[From Bruce Gregory (991129.1142 EST)]
Bill Powers (991129.0807 MDT)
Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you
see. " ... and
that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a
non-factual statement
about what you imagine.
Agreed. Is this what all the sound and fury was about?
Bruce Gregory
991129. 18:00PST
In a message dated 11/29/99 6:17:46 AM, marc.abrams@WORLDNET.ATT.NET writes:
<<Respect to the Maximimum,
To those you respect. Don't feed me your polkitical correctness crap.>>
Dear Marc,
If you intended to demonstrate your ability to communicate nastily and
rudely, you have succeeded. If you didn't intend to you have succeeded.
Your outbursts don't help you advance any part of your arguments about
issues.
My personal policy (which I don't always succeed with) remains one of
attempting to remain civil and respectful even to those people I disagree
with.
That would, I suggest, serve as a useful principle for discussants in this
forum.
Best Wishes,
Bruce Kodish
Chuck Tucker (991129)
In a message dated 11/29/99 11:12:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,
powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:
<< Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you see. " ... and
that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a non-factual statement
about what you imagine.
>>
That is incorrect. It is a statement that you have previously agreed to in
negotiation.
Why do you and Rick keep forgetting that the "chosen" statement FOLLOWS a
series of statementas about the behavior and the rules! Please don't keep
misstating the situation.
Regards,
Chuck
Chuck Tucker (991130a)
In a message dated 11/29/99 11:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
bgregory@CFA.HARVARD.EDU writes:
<< > Then I can answer your question easily. "I see you have pulled little
> Suzie's hair again" is a factual statement about what you
> see. " ... and
> that you have therefore chosen to go to the RTC" is a
> non-factual statement
> about what you imagine.
Agreed. Is this what all the sound and fury was about?
>>
Not agreed. What the situation is about is the mischaracterization to the
RTP process by both Rick and Bill. This is especially troublesome since both
of them know the process quite well.
Regards,
Chuck
[From Bill Powers (991129.2035 mdt)]
Chuck Tucker (991129)--
Hi, Chuck.
Can you cite anything from Ed's writings in which he advocates reaching a
consensus with the students about the rules and the consequences of
breaking them? As far as I have been able to see, Ed assumes that the
students know what the rules are (he calls that "knowing right from
wrong"), but I can't recall his ever discussing negotiating the rules with
the students, nor does there appear to be any choice, in his writings,
about going to the RTC on the second disruption. I know that some
individuals in some RTP schools do write about reaching prior agreements
with students about the rules. But I haven't read or heard Ed Ford
recommending that.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (991129.2031 MDT)]
Chuck Tucker (991130a)--
Not agreed. What the situation is about is the mischaracterization to the
RTP process by both Rick and Bill. This is especially troublesome since both
of them know the process quite well.
You seem not to be considering the possibility that you have some wrong
ideas about the way Ed Ford presents the RTP program (which is the subject
about which I have been writing since the start of this unfortunate
discussion). Is there even a slight chance of that?
Best,
Bill P.
from [ Marc Abrams (991129.2243) ]
First if it's not too nasty. Try putting an appropriate header on your
posts. Like the one above.
Bruce Kodish 991129. 18:00PST
Dear Marc,
Your outbursts don't help you advance any part of your arguments about
issues.
To you. I could care less. Who are you anyway?. Who asked you? Did I miss
the post where you were made moderator of this list. Cool your heels and
stop trying to tell people how to act and what to say. Hit the damn delete
key if my posts are so offensive.
My personal policy (which I don't always succeed with) remains one of
attempting to remain civil and respectful even to those people I disagree
with.
That would, I suggest, serve as a useful principle for discussants in this
forum.
Well Bully for you. I hope you continue to be such and upstanding
individual. We need more like you.
Bruce, I am who am I. They are just words. Take a break.
Marc
from [ Marc Abrams (991129.2339)
[From Bill Powers (991129.2035 mdt)]
Bill, what _is not_ negotiated is what _constitutes_ "bad" or unacceptable
behavior. What _is_ negotiated is what happens if unacceptable behavior
happens more then once.
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (991130.0646 EST)]
Chuck Tucker (991130a)
me:
Agreed. Is this what all the sound and fury was about?
thee:
>>
Not agreed. What the situation is about is the mischaracterization to the
RTP process by both Rick and Bill. This is especially troublesome since
both
of them know the process quite well.
Needless to say (I hope!), I am sympathetic to your viewpoint. I do believe
that RTP can be, and often is, successfully conducted without inferring that
students have made a "choice" forced or otherwise.
Bruce Gregory
from [Bruce Gregory (991130.0659 EST)]
Marc Abrams (991129.2339)
> [From Bill Powers (991129.2035 mdt)]
Bill, what _is not_ negotiated is what _constitutes_ "bad" or unacceptable
behavior. What _is_ negotiated is what happens if unacceptable behavior
happens more then once.
I believe negotiation is a red herring. I don't negotiate speed limits, but
I abide by them. I think students do much the same thing in RTP. At least I
hope so. Otherwise students could simply opt out of the negotiations. I
doubt most teachers have the time to negotiate such agreements with each and
every student and I think it is unlikely each negotiation would lead to
exactly the same outcome!
Bruce Gregory
from [ Marc Abrams (991130.0833) ]
From [Bruce Gregory (991130.0659 EST)]
Marc Abrams (991129.2339)
>
> > [From Bill Powers (991129.2035 mdt)]
>
> Bill, what _is not_ negotiated is what _constitutes_ "bad" or
unacceptable
> behavior. What _is_ negotiated is what happens if unacceptable behavior
> happens more then once.I believe negotiation is a red herring. I don't negotiate speed limits,
That's part of what I said.
but I abide by them. I think students do much the same thing in RTP. At
least I
hope so. Otherwise students could simply opt out of the negotiations. I
doubt most teachers have the time to negotiate such agreements with each
and
every student and I think it is unlikely each negotiation would lead to
exactly the same outcome!
Isn't that exacrly what the RTC center is for?
Marc
[From Bruce Gregory (113099.0945 EST)]
Marc Abrams (991130.0833)
>but I abide by them. I think students do much the same thing
in RTP. At
least I
> hope so. Otherwise students could simply opt out of the
negotiations. I
> doubt most teachers have the time to negotiate such
agreements with each
and
> every student and I think it is unlikely each negotiation
would lead to
> exactly the same outcome!Isn't that exactly what the RTC center is for?
My understanding is that the RTC center provides the opportunity for the
student to develop a plan that will minimize the likelihood that he or
she will disrupt again. This plan will be negotiated with the classroom
teacher as part of the process of the student's returning to the
classroom. I was unaware that the RTP mechanism itself is negotiated
with each and every student. If it is, the process must be a long one in
which many versions of the process exist concurrently. This does not
sound useful to me and nothing I have seen suggests that it happens, but
I may be wrong.
Bruce Gregory
from [ Marc Abrams (991130.2242) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (113099.0945 EST)]
My understanding is that the RTC center provides the opportunity for the
student to develop a plan that will minimize the likelihood that he or
she will disrupt again.
Yes, They try to figure out what the child is controlling for and provide
alternative ways of controlling those things ( if possible ).
This plan will be negotiated with the classroom
teacher as part of the process of the student's returning to the
classroom.
Yes, this is known to the student _before_ they get to RTC.
I was unaware that the RTP mechanism itself is negotiated
with each and every student.
It's not. I did not mean to imply that. The process as i know it is as
follows:
The children are told that behavior that disrupts the learning of others
will not be tolerated. ( What guidelines are used for this I don't know ) It
is explained to the students that if they disrupt the class a second time
they will go to tha RTC room to work out ( now here is where is can gey real
mushy 
) how ( depending on your view of things ) help the child
develop a plan of how to alternately control without disrupting the class or
b) Make a plan so the child knows how not to disrupt again.
Marc
[From Rick Marken (991130.1750)
Bruce Nevin (991130.1858 EST) to Bill Powers --
So you are only concerned with Ed's use of words in those
parts of his two RTP books that he wrote himself?
Where have you been for the last two years?
You are not concerned with how RTP is actually implemented,
nor with what RTP teachers and students actually do
in an RTP school?
I am not concerned, no. It seems to be implemented in a way
that reduces conflict in the schools. If it were implemented
as Ed describes it, the schools would be no better than they
were before RTP.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (991130.2031)]
Me:
If [RTP] were implemented as Ed describes it, the schools
would be no better than they were before RTP.
I disagree with myself on this. Even if RTP were carried out
exactly as Ed describes it, most schools would be better with
RTP than they were before RTP. Apparently, teachers nowadays
are expected to control kids _in the classroom_. This is a
recipe for disaster. In RTP as Ed describes it, teachers
are nspecifically told not to try to control the kids in
class; disruptive kids are quickly removed from class and sent
to a seperate room. This one aspect of RTP probably accounts
for 90% of the reduction in violence that is seen in schools
where RTP is implemented.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/
[From Rick Marken (991201.0810)]
Me:
This one aspect of RTP probably accounts for 90% of the reduction
in violence that is seen in schools where RTP is implemented.
Bruce Gregory (991201.0642)--
It's nice to see some numbers for a change! Would you care to
share with us the data on which this conclusion was based?
Yes. It came off the top of my head. It is not data. It's a WAG.
Perhaps we can move this discussion from opinion to data.
Yes. But we have been dealing with data all along. Ed's writings
are the data upon which I base my conclusions about how Ed
describes the program. Tom Bourbon's reports of violence levels
in RTP schools are the data on which I base my conclusion that
RTP, as implemented, improves some of the schools in which
it is used.
What you are asking for is data relevant to determining which
aspects of the RTP program, as implemented, contribute to
success and which are irrelevant or counter-productive. I
assumed that this was the kind of data Tom was going to collect.
But, alas, all Tom reports are data showing that schools are
better off after RTP than before RTP. I'm quite sure Bruce
Abbott can point to similar data showing that schools are
better off after behavior mod than before behavior mod. Indeed,
I'm quite sure that the advocates of _any_ program can point
to data showing that things are better of after their program
than before.
My hypothesis is that the most effective part of RTP is removal
of disruptive kids to the RTC. To test this, I would take a school
where teachers are required to control disruptive kids in class,
measure the level of conflict in the school, then set aside a
special room (with a teacher present) where kids are sent when
they disrupt, and measure the level of conflict again. I would
keep the special room in effect for a few weeks and then go back
to requiring that the teachers control disruptive kids in class.
I predict a 90% reduction in the level of conflict when kids are
sent to the special room. I base my prediction not only on PCT
(which leads me to expect a lot of disruptive conflict when
teachers feel compelled to control kids' behavior) but also on
my own experience in my high school, where disruptive kids were
immediately sent to a monitored study hall; the level of conflict
in my high school was near zero and academic achievement was the
highest in the city.
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991201.0815)]
Bruce Gregory (991201.0704 EST) --
Personally, I've never had any problem understanding Ed or
seeing the relationship between what he says and the CT models.
Nor have I. That's the problem.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Rick Marken (991201.0820)]
Bruce Nevin (991130.1858 EST)
Perhaps those who are interested in RTP as implemented can now
agree that the RTP process around disruption is not coercive, and
that the "I see you have chosen" statement is neither false nor
hypocritical in the context of a successfully implemented RTP school.
Not me.
If not, I should like to know what is wrong with the evidence
and reasoning (991124.2224 EST) that led me to that conclusion.
You've already been told what's wrong with it, several times.
Do you really want to keep hearing it? If so, why?
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken
[From Bill Powers (991201.0429 MDT)]
Bruce Nevin (991130.1858 EST)--
So you are only concerned with Ed's use of words in those parts of his two
RTP books that he wrote himself? You are not concerned with how RTP is
actually implemented, nor with what RTP teachers and students actually do
in an RTP school?
Correct. That has been the subject of my questioning since we started this.
I have frequently said that the way RTP is implemented seems, according to
descriptions by participants in the program, to obtain excellent results,
and I would not hestitate to recommend the program to any school system.
But that is not what I have been writing about. I have been saying that if
you go only by Ed Ford's descriptions (written and verbal) of his program,
you come out with a very different picture of what it is and how it works.
The difference, I believe, is in the degree to which the people involved
come to understand PCT (or so they tell me), and thus become able to ignore
or reinterpret parts of Ed's communications that seem at odds with PCT.
Best,
Bill P.
[From Bruce Gregory (991201.0642)]
Rick Marken (991130.2031)
Even if RTP were carried out
exactly as Ed describes it, most schools would be better with
RTP than they were before RTP. Apparently, teachers nowadays
are expected to control kids _in the classroom_. This is a
recipe for disaster. In RTP as Ed describes it, teachers
are nspecifically told not to try to control the kids in
class; disruptive kids are quickly removed from class and sent
to a seperate room. This one aspect of RTP probably accounts
for 90% of the reduction in violence that is seen in schools
where RTP is implemented.
It's nice to see some numbers for a change! Would you care to share with us
the data on which this conclusion was based? A further source of data would
be a comparison between RTP schools and those which send students to a
"time-out" room where no plans are developed. Is anyone aware of such
comparisons, or at least data on the success of time-out programs? I assume
that schools that use expulsions more readily would be expected on the basis
of Rick's analysis to show improvement over those that do not. Anyone know
of any data?
Perhaps we can move this discussion from opinion to data. We're all in favor
of that.
Bruce Gregory