Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: William Glasser, M.D.

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Litesal (Litesal)
Sun, 13 Sep 1998 20:42:46 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: Mssolaia <Mssolaia>
To: Litesal <Litesal>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: William Glasser, M.D.

Dear Linda,

I know what you mean about Glasser's ideas being harder to implement, and
measure. They aren't rigidly cut and dry like Canter's ideas. That's why I
use some of Lee Canter's Assertive Discipline ideas to keep order while I
mold my students into quality learners. I believe in and feel good about
Glasser's philosophies, therefore I keep them in mind when I develop my
discipline plans. I am turned off by Canter's manipulative ploys to train
students, using extrinsic motivations. I feel like I'm training dogs, not
teaching individual people. Plus, I like to handle discipline myself,
Canter suggests otherwise. To me, what happens in my classroom is between
me and my students (unless violence, racism or other serious offenses are
involved). I like to give my students the chance to correct behaviors on
their own, it shows I respect them. Even my Canter like systems (smiley
chart, posted rules) have natural rewards and consequences. For example,
rewards are free time to do free art, recognition for a job well done, class
led art days, more freedom, etc. Consequences include loss of art
production time, less freedom, development of plan for better behavior
(after identifying the improper behavior, and why it is detrimental to the
classroom environment), and repair of damages (like if a student is
careless, and makes a mess, he/she cleans it up). Extrinsic rewards were a
hassle, and didn't make any sense to me (I have used Canter's complete
system).
I defend my methods of discipline because I feel it's important to not only
teach the subject of "art," but to teach students that self-control,
socially acceptable behavior, self-motivation, kindness, goal setting,
conscientiousness, etc., etc., etc. are all important ingredients to success
in life. Canter has a one track mind (get students to behave, so you can
teach your subject, whether they like it or not), he does get the job done,
students do what they are supposed to do, but it seems to me like a
short-cut that will not last long. Just two vastly different philosophies.

Sincerely, Leah

>I have read some of Glasser, and tried some of his theories on a terribly
>dynamic 5th grade last year. saw some results (which were better than none,
>as far as I was concerned at the time). I am finding it difficult to
instill
>his theories with all the craziness and juggling so many elements at the
same
>time (classroom management/ mixed learning paces... prep disruptions like
>field trips/school assemblies... blah blah blah) In the end I guess I
am
>saying I think it is very worthwhile but I am disappointed that it may take
10
>years or more to see school wide change (in just the art room even) but
good
>luck.
>linda in michigan