Results from using the Responsible Thinking Process

®: Part 1

Tom Bourbon, Ph.D.

RTP ®/PCT Workshop; Scottsdale, Arizona; 27-28 February 1998

On 27-28 February 1998, Ed Ford held a workshop on the Responsible Thinking Process (RTP) and Perceptual Control Theory (PCT), at Scottsdale, Arizona. Some participants at the workshop described the results at their schools after they adopted RTP as their school discipline process, and others discussed the results they hoped to see if they were to adopt it. The results discussed at the workshop are like those that occur in most schools where the staff implements RTP.

The workshop questionnaire

The first morning, the 35 people who were present before the opening session received a questionnaire. Twenty-four of those people had used RTP for times ranging from a few months to four years. The other eleven came from schools where they had not used RTP, but they thought they might use it.

The questionnaire was very simple

For those who had not used RTP, the questions were:

1. What discipline program does your school use?

2. Exactly what do you want to be different about your school after you use RTP, compared to the way your school is right now? Specifically what will you perceive after using RTP that will be different from what you perceive now?

For those who had used RTP, the questions were:

1. How long has RTP been used at your school?

2. What discipline program(s) did you use at your school before you began to use RTP?

3. Exactly what do you think is different about your school since you began to use RTP, compared to the way your school was before you changed to RTP? What are the most important changes, if any, that you perceive since you began to use RTP, compared to what you perceived just before you started to use RTP?

Twenty of the twenty-four people who had used RTP completed the questionnaire, along with all eleven people who had not used RTP.

Results of the questionnaire

A little under one-half of the respondents said they had used the "Assertive Discipline" program, or some variant of it, prior to instituting RTP, or that they were using it and wanted to use RTP instead. A majority listed things like "nothing," or "your own 'program'," or "whatever came to mind out of desperation." A few people had used one or another versions of William Glasser's programs.

The following table summarizes responses to the questions about the things people wanted to be different if they started to use RTP (the left column of the table -- "Not Using RTP"), and about the things other people said were different after they had used RTP (right column - "Using RTP").

The kinds of changes that people hope will occur in their schools, should they adopt RTP, are the kinds of changes that people report happening in their schools after they adopt RTP.

Report on an Australian survey

Tim Carey, a certified RTP trainer from Brisbane, Australia, was at the workshop. He described the results of an opinion survey performed on samples of parents and caregivers and of students from state-operated schools in the state of Queensland. Faculty members from a university in Queensland conducted the survey for State officials. The survey sampled participants' opinions about twenty items, listed under six major groups of goals adopted by the schools.

The groups of goals are:

(1) Quality curriculum programs for all students

(2) Effective teaching

(3) Improved learning outcomes for all students

(4) Confidence in public education

(5) Adoption of technology to enhance learning, teaching and management

(6) A safe, supportive and productive learning environment.

For each survey item, respondents selected from among five possible responses:

(1) very dissatisfied/very unhappy

(2) dissatisfied/unhappy

(3) neutral 50/50

(4) satisfied/happy

(5) very satisfied/very happy

For each school, the consultants compared the level of satisfaction with each item against the statistically defined benchmark level of satisfaction with that item in all other comparable schools that were included in the survey.

One primary school included in the survey happened to use RTP, which it adopted a few months prior to the survey. Before adopting RTP, the school reported that it had serious problems with student behavior and discipline. The consultants sampled thirty parents or care givers from the school, and twenty-three gave readable returns. For seventeen of the eighteen items sampled, the responses from the parents and caregivers did not differ significantly from the state benchmark. The one item on which the adults "indicate measurably more satisfaction than the State Benchmark" is "The behavior of students at this school."

Thirty students from the primary school were sampled and twenty-four gave readable returns. Their responses differed significantly from the state benchmark on three items. "The way people in this school care about what they think." "The opportunities they have to use computers for learning at school." "The behavior of students at this school." For those three items, the students indicated measurably more satisfaction than the state benchmark for all similar schools included in the survey.

Before the staff adopted RTP, there were serious discipline problems in this primary school. After they used RTP for only a few months, a significant percentage of the sampled parents, care givers and students were satisfied with the behavior of students. The results in this survey are consistent with personal reports and testimonials from students and staff at the same school when Ed Ford and I visited there in 1997. We will describe similar reports, from a wide range of schools, elsewhere in the "results" section on this web site.

Report on "emotionally disturbed" students in Amarillo, Texas

Mark Hamel, a certified RTP trainer from Amarillo, Texas, was at the workshop, along with Tammy Mason, a certified Responsible Thinking Classroom teacher. Tammy works in a Behavioral Adjustment Classroom (a BAC unit), where all of the students are certified as "emotionally disturbed. (ED)" To earn that label, students must seriously disrupt the regular classrooms and other facilities in their schools.

Tammy Mason described the students from her BAC unit. Before she and Mark instituted RTP in the unit, all of the students had spent a few years there. None of them had ever been mainstreamed in a regular classroom. After a little more than one year with RTP in the unit, all six students attended regular classes for three or more periods a day. All of the students were earning good grades, with a few earning "A" in every subject. Elsewhere in the "results" section, we will describe similar reports about success when RTP is used with students identified with labels like "special education," or "special needs," or "varied exceptionalities."

Students' opinions about RTP

Tammy Mason asked each student from the BAC unit to write a description of what he or she thought about RTP. Remember that each of these students carries at least one serious diagnostic label, and some bear several labels. Prior to RTP, each of them had spent years in the BAC unit without being mainstreamed into regular classes.

1. "Responsible Thinking helped me control my feelings. . . . I have stopped hitting other people because it is bad and one of these days I would have been in jail for it. It helps me focus on my work and pay attention in my classes." . . . "I am so glad that my mom even sees the real (me)."

2. "Responsible thinking has helped me play with other kids. I can do my work without getting mad. I can solve my own problems by thinking through them."

3. "Responsible Thinking has helped me be better instead of bad at home. I don't hit my brother like I used to because now I think about it." . . . "Responsible Thinking has helped me do better at school. I don't cuss now or make noises. It has helped me do my work. I used to be scared of people but now I can go out there with everyone. It has helped me to talk, smile and not be shy."

4. Responsible Thinking made me stay out of trouble. It helped me with my work because now I do it." . . . "I get to go out to regular class now. I used to call names and push students. Since I am thinking now I get along with others."

5. Responsible Thinking has helped me learn to not do bad things. It helps me think about what I am doing."

6. "Responsible thinking has helped me at home and at school. It has helped me with my fighting. I can ignore bad people now. It has helped me stay in control of bad behaviors like making faces, and noises, hitting and talking back to adults." . . . "It has helped me to be a big boy. It has helped me out of the BAC unit and into regular classes."

7. "Responsible Thinking has made me act better." . . . "I don't get as many plans any more. It has helped me concentrate on my work. I have good manners now. I am not as hyper anymore because I can be calm now. It helped me get into a Regular classroom and succeed. I don't start fights with the neighbors because Responsible Thinking helped me think through my problems at home and at school."

 

The Reversed J-Curve

During the workshop, several people described a phenomenon that is common when a school adopts RTP: the "Reversed J-Curve" for visits to the Responsible Thinking Classroom (RTC). In school after school, a majority of students never disrupt their surroundings sufficiently to go to the RTC. Stated another way, 50% to 60% of the students in a school account for 0% of the visits to the RTC.

Many students go to the RTC only one or two times. In this category, approximately 20% to 30% of the students in a school visit the RTC one or two times and account for approximately 33% of all visits. Finally, in nearly every school, only a few students visit the RTC very often - so often that they become known by names like "repeaters," "frequent fliers," or "chronic visitors." In this category, approximately 2% to 5% of the students in the school account for approximately 33% of all visits to the RTC.

Those percentages are from frequency data plotted so that "number of visits to RTC" is on the horizontal axis (from zero at the left end, to the maximum number at the right end) and "number of students who visit RTC a particular number of times" is on the vertical axis (from zero students at the bottom of the axis, to the maximum number of students at the top).

When you look at the resulting plot, you see that many students never visit RTC (the long side of the "J" that is reversed or turned backwards. As you move to the right along the horizontal axis that represents the number of visits to the RTC, fewer students visit the RTC that often. At the right end of the horizontal axis, which represents many visits to the RTC, there is usually a little "bump" (the short end of the "J" that turns back up).

Those are the "frequent fliers." In every school that adopts RTP, the small group of students in the short curl of the "J" accounts for a large percentage of visits to the RTC. In every school, the staff can tell a story about the life of nearly every one of those "chronic visitors." The way the staff works with that small group of "repeaters" determines the success or failure of RTP in a school, a topic that is discussed at length in both of Ed Ford's books about the Responsible Thinking Process.

Summary

The results discussed at Ed Ford's workshop in February 1998, are representative of results from m any schools where the staff adopts RTP. Even when RTP is not working optimally in a school, it is common to see the phenomenon, described here, of the "Reversed J-Curve" for frequency of visits to the RTC. Parents and caregivers think that RTP helps improve the climate at the school, and so do students. Even "emotionally disturbed" students experience positive changes that they attribute to RTP.

Finally, in schools where RTP was adopted, staff members describe changes like the ones that other people hope will occur if they also adopt RTP in their schools.

Elsewhere in this section of Ed Ford's web site, we will describe similar results from many other schools. We will also describe some significant problems that confront anyone who wants to assess the effects when a school implements a new program for "discipline."

Part II

Updated data from Discipline For Home And School, Book One

August 1, 1998

These data are from schools that were described in the revised and expanded edition of Ed Ford’s book, Discipline for Home and School: Book One (DHS-1). In both cases, you can see how important it is for schools to maintain long-term records on disruptions and disciplinary actions. We especially need data from the years before RTP is introduced into a school. Only with those kinds of records can we begin to assess the effects of RTP in a school.

The first school is Whittier Elementary School, in Amarillo, Texas. In DHS-1, Mark Hamel presented some of results from Whittier in "Chapter 21: Challenges With Special Ed Students." He described how he worked with a special education teacher, Tammy Mason, when she implemented RTP in her classroom, which was a "Behavioral Adjustment Class" (BAC unit).

In his chapter, Mark listed the diagnoses that apply to children in Tammy’s BAC unit: "emotional disturbance, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disability, mental retardation, fetal alcohol syndrome, autism, bipolar disorder, and other labels that psychologists use." Some children wear multiple labels from that list. In his chapter, Mark described statistics gathered within the BAC unit, and he presented individual case studies for some of the children. Here, I present additional data that Tammy and Mark have provided.

In October, 1995, Tammy began to use RTP in her BAC unit. When any of her students went to regular classrooms, teachers there used RTP with them. In 1995-1996, RTP was not used with any students other than Tammy’s, but teachers and other students saw how it was used and they saw its effects.

In 1996-1997, several teachers were allowed to use RTP in their regular classrooms. The results were impressive enough that all classes at Whittier used RTP in 1997-1998. The following are results for the period from 1995-1996 through 1997-1998.

Table One: Overview of Whittier Elementary School

The data in Table One show that when RTP was used with all of the students at Whittier Elementary School in 1997-1998, the number of office referrals for the year dropped to only half of the number during the previous two years. In most schools, office referrals can occur for many reasons that do not result in referrals to the Responsible Thinking Classroom (RTC), and vice versa.

Table Two below focuses on specific kinds of events that might disrupt teaching and learning in a school. Remember that Table One shows descriptive statistics for the number of children enrolled in the school, and the number of students exposed to RTP, in a particular academic year.

Table Two Whittier Elementary School: Specific Categories of Events

The data in Table Two above show that, for most kinds of disruptions, the greater the percentage of the student population at Whittier that was in RTP, the greater the reduction in that kind of disruption. The only exceptions to that statement are "Disrespect/Arguing," which increased during 1996-1997, then in 1997-1998 declined to only 22% of the number in 1995-1996, and "Intimidation/Threats," which, for both 1996-1997 and 1997-1998, declined to only 48% of the number in 1995-1996.

Rex Squires is the Transportation Director for Blaine County School District #61, in Hailey, Idaho. In DHS-1, Rex described some results when RTP was used with students who rode the busses in his district. His results, in "Chapter 26: RTP and The School Bus Driver," cover the academic years 1994-1995 through 1996-1997, which was the year he implemented RTP on the busses in his district. Here, I report additional data from Rex for 1997-1998.

Rex described the kinds of events that count as disruptions. On the bus, disruptions are identified as safety hazards that distract the driver and endanger the lives of students and the driver. The school board requires that a student who disrupts twice must be removed from the bus. A student who disrupts for a fourth time is banned from the bus.

RTP is used in three of the five schools in the district, but it is used with all students on the busses. The first time a student disrupts on the bus, the driver asks the questions from RTP. IF the student disrupts a second time, the driver says, "I see you have chosen to go to the front seat," which serves the role of the Responsible Thinking Classroom on the bus.

RTP was not used in Blaine County during 1994-1995 or 1995-1996, so those years serve as a baseline against which to compare the results after the district implemented RTP. In 1994-1995, there were 171 major disruptions on the busses, and in 1995-1995 there were 178. The average number of disruptions in those two academic years was 175, which we will use as the baseline.

Table One Blaine school: Total Disruptions on Busses During an Academic Year

There is no doubt that the total number of disruptions on busses declined after the school district implemented RTP. The next table shows the numbers (and percentages) of students who disrupted various numbers of times during 1997-1998.

The data in Table Two above resemble those from many schools that implement RTP, in that a large majority of students never disrupt enough to be referred to the RTC. Of those who go to RTC, or in this case to the front seat on the bus, most go only once. On the busses of Blaine County, and in the majority of RTP schools, only a few students disrupt often enough to go to the RTC, or to the front seat, very often.

The reports from Whittier Elementary School, and from the Director of Transportation in Blaine

County, demonstrate how important it is for schools to keep long-term data about disruptions. If we did not have baseline data, from school years before RTP was implemented, we could not know the degree to which disruptions changed in the two examples reported here, after RTP was implemented.

It is also important for schools to use the same categories to identify disruptions from year to year. It is not always easy for school authorities to keep the same labels and categories.

School boards, state agencies and federal offices often require that schools use new categories and labels, or that they redefine various kinds of disruptions. However, the more consistency a school can maintain in its records, the easier it is for us to track the frequencies of various disruptions across academic years.