Posts from the “Guest Author” Category
February 23, 2014 3 Comments

Believing in Students: The Power to Make a Difference

I recently ran across a blog post by Dr. Richard Curwin, the architect of Discipline with Dignity, a program that is highly complimentary to choice theory. I actually ran across this short article in Edutopia, a wonderful online educational resource that focuses on what works in education. If you haven’t connected with Edutopia yet, you must do so quickly!

Here is the article – Believing in Students: The Power to Make a Difference – which first appeared in December of 2012.

curwin-belief-in-students

by Richard Curwin

After a morning Discipline With Dignity training, the high school principal and I walked to the cafeteria to eat lunch. He said, “I love your session, but it’s not practical.” I responded with my view that it was practical because it works — but it’s just not easy.

He pointed to a girl sitting alone at a table and said, “Do you think it would work with her?” She looked like she was a character from the Mad Max movies. She had just been released from federal prison. Her look was extreme (maybe not so much today) with spiked orange and purple hair, tattoos, all black makeup including black lipstick and black rouge, and severe body piercings. The principal looked at me and said, “So what would you do?” I asked back, “What about you? How do you handle her?” He said that he would draw a line and tell her she’d better not cross it. I responded, “What if she says, ‘I’ll kill you?’ Which one of you will be more afraid, her because she crossed the line you drew, or you because she threatened you with death?” The truth is that if she’s been to prison, nothing that can be done in a school would frighten her. Detention? Calling her mother?

So he again asked what I would do. I said, “Talk to her.” And he invited me to go over and try it right then. So I did. Dressed in my three-piece suit, I sat down at her table. She looked at me for a minute and said, “Who the f**k are you, a***ole?” I was a little stunned and didn’t have time to read a book or check my notes. So I relied on two strategies I had just taught the teachers in my morning session: meet the real needs of students and use challenge instead of threat.

I said, “I’m someone writing a book on teenage violence, and I think you know better about it than me. If you have the courage to tell the truth and answer one question (challenge), I’ll put your name in my book (need to be noticed).” She asked what the question was, so I replied, “Are there any teachers who you listen to, follow directions, show respect and learn from?” She said she had one like that, and I asked her what made that teacher different from the others.

Her answer is one that I will never forget and has been one of the constants in my work ever since. It’s a movie scene that replays over and over in my mind. Right before my eyes, her answer transformed her from a tough, hardened criminal to a frightened little girl.

Because she’s stupid. She thinks I can get a job someday, that I may even be able to go to college, or be a good mother because I know all the things not to do.

Then she started crying. The tears streaked down her black make-up and made her look like a zebra with black drops falling on her white top.

I ain’t going to college and I ain’t getting a job. I’ll never be a mother. I’m a dead girl. In prison when they write your name on the wall, you die, and my name is there. I know I’m going back. But that teacher believes in me, and man, it really, really matters.

Later I put her name, Roxanne, in my book and tried to find her to give her a copy, but nobody knew where she was or how to find her.

Sometime later, I traveled the country doing trainings. I asked administrators if I could meet with about ten of their most troubled students. I did this for grades K-12, in urban, rural and all economic areas. I did it on two Indian reservations. I asked two questions: “Who is your favorite teacher and why?” I expected most to say they had no teacher who was a favorite. But they all did. Among the top reasons was, “They believe in me.”

Five Ways to Reach Out
Believing in students is not simply telling them that you believe in them. These words matter only if they are true and if you demonstrate them by your actions. There is no way to fake it, because kids have built in crap detectors (a phrase taken from Neil Postman, and Charles Weingartner, in Teaching As a Subversive Activity), and they can tell if you don’t mean it. Here are some ways to express it.

1. Stop Using Rewards
Rewards are not needed if you believe in a student. The reward implies to them that they only way you can get them to do something is to pay them. That is the opposite of believing.

2. Encourage Effort More Than Achievement
Not every child can meet the unrealistic goals of a test-mad curriculum. Every child can try to do his or her best. Ironically, the harder students are encouraged to try, the better they do on our crazy high-stakes testing.

3. Give Second, Third and Fourth Chances
In many states, the law says, “Three strikes and you’re out.” In most schools, the most troubled kids get only one strike. The message is, “Be the way we want or we don’t want you.” School is for all children and mistakes are part of the learning process, not just for academics, but also for behavior. Rather than strike them out, teach them the skills they need to overcome their deficiencies.

4. Don’t Say “You Failed” – Say “You Haven’t Done It Yet”
Encourage hope by letting students know that, no matter what they do, they can still do better. Safety always comes first in a school environment, of course. Sometimes safety concerns override points 3 and 4, but not as often as we think.

5. Increase Opportunities to Learn
The children who need recess the most are the first ones to lose it. Being removed from field trips, the cafeteria, library and all other learning opportunities only makes students less able to handle them in the future. No one would say to a basketball player, “You missed too many foul shots. You can’t practice until you get better.” It is time to stop giving more opportunities to those who have already proven they are successful while denying opportunities to those who need them the most.

If we can start reaching kids like Roxanne sooner rather than later, who knows how many lives could change?

==========

Jim Roy follow-up — Choice theory is based on the idea that people are self-governed through an internal control system. People respond to the world about them — to their environment, to expectations, and even to external pressure or force — from this internal control system. Teachers have the special challenge of reaching students who are forced to be in school and who are often distressed because of awful life circumstances. These students, while they may outwardly put up protective walls, yearn to be affirmed. Only by genuinely honoring their internal control systems can we begin to melt the walls and get through to them.

Stay on the choice theory journey! Either you will find the answer there or you will be in the right neighborhood to find the answer.
February 20, 2014 7 Comments

Grief and Choice

Been quite a week for me – Went to bed sick on Sunday and am still basically in bed as I write this (on Thursday), although I think I am starting to crawl out of my hole. Antibiotics, chest x-ray, many of you are probably familiar with the drill. Hope your week has been a bit better.

I noticed something on Facebook a few days back and, with the author’s permission, I would like to share it with you. It is a short piece about grief and choice. Karen Nicola, the author, and her husband, Steve, have been good friends of mine for many years and I am glad to pass on her insight and wisdom to you. Her bio and contact information follow.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

MONDAY MOURNING:  What if grief was an option? Who would take it?  Can’t think of too many who would willingly sign up for that kind of uncertain full body slam.  While mourners cannot choose to wake up tomorrow and find themselves in a different emotional, mental, and physical continent, we can choose how we will travel the unfamiliar terrain in which we find ourselves.

So let’s talk a little about the freedom of choice and how that influences the outcome of our crushed souls.  We can choose to do things that contribute to wellness.  Even with limited appetite, we can choose healthy foods to eat; we can take additional vitamins and minerals to enhance our body’s health.  Any outdoor exercise improves our circulation and thus increases our capacity to deal with the surges of emotional tides.  We can choose what we listen to and allow music to be a calming influence in our daily routine.  We can choose to write about our process.  Keeping a special book that captures our pain is a safe and useful tool of releasing the whirlpool of fear, guilt, blame, shame, anger, pain, sorrow, and despair.  Have you imagined the potential of choosing healing?  Sometimes the bereaved believe that clinging to our pain is evidence of our unending devotion to the one we dearly love.  Choosing to heal can be one of the most difficult choices we make.  Healing has no predetermined process; it comes differently for each one. Choosing healing actually demonstrates respect for the deceased in that we are allowing their absence to create space for us to become whole again and even deeper, richer individuals than before.

This kind of healing comes from a Higher Power than ourselves. Choosing to trust God with the process of healing just might be our most important choice of all. How would it work if we made just made one conscious choice each day to move towards health and healing?  We might find that one day leads to the next and the uncertain terrain of living apart from the one we love is moving us further from darkness and brokenness and nearer to an open, mended, and giving heart.

Karen Nicola writes and speaks encouragement that comes from her own experience with God and His Word as she worked through her grief following her three-year-old son’s death from leukemia.  Now, more than twenty-five years later, Karen continues to be passionate about the hope of God’s healing for our brokenness.  She is also aware that many struggle to know how to comfort those who mourn, so she is eager to encourage the encouragers too.  Through her book, Comfort for the Day, readers encounter two of God’s most effective healing tools; His word and journaling opportunities. Karen maintains a web site that runs two blogging conversations; one for the bereaved and the other for those comforting them. Visit www.comfortfortheday.com for more information. When she is not leading seminars, she thrives in the high school classroom, teaching international students at Rio Lindo Adventist Academy.  But her favorite activities involve anything to do with her family.

==================
November 27, 2013 4 Comments

If Dr. Glasser’s Ideas Are So Great . . .

The following article was written by Charlotte Wellen, a teacher at Murray High School in Virginia. Murray was the first public high school in the U.S. to become a Glasser Quality School.

puzzled-look

If Dr. Glasser’s Ideas Are So Great and Have Been Around for Fifty Years, Why Aren’t All Schools Using Them?

— A Murray High School Perspective

Recently, I received an email from a teacher who hopes to convince the administration and staff of her school to move in the direction of creating a Glasser Quality School. She was asked the question that is the title of this article and she wanted my help to answer it. Perhaps she sent this to many of the Glasser Quality Schools. I found this a compelling question and I wanted to share my answer here because we have all given a lot of thought to our goal of teaching the world choice theory and we have often wondered why there aren’t more Glasser Quality Schools. Below is my answer to her question:

What a great question! Actually, it has only been 20 years since Dr. Glasser put his ideas together into a form that could help people create an entire school. He came out with The Quality School and Quality School Teacher in the mid-90’s. Also, this is not the type of program that can be started in a school at the beginning of a year and then changed a couple of years later. This is a program that starts up inside of each participant, from the administration to the teachers, the students, and finally going home to the parents, and home to the teachers’ families and the principal’s family, too.

Choice Theory is not a program. Glasser Quality Schools are not a program. They are a thought system, a way of life, a new way of thinking about the world, about the relationships between students and teachers, administrators, and families. It has taken us 26 years to create our current level of mastery of Dr. Glasser’s ideas here at Murray. We still have a long way to go and are involved in making many changes, many improvements. Dr. Glasser always said that 95% of any problem was a system problem and only 5%, if that much, was a people problem. So, the job of creating a Glasser Quality School is to come up with a system that works to create happiness in the school. This is not as easy as it sounds, nor as difficult.

For instance, each of us is learning Choice Theory. Each of us has our own level of understanding of these ideas and each of us is wrestling with our own level of resistance to these ideas. We are not all in the same place at the same time, so the system you develop has to have a tolerance and a love for the growing, the individual transformation, that is required. The system has to have a tolerance for the time it takes for each individual to transform him/herself.

I can attest to the idyllic environment that is created when you work hard for 26 years to develop a school based on Dr. Glasser’s Choice Theory. We are not all perfect here. Most of our students have been very hurt by life in so many ways, hurt by the education system that has left too many of them feeling like failures. We have conflicts every day, but we have a system to understand the conflicts and to work them out. For instance, when two students became angry at one another on Friday, both of them requested to be able to separate from the other, so no physical conflict would arise. They walked away. This is the result of years of work with these two boys to learn Choice Theory, that they can get in charge of the choices they make when anger hits them. They did not get “in trouble” because they raised their voices at each other and disrupted class. They got time and attention from trained and loving teachers who heralded their decisions not to hit each other and helped them think through what had happened that led to the conflict, what they each could have done differently, and on Monday, will help them mediate with each other until a plan they can both agree with is in place and a solution to their conflict has begun.

There is so much to say about this program. Our test scores soar because our students are happy here and want to do well to help the school, and themselves. But the best of all is the feeling of camaraderie, of friendship between students and teachers. Here, there is trust between us. We work hard at it. We constantly work to improve our relationships because we know kids won’t learn well from people they don’t love and who don’t love them. We use the word love all the time here. We aren’t afraid to say we love our kids and they aren’t embarrassed to say they love us, too. We think schools should be built on a foundation of love and trust.

So, why aren’t there thousands of these schools — good question. We work all the time to help schools consider adopting these ideas. Our students travel to schools around the world, teaching people how to start up a Glasser Quality School. No one is as great a spokesman about Glasser Quality Schools than the kids who are educated here. Just last week, we hosted a team from a county in North Carolina who had heard about Murray and wanted to see it in action. Afterwards, they were so overwhelmed by the level of love the kids shared about the program and the level of understanding they had about why they are being educated the way they are. They said they want that for their school. They asked our kids for advice about how to implement these ideas with middle school kids and got lots of suggestions. They are planning to bring a team of Murray kids to North Carolina to talk to their faculty.

I think that it takes a long time and a lot of commitment to help an entire staff come to believe that it’s possible to create a school based entirely on love and respect and to be willing to transform themselves by learning Choice Theory, Reality Therapy, and Lead Management, in order to bring this about. For instance, teachers may have become set in their ways and it might be tough for them to give up their “teacher look,” the one that nails a kid who is disrupting. But that look is a threat. That look has no place in a Glasser Quality School. So to even give up the looks we’ve come to rely on, that’s asking a lot. And it takes YEARS of practice, but like anything worth doing, years of practice pay off hugely! We think our kids deserve an education from a team of professionals who have been practicing for years to treat them respectfully, and to expect great things from them, so they feel inspired to excel. But I think you can see that each of the individual transformations that will need to take place for this to happen take time and inclination and especially belief.

When we first started Murray, we all believed we could change schools so kids and teachers would like them more. At first, we brought all our old controlling and punitive behaviors with us and we used them all. This was good because we got to see that they don’t really work, if working means helping resistant students come to love us and to therefore love school and education. And because we began the school open to changing education in a serious way, we kept tinkering. We kept developing methods of helping ourselves as staff grow and slough off our old punitive ways and to keep from having a school of chaos with kids running around causing untold trouble. We learned that kids who love their school don’t want to cause trouble and are willing to keep working to unlearn their old habits of acting out and hurting others without thinking. They are mostly grateful to be learning the skills they can clearly see will help them in their lives, both in and out of school.

So, if you want to talk more about Glasser Quality Schools, feel free to call me. I LOVE talking about Glasser Quality Schools because I believe that these ideas are so superb that one day all schools will be using them. Educators would be fools not to use these ideas when they work so well at helping people love school and learning.

I would be greatly interested in your opinions in this site regarding my thoughts about the challenges of setting up thousands of Glasser Quality Schools.

Love,

Charlotte Wellen, NBCT, Murray Choices Teacher
Instructor at the William Glasser Institute – US

Murray High School
Ashby Kindler, Principal
Charlotte Wellen, Contact
1200 Forest Street, 
Charlottesville, VA 22903
PH: 434-296-3090   
FX: 434-979-6479
wellen1@earthlink.net

——————————-

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day, 2013!
May each of us become able to recognize the blessings for which we can be thankful!
And may we choose to be grateful.

——————————-

Choice Theory Study Group
December 7
November 7, 2013 No comments

Things Every Parent Should Know

I very much concur with Jeremy Dean, the author of PSYBLOG, and the ten studies which follow that he believes every parent should know about. Choice theory is not mentioned in the article, but it is lurking behind almost every phrase. You can access PSYBLOG at spring.org.uk

10 Current Psychology Studies Every Parent Should Know

Post image for 10 Current Psychology Studies Every Parent Should Know
Whether parents are happier than non-parents, why siblings are so different, the perils of discipline, bedtimes, TV and more…

One of the many reasons parenting is an impossible job is that everyone is giving you advice, and much of it is rubbish. Frankly, it’s amazing we’ve all made it this far. So, bucking the trend of random anecdote and superstition, here are ten recent psychology studies that every parent should know.

1. Parents are happier than non-parents

In recent years some studies have suggested that the pleasures of having children are outweighed by the pains. “Ha!” said parents to themselves, secretly, “I knew it!” Not so fast though: new research has found that, on average, parents feel better than non-parents each day and derive more pleasure from caring for their children than from other activities (Nelson et al.,. 2013). Fathers, in particular, derive high levels of positive emotions and happiness from their children.

2. Putting your child first is worth it

Underlining the pleasures of having children, research finds that child-centric attitudes are beneficial. A study by Ashton-James et al. (2013) found that parents who were the most child-centric were also happier and derived greater meaning in life from having children. Performing child-care activities was associated with greater meaning and fewer negative feelings.

“These findings suggest that the more care and attention people give to others, the more happiness and meaning they experience. From this perspective, the more invested parents are in their children’s well-being — that is, the more ‘child centric’ parents are — the more happiness and meaning they will derive from parenting.” (Ashton-James et al., 2013)

So, what’s good for your kids, is also good for you.

3. Helicopter parenting may be depressing

As with many things in life, though, it’s a fine line between caring and smothering; especially when children have grown up. Schiffrin et al. (2013) asked 297 undergraduate students about their parents’ behaviour and how they felt about it. The study found links between ‘helicopter parenting’ and higher levels of depression amongst the students, as well as lower levels of autonomy, relatedness and competence.

“Parents should keep in mind how developmentally appropriate their involvement is and learn to adjust their parenting style when their children feel that they are hovering too closely.” (Schiffrin et al., 2013)

4. Avoid strict discipline

Around 90% of American parents admit at least one instance of using strict verbal discipline with their children, such as calling names or swearing at them. Rather than helping keep adolescents in line, though, be aware that this may just exacerbate the problem. A study of 967 US families found that harsh verbal discipline at 13-years-old predicted worse behaviour in the next year (Wang et al., 2013). And it didn’t help if parents had a strong bond with their children. The study’s lead author Ming-Te Wang explained:

“The notion that harsh discipline is without consequence, once there is a strong parent-child bond–that the adolescent will understand that ‘they’re doing this because they love me’–is misguided because parents’ warmth didn’t lessen the effects of harsh verbal discipline. Indeed, harsh verbal discipline appears to be detrimental in all circumstances.”

5. Regular bedtimes

Regular bedtimes really matter to children’s developing brains. Researchers followed 11,000 children from when they were 3-years old to the age of 7 to measure the effects of bedtimes on cognitive function, (Kelly et al., 2013). The researchers found that:

“…irregular bedtimes at 3 years of age were associated with lower scores in reading, maths, and spatial awareness in both boys and girls, suggesting that around the age of 3 could be a sensitive period for cognitive development.”

Regular bedtimes are important for both boys and girls and the earlier these can be implemented, the better for cognitive performance.

6. Do the chores together

Bringing up happy children is easier if Mum and Dad’s relationship isn’t too rocky. One frequent bone of contention between parents is the chores. A trick for achieving marital satisfaction over the chores is to do them together. When partners perform their chores at the same time–no matter who is doing what–both people are more satisfied with the division of labour (Galovan et al., 2013).

7. Limit infant TV viewing

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that children should watch no more than two hours of TV per day after two years of age, and none before that age. Here’s why: a new study that followed almost 2,000 Canadian children from birth found that an extra hour’s TV viewing at 2.5-years-old predicted worse performance later when they attended kindergarten (Pagani et al., 2013). The more children exceeded this recommendation at 2.5 years old, the worse their vocabulary, math and motor skills were at 5-years-old. More on this study: One Extra Hour of TV Reduces Toddlers’ Kindergarten Chances

8. Exercise boosts kids’ school performance

Kids are increasingly sedentary and, as I frequently write here on PsyBlog, exercise is a wonderful way to boost brain power, and it has many other benefits (see 20 Wonderful Effects Exercise Has on the Mind). A new study of 11-year-olds has found that moderate to vigorous exercise was associated with increased academic performance in English, Maths and Science (Booth et al., 2013). These gains from exercise were also seen in exams taken at 16-years-old. Interestingly, girls’ science results benefited the most from extra exercise.

9. Dangers of intense mothering

Some women say that taking care of children is more stressful than being at work. There are also links between child-rearing and stress and guilt. How can we square this with the reports and research findings that children fill your life with joy and meaning? It may be down to differences in attitudes to parenting. In particular, being an ‘intense mother’ may be bad for you. In their study of 181 mothers of children under 5, Rizzo et al. (2012) found that mothers who most strongly endorsed the idea that children were sacred and that women are better parents than men, were more likely to be depressed and experience less satisfaction with life. Yes, nurture your children, but don’t sacrifice your own mental health.

10. Why siblings are so different

Anyone with more than one child will have noticed a curious thing: their personalities are often very dissimilar. In fact, according to a study by Plomin and Daniels (1987), siblings have no more in common in their personalities than two completely unrelated strangers. This is very weird given that 50% of their genetic code is identical. The answer isn’t in the genes at all, but in the environment in which children grow up. Far from having the same environments, each child has:

  • a different relationship with their parents,
  • a different relationship with their other siblings,
  • different friends and experiences at school…

…and so on. And all these differences add up to quite remarkable dissimilarities between siblings–often such that if they didn’t look alike, you’d never know they were related. All this means, of course, that because their personalities are often so different, parenting strategies that work with one child, may not work with another. It’s just one more challenge of being a parent! Image credit: Paolo Marconi

Jeremy Dean is a psychologist and the author of PsyBlog. His latest book is “Making Habits, Breaking Habits: How to Make Changes That Stick“. You can follow PsyBlog on Facebook, Twitterand Google+.

———————————–

The William Glasser Institute (WGI-US) has a new website that you may be interested in. You can access it at –

http://www.mentalhealthandhappiness.com
August 2, 2013 3 Comments

The World According to Wilson

Lessons on mental health from Wilson, one of the stars of the movie, Castaway. The William Glasser Institute recently shared this article with members and I thought many of you would find it interesting, thought provoking, and maybe even helpful. Check it out.

cast-away-wilson-volleyball1

Wilson

by Mike Rice

So much of the world appears to be caught up in the belief that any behavior that is not considered usual or normal is the result of a mental illness . . . that there is some sort of chemical imbalance in some people’s brains. I am often challenged in my group sessions about the behavior of those who have been labeled schizophrenics, when I state that most of what we are calling mental illness is no more than the behavior of unhappy people. Even those who have received this diagnosis have challenged me on this statement. They seem to want to wear their badge of mental illness to let others know they are helpless and that there is nothing they can do to improve their happiness. I often hear, “Normal people don’t talk to themselves or see things that aren’t there. So there HAS to be something wrong with their brain.”

Those who have received mental illness diagnoses have been told that they have some abnormality within their brain and that there is nothing they can do about it . . . that they will have to learn to live with it for the rest of their lives while taking medications that drug their brains to cause them to not hear voices and stop seeing invisible people. These drugs also stop the person from functioning normally by shutting down all of their emotions; having a flat affect; losing interest in the things that they used to enjoy, and losing their ability to be creative. Ironically, many of these medications prevent the person from overcoming their unhappiness or to discover other creative ways to deal with their unhappiness.

It is their creative ability that led them to choose the behaviors they discovered to deal with their unhappiness and frustration in the first place.

I saw the movie, “Cast Away,” starring Tom Hanks, when it first came out in 2000. Since then, I recently saw it again on my local cable network and was able to make the connection of how some behaviors would be considered mental illness by some in certain circumstances, but not mental illness in other circumstances. Allow me to explain:

In the movie, after being marooned on a small island in the South Pacific, Chuck (Tom Hanks) found himself without his basic genetic needs. He had to be creative to survive and began to improvise ways to find shelter, food, thirst and dehydration quenchers. He soon found himself without the power to do much about his situation, but maintained enough power from within to continue to survive. Even when he considered suicide, his tested method failed and renewed his internal power for survival.

cast_away-tom-hanks

His freedom was now very limited. He had only a small portion of the island in which he could navigate as most of it was mountainous and surrounded by pounding waves. He was held in solitary confinement. He certainly was not having any fun. All of his basic needs for happiness were not being met to the degree that he wanted.

The first thing he did when he reached the island after his plane crash was to yell out to connect to someone . . . anyone. Even the sound of dropping coconuts led him to think that someone might be near and he would yell out towards the area where he heard the sounds. He was missing the genetic need for connecting with others and belonging to the social world he had recently lost. He still had the image of Love in his Quality World from his deeply satisfying relationship with his girlfriend, Kelly (Helen Hunt), back in Memphis.

From what I have described so far, and for you who have seen the movie, you would not think any of Chuck’s behaviors were the result of a mental illness. In fact, you would probably think that it was his creativity and improvisation that was able to allow him the ability to meet his needs of survival: shelter, food, and drink.

But it wasn’t long after his initial awareness that he was, indeed, stranded in the middle of nowhere and the odds of being rescued were minimal. He still had the strong genetic need for love and belonging and after injuring his hand while attempting to make fire, his frustration led to him choosing to throw objects that had washed up from the plane crash, kick the sand, swear, and destroy whatever was near him. His bloody hand from the injury he incurred left a palm print on a soccer ball that had been part of the cargo in the plane. After he had calmed down and successfully created a fire, he began staring at the soccer ball and saw the potential for something in the bloody hand print . . . a human face. Since no one was around to offer a need-satisfying relationship in the form of connecting with others, he would create his own person to meet this need.

He made the air hole the nose and erased some of the blood to make the eyes and mouth. The company who made the soccer ball was Wilson and their name was boldly printed on the ball. This became Chuck’s compensation for connecting with someone whom he named, “Wilson.” So far, you may be saying to yourself, “So . . . . ? What’s your point?”

Chuck then began talking to Wilson and even answering on Wilson’s behalf to satisfy his need for love and belonging and connecting. And I would be willing to wager that you would still be thinking, “Well, sure. There’s nothing wrong with that. He did it to keep his sanity . . . to keep himself from going crazy on a deserted island.”

AHA! If he did that back in Memphis where he lived, would you still say his behavior was an acceptable way to behave? One might be inclined to get as far away from him as possible because, “who knows what a crazy person who talks to himself or to inanimate objects might do?” One might also believe he is seriously mentally ill and should be placed on brain meds and is in dire need of a psychiatrist.

In an isolating experience, you are more likely to accept Chuck’s unusual or unnatural behavior as typical, rational, and understandable. But if not deserted on a lonely island, the same behaviors are seen as symptoms of mental illness and chemical imbalances. The unusual behavior one may create and perform serves the purpose of easing their unhappiness and frustration, at the time . . . just like Chuck on the island. If he didn’t have Wilson to talk to, and imagine that Wilson was talking to him, he would have felt much more unhappy and frustrated than if he hadn’t created Wilson.

The person who sees things, hears things, and talks to people who are not present, or to inanimate objects, is no different than Chuck. While they are not physically on a deserted island, they are in a deserted world based upon their choice to isolate or detach from others because of unsatisfying relationships with the important people in their life. They have detached from others and can be alone while around others. Their creativity to deal with their frustration and unhappiness is no different than Chuck’s creativity in producing and talking to Wilson, a soccer ball.

The only difference is the circumstances. You could see Chuck’s dilemma and rationalize Chuck’s behavior because you could relate to being in his situation. And since you could relate, you deem it normal, acceptable, and not a mental illness at all. You were living in his world on the screen and silently thinking, “I’d probably do the same thing.”

If Chuck behaved in this manner back in Memphis, you would not see the situation he would be experiencing in his world. His unsatisfying situation and internal frustration would be very real to him, but invisible to you. And since you have most of your needs met, on a somewhat regular basis, in a world where they are more easily attainable than a desert island, you might be inclined to think and believe his behavior is a mental illness.

When Chuck was rescued and came back home, he didn’t talk to things or people who weren’t there anymore. First of all, Wilson was lost at sea before he was rescued. But when Chuck got home, he was back in a world with people with whom he could connect. And it didn’t take brain meds to get him to stop talking to imaginary things or hearing imaginary voices. He only had to connect with others and those who are important to him. After five years of living in isolation, his rescue not only saved his life, it restored most of his basic genetic needs for happiness: Survival, Love and Belonging, Freedom, Power, and Fun. The love of his life had given up hope for his return and had married someone else.  There would obviously be some emotional pain from that loss.  But even that didn’t cause Chuck to return to his island-surviving behaviors.

Would you say a child who has an imaginary playmate is mentally ill? Or would you say they are being really creative? When you dream at night . . . are some of your dreams really “out there”? Does that mean that you are crazy when you are dreaming or is your mind simply being creative? If your brain can do that when you are asleep, it is also capable of doing it when you are awake?

In our world, it appears it is much easier to convince others that a person is mentally ill than to convince them that they are sane and only frustrated and unhappy.

Learn more about The Glasser Institute at www.wglasser.com

Contact The Glasser Institute at  wginst@wglasser.com

————————————

I’m headed to southern Oregon next week to conduct a Soul Shaper workshop at Milo Academy. Looking forward to it!
July 27, 2013 No comments

19 Ways to Lead, Rather Than Boss

Leadership Road Sign

Inspired by the “Boss vs. Leader” comparisons at the beginning of The Quality School, Dr. Ed Boyatt, one of my mentors, has worked to expand and refine a list that identifies the key traits of effective leaders. Ed has been a teacher, a principal, a superintendent, and recently retired as Dean of the School of Education at La Sierra University in Riverside, California.

Boyatt on Leadership
Based on the Leadership Principles of William Glasser
————————-
Traditional Management or New Leadership

Power through position or Power through expertise

Leadership from the top or Leadership from beside

Permanent leader and followers or Interchangeable ldrs and followers

Boss leadership or Servant leadership (Mt 20:25)

External control of employees or Internal control by employees

To and for employees or With employees

Tell and command or Ask and persuade

Mandate and coerce or Collaborate and guide

Other-assessment or Self-assessment

Compliance from force or Commitment from choice

Manage others or Manage yourself

Caution or Courage

Status quo or Change and renewal

High fear and low trust or High trust and low fear

Conflict avoidance or Conflict confrontation

Negative conflict or Positive conflict

Stimulus-response or Choice theory

Organizational needs only or Blended needs of person & organization

Adversarial relationships or Collaborative relationships

Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. New York: Harper Collins.

Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory.  New York: Harper Collins.

——————————-

Has this list inspired you to think of other key leadership traits? Just click on the Reply button and share your thoughts. I’m sure Ed would love to hear your ideas.

——————————-

It’s easy to re-post this article on your Facebook page. Just click on the Facebook icon at the end of the article and it will quickly walk you through a couple of easy steps. It is a good way to share great information with your friends and it will spread the word about The Better Plan blog.
July 24, 2013 5 Comments

Push or Pull

Chris Sequiera, the author for today’s blog teaches History, Bible, Health and Geometry at Livingstone Adventist Academy in Salem, Oregon. He was a part of LAA shifting to school practices that emphasize choice theory principles and has been a master teacher for ITI – Integrated Thematic Instruction.

Push or Pull

“Bosses fail because they force and punish, and leaders succeed because, without forcing and punishing, students see it is to their benefit to follow them and do so more because they like them than because of what they teach.”
William Glasser, Choice Theory

Like many teachers, this summer I am taking summer classes. In my Middle Ages and Renaissance of Europe History class I am in the process of reading the works of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas More, specifically their works titled “The Prince” and “Utopia” respectively. Though written about 500 years ago, it occurred to me that King Solomon was right when he said, “There is nothing new under the sun.” I am not saying that either Machiavelli or More were closet Choice Theorists, but their political dialog does have an uncanny resemblance to the comparing and contrasting today of traditional and choice theory classrooms, tradition versus Quality School if you will.

In introducing the concepts of Quality Schools, Glasser has us take a look at Edward Deming’s business model. In it he differentiates between boss managing and lead managing. As one education coach shared with me, as teachers our role is to be the guide on the side, not the sage on the stage. I also like the way that General Eisenhower illustrated the point. Placing a long rather large chain on the floor, he asked his leadership team how to best move it from point A to point B. There are two obvious solutions, attempt to push it across the floor, or to pull it. In critiquing the two methods, one finds that by pushing, only the links that are directly pushed are really affected, making the chain as a whole rather difficult to maneuver. However, if one were to grab the end of the chain and pull it across to the designated point you will find it much more effective. People, and students are people, are no different, not only would they rather be pulled than pushed, it is much more effective. The Choice Theory classroom starts with this premise.

So I got to thinking, what are the ways that I “pull” students to success in my classroom. Here are some ideas, by no means an exhaustive list, but one to consider in building a Choice Theory classroom:

  • Attitude – even before I step into the classroom, I need to evaluate what paradigm I am in, boss or leader.
  • Class/school environment – I want my classroom to be inviting and warm, a place of comfort. The rubric I use is, “Does my class look more like a sterile fast food joint or a cozy coffee shop?” I try to ensure, for instance, that what my students see in my room has some relevance to what we are learning. I also try to focus on what TO DO, rather than on what not to do. (e.g.- giving more attention to the Seven Caring Habits than the Seven Deadly Habits)
  • Direction – this tends to be a very grade level topic. As a high school teacher where I see a different group of kids every period it is much more work to provide a means of direction, a constitution, than in a self-contained classroom, but nonetheless student input – every year – is vital to them buying into how the class runs.
  • Collaboration – statistically students learn more from each other than their teacher. I need to provide the most beneficial means to do that. How I seat my students, for instance, matters.
  • Content – meaningful content is something that students don’t have to make too big a stretch to see its value; some topics/subjects are easier to do this with than others.
  • Movement – the brain is an organ, an organ that requires blood flow. I need to ensure that my students are getting adequate blood flow to their brains.
  • Choice – whether it is variation in the assignment or choices in projects, students buy in more when there is choice in what they do.
  • Flexibility – in regards to time and amount of work done should to at least some degree be negotiable. As a student in an upper division college history class, I know I would appreciate that in my professor.
  • Feedback – give students honest and immediate feedback on their work.
  • Application – as a Choice Theory teacher it is not my job to ‘cover’ material, it is my job to ensure that my students have mastery.
  • Commit – when students see how committed I am to their success, their commitment soon follows.

There is more to being a Choice Theory teacher, but this is a great place to start and add on to. Have a super year, but enjoy the rest of your summer too!

%d bloggers like this: