FREE ESSAY ON CONTROL THEORY IN THE CLASSROOM

CONTROL THEORY IN THE CLASSROOM

My fundamental beliefs are that adults and children should have respect for one another
treating people as individuals. I believe that we should model a sense of understanding,
encouragement, trust, teamwork, and perseverance in all who we come in contact with. I
believe that everyone has should have the opportunity to learn in a environment that is
positive and encouraging.
Recognizing my fundamental beliefs I know that in the Skinner-Rogers' dichotomy that I
fall on the Rogerian side of the scale. My beliefs are consistent with that of Rogers. I
am also in favor of referent power and I would like to work with the students as an
interactionalist. With all of these frameworks in mind I looked at a program that most
fit my beliefs and frameworks. I believe that I can initiate the program of Glasser and
use it effectively in my teaching situation. 
Many schools and programs regularly go through a process whereby they attempt to develop
a new philosophical base and a different practical approach to working with students.
Jones (1987) estimated that 80% of disruptive behavior is talking to each other, 15% out
of seat, the remaining 5% is spent on note passing, playing with pencils or objects. The
cost of student failure is absorbed. If we are losing 30 to 50% of our time keeping on
task as a result of small disruptions, I would say to you that no other problem costs you
30 to 50% of your entire school budget. In keeping this in mind, I would propose that our
middle school take a look at a program developed by Dr. William Glasser, M.D. His model
is consistent with my own beliefs and would fulfill the vision that our school has
developed. Integrated in Dr. Glasser's model are Choice Theory (previously termed Control
Theory), Reality Therapy, and the Quality School. Choice Therapy is an explanation of
behavior, Reality Therapy is a process allowing Choice Therapy principles to be
operationalized, and the Quality Schools represent the application of Choice Theory and
Reality Therapy ideas in Education.
William Glasser's model involves the initiation of what he calls quality schools. Glasser
(1992) contends that we must offer students an education that they can see will satisfy
both their immediate and future needs. Students can only learn if they view their schools
as a place that is at least potentially need satisfying. If students do not perceive what
we are offering in school to be related to one or more of basic needs, they struggle
against and or withdraw from any or all of a curriculum that is not satisfying.
Discipline program after program fails, believes Glasser, while educators blame, complain
and search desperately for new Stimulus-Response program. He adds that the temptation is
always to increase the students' pain by using more detentions, suspensions, and maybe
even corporal punishment. The only thing that educators are teaching students is that
working hard and following rules will get them what they want. 
Glasser believes schools must concern themselves with the psychological needs for
belonging, freedom, fun, and power. In an orderly class, students are being taught in a
way that is psychologically satisfying to them at the same time. Learning must be
satisfying at the time it is taught. Any school can provide warmth and human care
(belonging). This should be done with the students and not to them or for them. Educators
need to emphasize the power inherent in a good education rather than grades and encourage
creative thinking because rote learning offers little power. School supervised work
programs, beginning at age ten and continuing until graduation, can also give power,
suggests Glasser. Team academic competitions also meet the need for power. Glasser also
proposes educators provide students with more freedom, by allowing and encouraging
students to pick instructors, classes and testing procedures. This can also be
accomplished by having students involved in the rule structure of the classroom and the
school.
Quality schools eliminate coercion and use lead management (Glasser, 1986). The emphasis
is always on the quality of the work done or the quality of the interaction among people.
Quantity takes a back seat. Quality work is the best that a student can do at this time.
It is their best effort and shows continuous improvement. It is useful, feels good, is
never destructive, and offers flexibility (ex. Authentic assessment). This would fit in
well with the concept of portfolio assessment that we are currently using in the middle
school.
Quality schools use social contracts asking if you had what you want in your classroom
regarding the way your students interact with you and with each other. Having students
write down beliefs and list how they and the teacher would behave to one another develops
social contracts. There is also a commitment and the social contract is posted.
Glasser does not believe any school will be able to complete the move to a quality school
until all administrators and a majority of the teachers have at least two one-week
training sessions in these basic concepts. They need to have a working knowledge of
Choice theory and Reality Therapy. It can then be taught to the students. A quality
school is developed through a four phase program based on lead management principles and
takes at least four to five years to complete (Glasser, 1992). Sullo(1997) claims
teachers and administrators need to take time and effort to learn the theory. They must
practice it in their own life and then they can use it in their professional one. Choice
Theory must come into a school not as an outside program, but from those in the school
who have learned and realize the worth. Significant progress takes place when a whole
faculty of a school begins to get involved. Sullo added the important role of building
principal in creating a quality school but most important is you actively working toward
inspiring quality in your school in a way consistent with your role in the building.
Teachers need to develop their notion of what makes up quality schools and how they would
conduct themselves in such an environment. Teachers will recognize what needs that they
satisy at work/In lead management, the leader shows you and helps each worker to
contribute as much as possible and is primarily interested in helping the organization
pursue quality. I would recommend that we engage our middle school staff and students to
collectively forge a clear vision of quality.
In initiating this program within our school I would anticipate that we could have
problems if the training is mandated from the top down, not letting participants exercise
their basic need for freedom. With the program being presented from the teachers to
administration I would think that teachers would have an ownership of the program if were
to be approved within our school. 
Another problem that I would anticipate is the perception of a couple of teachers that
"this won't work" developing the self-fulfilling prophecy. Martin (1988) helped students
work toward common goals, helping one another learn, gaining self-esteem, assuming
responsibility for learning and respect for classmates while retaining positive
interdependence. Coats (1991) reported 82% strong positive effects and the staff
generally felt more comfortable having a clear and systematic plan with strong
administrative support behind it. 64% staff felt confidence using this program and the
average staff had approximately 20 hours of in-service training per school year. They had
a clear set of expectations and consequences. 
Another problem that I might anticipate would be in the area of training. The Glasser
model of training is first 28 hours of intensive training, followed by 6 months of a
practicum, followed by a repeat of the same schedule. People might not personalize the
training and reach a comfort level. A lot of teachers are more familiar and comfortable
with other management systems. Teachers need a good solid knowledge base of the program
and appropriate amounts of training combined with practice to be successful. Welch and
Dolly (1979) Study found that there was little significant difference between the
affective behaviors of teachers on student behavior in the classroom of those teachers
who received the training and those who did not. This was a six-week training module and
the experimental teachers did "not" use the Glasser techniques extensively. As a result
of training, teacher affective behaviors did "not" change significantly, student on-task
behaviors did "not" increase significantly, discipline referrals did "not" decrease
significantly, and student absences did "not" decrease significantly. I believe that if
all persons involved with this implementing this model received the appropriate "Glasser
training techniques" that training issues would have positive effects on the school
climate.
Other problems can arise if there weren't a shared vision along with a self-evaluation of
current policies and procedures. We need to continually engage in the three step process
of developing our shared vision, evaluating our current policies and procedures, and
aligning new policies and procedures with the shared vision. With reliable data and the
three step process this will help us with the self-evaluation process.
The last problem that I would foresee is that at least one of our teachers would say that
this program "conflicts with her religious beliefs, saying that God provides us with all
of our needs, therefore he makes all choices." They may also say that the program
infringes on people's values and appears to be a self-centered philosophy. Along with
this they may think that it encourages being accountable for oneself but not accountable
to each other. Purl and Dawson(1973) found that students have become more responsible for
their own behaviors, and have to express themselves better and to listen and respect the
opinions of others. Communications between teachers had improved and teachers had become
more aware of student's needs and were better able to handle their won discipline
problems. I would encourage these teachers to look at the positive results and "many"
references that back up the program. I would also be sure that teachers received
appropriate training that would deal with this issue.
In looking at the current shared vision of our school and our beliefs of how people
should be treated, and the program that Glasser offers, I would encourage you to take a
look at this program and consider training staff and faculty working toward a Quality
School environment.
My fundamental beliefs are that adults and children should have respect for one another
treating people as individuals. I believe that we should model a sense of understanding,
encouragement, trust, teamwork, and perseverance in all who we come in contact with. I
believe that everyone has should have the opportunity to learn in a environment that is
positive and encouraging.
Recognizing my fundamental beliefs I know that in the Skinner-Rogers' dichotomy that I
fall on the Rogerian side of the scale. My beliefs are consistent with that of Rogers. I
am also in favor of referent power and I would like to work with the students as an
interactionalist. With all of these frameworks in mind I looked at a program that most
fit my beliefs and frameworks. I believe that I can initiate the program of Glasser and
use it effectively in my teaching situation. 
Many schools and programs regularly go through a process whereby they attempt to develop
a new philosophical base and a different practical approach to working with students.
Jones (1987) estimated that 80% of disruptive behavior is talking to each other, 15% out
of seat, the remaining 5% is spent on note passing, playing with pencils or objects. The
cost of student failure is absorbed. If we are losing 30 to 50% of our time keeping on
task as a result of small disruptions, I would say to you that no other problem costs you
30 to 50% of your entire school budget. In keeping this in mind, I would propose that our
middle school take a look at a program developed by Dr. William Glasser, M.D. His model
is consistent with my own beliefs and would fulfill the vision that our school has
developed. Integrated in Dr. Glasser's model are Choice Theory (previously termed Control
Theory), Reality Therapy, and the Quality School. Choice Therapy is an explanation of
behavior, Reality Therapy is a process allowing Choice Therapy principles to be
operationalized, and the Quality Schools represent the application of Choice Theory and
Reality Therapy ideas in Education.
William Glasser's model involves the initiation of what he calls quality schools. Glasser
(1992) contends that we must offer students an education that they can see will satisfy
both their immediate and future needs. Students can only learn if they view their schools
as a place that is at least potentially need satisfying. If students do not perceive what
we are offering in school to be related to one or more of basic needs, they struggle
against and or withdraw from any or all of a curriculum that is not satisfying.
Discipline program after program fails, believes Glasser, while educators blame, complain
and search desperately for new Stimulus-Response program. He adds that the temptation is
always to increase the students' pain by using more detentions, suspensions, and maybe
even corporal punishment. The only thing that educators are teaching students is that
working hard and following rules will get them what they want. 
Glasser believes schools must concern themselves with the psychological needs for
belonging, freedom, fun, and power. In an orderly class, students are being taught in a
way that is psychologically satisfying to them at the same time. Learning must be
satisfying at the time it is taught. Any school can provide warmth and human care
(belonging). This should be done with the students and not to them or for them. Educators
need to emphasize the power inherent in a good education rather than grades and encourage
creative thinking because rote learning offers little power. School supervised work
programs, beginning at age ten and continuing until graduation, can also give power,
suggests Glasser. Team academic competitions also meet the need for power. Glasser also
proposes educators provide students with more freedom, by allowing and encouraging
students to pick instructors, classes and testing procedures. This can also be
accomplished by having students involved in the rule structure of the classroom and the
school.
Quality schools eliminate coercion and use lead management (Glasser, 1986). The emphasis
is always on the quality of the work done or the quality of the interaction among people.
Quantity takes a back seat. Quality work is the best that a student can do at this time.
It is their best effort and shows continuous improvement. It is useful, feels good, is
never destructive, and offers flexibility (ex. Authentic assessment). This would fit in
well with the concept of portfolio assessment that we are currently using in the middle
school.
Quality schools use social contracts asking if you had what you want in your classroom
regarding the way your students interact with you and