🚀 go-pugleaf

<[Bill Leach 950213.22:42 EST(EDT)]
>NET

I just got off the phone after a fascinating discussion with Ed Ford.

I all but accused Ed of using PCT to implement a discipline program
designed around standards THAT HE SET.  I did not intend to be "negative"
with my comments (nor do I feel that Ed took them as negative) but rather
he pointed out something of vital importance that was not explicitely
understood by me concerning application of PCT to solutions for real
world system problems.

As most (if not all) on the net are aware, Ed has designed and directed
the implementation of a public school discipline program in some Arizona
schools based upon the understanding of how people actually function as
explained by PCT.  He has published a book concerning this program
(listed in the net intro message):  "Discipline for home and school".
The success of the program has created considerable excitement amoung
teachers and parents (in particular) and of course amoung many PCTers.

My own mind may well have been working "overtime" with the "morally and
ethically neutral" assertion of PCT arguement raging here lately (I need
SOME excuse).  The point that I was missing is that Ed is not and does
not try to evaluate or judge the rules and standards of the school AS A
PART OF THE PROGRAM.*  His program tries to teach the idea that when
rules exist for a particular activity (with the necessary enforcement)
then a choice exists to either comply with the rules and participate OR
not comply and not participate.

It seems to me that there are two aspects of this program that are
equally vital.  The first is that students actually be taught that they
really do have choices concerning how they choose to control their own
perceptions (that is, how they react to disturbances) and "authority"
(teachers and administrators) ALSO recognize the truth of that situation.

Of course learning to "go up a level", identify and resolve internal
conflicts and the like are also important (and naturally are an extremely
important part of the program).

The idea is that the "world is" and is often (usually?) beyond our
influence (at least in some matters) but must be dealt with as it is
found, is (I believe) the essence of what Ed is doing.  In the "long run"
if what he is doing really catches on then the rules themselves will
"improve" but that is not the point NOW.

Indeed, the problem will always be how to deal with the world as it is
not with how it should be.  How it "should be" we can work on (or not --
as we choose individually) but how it "is" we ignore at our own peril.

I recognize that this may be so obvious to everyone else that they (you)
are wondering where "this nut" is coming from.  I suppose that for me, it
is a case of "I sorta saw that before" but now it is "real".

* Though I did not ask, I don't doubt that Ed does do a lot of work on
getting teachers and administrators to examine their rules for
consistancy with their goal.



-bill