Glasser, William

From WikEd

1 Descriptions, definitions, synonyms, organizer terms, types of
2 Application in classrooms and similar settings
3 Evidence of effectiveness
4 Critics and their rationale
5 Alternative explanations due to Diversity considerations
6 Signed �?life experiences�?, testimonies and stories
7 References and other links of interest

[edit] Descriptions, definitions, synonyms, organizer terms, types of

http://www.psycho-ressources.com/bibli/photo-w-glasser.jpg

William Glasser was born in 1925 in Cleveland, Ohio. He was received a BS and a MA in clinical psychology from Case Western Reserve University and became Dr. William Glasser when he received his MD from UCLA. Dr. Glasser was trained in Freudian psychoanalysis (see also Freud, Sigmund) and later rejected it in favor of his own idea of Reality Therapy. As opposed to the Freudian thought of interpreting a person's history and inner turmoil, Dr. Glasser sees it as more useful to a person in the real world if they are forced to view problem behaviors as irresponsible and take responsibility for fixing them. At the same time, Dr. Glasser emphasizes maintaining personal and caring relationships with students with discipline problems because it is necessary for students to feel loved before they can even begin to come to terms with taking responsibility for their own actions (Wolfgang, 2001). Dr. Glasser began his private practice in 1957 using Reality Therapy and in the 1970's, his body of work emerged as "Control theory". By 1996, his work was renamed "Choice Theory," mainly to distinguish it from Perceptual Control Theory, a theory by William T. Powers that views behavior as a means of controlling perception, rather than behavior as a function of perception, that was disseminated around the 1970's. Despite the change in names, Reality Therapy remains the counseling method through which Dr. Glasser's philosophies are currently in practice.

BOOKS

Mental Health or Mental Illness? (1960)

Reality Therapy (1965)

Schools Without Failure (1969)

The Identity Society (1972)

Positive Addiction (1976)

Stations of the Mind (1981)

Control Theory (1984)

Control Theory in the Classroom (1986)

The Control Theory - Reality Therapy Workbook (1986)

The Quality School (1990,1992)

The Quality School Teacher (1992)

The Control Theory Manager (1994)

Staying Together (1995)

Choice Theory (1998)

Choice: The Flip Side of Control - The Language of Choice Theory (1998)

Creating the Competence Based Classroom (1999)

Reality Therapy in Action (1999)

Every Student Can Succeed (2000)

Getting Together and Staying Together (2000)

What is this thing called Love?" (2000)

Counseling with Choice Theory: The New Reality Therapy (2001)

Fibromyalgia: Hope from a completely New Perspective (2001)

Unhappy Teenagers: A way for parents and teachers to reach them (2002)

Warning: Psychiatry can be hazardous to your mental health (2003)

ARTICLES

-Reality Therapy in the Year 2000, Dr. Glasser's invited address to the Evolution of Psychotherapy Conference on May 24-28; Anaheim, California, 2000.

-School Violence from the Perspective of William Glasser, Reprinted from the Journal of the ASCA, Professional School Counseling, Volume 4, pages 77-80, December 2, 2000.

-Counseling With Choice Theory: The New Reality Therapy, WGI Newsletter Spring 2001.

-Further Comments on Grades in a Quality School, Dr. Glasser's Corner: WGI Newsletter Spring 2004.

[edit] Application in classrooms and similar settings

In Glasser’s book Control theory (1986), he expresses his view on current classroom management as, “We are far too concerned with discipline, with how to ‘make’ students follow rules, and not enough concerned with providing the satisfying education that would make our overconcern with discipline unnecessary�? (p. 12). Due to this, his Control theory attempts to explain why students are performing less in school as well as makes changes to the structure of the classroom to fix it.

Glasser views that all student choices are based on five basic and universal needs. These needs are: survival, love/belonging, freedom, fun, and power (William Glasser Institute, 2005). He maintains in his Choice Theory (1998) that 95% of all behavior problems in the classroom are students attempting to fulfill their need for power. The most important is the need to be loved and belong since Glasser feels that having that close relationship is essential to meeting any of the other needs. Thus, he has listed the seven habits that teachers should have in the classroom. These Seven Caring Habits are:

1) Supporting;

2) Encouraging;

3) Listening;

4) Accepting;

5) Trusting;

6) Respecting; and

7) Negotiating differences,

while also listing his Seven Deadly Habits:

1) Criticizing;

2) Blaming;

3) Complaining;

4) Nagging;

5) Threatening;

6) Punishing; and

7) Bribing or rewarding to control (William Glasser Institute, 2005).

When dealing with misbehaving students, Glasser has teachers employ the methods of Reality Therapy. The main part of this approach is to avoid past actions and force the student to respond to what they are doing, what need they are fulfilling by doing it, and what they are going to do to correct this behavior (Wolfgang, 2001). These “what�? questions avoid the negative teacher reactions defined in the Seven Deadly Habits while forcing responsibility on the students. Glasser then has the teacher make a contract with the student that the student creates revolving around what will be done to correct the problem. Glasser feels this is necessary because it forces the student, who has become so lost in the symptom causing the behavior, to “reconnect�? with what the student actually needs (William Glasser Institute, 2005).

Reinforcement is not a part of Glasser’s overall approach, as he feels any consequence of an action, whether positive or negative, should be the natural one instead of teacher-given. If a teacher were to interfere, this would be letting “the student of the hook�? (Wolfgang, 2001, p. 155). The use of punishment is also dismissed as effective management because of its inabilities to provide the student with responsibility and because he feels that it has been proven ineffective by the American judicial system (Wolfgang, 2001).

Glasser’s method of confronting students about their behaviors leads into what he feels is extremely important in the classroom: the Class Meeting. During these meetings, students and teacher sit in a circle facing each other to talk through problems. The teacher leads the class through three possible types of meetings. There is the open ended, educational/diagnostic, and problem solving, all of which allow the students to confront others about problems they see in a mature and calm manner. At the end of the meeting, the teacher and students should have a plan that is agreed upon by all just like the contract created in the teacher-student situation (Wolfgang, 2001).

[edit] Evidence of effectiveness

There are 20 schools throughout the country that have adopted Glasser's philosophy and created what he calls a Quality School. The criteria for Quality Schools are as follows:

  1. Relationships are based upon trust and respect, and all discipline problems, not incidents, have been eliminated.
  2. Total Learning Competency is stressed and an evaluation that is below competence or what is now a "B" has been eliminated. All schooling as defined by Dr. William Glasser has been replaced by useful education.
  3. All students do some Quality Work each year that is significantly beyond competence. All such work receives an "A" grade or higher, such as an "A+".
  4. Students and staff are taught to use Choice Theory in their lives and in their work in school. Parents are encouraged to participate in study groups to become familiar with the ideas of Dr. William Glasser.
  5. Students do better on state proficiency tests and college entrance examinations. The importance of these tests is emphasized in the school.
  6. Staff, students, parents and administrators view the school as a joyful place.

To see a list of the declared Quality Schools as of September 2005, see this site.

[edit] Critics and their rationale

Ed Ford, author of Discipline for Home and School, Book Two: Practical Standards for Schools, criticizes Glasser for being inconsistent when he describes what exactly is the control of a child's behavior. Ford (1999) is quoted as saying, "he says that his ideas are different from stimulus-response (S-R) theory, which is the most widely recognized version of cause-effect theory. But in spite of what Glasser says about S-R theory, in Control theory, his explanations of behavior clearly depend on principles of cause-effect that are identical to the ones used in S-R psychology. All Glasser has done is to move the alleged causes from the environment to somewhere inside the person, where a majority of contemporary psychologists and brain scientists have also moved them. Glasser says that behavior is internally motivated, but he also says that environmental conditions are responsible for behavior." Thus, Ford feels that Glasser has been contradictory when theorizing about the locus of control of student behavior, which is what his Control theory relies on.

[edit] Alternative explanations due to Diversity considerations

[edit] Signed �?life experiences�?, testimonies and stories

I taught for North Olmsted schools in Ohio from 1970-1978. After a few typical years as a new teacher struggling with discipline and classroom management, my school was introduced to William Glasser and Schools Without Failure. I was eager to look at his ideas, as I was not comfortable with the traditional rules and consequences type of classroom. William Glasser's management style was a much better "fit" for me, except for being told, "There are no bad students, only bad teachers". I'm not sure that's actually William Glasser "speaking", but perhaps a bit of the school administration's view! Teachers need to look at themselves, according to Glasser, but I'm not sure laying blame accomplishes much. I did take a look at my classroom management and implemented many of Glasser's concepts. Not only did students respond well to the positive, respectful atmosphere but our classroom meetings were taken seriously by all. Students appreciated having a voice, I gained a better understanding of my students and students became more understanding and helpful of each other. We became a learning community because of it. - Pam Olivito