Forum 13 – Lesson 13
L13-Q1 Class
Meetings
EdPsy399OL
Instructor: Tom Anderson
Submitted by Kim
Fitzer
One of the most important components of William Glasser’s
Noncoercive Discipline Theory is the use of class meetings. In William’s view, class meetings are
effective ways for teachers and students to solve behavior or procedural problems,
make curriculum decisions, and discuss other relevant topics . Held regularly, class meetings offer
powerful ways for teachers and students
to interact, build community and establish a classroom system where everyone
has a say in the proceedings. Glasser
felt that students have basic needs:
survival, belonging, power, fun and freedom, which must be met in order
for positive relationships and learning to grow (Charles, 2002). Class meetings meet at least three of these
basic needs: Belonging (feelings of
safety, being supported, an active and appreciated member of a team), Power
(dignity, status, sense of being someone that matters), and Freedom (ability to
make choices for one’s well-being, responsibility and self-reliance) (Charles,
2002).
Class meetings may take several forms. Open class meetings allow students to air
topics of concern (Glasser, 1969), particularly issues that are threatening,
troubling, or disturbing. This type of forum
allows their discourse to offer emotional support for one another. For instance, in the wake of the September
11 attacks, many students in my high school classes wanted to voice their
fears, concerns and questions about terrorism, Islam, heroism, and other
specific topics. While I do not, as a
rule conduct formal class meetings on a regular basis, I allowed several students
time to communicate their feelings. Our
principal also asked that teachers adopt a Monday morning meeting that would
extend 1st hour by 20
minutes, so that class meeting time was built in to the schedule. Unfortunately, many teachers felt that this
was a contractual issue and would require more prep time, so it was defeated in
a building vote.
The second type of class meeting focuses on social and
behavioral problems (Glasser, 1969). Recently,
I discovered a theft of materials in my Basic Photography class, and arranged
to speak to my students in the classes that it occurred. I shared my disappointment that the theft
had happened, but since I did not know who had done it, I was not accusing anyone. Then I asked the students what should be
done about the theft. Several students
were shocked that someone would do this, and several suggested that I find the
student responsible and suspend him/her from class. One student said that that perhaps the students had not meant to
take the supplies and forgot to return them.
Another said that perhaps the students should be given an opportunity to
return them, anonymously. The majority
of students agreed that this was best, but that if the thefts continued to
occur, more serious measures would have to be taken. The materials did not resurface immediately, but a few days, the
missing supplies miraculously returned to my supply drawer. I never did find out who had taken it in the
first place, but I am certain that the class meeting was responsible for its
return.
The third type of meeting may focus on educational and
curricular concerns (Glasser, 1969).
Teachers are used to writing, adapting and delivering curriculum on
their own, and would not consider giving their students an opportunity to make
decision on what will be taught and when.
Recently, however, I discovered that my 2nd hour Computer Graphics
class had something to say about what they learned next in the sequence. I had planned on using a tried and true
desktop publishing assignment that taught important Photoshop skills. Students asked what they would be learning
next and I suggested that the Magazine Cover assignment was coming next. I detected a lack of enthusiasm in their
response, so surprised, I asked what they would rather learn. Something more creative, two students
responded. I quickly formed a meeting
at our “conference table (a large table I use for meetings and presentations).” The students decided, of all of the possible
choices on the syllabus, they most wanted to do a self-portrait. We took a vote, ans self-portrait it was. After having two major assignments with
fairly rigid parameters, they were eager to try a new approach. Two weeks into this new assignment now, I am
glad I let them choose. The results are
beautiful, creative and very sophisticated.
Other behavioral theorists also advocate the use of class
meetings. Most theorists who propose
self-discipline and choice, such as Rudolf Dreikurs (Democratic Teaching),
Alfie Kohn (Beyond Discipline), and Thomas Gordon (Discipline as Self-Control),
maintain that involving students in the decision making process about class
rules and procedures has the effect of minimizing behavior problems. Since students assume ownership of the
classroom, they have a collective and individual interest in keeping the
environment in balance. The real key to
achieving a student-centered classroom is for the teacher to give up absolute
control: Gordon (1989) states that a
teacher “ . . . will acquire more influence with young people when you give up
using your power to control them . . .and the more you use the power to try to
control people, the less real influence you’ll have on their lives.” Clearly, relinquishing the temptation to
coerce students to do good will have the opposite and very undesirable effect.
Charles, C.M.
2002. Building Classroom
Discipline, Seventh Edition. Boston,
Massachusetts. Allyn and Bacon. pps.
28-29, 97, 128-129, 189-191.
Anderson, Thomas.
Biographical Sketch of William Glaser M.D., from Reality Therapy and
Choice Theory with Sample Case Study.
Adaptation excerpts retrieved from the World Wide Web on 12/2/2001.