents are coercive whenever they use their superior physical  
strength or wit to get a kid to do something, regardless of  
whether the kid wants to do it or not. My kids cried when I  
pulled them from traffic, not because they were so moved by my  
concern for their lives but, rather, because I had thwarted their  
ability to control for getting the ball that rolled into the  
street. At the time I could give a shit whether they wanted to  
get the ball; I wanted them out of the path of that car; so I  
coerced.

> Is it accurate then, to talk about a "coercive school system"?

Yes. It is accurate and, most important, it is honest. Coercion  
is using force to thwart another person's ability to control.  
There is nothing inherently wrong with coercion; it's just  
a phenomenon; the phenomenon of using superior force, when  
necessary, to control another control system. PCT helps us  
see coercion when it's happening. Why not just ackknowledge  
coercion when it's happening?

I really can see no alternative to coercion in many circumstances.  
I think coercing (if necessary) a disruptive student into  
leaving class is just fine. But I think it's nice if one is  
at least aware that one is doing this. I don't see what would  
be wrong with describing the RTP program like this: "In RTP  
we respect the autonomy of every individual. But in some \_rare\_  
cases a student will use his autonomy to deprive others of  
theirs. In those cases, we will use coercive force to stop  
the interference. We don't like to do this, but know we are  
doing it and we will do it in order to control certain  
behaviors."

Using coercion doesn't mean you're a Nazi; in fact, coercion  
was used to \_stop\_ the Nazi's, as I recall. But I think that if  
we are aware of coercion when we use it we can at least be a  
little less sure of ourselves. I think it's always theraputic to  
be able to become aware of one's own controlling.

Best

Rick

> **···**
>
> --
> 
> Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313  
> Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net  
> [http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/](http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tim\_Carey1](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/Tim_Carey1)\
**Post date:** [April 30, 1998, 1:36am UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475/20 "1998-04-30T01:36:53Z")

</div>

[From Tim Carey (980430.1145)]

> [From Rick Marken (980429.1600)]

> A coercive system is simply a collection of individuals (its not an  
> agent in itself, as Bruce Nevin correctly notes) who share common  
> goals about the behavior of other individuals. A school system is  
> a collection of teachers, parents and administrators

and children ....

who share

> some common goals about children; that the kids spent x amount of  
> time in class, that they don't bring firearms to class, that they  
> don't spit in the food, etc. etc. This system is coercive because  
> the individuals in the system will act, if necessary, to control  
> these perceptions of the kids' behavior.

As I've said, in the vast majority of cases, this is never necessary. For  
many kids, then, their systems concepts of schools will probably not have  
any idea of coercion in them. Is school still coercive for them?

Even if action is

> never required -- even if all kids always spend x amount of time  
> in class, never bring firearms to class, never spit in the food,  
> etc -- it is still a coercive system; that is, individual members  
> of this system are there, ready to act in order to bring these  
> perceptions of behavior to the reference state.

Are we talking then about a kind of "latent coercion"? Something that's  
always in the background whether it's used or not. So do we assume that  
\_every\_ individual in a system has at least some experience of being  
coerced?

> \> Is it accurate then, to talk about a "coercive school system"?
> 
> Yes. It is accurate and, most important, it is honest. Coercion  
> is using force to thwart another person's ability to control.

So for the vast majority of students where force is not used to influence  
the ability to control do they still have a "coercive school system" in  
their heads?

> There is nothing inherently wrong with coercion; it's just  
> a phenomenon; the phenomenon of using superior force, when  
> necessary, to control another control system. PCT helps us  
> see coercion when it's happening. Why not just ackknowledge  
> coercion when it's happening?

I'm more than happy to accept that coercion goes on from time to time. I  
have acknowledged that in a recent post to Bill. I just don't understand  
how, because coercive incidents happen at some times in some schools, how  
this translates into a coercive school system. Cooperation also goes on at  
times in schools, why not describe it as a cooperative school system?

When coercion goes on, isn't this still a perceptual experience? So isn't  
it more accurate to talk about the coercive experiences some students have  
rather than a coercive system?

Cheers,

Tim

[Next page](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/rtp/9475.md?page=2)