special issue: quality schools - adventist circlecircle.adventist.org/files/jae/jae_v69n3.pdf ·...

Website: http://education.gc.adventist.org/jae FEBRUARY/MARCH 2007

SPECIAL ISSUE:QUALITYSCHOOLSWith an Introduction By WilliamGlasser

SPECIAL ISSUE:QUALITYSCHOOLSWith an Introduction By WilliamGlasser

BuildingCathedrals

in the Midst of Hurricanes

THE BETTER PLAN:EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS

FROM AN UNLIKELY DUOCHOICE THEORY

IN THE CLASSROOMHOW CHOICE THEORY

CHANGED MY LIFE

c o n t e n t s

2 JOURNAL OF ADVENTIST EDUCATION FEBRUARY/MARCH 2007

TheJournalofAdventistEducation Februar y/March 2007 Vo lume 69 • Number 3

PHOTO AND ART CREDITS: Cover and p. 23, Ralph Butler; pp. 5, 6, Ron Wheeler; p. 7,Beverly Robinson-Rumble; pp. 10, 16, 17, 20, BananaStock; pp. 12, 14, 34, 42-45, BrandXPictures; pp. 24-27, 32, 36-41, courtesy of the respective authors; p. 27, courtesy of HowardBullard; pp. 28-30, Skjold Photographs.

4

10

F e a t u r e s4 THE GLASSER QUALITY SCHOOL:

A Combination of Choice Theory and the Competence-Based Classroom BY WILLIAM GLASSER

10 THE BETTER PLAN: EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS FROM AN UNLIKELY DUO BY JIM ROY

16 LEAD-MANAGEMENT VS. BOSS-MANAGE-MENT: QUALITY OR COERCION?BY KELLY B. BOCK AND BRAD GREENE

22 COVER ARTICLE: BUILDING CATHEDRALS IN THE MIDST OF HURRICANES BY TOM AMATO

27 CONFESSIONS OF A RECOVERING EXTERNAL CONTROL FREAK BY KAREN NICOLA

32 HOW CHOICE THEORY CHANGED MY LIFEA Personal ReflectionBY DAVID ESCOBAR

35 CHOICE THEORY IN THE CLASSROOM BY CHRIS SEQUEIRA

42 TEACHER EVALUATION FROM A CHOICE THEORY PERSPECTIVEBY MARTHA HAVENS AND JIM ROY

D e p a r t m e n t s4 Guest Editorial

16

I was presenting Choice Theory concepts at a recent work-shop when an attendee pointed out that the word theoryimplied that what we were considering was not a law or afact, so maybe he should be a bit skeptical. In spite of myfirm belief in the ideas of Choice Theory, I answered, “Yes,

I think you should be skeptical in the same way the Bereans [Acts17:12] of the New Testament were skeptical. They tested what theywere told and considered the evidence for themselves. We must be noless vigilant.”

Dr. William Glasser created a counseling approach known as Reality Therapy in 1965.Many have acknowledged its effectiveness (it continues to be used in psychiatric treatmentcenters around the world) even though Glasser himself felt that it lacked a theoretical foun-dation. In 1976, Glasser began talking with William Powers, author of Behavior: The Controlof Perception (1973). Out of their collaboration came Control Theory, which Glasser felt ex-plained the foundation for Reality Therapy. Over the years, Glasser has continued to refinehis ideas. This development, combined with his increasing discomfort with the label Con-trol Theory, led to his writing Choice Theory in 1998, which he feels is the clearest explana-tion so far of his view of human motivation and behavior. Glasser is a board-certified psy-chiatrist and an agnostic, a secular thinker in what for him is a totally secular world. Yet hisChoice Theory offers a compelling and compassionate framework around which Christianscan shape their lives. His explanation of how people can be happy and get along well withothers is appealing to more and more people.

Comparing Glasser’s ideas to Scripture and the work of Ellen White led to my writingSoul Shapers: A Better Plan for Parents and Educators (Review and Herald, 2005). I am con-vinced that Glasser’s ideas are more significant than even he understands and that theseideas tap into what C. S. Lewis refers to in The Chronicles of Narnia as “the deeper magic.”To me, the deeper magic is the realm of the truth of God’s kingdom, truth that at times seemsforgotten or ignored. Using appropriate skepticism, you can draw your own conclusion.

Certainly, Choice Theory helps us to be more effective educators in tangible ways, whichis good, since principals and teachers are always on the lookout for useful strategies. But atits core, Choice Theory begins with a private journey, rather than a public one. As we beginto understand Choice Theory and apply it in our lives, it makes a positive impact on ourpublic experience as well. As we become more mentally healthy and happy, we are betterable to get along with the important people in our lives, including our students.

I want to thank the authors who contributed to this edition of the JOURNAL. They arebusy educators, yet they took the time to share the concepts that have made such a differ-ence to them. Since beginning this project, I have met other Adventist educators who aresuccessfully implementing Choice Theory in their classrooms and who should be writing ar-ticles for this journal, too, but we will have to hear from them in later editions. I look for-ward to that.

Choose to have a good school year! _________________________________________________________________________

Jim Roy, the Coordinator for this special issue on Quality Schools, is Chair of the Education Department atPacific Union College in Angwin, California, and the author of Soul Shapers (Review and Herald, 2005), whichgrew out of his doctoral research on the ideas of William Glasser.The editorial staff of the JOURNAL express heart-felt appreciation for Jim’s enthusiasm, hard work, and assistance in the planning and production of the issue, whichoccurred while he was preparing to defend his dissertation.

THE JOURNAL OFADVENTIST EDUCATION

EDITORBEVERLY J. ROBINSON-RUMBLE

ASSOCIATE EDITOR (INTERNATIONAL EDITIONS)ENRIQUE BECERRA

SENIOR CONSULTANTS C. GARLAND DULAN

LISA M. BEARDSLEY, ELLA SMITH SIMMONS

CONSULTANTSGENERAL CONFERENCE

JOHN M. FOWLER, LUIS A. SCHULZEAST-CENTRAL AFRICA

HUDSON KIBUUKAEURO-AFRICA

ROBERTO BADENASEURO-ASIA

GUILLERMO BIAGGIINTER-AMERICA

MOISÉS VELÁZQUEZNORTH AMERICAGERALD KOVALSKI

NORTHERN ASIA-PACIFICCHEK YAT PHOONSOUTH AMERICA

CARLOS ALBERTO MESASOUTHERN ASIA

NAGESHWARA RAOSOUTH PACIFIC

BARRY HILLSOUTHERN AFRICA-INDIAN OCEAN

ELLAH KAMWENDOSOUTHERN ASIA-PACIFIC

TRANS-EUROPEANDANIEL DUDA

WEST-CENTRAL AFRICACHIEMELA IKONNE

COPY EDITORRANDY HALL

ART DIRECTION/GRAPHIC DESIGNHOWARD I. BULLARD

ADVISORY BOARDLISA M. BEARDSLEY (CHAIR),

ENRIQUE BECERRA, HAMLET CANOSA, C. GARLAND DULAN, JOHN M. FOWLER,

DUNBAR HENRI, GERALD KOVALSKI, ERLINEBURGESS, MICHAEL RYAN, LUIS A. SCHULZ, CAROLE SMITH, CHARLES H. TIDWELL, JR.,

BONNIE WILBUR

Jim Roy

THE JOURNAL OF ADVENTIST EDUCATION pub-lishes articles concerned with a variety of topics per-tinent to Adventist education. Opinions expressed byour writers do not necessarily represent the views ofthe staff or the official position of the Department ofEducation of the General Conference of Seventh-dayAdventists.

THE JOURNAL OF ADVENTIST EDUCATION (ISSN0021-8480) is published bimonthly, October throughMay, plus a single summer issue for June, July, Au-gust, and September by the Department of Educa-tion, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists,12501 Old Columbia Pike, Silver Spring, MD 20904-6600. TELEPHONE (301) 680-5075; FAX (301) 622-9627; E-mail: [email protected]. Subscrip-tion price, U.S. $18.25. Add $1.00 for postage outsidethe U.S. Single copy, U.S. $3.75. Periodical postagepaid at Silver Spring, Maryland, and additional mail-ing office. Please send all changes of address to P.O.Box 5, Keene, TX 76059, including both old and newaddress. Address all editorial and advertising corre-spondence to the Editor. Copyright 2007 GeneralConference of SDA, POSTMASTER: Send addresschanges to THE JOURNAL OF ADVENTIST EDUCA-TION, P.O. Box 5, Keene, TX 76059.

Guest Editorial

The Deeper Magic

JOURNAL OF ADVENTIST EDUCATION FEBRUARY/MARCH 2007 3

Johnnie* is an only child, 7 years old. He isvery happy, and he gets along well withother students and with his teachers. Hisparents tell his teacher he is adelightful child and has neverbeen a problem at home. Heenjoys reading and takesbooks out of the library to

read at home. He has quickly learned to dowhat is assigned in the classroom, and hisclasswork is up to date.

But since he started school, Johnnie willonly do his homework if it interests him.When it does, he does it well. His parents arenot concerned. They ask him to do all his as-signments, even offer help, but they are not willing to doany more than this. They say it is a school problem, not ahome problem, and tell the school they are not willing torisk their good relationship with him by punishing him. Ba-sically, they do not believe in punishment and have neverhad a problem they couldn’t solve by talking it over withhim.

Some variation of this problem, of-

ten much more serious, is the basic challenge all teachersstruggle with: The student will not do what the teacherasks him or her to do or, in some instances, the studentwill do the work but not the way the teacher wants itdone. If the child is pushed or punished by the teacher orprincipal, he or she usually becomes a discipline problem.However, punishment does not solve school problems, it in-

creases them. In a Glasser Quality School (GQS),

which has no punishment, this prob-


BY WILLIAM GLASSER

THEGLASSER

QUALITYSCHOOL

A Combination of Choice Theory and the

Competence-Based Classroom

_______________________________* Not his real name.

The need for Power. . . . has ledall human societies to try to controlothers with whom they disagree, to

get them to accept their point ofview—often to the point of killing

them if they won’t.


lem has been reduced to the point where it either does notoccur or, when it does, the system under which the wholeschool runs almost always solves it. I believe that schoolshave this social problem because our whole society, includ-ing teachers, suffers from it: Huge numbers of people can’tget along with one another to the extent they want. As far asI am concerned, it is by far the most important problem ofall human societies. And, as I will explainlater in this article, it is peculiar to hu-man societies. Animal societies,many of which are social likeours, do not have this prob-lem. Some schools have lessof it than the rest of society ifthe staff gets along well withthe students and one another,more of it if they don’t.

This problem is not onlyrampant in schools, it also de-stroys our marriages, wreakshavoc on our families,and makes most of ourbusinesses less prof-

itable than they could be. I also believe that a GQS in whichstudents, teachers, principals, and parents get along wellwith one another could serve, as some do now, as models ofgood relationships for the rest of their community.

There are two reasons that explain why all the peopleinvolved in a GQS get along so well with one another. Thefirst is a general one: They all use Choice Theory to guidethe way they deal with one another socially. The second is

more specific: They all have implemented the compe-tence-based classroom, a method of teaching

Since weteach

children agreat deal by

example, ifparents andteachers can

learn to replace the

deadly habitswith the

caring habits,all their

relationshipswill improve,and they willserve as the

models children

need.

that persuades almost all students to do, at a minimum,competent work. I believe it is common knowledge thatpeople who are competent in whatever they are doing tendto get along much better with others than people who areless than competent.

Choice Theory Explains Why We Get Along Well WithOthers and Why We Don’t

Because we have the same genetic structure, almost all ofus tend to follow a way of thinking that makes it very difficult,

often impossible, to get along with others to the extent wewant to when we disagree. I have given this psychology aname: external control psychology or simply externalcontrol. For example, in the first paragraph of this article,the teacher and the parents might have great difficulty get-ting along with each other if the teacher wanted to punishJohnnie for not doing his homework. Choice Theory ex-plains where this psychology comes from and how, when itis used, it always harms the relationship between those whouse it and those who are recipients. Choice Theory also ex-


plains why all humans use this relationship-destroying psy-chology and other creatures don’t.

All Mammals, Including Humans, Are Motivated bythe Same Four Genetic Needs

Humans and other mammals are driven to do all theycan to Survive. The other three needs are: Love and Be-longing, so our helpless children can survive, Freedom, sowe can move, think, and express ourselves freely;and Fun, so we are motivated to learn new, usefulbehaviors.

But beyond those four needs, only humans aregenetically driven by a fifth need, the need forPower. It is this need that has led all human soci-eties to try to control others with whom they dis-agree, to get them to accept their point of view—often to the point of killing them if they won’t.Just watch one day of television if you have anytrouble believing this. But external control is not in ourgenes. It has been learned, and a study of history will revealoccasional examples of human societies—democracies are agood example—that have attempted to protect their citizensfrom excessive external control.

Basically, external control has led people to act as if whatthey believe is not only right for them, it is right for every-one. The people of the world are either trying to controlothers or are trying to escape from their control. That strug-

gle is what history is mostly about. But it goes beyond his-tory. All serious literature, drama, and especially grand operaare based on external control. We live in an external controlworld, and almost all of us use what I call the Seven DeadlyHabits that are the hallmarks of this belief: Criticizing,Blaming, Complaining, Nagging, Threatening, Punishing,and Bribing and Rewarding to Control.

But what is so important is to understand that while

power is in our genes, external control is learned. Thismeans we can learn to replace the Seven Deadly Habits withSeven Caring Habits: Supporting, Encouraging, Listening,Accepting, Trusting, Respecting, and Negotiating Differ-ences. But as far as I can discover, no one has offered a ma-jor psychology such as Choice Theory that we can put towork in our lives to replace external control.

Because of the deadly habits, our marriages are fallingapart. I got back from Ireland recently where a newspaper


One of the wonderful things aboutteaching Choice Theory to anyoneyoung or old is that it is very pleas-ant to learn.

Dr. William Glasser leads out in a breakout session at the 2006 NAD Teacher Convention in Nashville, Tennessee.

was reporting research that shows that 75 percent of Englishmarriages are ending in divorce, which does not account forall the people who stay unhappily together. Schools are alsofilled with the deadly habits, as are businesses and families.

Choice Theory is called that because all ofour behaviors are chosen. Unlike animals, wehave no genetic behaviors. This means thatthere is nothing but long years of experiencethat stands in the way of our learning tochoose the caring habits to replace the deadlyhabits that too many of us choose now. Wealso need to learn that the deadly habits encompass muchmore than the words that come out of our mouths. We alsochoose the tone of our voices, the expressions on our faces,and the gestures we make with our hands. Since we teachchildren a great deal by example, if parents and teachers canlearn to replace the deadly habits with the caring habits, alltheir relationships will improve, and they will serve as themodels children need.

School teachers in a GQS don’t use the deadly habits andtake every opportunity they can to explain to the studentswhy they don’t. But they are careful not to use the externalcontrol statement, “Now that I’ve stopped, you have to stop,too.” We have learned by years of experience teachingChoice Theory that once we stop, in time the students willstop, too. That will also extend to parents, most of whomare eager to learn how to get along better with their chil-dren.

When they read what I have just written, people who areused to using external control tend to say, “That’s not fair! IfI stop, you have to stop, too.” But fairness is not the point ofChoice Theory. The point is more like the Golden Rule: “I’mgoing to treat you the way I’d want to be treated, whetheryou treat me this way or not.”

I and my staff members teach Choice Theory to schoolstaffs and to individuals and groups when we counsel. All ofus use it in our own lives. We have trained many thousandsof people in the use of Choice Theory, and the continualfeedback we get is, We are better teachers and counselors fordoing this. But what we didn’t expect is all the feedbackthey give us saying how much better their whole lives arewhen they put it to work in their families and in their mar-riages.

Obviously, these ideas are much more complicated thanthe little I am able to explain here, but if you can even beginto get rid of criticizing in your marriage and ask nothing inreturn from your partner, you will soon see how powerfulthis theory is.

The Competence-Based ClassroomIn this classroom, C, D, and F grades, which are the

main reason students don’t like school, are eliminated.While all students want to feel as if they are cared for, this isimpossible because more than half the students in ourschools never earn a grade above C. In a GQS, the lowestgrade for credit is a legitimate B. What we have done is raise

both the floor and the ceiling. Students who achieve wellbeyond competence can earn A+ or other recognition forwhat they have done.

Giving these higher grades takes care of parents who say

that getting rid of low grades makes it harder for their childto look good in comparison to others. Our schools are calledQuality Schools because so many students make the effort toachieve beyond mere competence.

Many teachers fear this system because they believe thatmany of their students cannot do competent work. Our ex-perience in more than 20 GQSs does not support that fear.Almost all the students do competent work or even higher ifthey are told that nothing less will be accepted for credit.But along with this, we also tell them we believe they can docompetent work, and that our job is to make it possible forthem to do it.


The Ten Axioms of

Choice Theory

1. The only person whose behavior we can con-trol is our own.

2. All we can give another person is information.3. All long-lasting psychological problems are

relationship problems.4. The problem relationship is always part of our

present life.5. What happened in the past has everything to

do with what we are today, but we can only satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the future.

6. We can only satisfy our needs by satisfying the pictures in our Quality World.

7. All we do is behave.8. All behavior is Total Behavior and is made up

of four components: acting, thinking, feeling, and physiology.

9. All Total Behavior is chosen, but we only have direct control over the acting and thinking com-ponents. We can only control our feeling and physiology indirectly through how we choose to act and think.

10. All Total Behavior is designated by verbs and named by the part that is the most recogniza-ble.

Teaching the students Choice Theorycan, in time, lead to a whole communitylearning it.

But we also make school more sensible for all students.For example, we eliminate rote memorization and use onlyopen-book tests. The questions require thinking, under-standing, and the ability to use what the students havelearned. Those who need extra time to answer test questionscompetently are given more time. Much of the homeworkinvolves using additional time to improve test answers tocompetence. Competence, not speed, is what is valued in aGQS. Ours is actually a much more rigorous system thanthe one now in place in the U.S., in which we graduate stu-dents without their ever getting a grade above a C.

Coaches worry that athletes won’t be able to play if theschools they attend get rid of low grades, but that has nothappened. I don’t believe it is possible to be a star athleteand not have the ability to do competent school work. Be-cause they want to play, they have an extra incentive towork hard. In the rare instance that we believe students arenot capable of competent work, we address these situationsindividually.

The GQS Adds Both Competence and Quality to theCommunity

I realize that many teachers do not believe such a schoolwould be possible with the students they are asked to teach,many of whom seem to have given up trying. They do notrealize that low grades and external control have, over along period of time, caused many dropouts. But when theseobstacles are removed and all the students begin to do com-petent work, this positive effort can lead beyond school toraising the expectations and the effort of the whole commu-nity.

The key here is the teaching of Choice Theory to all thestudents, starting in kindergarten or when they enter schooland continuing for as long as they remain in school. Wellbefore any student reaches the 4th grade, all students in aGQS will have learned from their teacher and older studentshow to put Choice Theory to work.

One of the wonderful things about teaching Choice The-ory to anyone young or old is that it is very pleasant tolearn. Generally, instruction is not done formally; rather, theideas are introduced to students informally as events in theclassroom lend themselves to teachable moments. There aremany of these moments that ateacher who knows Choice The-ory will easily recognize.

But as students learn ChoiceTheory, their parents will also beinvited to learn it in eveningclasses. As they do, they arepleased by how much betterthey get along with their chil-dren at home and with eachother. Teaching the studentsChoice Theory can, in time, leadto a whole community learningit. As they do, many problems

begin to disappear, as almost all community problems arecaused by people who don’t get along with one another.

A Final WordObviously, this brief article is only enough to pique your

interest. For much more information, read the other articlesin this journal and log onto my Website http://www.wglasser.com. But almost all you need to know to get a GQSstarted is in my 2000 book, Every Student Can Succeed. Thisbook is available from the William Glasser Institute. Infor-mation on how to get it is on our Website, also.

I also recommend that you read Soul Shapers: A BetterPlan for Parents and Educators (2005) by Jim Roy. SoulShapers is written for Seventh-day Adventist educators andparents and explains quite well how Choice Theory worksin Christian schools. It was very interesting for me to readabout how my ideas compare favorably with those of EllenWhite. I support the ideas in Soul Shapers so strongly that Iagreed to write the Foreword for the book. I have workedwith Seventh-day Adventist schools for many years, but es-pecially since the convention in Dallas in 2000. I hope thatwhat I have written, as well as what Ellen White has written,will encourage Adventist educators to embrace the value ofpositive relationships and a relevant curriculum within anon-coercive environment. �

___________________________________

Dr. William Glasser is a world-renowned psychia-trist and educational consultant. He is an author of 21books, including landmark works such as RealityTherapy and Schools Without Failure. His 1990book, The Quality School, has been a valuable re-source to educators seeking non-traditional answers tonagging school challenges. He is the founder of the

Glasser Institute in Chatsworth, California, and can be reached by e-mail [email protected]._________________________________________________

REFERENCES

Glasser, William, Every Student Can Succeed (Chatsworth, Calif.: GlasserInstitute, 2000).

Roy, Jim, Soul Shapers: A Better Plan for Parents and Educators (Hagers-town, Md.: Review and Herald Publ. Assn., 2005).


Seven Caring Habits

SupportingEncouraging

ListeningAcceptingTrusting

RespectingNegotiating differences

Seven Deadly Habits

CriticizingBlaming

ComplainingNagging

ThreateningPunishing

Bribing or rewarding to control

The Challenge“I don’t know why we have to go to secular authors

when we have the Red Books.” The words, part statement,part question, part accusation, hung in the air of the multi-purpose room before hitting me with a thud. The attendeeshad come to the school that evening for a workshop severalteachers had put together called “Cooperative Learning forParents.” During my concluding comments, I mentionedWilliam Glasser and his Quality School1 ideas. That is whenthe parent quoted above raised his concern about secularauthors. I tried to describe how I, and the rest of the staff,desired to follow the Red Books, but for a long time after-ward, I remained unsatisfied with my answer. The statementseemed to deserve a detailed and knowledgeable explana-tion, and I didn’t have one.

Our CallingAs Adventists, we believe that God has called us to be a

light to the world, reflecting His way of thinking and be-having. God promised Abraham that “all the families of theearth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3; 26:42,Message).2 Adventists desire that this promise be fulfilledthrough our ministries as well. A major part of that ministryis accomplished through our schools. Although compara-tively small among the world’s religions, the AdventistChurch sponsors an impressive system of education. Andwhile motives for supporting our schools may vary, wewould do well to reclaim God’s promise to Abraham.

Factories and SchoolsThe Seventh-day Adventist Church was organized in the

early 1860s, about the same time a formal system of school-ing began to develop in the United States. To our pioneers’credit, they recognized the need/opportunity to train andinstruct the church’s children. Yet in the early days, theystruggled with the ingrained cultural habits and social


THE BETTER PLAN

forces in the late 19th and early 20th century. So importantwas the church’s educational work, however, that EllenWhite, one of the founders of the denomination and a spe-cial messenger for God, wrote extensively on the work ofeducation.

The time period 1890 to 1910 was an incredible one inthe history of education in general. The Industrial Age washaving a profound effect on educational design. Schools be-gan to adopt the assembly-line model, reasoning that if itworked well in factories, it would succeed in education. Afew voices decried this approach, calling for a more humanelearning environment. John Dewey’s (1859-1952) was sucha voice. So was Ellen White’s (1827-1915).

External Motivation—Common Sense?Besides the baleful effects of the factory-model approach,

education was further degraded by application of a “com-mon-sense” view of human motivation. Dewey captured thisstruggle when he wrote that “The history of educational the-ory is marked by opposition between the idea that educa-tion is development from within and that it is formationfrom without; that it is based upon natural endowments andthat education is a process of overcoming natural inclinationand substituting in its place habits acquired under externalpressure.”3 In one sentence, Dewey described the most im-portant question educators have to answer: Are students moti-vated from within, or must external pressure be applied to getthem to perform well in school?

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the answer tothis question and the effects of our strategies on homes andclassrooms. Throughout history, humans have embraced apsychology of behavior known as external control, or inmore clinical terms, stimulus-response. External control psy-chology is based on the belief that people can manipulatethe behavior of other human beings, either individually orcollectively. The proper stimulus will result in the desired re-sponse. This belief leads people to reward or punish otherswhen they do not behave as desired. This kind of manipu-lating behavior regularly occurs in homes and workplaces.Unfortunately, management based on external control is alsocommon in classrooms.

I believe that management practices based on externalcontrol, whether in a home, classroom, corporate, or politi-

cal setting, are ultimatelydestructive. Strategies thatrely on external pressure—ranging from subtle ma-nipulation to physicalforce—may appear towork for a short time, butthe results aren’t perma-nent, and in the end, leavethings worse than before.In classroom settings, coer-cion can work—with someof the students, some ofthe time. Yet even when itdoes appear to work, thenegatives outweigh thepositives. One negativeproduct of external controlis the deterioration of rela-tionships that occurswhenever someone tries tocoerce or manipulate an-other person. Another im-portant downside is stu-

dents’ failure to learn self-control if others always defineappropriate behavior for them.

These were just a few of the concerns of John Dewey,Ellen White, and William Glasser. In their thinking, educa-

tion had to be based on a different approach, one that moreeffectively engaged students in their own learning. Instead oftrying to develop better external control gimmicks, they rec-ommended an educational approach based on internal con-trol.

Glasser and Internal ControlFor the past 50 years, William Glasser has been pointing

out the need to operate classrooms based on internal controlor Choice Theory, which maintains that people makechoices for reasons that are important to them. A ringingtelephone doesn’t force us to answer it. It simply lets usknow that someone out there wants to get in touch with us.Some people rush to pick up a ringing telephone, while oth-ers screen their calls and then decide whether to answer. Ac-


EXEMPLARY SCHOOLS FROM AN UNLIKELY DUOB Y J I M R O Y

In one sentence,Dewey describedthe most impor-tant question educators haveto answer: Arestudents moti-vated fromwithin, or mustexternal pres-sure be appliedto get them toperform well inschool?

cording to Choice Theory, motivation comes from within.We may allow ourselves to be manipulated if we desire thereward or fear the punishment, but this is a decision wemake. And if the reward or punishment doesn’t matter to us,no amount of manipulation will work.

Since humans are internally motivated,Glasser explains that we can—indeed, wemust—operate schools using differentstrategies than in the past. Toward thatend, he has written five books on educa-

tion, beginning with his landmark work, Schools WithoutFailure (1969), and continuing with Control Theory in theClassroom (1986; 2001), The Quality School (1990), TheQuality School Teacher (1993), and Every Student Can Succeed(2000).4

Several months after fielding the question about the RedBooks versus secular authors, I began a study comparing theideas of Ellen G. White to those of William Glasser. Al-though they are separated by almost 100 years and comefrom very different backgrounds, I discovered their views oneducation to be amazingly similar. (A more complete reviewof these similarities is available in a book I wrote entitledSoul Shapers: A Better Plan for Parents and Educators.5) The

rest of this article will describe some of the similarities.

The Better PlanDescribing teachers who depend on external control,

Glasser writes that, “Boss-managers firmly believe that peo-ple can be motivated from the outside: They fail to under-stand that all of our motivation comes from within our-selves.”6 Some Christians have expressed concern about thisemphasis, which values human strength and insight, evencondemning it as New Age philosophy. Imagine my surpriseto find a similar passage in Ellen White’s writings:

“Those who train their pupils to feel that the power liesin themselves to become men and women of honor and use-fulness, will be the most permanently successful. Their workmay not appear to the best advantage to careless observers,and their labor may not be valued so highly as that of theinstructor who holds absolute control, but the after-life ofthe pupils will show the results of the better plan of educa-tion.”7

As a second-generation Adventist who has attendedchurch schools or taught in them my entire life, I haveheard the phrase “blueprint for education” more than once.Yet I have never seen such a blueprint. The closest I havecome to one is this phrase “the better plan,” which refers to


teachers who recognize the value of internal control ratherthan external force or coercion. Glasser believes that creatingclassrooms that operate from an internal-control perspectiveis more likely to promote quality school work. Ellen Whitetakes this idea even further through the use of phrases like“permanently successful” and “after-life” to remind us thatour teaching strategies have eternal implications.

Glasser observed that schools frequently use externalcontrol when students don’t do what they are supposed todo. Blaming, threatening, punishing, and rewarding arewidely used teaching strategies. But do such tactics solve theproblem? As Glasser points out, “We can force students tostay in school. We can even try to force them to do school-work, but we will almost never succeed.”8 In this kind of at-mosphere, teachers and students become adversaries, eachfocused on how to gain the upper hand. Because humanmotivation comes from within, Glasser emphasizes that, “Wecannot pressure any student to work if he does not believethe work is satisfying.”9

Ellen White highlighted this point as well when shewrote, “True education is not the forcing of instruction onan unready and unreceptive mind. The mental powers mustbe awakened, the interest aroused.”10 This is our challenge aseducators, to plan learning opportunities that create interestin our students. Alfie Kohn approached this from anotherangle when he wrote, “When students are ‘off task,’ our firstresponse should be to ask, What’s the task?”11 We need toask ourselves whether the assignments are part of the prob-lem and if so, work to modify them. Typically, when stu-dents don’t do what we want them to do, we start thinkingabout how we can make them perform, which may saymore about our personal journey than it does about goodteaching strategies.12

Ellen White warned Adventist teachers to stay away from

the use of force because of its effects on children. Glasserand White both point out that whenever force is used, itarouses a spirit of resistance in the recipient. But White con-demns coercion even more strongly because of the eternalimplications.

“Those parents and teachers who boast of having com-plete control of the minds and wills of the children undertheir care, would cease their boastings, could they trace outthe future lives of the children who are thus brought intosubjection by force or through fear.”13

We must teach our students to be aware of their own in-ternal compass, powered and influenced by the Holy Spirit,instead of trying to be a compass for them, through forceand fear. Glasser refers to teachers who behave in this wayas lead-managers, in contrast with boss-managers, becausethey lead through inspiration and invitation, rather thanthreats and punishment. Mrs. White captured the essence oflead-management when she wrote: “Let it never be forgottenthat the teacher must be what he desires his pupils to be-come.”14 Instruction about internal compasses begins withthe teacher.

One such teacher who was on the journeyof becoming a lead-manager shared withme that when he read in Soul Shapersthat we have to be what we want ourstudents to become, it really hit him. He

admitted that much of his time and energy had been de-voted to changing the behavior of his students. Suddenly, herealized that he needed to focus on allowing the Holy Spiritto change him. He saw that as he came to understand andfollow his own internal compass, he would, in turn, modelan internally controlled life for his students.

Glasser has been at the forefront of a growing body ofwork that recognizes the power of people to make decisionsand to take responsibility for their choices. Rather than hu-mans being victims of circumstances or of bad brain chem-istry, Glasser writes that “for all practical purposes, wechoose everything we do, including the misery we feel.Other people can neither make us miserable nor make ushappy,”15 adding that “We choose all our actions andthoughts and, indirectly, almost all our feelings and much ofour physiology.”16 This flies in the face of present psychiatricpractice, which classifies less-healthy behavior as mental dis-


Strategies that rely on externalpressure—ranging from subtlemanipulation to physical force—may appear to work for a shorttime, but the results aren’t per-manent, and in the end, leavethings worse than before.

Choice Theory Work-shops and Training

Different options are available for Adventist educatorswanting to receive training in educational strategies thatare based on Choice Theory. Soul Shaper training, a work-shop based on a combination of Choice Theory and Chris-tian principles, is available at Pacific Union College eachsummer. For more information, get in touch with Jim Royat (707) 965-6644 or at [email protected] or [email protected].

Choice Theory training is also available through theGlasser Institute. The Institute can be reached at (800)899-0688 or at [email protected]. Visit their Websiteat http://www.wglasser.com for a list of the regional organ-izations in the U.S. and Canada. From the Institute homepage, click on the Who We Are link and then click on theAdvisory Board link. You will then have local contact infor-mation for trainers in your area.

ease and prescribes drugs as the answer. Ellen White emphasized the same power of the mind

that Glasser described, although long before Glasser wasborn, when she wrote: “It is within the power of everyone tochoose the topics that shall occupy the thoughts and shapethe character.”17 Applying this principle to the training ofchildren, she wrote: “Every child should understand the trueforce of the will. . . . The will is the governing power in thenature of man, the power of decision, or choice.”18 Whiteand Glasser clearly describe the power of choice each hu-man being possesses, yet we often misunderstand the impli-cations of such statements.

Stimulus-Response of Choice?Dewey described the basis for this misunderstanding as

the dilemma over whether learning comes from within or ismanipulated under external pressure. A leader in the field ofBehaviorism, B. F. Skinner proposed that human behaviorcan be shaped by controlling various aspects of the environ-

ment.19 Certain desired behaviors can be reinforced and un-desirable behaviors extinguished, all through external ma-nipulation. Many parents and educators sense the danger insuch beliefs. If human behavior is shaped entirely by the en-vironment, where then is the power of the will? Teachers


For the past 50 years, WilliamGlasser has been pointing outthe need to operate classroomsbased on internal control orChoice Theory, which maintainsthat people make choices forreasons that are important tothem.

may not see themselves as behaviorists, yet their efforts tomanipulate their students’ behavior through rewards andpunishments say otherwise. The principle of stimulus-re-sponse is alive and well in many Adventist classrooms.

Glasser pointed out that “Teachers and students are be-ing managed in the same way they always have been, thesame way that people have been managed for centuries, by amethod based on an ancient, ‘common sense’ theory of howwe function, which is best called stimulus-response . . .stimulus-response theory is wrong. When it is used to man-age people, it leads to a traditional management method thatI will call boss-management. Boss-management is ineffectivebecause it relies on coercion and always results in the work-ers and the managers becoming adversaries.”20

Ineffective and Short-LivedGlasser concluded that stimulus-response theory was not

only an ineffective approach to human motivation, it wasalso based on flawed science. External stimuli, no matterhow forceful, cannot make people do something they don’twant to do. A gun might appear to be an effective externalmotivator, yet history is full of examples of people who gavetheir lives for a cause in which they believed. The three He-brew boys (Daniel 3) refused to be swayed by the threat ofthe fiery furnace, and Daniel exhibited the same resolvewhen threatened with the lions’ den (Daniel 6). Even whenthe manipulation appears to work, if students do what wewant because of threats, the results are short-term, and theywill ultimately resent both the manipulation and the manip-ulator.

Early one morning, five months after the “Idon’t know why we need secular authorswhen we have the Red Books” incident, Iwas reading one of the Red Books and cameacross the following passage. It is a powerful

comment on stimulus-response and strategies that seem toregard students as animals to be trained. It was, in fact, thequote that started me on the Soul Shapers journey.

“The training of children must be conducted on a differ-ent principle from that which governs the training of irra-tional animals. The brute has only to be accustomed to sub-mit to its master; but the child must be taught to controlhimself. The will must be trained to obey the dictates of rea-son and conscience. A child may be so disciplined as tohave, like the beast, no will of its own, his individuality be-ing lost in that of his teacher. Such training is unwise, andits effect disastrous.”21

Free to ChooseCoercive practices do work, with some students, some of

the time, but at what cost? Glasser and White have de-scribed an alternative based on internal control. White com-mended students who were “strong to think and to act” andwho were “masters and not slaves of circumstances.”22 Be-haviorism would have us believe that we are all victims of

circumstance and can only respond to stimuli that are be-yond our control. Nothing pleases Satan more than for us toembrace a system of external control. Jesus died to preserveour freedom to choose. Isaiah 42, 49, and 61 prophesiedthat the Messiah would set the captives free. Christ’s deathensured that Satan would have no unfair advantage over us.We are free to choose our destiny.

It is within this amazing context that Adventist teachersgo about their business every day. Little by little, students ei-ther become pawns of outside forces, a role too often as-sumed by well-meaning parents and educators, or they be-come aware of the power within themselves provided by anawesome heavenly Father, which empowers them to becomemasters and not slaves of circumstance. �

____________________________________

Jim Roy is Chair of the Education Department atPacific Union College in Angwin, California. He re-cently completed his doctorate, which focused on thedevelopment of the ideas of William Glasser. He isthe author of Soul Shapers (Review and Herald,2005), a book that compares the ideas of Glasser tothose of Ellen White. He can be contacted by e-mail

at [email protected] or [email protected].______________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. William Glasser, The Quality School: Managing Students Without Coer-cion (New York: HarperCollins, 1990).

2. Texts credited to Message are from the Message. Copyright © 1993,1994, 1995, 1996. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing Group.

3. John Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: Kappa Delta Pi,1938), p. 17.

4. Schools Without Failure (New York: HarperCollins, 1969); ControlTheory in the Classroom (New York: HarperCollins, 1986); The QualitySchool: Managing Students Without Coercion (New York: HarperCollins,1990); The Quality School Teacher: A Companion Volume to the Quality School:Specific Suggestions for Teachers Who Are Trying to Implement the Lead-Manage-ment Ideas of the Quality School in Their Classrooms (New York: Harper-Collins, 1993); Every Student Can Succeed (Chatsworth, Calif.: Glasser Insti-tute, 2000).

5. (Review and Herald Publishing Assn., 2005). 6. Glasser, The Quality School, p. 59.7. Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville,

Tenn.: Southern Publ. Assn., 1923), p. 58. 8. Glasser, The Quality School, p. 68.9. __________, Control Theory in the Classroom, p. 11. 10. Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain View, Calif.: Pacific Press

Publ. Assn., 1903), p. 41. 11. Alfie Kohn, Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community

(Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,1996), p. 19.

12. See article by Karen Nicola on page 27 of this issue.13. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 17. 14. Ibid., p. 58. Italics supplied.15. William Glasser, Choice Theory, A New Psychology of Personal Free-

dom (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 3. 16. Ibid., p. 4.17. White, Education, p. 127.18. Ibid., p. 289.19. B. F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity (New York: Knopf Publ.,

1971).20. Glasser, The Quality School, p. 12.21. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 57.22. White, Education, p. 18.


W e’ve all had one. A boss-man-ager. His approach to disciplineand problem-solving is to makegrand pronouncements aboutexpected behavior. “There willbe no. . . .” His preferredmethod of correction is to

shout and humiliate as he shares his opinion of hisemployees’ behavior and his solutions.

Is there an alternative to coercive, top-downboss-management that produces an environment ofcooperation and empowerment for everyone in Ad-ventist education—students, teachers, and staff?Using the work of Dr. William Glasser and his as-sociates, this article will compare and contrastthree types of management and show that lead-management is the method of choice for Adventistschools.

Three Management StylesWe can illustrate three management styles by

using the model shown in Figure 1:In a boss-managed environment, the boss is the

centerpiece; the workers are recipients. The boss isresponsible for the outcome of every encounter. Hedecides the solution to all problems that arise andproposes alternatives if a solution is unsuccessful.The boss-management philosophy is to: “Punishthe people who are doing wrong, so they will dowhat we say is right; then reward them, so theykeep doing what we want them to do.”1

This model requires that employees must bedependent on the boss for rewards and afraid of


LEAD-MANAGEMENT VS. BOSS-MANAGEMENTQuality or Coercion?

BY KELLY B. BOCK AND BRAD GREENE

punishment. Since the boss has full respon-sibility for planning and solutions, it is diffi-cult to predict the level of employee accept-

ance. The boss may gain minimum compliancethrough coercive techniques, but the resulting envi-ronment will negatively affect productivity. Boss-man-agement emphasizes blind obedience rather thanthoughtful consideration of the best outcome for allconcerned. “Regardless of the skill and creativity ofthe manager, managing people depends for its ulti-mate success on the cooperation of the people beingmanaged.”2

Laissez-faire management is characterized by a de-tachment between the boss and the employees (bro-ken line). The workers are left to make individual de-cisions about the direction and management of theirwork. The boss may be a nice person who thinks it isimportant not to limit the personal freedom of theemployees, but this type of management provides lit-tle, if any, direction or coordination, and outcomesare unpredictable.

By contrast, lead-managers collaborate with em-ployees to create an environment of need-satisfactionand quality work. They encourage mutual respect,

trust, cooperation, openness, and honesty. Management andemployees mutually explore problems, jointly agree on a so-lution, and work together to implement it. When conflicts


Figure 1

Boss-Management Lead-Management Laissez-Faire Management

BOSS

WORKERworker

Boss Worker

boss

Is there an alternative to coercive, top-down boss-management that produces an environment of coop-eration and empowerment for everyone in Adventisteducation—students, teachers, and staff?


arise, the boss uses a “no-guilt” ap-proach that emphasizes the solution.Negotiation, rather than coercion, isused to solve differences. This kind ofrelationship requires the developmentand maintenance of a conviction thatall workers are committed to qualitywork and that, by working together tosatisfy their own needs, they benefit

quality becomes everyone’s focus,rather than attempts to meet the expec-tations of a boss-manager or createone’s own environment in the laissez-faire management style.

The Six L’s of LeadershipAnother way to depict differences

between boss-management and lead-

the organization (side-by-side orienta-tion).

Lead-management promotes highself-esteem in employees, who aremuch more likely to accept manage-ment decisions because they feel asense of mutual involvement and own-ership. Through positive relationships,creativity, and problem-solving skills,

Figure 3

Laissez-Faire Management:

WORKER

boss

Figure 2

Boss-Management:

BOSS

worker

+ privileges

+ praise

+ rewards

+ promises

+ money

- threats

- punishment

- withdrawal

- referrals

- suspension


management is the Cycle of Blame andthe Circle of Strength with the 6 L’s ofLeadership. In Figure 5, as people en-ter the Cycle of Blame, they get caughtin deadly habits such as persecuting,punishing, criticizing, and findingfault. When people choose victiming,they engage in blaming, put-downs,and criticizing; when they choose res-cuing, they shift blame and put downparents, government, administration,and students.

ganization. I can trust others in this or-ganization and feel inspired to do mybest.”

Looking at the 6 L’s around the cir-cle, moving clockwise from the top, wesee that “lead-managing” begins withLOVING and building a warm, caringenvironment. It is making others knowthat leaders care for them and will helpthem to do their best. It is expressedthrough LISTENING to others, reallyhearing their concerns, and through

When people stay on the Circle ofStrength and choose facilitating, theyuse caring/connecting habits such aslistening, encouraging, and supporting.When they choose initiating, they askquestions to better understand the situ-ation, model leading, cooperatively setlimits, and learn together through self-evaluating in order to achieve continu-ous improvement. This type of leader-ship makes people feel that “I want tocooperate and do my best in this or-

Figure 4

Lead-Management:

Boss

Respect

Trust

Cooperation

Openness

Honesty

Worker

Figure 5

Loving

Limiting Listening

Initiating

Leading Leveling

Learning

Facilitating Cooperating

Rescuing Victiming

Persecuting

Cycleof

Blame


LEVELING, by sharing legitimate con-cerns without blaming. When this oc-curs, people LEARN from one anotherand come up with more effective solu-tions. Educators are always LEADINGby what they say and do. Values arecaught more than taught. When LIM-ITS are set collaboratively, this createsbuy-in, and people are motivated tofollow initiatives that they have helpedto create.

Boss-managers reverse the process,going counterclockwise, beginningwith LIMITS. A teacher enters theclassroom on the first day of the schoolyear and begins describing the rules orlimits: “This is what you can and can-not do in my classroom. When youdon’t follow my limits, I will punishyou. If you do follow my limits, I will

LEARN, so I will LEVEL with you andtell you what, when, and how to learn.If you LISTEN to what I say, I will

probably LOVE you, and we’ll have agreat year.” That is not the way to buildhealthy relationships or a productiveclassroom.

It is helpful to create mental pic-tures as we choose to move from boss-management toward lead-management.Figure 6 shows 30 paradigm shifts in-volved in that process. You can proba-bly add more from your own experi-ence.

Research and Experience on Management

The primary comparisons and con-trasts are between boss-managementand lead-management, since laissez-faire management is rarely used. Theconcept of lead-management hasgrown from the work of W. EdwardsDeming, an industrial psychologistwho revolutionized the auto industryin post-World War II Japan. His ideaswere adapted and enhanced by WilliamGlasser in his books on education in-cluding The Quality School and EveryStudent Can Succeed. Glasser describesthe essentials of boss-management asfollows:

“1. The boss sets the task and thestandards for what the workers (stu-dents) are to do, usually without con-sulting the workers. Bosses do notcompromise; the worker has to adjustto the job as the boss defines it.

reward you. I am here to LEAD you be-cause I am credentialed by the stateand the church. You are here to

A Boss-Manager1. Judges others2. Blames people for problems3. Says “I am not as bad as a lot

of other people”4. Controls5. Takes self and others for granted6. Covers up mistakes7. Says “I only work here”8. Demands9. Builds walls10. Drives people11. Depends on authority12. Inspires fear13. Says “I”14. Gets there on time15. Fixes blame for the breakdown16. Knows how it is done17. Says “Go”18. Uses people19. Sees today20. Commands21. Never has enough time22. Is concerned with things23. Treats the symptoms24. Lets people know where he or

she stands25. Does things right26. Works hard to produce27. Creates fear28. Takes the credit29. Seeks first to be understood30. Has a win-lose approach

A Lead-ManagerAccepts othersLooks for solutionsSays “I am good but not as good as I

can be”LeadsAppreciates self and othersAdmits mistakesDoes more than the jobAsksBuilds communicationCoaches peopleDepends on cooperationInspires enthusiasmSays “we”Gets there ahead of timeFixes the breakdownShows how it is doneSays “Let’s go”Develops peopleLooks at today and the futureModelsMakes time for things that countIs concerned with peopleIdentifies and treats causesLets people know where they

standDoes the right thingWorks hard to get people to produceCreates confidence in othersGives the credit to othersSeeks first to understandHas a win-win approach

Figure 6

with the best tools andworkplace as well as anoncoercive, nonadversar-ial atmosphere in whichto do the job.”4

Ellen White used theexample of Christ and Hisdisciples to illustrate whatwe strive to experience inour schools through lead-management. The disciples needed tobecome unified in feeling, thought,and action. “This unity it was Christ’sobject to secure. To this end He soughtto bring them into unity with Him-self.”5 He did not force His will onthese disciples, but modeled what Hewished for them to do, as He patientlybrought them into His life, listened totheir needs, and created an environ-ment of trust and growth that empow-ered them to evangelize the world afterHe was gone.

Training for Self-GovernmentIn her chapter on discipline in the

book Education, Ellen White encour-aged gentle, persistent effort in teach-ing students to form the habit of obedi-ence. She stated that “the object ofdiscipline is the training of the childfor self-government.”6 In addressing themanagement of schools, she warnedthat “too much management is as badas too little. The effort to ‘break thewill’ of a child is a terrible mistake.”7

Despite this warning, teachers oftendescribe problems with students as bat-tles of the will. Ellen White’s wordsdealing with teacher/student interac-tions can be applied to relationshipsbetween principals and staff as well.“Lead the youth to feel that they aretrusted, and there are few who will notseek to prove themselves worthy of thetrust. On the same principle it is betterto request than to command, the onethus addressed has opportunity toprove himself loyal to right principles.His obedience is the result of choicerather than compulsion.”8 These wordsdescribe the methods of lead-managersrather than boss-managers.

SummaryIf quality Adventist education is our

goal, it is imperative that those whomanage the system create an environ-ment free from creativity-stifling fearand coercion, an environment full ofcollaboration, creativity, and coopera-tion. We must seek quality, not compli-ance; energy, not obedience. If we pro-vide opportunities for all students,teachers, parents, constituents, and ad-ministrators to build a collaborativelearning environment, we will maxi-mize the opportunities for each personto be a thinker and not a mere reflectorof other people’s thoughts.9 We willthus provide an environment that willtruly prepare each one for “the joy ofservice in this world and for the higherjoy of wider service in the world tocome.”10 �

__________________

Kelly B. Bock, Ph.D.,is Director of Education forthe Pacific Union Confer-ence of Seventh-day Ad-ventists, Newbury Park,California. Brad Greene,Ph.D., is a Senior Facultymember at the WilliamGlasser Institute, KingsBeach, Lake Tahoe, Califor-nia.__________________

REFERENCES

1. William Glasser,Choice Theory (New York:HarperCollins Publ., Inc.,1998), p. 5.

2. __________, TheQuality School (New York:HarperCollins Publ., Inc.,

1992), p. 16.3. Ibid., pp. 25, 26.4. Ibid., pp. 31, 32.5. Ellen G. White, Education (Mountain

View, Calif.: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 1902), p.86.

6. Ibid., p. 287.7. Ibid., p. 288.8. Ibid., p. 290.9. Ibid., p. 17.10. Ibid., p. 13.


“2. The boss usually tells, ratherthan shows, the workers how the workis to be done and rarely asks for theirinput as to how it might possibly bedone better.

“3. The boss, or someone the bossdesignates, inspects (or grades) thework. Because the boss does not in-volve the workers in this evaluation,they tend to settle for just enoughquality to get by.

“4. When workers resist, the bossuses coercion (usually punishment) al-most exclusively to try to make themdo as they are told and, in so doing,creates a workplace in which the work-ers and manager are adversaries.”3

Boss-management is almost entirelyconcerned with the needs of the bossrather than with those of the workers.

In lead-management, on the otherhand, the manager focuses on creatinga system, using persuasion and mutualproblem-solving, that shows the work-ers it is their best interest to do qualitywork. Thus, the managers work on thesystem and the workers work withinthe system, with both aiming toward acommon goal of quality. Glasser de-scribes four essential elements of lead-management as follows:

“1. The leader engages the workersin a discussion of the quality of thework to be done and the time neededto do it so that they have a chance toadd their input. The leader makes aconstant effort to fit the job to theskills and the needs of the workers.

“2. The leader (or a worker desig-nated by the leader) shows or modelsthe job so that the worker who is toperform the job can see exactly whatthe manager expects. At the same time,the workers are continually asked fortheir input as to what they believe maybe a better way.

“3. The leader asks the workers toinspect or evaluate their own work forquality, with the understanding that theleader accepts that they know a greatdeal about how to produce high-qual-ity work and will therefore listen towhat they say.

“4. The leader is a facilitator in thathe shows the workers that he has doneeverything possible to provide them

Lead-managers . . . .encourage mutual respect,trust, cooperation, open-ness, and honesty.

Kelly B. Bock

Brad Greene

Atraveler came upon the constructionof what appeared to be an impressivebuilding, which piqued his curiosity.He asked a worker what he was do-ing. The man responded without hesi-tation, “I am painting great portraitsupon these glorious walls for all the

world to see.” The traveler asked the same question of a sec-ond worker, who explained with pride: “I am a world-renowned carver, and I am carving magnificent sculpturesto be revered by all.” Approaching a third worker, the trav-eler asked again, “What are you doing?” The third workerpaused, and looked toward the sky, deep in thought. “I ama humble workman with gifts from above,” he began, “andI am building a cathedral to the King.” Do this humbleworker from centuries ago and present-day Adventist teach-ers have something in common?

Well-Meaning, But MisguidedLike the workman in the story, Adventist educators are

building “cathedrals to the King.” However, the constructionof earthly edifices, however impressive, is not as importantas the work we do every day. This work builds character,and inspires and motivates students to achieve their spiri-tual, emotional, mental, social, and physical potential. Weare engaging in this work in the midst of tremendous forces.

These “hurricanes” are literally robbing our children of theirchildhoods and starting them on a path toward unhappinessand dysfunction. Think about these questions:

• What is it like to be a child struggling for survival in ahighly competitive world, a world where survival of thefittest is the norm?

• What is it like to feel that what you say has little or noinfluence because you are too young, too “dumb,” too slow,

too rebellious, too shy, too “bad”? • What is it like to feel weighed

down by excessive expectationsand so much stress that successseems impossible and your motiva-tion is destroyed?

Think back to when you were ateenager. Did you have such a needto be loved and accepted that youwere drawn to a crowd of totallyaccepting peers because the adultworld around you didn’t seem torealize you existed? Was yourchildhood dominated by wordslike excellence and rigor, andphrases like “raising the bar”? If so,you have caught a glimpse of whatit is like to be a child or teen in to-

day’s world, struggling for self-worth and for success. Well-meaning teachers and parents need to embrace a new para-digm that accurately defines what students really need to behealthy, vibrant, and fulfilled.1

This article is meant as a call to action. How much dowe care, and to what extent are we willing to commit our-selves, even if it means challenging established practices?Are our students worth investing time and resources to cre-

ate a system where commitment to excellence means raisingall the bars—spirituality, emotional health, social interac-tion, life skills, recreation, and problem solving, not just ac-ademics? The issues and principles discussed in this issue ofthe JOURNAL are vitally important to the survival of ouryoung people. If we don’t try to feel what they feel, and ex-perience what they experience, the percentage of those whochoose destructive alternate lifestyles will increase.2 We have

enough data and personal experience to prophesy thefuture with a high degree of accuracy, especially if wekeep doing the same things in the same way. In her


BuildingCathedrals

in the Midst ofHurricanes

B Y T O M A M AT O

We arebuildingcathedralsfor theKing—sacred templesmeant forgreatthings.

important book, Doing School: How We Are Creating a Genera-tion of Stressed Out, Materialistic, and Miseducated Students,Pope3 describes how the educational system adults have cre-ated is, in turn, creating at-risk kids. Levine4 further docu-ments this new group of at-risk youth in her book, The Priceof Privilege: How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage AreCreating a Generation of Disconnected and Unhappy Kids.

Basic Needs and the Quality WorldOur children have needs, and if we don’t help them

meet these needs in positive ways, they will find their ownways of getting them met! William Glasser5 describes fivebasic needs that all human beings share—survival, love andbelonging, power or success, freedom, and fun. These needsfuel behavior. Glasser believes that when educators under-stand these needs and their relation to motivation, studentswill become more confident and effective. Jim Roy describesa similar approach in Soul Shapers,6 where he combinesGlasser’s secular ideas and Ellen White’s spiritual principles.

When children’s basic needs are not met, they go into ac-

tion to fix the problem. They try to find an envi-ronment where they feel better. This frequentlyleads to rebellion, drugs, alcohol, sex, and gangmembership.

Glasser’s Choice Theory states that positive rela-tionships are an effective antidote to dysfunctionalyouthful behavior. Further, Glasser describes howevery person, including children, creates a “qualityworld” where he or she stores memories or picturesof everything held dear. Certain people, places, ac-tivities, and ideas are placed in what could becalled a “quality world picture album.” Peopleplaced in these albums have a great deal of influ-ence on the creator’s thinking. How then does aperson become a part of another’s quality world al-bum? Entrance is allowed only by invitation; noone can threaten, buy, pressure, or coerce his orher way in. Each person is the architect, seeking tocreate a world where he or she feels loved, safe, un-derstood, free, and content.

For teachers to enter the quality world of theirstudents, they must acknowledge and understandtheir students’ unique language, which can seem asstrange as a foreign dialect. A must-read in your“study of teen linguistics” is Gary Chapman’s book,The Five Love Languages of Teenagers,7 where he ex-plains the power of matching the languages—wordsof affirmation, quality time, gift giving, acts of service,and physical touch—to the specific individual in-volved. This book will open for you a world of un-derstanding and help expand your relationships tonew dimensions.

True ListeningTeens expect people who care to translate what

young people say and do . . . to comprehend whatthey really mean and feel. For instance, when a teacher asks:“How are you today?” young people want adults to disregardthe expected answer of “Fine,” to interpret their tone, facialexpressions, and body language to comprehend the real an-swer, which many times is “Terrible. Please help me. I needyour time and support.”

An example of this unique dialect occurred when I wasdriving by a spot in town where teens hang out. As I passeda group of teenagers, one of them made an obscene gesture.Many would view that as a sign of disrespect and hostility.In this case, I interpreted the gesture as a masked sign of en-dearment shown by a “tough guy” in front of his friends. Hewanted some attention and knew how to get it. When Ipulled my car over to the side of the road, jumped out, andran toward the group, the boys around the “flipper” weren’tsure what to expect, and they were totally stunned as I em-braced and affectionately greeted my friend. That momentopened the door into an entire group of teens yearning foraffection.

We must see the best in our kids. For me, the results of



doing so have been startling. There’s asong that says it so well, entitled, “SeeMe Beautiful,” by Kathy and RedGrammer.

See me beautiful, see the best in meIt’s what I really am, and all I want

to beIt may take some time, it may be hard

to findBut see me beautifulSee me beautiful, each and every

dayCould you take a chance, could you

find a wayTo see me shining through in every

thing I do And see me beautiful.8

Divine X-Ray VisionTo understand a hurting child, we

need divine “X-ray vision.” We mustsee within, because the outside is oftena facade that hides a broken heart.Teen rebellion nearly always beginswith emotional pain. In order to de-velop close relationships with students,and to interlock our quality worldswith theirs, we must read throughwhat they say and see beyond their be-havior into their hearts. As educators,we are artisans of cathedrals meant toemploy not only the excellence ofscholarship, but also the colors andtextures of compassion and empathy.We are not just teaching math, science,English, or Bible. We are buildingcathedrals for the King—sacred tem-ples meant for great things.

The King had something to sayabout this nearly 2,000 years ago, in

bribing or rewarding to control. Whatare our students hearing and seeingfrom us? Is it the fruits of the Spiritand connecting habits, or a creativetwist on the deadly habits? Do theyhear stated or implied, “You are lazy”;“If you don’t do your homework, you’llsuffer the consequences of failure”; or“You can do it. I believe in you, and wewill experience success together”? Arewe building walls or cathedrals?

We need to be less obsessed withtrying to fill our students’ minds withinformation, and less competitive inhow we structure our classrooms. Wemust find creative ways to recognizethe sacredness and uniqueness of everystudent—their experiences, their skillsets, their abilities and disabilities, theirpersonalities, and their dreams. Thereis a real possibility that as we obses-sively focus on and strive for academicexcellence, we focus less and less onthe spiritual and emotional health ofour students. These unbalanced expec-tations inhibit our ability to touch theirlives. The ultimate standard, Heaven’sstandard, is not based on the sophisti-cation of student projects, nor on howmuch they memorize, or even on howwell they can compete in the work-place. Instead, the ultimate standard isbased on whether our students experi-ence and understand the love of Godin the depths of their being.

As educators, our actions andchoices will either build or inhibit rela-tionships, which are vitally important

the Beatitudes(Matthew 5), andthe fruits of theSpirit (Galatians5), where He laidout the elementsof building rela-tionships and thecriteria for whatGlasser calls theQuality World.The Scripturesalso tell us thatthe kingdom ofheaven extendsdeeper than out-

ward appearance (1 Samuel 16:7), andthat we are ordained to care for God’ssheep (John 21:16, 17). We are com-missioned to translate love into livingform (1 Corinthians 13). Jesus gave uspersonal examples throughout His lifeso that we can experience and demon-strate three great principles—altruisticlove (agape), grace, and the freedom ofchoice.

Powerful HabitsGlasser provides a corollary to the

fruits of the Spirit with his descriptionof the Seven Connecting Habits andthe Seven Deadly Habits. The SevenConnecting Habits are supporting, en-couraging, listening, accepting, trust-ing, respecting, and negotiating differ-ences. The Seven Deadly Habits arecriticizing, blaming, nagging, com-plaining, threatening, punishing, and

The photos in this article depict relationship building betweenteachers and students as they work, study, serve, and play to-gether.


in “building cathedrals.” Relationshipslead to intimacy, which provides apowerful opportunity to shape our stu-dents’ lives. The question is, are we in-tentional about this? Are we teachingcollaboration or competitiveness, inclu-siveness or elitism, service or status? Asyoung people seek relationships to helpthem meet their need for love and be-longing, and power, for freedom andfun, if they can’t find such relationshipswithin our “institutions,” they will lookelsewhere. The result may be alien-ation, with young people separatingthemselves from their homes, schools,and churches. This may be why somany teenagers are striving to createtheir own culture and values in an at-tempt to fill the vacuum within theirhearts.

Wake-Up CallHave our students caught the best

of what we want to portray—that peo-ple are more important than things?Their silent plea for help should be awake-up call for us. As materialism,power, and competition permeate soci-ety, it may require a group of youth tobring us back to what is most impor-tant—family, friends, and time to-gether.

The students who enter our class-rooms become our family. We becomesurrogate parents, and this gives us in-credible influence. We thus have anopportunity to model the best in familybehavior. Christlike parents train,rather than coerce. They nourish andnurture; they don’t stimulate rebellion.Loving parents don’t pit one childagainst another. They cherish and treateach child as God treats us, and taketheir children from where they are towhere they were meant to be. As in anideal family, God celebrates our joywith us and stands beside us, holdingus up during our distress and short-comings. He will never leave us (He-brews 13:5). These are the reasons Heis at the center of a quality world. Hehas given us the ideal for relationships,intimacy, oneness, and entrance intothe quality world of our choice, regard-less of the circumstances.

We have a commission to minister

opportunity to create a legacy in eachchild. What will it be? Will they re-member the facts or the way those factswere presented? Will they rememberthe projects and lists memorized, orwill they remember us as some of themost influential people in their life, be-cause of who we were and who theybecame because of us?

The Bottom LineThe bottom line is this—Can our

students see, hear, and feel Jesus in us?Can they see His grace in what we do,and how we communicate with them?Do they feel that they are more impor-tant to us than what we teach or theimage of the school? Are we willing toleave the “ninety and nine” for that onelost sheep? Are we willing to resist

pressure from those who urge us to ridour classes of problem children, orraise standards so high that we “natu-rally” weed them out? Are we willing todo for our students what God does forus?

The Importance of One PersonHow many of you reading this arti-

cle became an educator because some-one in your life saw through your fail-ures, your “bad attitude” and poorbehavior, to who you were meant tobe? I, for one, am writing this articlebecause of people like Louis Norming-

to the whole person. Mastery teachingcares for each student as Jesus would.By modeling His love, we can nurtureand uplift the weak and heavy-laden,and see beyond the behavior and labelsinto the heart of a child. By His grace,we will be empowered to love and be-lieve in students even when they areunlovable and unbelievable. He willhelp us visualize what the power oflove can do.

The knowledge teachers impart isimportant, but the impact upon thehearts of their students is far greaterand enduring. As teachers, we have an

The construction ofearthly edifices,however impressive,is not as importantas the work we doevery day. This workbuilds character, andinspires and moti-vates students toachieve their spiri-tual, emotional,mental, social, andphysical potential.


ton, Alice Neilsen, and Jim Roy, whobelieved in me during the most turbu-lent times of my life and helped me re-alize their passion for touching lives.Gary Hopkins in It Takes a Churchshares how one person, strategicallyplaced and used by God, can make allthe difference in the world—and thatperson is you.9

Hurricanes and CathedralsAlthough hurricanes are among the

most powerful forces on Earth, they arenow fairly predictable, and much oftheir devastation can be avoided. How-ever, if people don’t heed the stormwarnings or follow the evacuation plan,lives will be lost, as seen during Hurri-cane Katrina. Powerful forces can dam-age our students’ lives as well. Windsof strife are pummeling our families,our schools, and our churches. Wedon’t need to look for the crisis. We arein it. Truly, some of you are even nowin the eye of the storm.

For those who work in disaster pre-paredness and relief, there are guide-lines that have been established overtime and represent the best practiceand the research in the field. Similarly,education has established research-based guidelines for best practice.The Word of God and the Spirit ofProphecy are the final standard bywhich our guidelines are measured, but

of our young people. The powers ofevil say, “Your children are ours,” butwe retort, “Not today—not on ourwatch!” The Great Controversy contin-ues to rage, but the victory is worth allthe difficulties, because we have beenchosen and commissioned by the Kingto build cathedrals regardless of hurri-canes, in the name of the One who canovercome the fiercest of storms withHis love. �

_________________

Tom Amato, M.A., hasbeen a teacher and princi-pal in the Adventist educa-tional system for nearly 30years. He is certified inChoice Theory/RealityTherapy and has served on

the North American Division grades 5-8 BibleTextbook Steering Committee for the past sevenyears.Tom is one of the founders and now Direc-tor of the Angwin Community Teen Center/Community Teen Alliance, and has recently be-come the Director of the Healthy CommunityTeen Project, sponsored by the St. Helena (Cali-fornia) Hospital Center for Behavioral Health.His passion is that not one child slip through thecracks, ever._______________________________

REFERENCES

1. This is discussed in Malcolm Gladwell,The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make aBig Difference (Boston: Back Bay Books, LittleBrown and Company, 2002).

2. Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence:Why It Can Matter More Than IQ (New York: Ban-tam Books, 1995).

3. Denise Pope, Doing School: How We AreCreating a Generation of Stressed Out, Materialistic,and Miseducated Students (New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press, 2001).

4. Madeline Levine, The Price of Privilege:How Parental Pressure and Material Advantage AreCreating a Generation of Disconnected and UnhappyKids (New York: HarperCollins, 2006).

5. William Glasser, Choice Theory: A NewPsychology of Personal Freedom (New York: HarperCollins, 1998); __________, Every Student CanSucceed (Chatsworth, Calif.: Glasser Institute,2000).

6. Jim Roy, Soul Shapers: A Better Plan forParents and Educators (Hagerstown, Md.: Reviewand Herald Publ. Assn., 2005).

7. Gary Chapman, The Five Love Languages ofTeenagers (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2000).

8. From “See Me Beautiful” from the re-cording Teaching Peace © 1986 Smilin’ AtchaMusic written by Red and Kathy Grammer; dis-tributed through Red Note Records at http://www.redgrammer.com. Used by permission.

9. Gary L. Hopkins, It Takes a Church(Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publ. Assn., 2002).

we should embrace useful models suchas Choice Theory, which help us un-derstand human behavior and motiva-tion. We must develop relationshipsand strengthen them through use ofthe connecting habits, and we muststrive to become a part of each youngperson’s quality world if we are goingto have the desired influence and im-pact. As Choice Theory advocates, wemust focus on the present and future,not the past, and never give up.

The great cathedrals of Europe tookwell over a hundred years each tobuild. Using primitive yet ingeniousbuilding methods, the great projectsgrew in stages. Workmen employedduring the early stages never saw thecompleted cathedral, yet they sharedtheir gifts to the fullest. Can the samebe said for us as educators? We, too,may touch our students’ lives but neversee the finished product.

We are fighting for the hearts of all

Glasser’s ChoiceTheory states thatpositive relation-ships are an effec-tive antidote to dysfunctional youth-ful behavior.

Afew years ago, I participated in the WilliamGlasser Institute Choice Theory training.The trainers and participants were engagingand thought-provoking. The excitement oflearning something new that could havesuch a powerful impact on the lives of my

students was deeply satisfying. In addition, I felt thrilledby the concepts I discovered. I especially appreciated thatChoice Theory recognizes we are all internally motivatedand that the only person I can control is myself. In its phi-losophy, I perceived the issues of the Great Controversy—God guarding our freedom of choice and Satan using anymeans to externally control and rob us of our freedom tochoose.

As with most people, I have experienced relationshipsthat went awry. As tension and distrust build, friends andeven loved ones can push us out of their quality world. Inretaliation, we are tempted to remove them from of ourquality world as well. When this recently happened to me,to use an ocean analogy, it was as if my relationship withan important person in my life was battered and storm-tossed and about to be jettisoned. As this occurred, I mustadmit that I began to revert to my external control modeof thinking, resorting to criticizing, blaming, nagging,threatening, and punishing.

The difficult situation to which I refer has been re-solved, yet it feels as if I am just coming out of the tem-pest. I still feel drained by the struggle and so beatendown that it’s difficult to recall the happiness that accom-panied the first part of my journey with the WilliamGlasser Institute. Nevertheless, something within demandsthat I revisit what I experienced and learned in the ChoiceTheory training sessions and let it become a part of myrestoration.


CONFESSIONS OF A RECOVERING

EXTERNALCONTROL

FREAK

B Y K A R E N N I C O L A

Picture Removed

ConfessionAnd so I write this article as one who is keenly aware of

the need to internalize Choice Theory in order to ensurethat it will produce an authentic change in our lives, andthus positively affect those closest to us, including our stu-dents. What I am sharing with you is something I wishsomeone had shared with me when I began my journey. Irealize now that, before I could apply an internal controlphilosophy to my classroom, I first had to embrace it per-sonally and apply it in my own life.

A Professional or a Person?Before being professionals, teachers are people. And for

us to practice Choice Theory effectively, we must first inte-grate its concepts into our personal experience. We can “use”Choice Theory only when we “are” Choice Theory. Attempt-ing to be on the outside what we are not on the inside is afrustrating and ultimately hopeless task. Adding to our frus-tration is the fact that others, including our students, seethrough this inconsistency.

Authenticity is a quality for which we should all strive.Therefore, I want to invite you to imagine yourself in a com-fortable place. Let the demands of your profession meltaway like ice on a summer day. Lock up the “shoulds,” the“oughts,” and the “musts.” Stop worrying about the piles of

uncorrected papers and the lesson plans you have to create.They will all be there later. Relax.

Choice Theory and Reality Therapy From the InsideOut

Now, think about the kind of person you want to be byasking yourself a few questions: Do I ride a different ethicalor relational horse by day than by night? Would I be moresatisfied if what I do in my personal life extended to myclassroom? Do I more readily practice the Seven DeadlyHabits or the Seven Caring Habits? When did I last ac-knowledge my own freedom and power of choice? How of-ten do I criticize, blame, reward, or punish myself? How doI get Choice Theory to be as natural as breathing?

I have at times struggled over the “use” of Choice The-ory. Some years ago, my children would say accusingly,“You’re using Choice Theory on me, Mom!” I hated that, be-cause my actions, which were supposed to eliminate coer-cion and manipulation, were being perceived as coerciveand manipulative! They were right; sometimes I used ChoiceTheory to get them to do something I wanted them to do, orbe somebody I wanted them to be. But that’s not ChoiceTheory’s fault. External control habits are hard to break. Re-cently, I have begun to recognize that Choice Theory is away of understanding and strengthening human relation-


ships. I realize now that before I could practice on others, Ihad to first practice on myself.

When you come across a classroom management idea,are you willing to test it on yourself first? When you hear ofa new teaching strategy, are you eager to see how it works inyour own life? To be honest, I would have to answer, No!Most of the time I want to jump in and “use” this new toolon my students because I’m convinced it will help themachieve what I have in mind for them. And this is exactlywhy Choice Theory must be internalized and practiced firston ourselves, because at its core, the theory says that youcan only control yourself. And our Christian faith remindsus that even self-control is most successful through the in-fluence of the Holy Spirit. So, with God’s help, why not startwith yourself, right now?

First, consider the seven deadly habits: criticizing, blam-ing, complaining, nagging, threatening, punishing, andbribing or rewarding to control. Ask yourself a few honestquestions. Which of the deadly habits do you use againstyourself? In what setting? Do these habits bring about thechanges you are seeking in your life? If the deadly habitsdon’t work in your own experience, then why do you usethem on others? How much do you want to be in controlover others rather than over your own self?

Because external control is foundational to most people’supbringing and culture, we naturally use the seven deadlyhabits in our thinking and behavior. Force, coercion, andmanipulation are all natural methods of motivating our-selves, as well as others. So what do we do when we reallywant to stop criticizing, blaming, nagging, and threatening?Honestly facing the damage these behaviors cause to ourself-image, as well as in our relationships with others, is agood place to start. This honest self-appraisal can then leadus to adopt a better plan.

Getting StartedAccording to Choice Theory, the better plan works like

this—when we are willing to first work on personal self-control, we are better able to work with others, and thus en-large our sphere of influence. I have found that beginningwith a “do” instead of a “don’t” statement brings better re-sults. Here are a few examples:

• I will respect myself by admitting my mistake and

making a plan for improvement.• I will listen to myself to learn what I really need.• I will support myself by choosing a fun or other need-

satisfying activity each day.• I will practice acceptance without blaming myself, and

make wrongs right.• I will respect myself because I am made in the image

of God.• I will encourage myself by being thankful for the skills

God has entrusted to me.

• I will believe that I am capable of being all that Godcalls me to become.

Emphasizing the PositiveState what you want instead of what you don’t want,

such as, “I want to stop criticizing,” rather than “I don’t wantto criticize.” Another way to describe the thinking shift: Ex-change a deadly habit with a caring one, such as, “I want tobecome more supportive of myself rather than criticizingmyself.” Make a plan for incorporating self-support alongwith the other seven caring habits. Sharing the plan withsomeone you trust will help hold you accountable. Remem-ber, you are doing this to internalize these concepts, not tomanipulate others. I found this shift in thinking to be veryliberating.

I like the way Ellen White puts it: “As the leaven, whenmingled with the meal, works from within outward, so it isby the renewing of the heart that the grace of God works totransform the life. No mere external change is sufficient to


I perceived [in Choice Theory]the issues of the Great Con-troversy—God guarding ourfreedom of choice and Satanusing any means to externallycontrol and rob us of our free-dom to choose.

bring us into harmony with God. Thereare many who try to reform by correctingthis or that bad habit, and they hope inthis way to become Christians, but theyare beginning in the wrong place. Ourfirst work is with the heart.”1

This heart work helps us achieve thepowerful effects of practicing the sevencaring habits: supporting, encouraging, lis-tening, accepting, trusting, respecting,and negotiating differences. These habitsoutline what God designed for us to expe-rience in healthy and healing relation-ships. Ideas found in Choice Theory havehelped me understand more clearly howGod designed and protects my freedom ofchoice. He is eager for me to act on myfreedom in positive ways so that I ammore inclined to extend this attitude tomy family, my friends, and my students.As a result, my behavior comes from aninternal value, rather than the hope of us-ing ideas as a professional tool. As we gainpersonal self-management and self-controlskills by applying caring habits towardourselves, we can more genuinely adoptthem in our relationships with others. Itmight be said that we are loving others aswe love ourselves.2

We experience deeper satisfaction andhappiness when our relationships arehealthy and positive. With this under-standing in place, I can begin to ask my-self questions that enable me to changethe way I treat those close to me.

• Is what I’m about to say going tohelp build my relationship with__________? (fill in the name)

• Do I respect this person’s freedom ofchoice and accept that he or she is re-sponsible for the consequences?

• Am I really listening to understand?• How open am I to negotiating differ-

ences in order to build the relationship?• How do I demonstrate support to

______________?• What kind of encouragement would

be most helpful for _____________?• How can I negotiate our differences

in such a way that ______________knows he or she is supported and ac-cepted?

Helping Others Self-EvaluateOur 20-year-old daughter was headed

to Australia as a student missionary. How-

ever, between the time she acceptedher assignment and her departure date,several other important events oc-curred. She felt deeply torn about go-ing away for 10 months. She had manyclose relationships that seemed to de-pend on her being in the States. How-ever, she felt she couldn’t say No to herstudent missionary agreement. She wasat the point of feeling physically ill.One afternoon, I shared with her thatno one was forcing her to go.

“But you already bought my ticket,”she blurted, sounding desperate.


Because externalcontrol is founda-tional to most peo-ple’s upbringing andculture, we natu-rally use the sevendeadly habits in ourthinking and behav-ior.

“Even a ticket is not controlling your staying or leaving,”I reminded her.

As we explored her freedom of choice, she decided toget more information. And over the next few days, nearly allof her needs were met by some means of negotiation. Whenshe finally got on the plane, despite the tears, she knew shewas going because she had decided to, and for no other rea-son. She felt empowered by her choice.

The WDEP3 acronym stands for a method of thinking inChoice Theory terms. It is a helpful tool as we thinkthrough what we want to do or help others clarify theirthinking. The WDEP method can guide people to make bet-ter choices. As I practice this myself, I find I feel more confi-dent. The acronym stands for the following:

• What do you Want? (Think about what you reallywant or need.)

• What are you Doing? (Make an honest, detailed assess-ment of your behavior.)

• Evaluate possible changes and where each choicemight lead. (Is your present behavior working? Is it gettingyou closer to what you want or need?)

• Plan a new way of behaving that gets you closer towhat you want.

Admittedly, there were times when I have “used” theWDEP method on my children or my husband, who re-sented it. I thought I had the solution to their situation andwould be their guide by “using” these steps. Looking backnow, my behavior seems quite manipulative, critical, andcontrolling. I understand that I need to be sensitive to otherpeople’s problems by choosing to listen and to understandtheir needs. My “solutions” may or may not be sought after.They might not want me to be their guide.

As I practice the steps during self-evaluation, I cease “us-ing” the method, and it actually becomes a part of my inter-nal paradigm. When guided by the Holy Spirit, my self-eval-uation brings results, changes, repentance, and an opennessto a new way of thinking. As I apply this approach to myclassroom setting, my students gain confidence. They wantto take ownership for their successes. Thinking this wayabout problems and solutions provides a wonderful oppor-tunity for students to discover personal success strategies. Iam simply the facilitator.

A New StartOur family, friends, colleagues, and students can benefit

as we share our discoveries about Choice Theory. At thesame time, it’s all right to say we don’t get it 100 percent ofthe time yet. I wish I had done much more practicing onmyself before attempting to “use” Choice Theory on myfamily and students. The good news is that I can, at anytime, choose to think and act differently. When I choose re-lationship-building options, everyone wins.

I’m ready to set sail again and rebuild the damaged rela-tionship. I have regained strength by practicing the princi-ples of Choice Theory, which states that “we choose every-thing we do, including the misery we feel. Other people can

neither make us miserable nor make us happy. All we canget from them or give to them is information. We choose allour actions and thoughts and, indirectly, almost all our feel-ings and much of our physiology.”4 These principles havegiven me the insight and inspiration to take responsibilityfor my own choices and to set others free to live within theconfines or the freedom of their choices.

Mrs. White once wrote, “Let it never be forgotten thatthe teacher must be what he desires his pupils to become.”5

As a choice theorist instead of an external control freak, Iwant my students to be happy and free to reach their poten-tial. I want to be authentic in living my potential as well. Iwant to treat others with respect, trusting they will exercisetheir freedom of choice to the best of their ability. I want tobe an encouraging listener as I support others in their effortsto learn, keeping in mind that I control only my ownthoughts and actions. Therefore, all I can offer is informa-tion with a caring attitude if I want to build relationships.

I’d want to be like Fred Rogers in the children’s TV showMr. Rogers’ Neighborhood by being the same person in mypersonal life as I want to be in my professional life. Takingoff his shoes and putting on his sweater didn’t make himkind and wonderful—he was that way already. May thethreshold of our hearts be the place where we become au-thentic and able to internalize Choice Theory.

Here are a few ideas that may helpful:• Read often from Choice Theory authors.• Regularly write your own WDEP. • Meet with others who are practicing Choice Theory.• Put up charts or other visual reminders where you can

see them often.• Practice role-playing.• Allow Scripture to clarify and expand your personal

application of Choice Theory. �__________________________________

Karen Nicola works at Rio Lindo AdventistAcademy in northern California, where she passion-ately facilitates learning in the Home Arts, and Intro-duction to Christianity classrooms. In addition toteaching, she also serves the school as the full-timeMarketing/Recruiting Director. Currently, she is en-rolled in an online Master’s program in Quality Ed-

ucation through Graceland University.________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Ellen G. White, Christ’s Object Lessons (Washington, D.C.: Reviewand Herald Publ. Assn., 1941), p. 97.

2. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Full Verse Cross Reference Bible,New Living Translation (Wheaton Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996), p.141, Leviticus 19:18.

3. Robert Wubbolding, Understanding Reality Therapy, A MetaphoricalApproach (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991), pp. 117, 118.

4. William Glasser, Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998).

5. Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education (Nashville,Tenn.: Southern Publ. Assn., 1923), p. 58. Italics supplied.



How


School was a painful experience forme. How I became a teacher isnothing short of a miracle and an-other story in itself. Because ofmy experience, I became verysensitive to my pupils’ uniqueneeds and styles of learning, even

before I had any scientific knowledge of how students learn.Reading William Glasser’s work on Choice Theory was abreath of fresh air for me because it explained what I alreadyfelt about how a classroom should be conducted. But itwasn’t until I actually completed Glasser’s basic and ad-vanced intensive training that it all began to come togetherfor me.

Choice Theory is nothing more than a description of theway God treats sinners, or in other words—God’s grace. Thecomponents of Choice Theory and practical grace are muchthe same. Glasser advocates that we avoid the “seven deadlyhabits,”1 which I call the methods of “un-grace.” In theirplace, he strongly recommends implementing the “sevenconnecting habits,”2 which I view as “grace habits.” His five“basic needs”3 outline the way God deals with us and de-scribe what is necessary for successful relationships at home,school, church, or work. Forme, implementing ChoiceTheory is putting the Golden

Rule into practice. The Valuegenesis research demonstratesthat many of the Glasser Quality School (GQS) componentsare too often missing in Adventist education.4 This may beone of the reasons why a number of young people do notstay in the church. Today’s brain research generally corrobo-rates that these principles are essential for effective class-room learning. Students learn best in an environment oftrust and respect.

At the end of a special one-day presentation by Dr.Glasser to 300 Northern California Conference teachers, Imentioned to him that what he was really talking about in

Christian terms was “grace.” He quickly came back with,“The problem is, you Christians somehow have a difficulttime putting it into practice in your classrooms.” He is right.We know the way, but do not go there often enough in ourclassroom practice. Grace is easy to talk about, but it’s quiteanother thing to make it our “default action” in dealing withstudents and people in general.

I have become convinced that this theory holds many ofthe answers for our challenges in Christian education. My18 years as a superintendent gave me many examples ofsuccess and failure in teaching. I concluded that manyteachers who were having difficulties at rehiring time oftenlacked the skills identified in Glasser’s Quality School ap-proach.

To my dismay, when we gave teachers the opportunity toreceive the Glasser QualitySchool training, often thosewho were opposed, critical,

Choice TheoryChanged My LifeA Personal Reflection

B Y D A V I D E S C O B A R

Choice Theory is nothingmore than a description ofthe way God treats sinners, orin other words—God’s grace.

and uncooperative were the very ones who were strugglingin their school settings. Some were seemingly “good” teach-ers, but could not get along with colleagues ormembers of the community. Glasser’s principlesoffered simple solutions to their “people prob-lems.”

The Bible and Ellen White provide the answersfor life’s relationship challenges. Dr. Glasser hassimply organized theories and descriptions of suc-cessful relationships as he has discovered themthrough research and his own professional andlifelong experience. His conclusions often parallel biblicaladmonitions. We shouldn’t be surprised when scientific re-search and secular sources validate inspiration. Glasser’swork provides simple methods for putting God’s grace intopractice in school and life.

I have re-evaluated my methods of dealing with people,not only professionally, but also in my private life. I ap-preciate being able to identify where I can improve evengood family relationships. It is scary to realize that I havenot always provided all of Glasser’s five basic needs for thoseclosest to me. Now I stop to measure myself and make aprayerful effort to ensure that all five are present in my rela-tionship with my family. My wife says she is impressed, andI say “Praise God for clarifying these needed components forhappy relationships.”

When I think back to my many years in the classroomand in administration, even though I think I was successful,I wish I had had this information at the beginning of my ca-reer. I think it would have made my teaching and adminis-trative ministry much more effective for students and teach-ers, and for God. I am ashamed that I did not search for thisinformation in the Bible on my own, but glad it is finallyavailable in a practical format for teachers and families.

My prayer is that the grace concepts will be a major

overarching practice in every church school and the defaultmode of every teacher in Adventist education. I believe it is

vital that every teacher receive specific training in how toapply God’s grace in the classroom. This is essential to themission of Adventist education and crucial for the academicand spiritual success of our students. Glasser’s Choice The-ory is not the answer, but it is a great tool for implementing“the answer.” Jesus is the answer! �

___________________________________

David Escobar served the church for 40 years as ateacher, principal, and superintendent of schools for theWisconsin, Hawaii,Washington, and Northern Califor-nia conferences. He is now retired and writes fromHawaii.____________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Glasser’s seven deadly habits: criticizing, blaming, complaining, nag-ging, threatening, punishing, and rewarding to control (William Glasser,Every Student Can Succeed [Chatsworth, Calif.: The Glasser Institute, 2000],p. 7).

2. Glasser’s seven connecting/caring habits: “Caring, listening, support-ing, contributing, encouraging, trusting, and befriending” (ibid., p. 25).

3. Glasser’s five basic needs: survival, love and belonging, power, free-dom, and fun (Ibid., p. 40).

4. Information on the two Valuegenesis studies is available athttp://www.lasierra.edu/centers/hcyfm or by e-mail at [email protected].


I have become convinced that thistheory holds many of the answersfor our challenges in Christian education.

Getting a teaching job in the United Stateswhile working as a teacher in China wasno easy task. My wife and I had beenteaching English there for a year and a halfwhen I became aware of an opening in theOregon Conference. After spending amonth’s salary on phone calls (equivalent

to $125.00 U.S.), I had an interview with the administratorsof Livingstone Junior Academy in Salem, Oregon (the schoolhas since become a senior academy). One of the topics theydiscussed was my familiarity with the ideas of William

Glasser and his approach to learning. It became apparent tome that if I was to work at Livingstone, I would need toread William Glasser’s The Quality School1 to see why otherssaw value in his ideas. That was my introduction to the phi-losophy of Choice Theory.

Choice TheoryAs I studied the concepts of Choice Theory, they really

made a lot of sense to me. Not only did they clarify reasonsfor human behavior, but they also seemed to explain from abiblical perspective how and why we behave as we do. InChoice Theory, we behave based on what we want, com-pared to what we see and know. This necessitates the powerof choice. Linked to every choice is a natural consequence,which produces accountability.

The Book of Genesis gives us a glimpse of God’s style ofgovernment for humankind, which emphasizes the power ofchoice. God provided the option for humans to choose tolisten to Him or not. When Adam and Eve decided to dis-obey, they had to face the naturalconsequences of that choice. What atough situation for God, who loved

them and wanted only the best for them. But instead of im-mediately rescuing the pair, God allowed the natural conse-quences to occur. However, in His infinite love, He providedredemption through His Son, Jesus, if they chose to acceptit.

What Makes It EffectiveMore than any other idea or educational strategy, Choice

Theory has changed not just how I teach, but also how Iconduct my personal life. However, before discussing how Iuse Choice Theory in my classroom, let’s take a look at whatmakes it so effective. In Glasser’s book, Choice Theory: A NewPsychology for Personal Freedom,2 he compares the progress inscience and technology with the advancements in human re-lationships. He explains that while science and technologyhave consistently improved, the same cannot be said of hu-man relationships. In fact, the quality of these relationshipsmay have worsened. Glasser believes this deterioration isdue to our dependence on what he calls external control psy-

chology, in which people try to con-trol others by using one or more ofthe seven deadly habits: criticizing,


BY CHRIS SEQUEIRA

As I studied the conceptsof Choice Theory, they really made a lot of senseto me. Not only did theyclarify reasons for humanbehavior, but they alsoseemed to explain from abiblical perspective howand why we behave as wedo.

CHOICE THEORYCLASSROOM

I N T H E

blaming, complaining, nagging, threatening, punishing, andbribing or rewarding to control. For relationships to be suc-cessful, especially over the long term, these habits need tobe replaced by the seven caring habits—supporting, listen-ing, accepting, respecting, trusting, and negotiating differ-ences.

Learning to TrustMany people, often for valid reasons, have learned not to

trust others. Because they believe they cannot count on any-one, even people close to them, they try to satisfy theirneeds through drugs and alcohol, acts of violence, orpromiscuous behavior. It’s understandable from a ChoiceTheory perspective why they behave this way. If we want thestudents who are disconnected from us and focused on self-medicating and pleasure seeking to re-connect to the impor-tant people in their lives, we need to help them learn totrust again. To do this, we must concentrate on building re-lationships based on respect and dignity. This will encouragethem to work for long-term happiness in their lives, ratherthan opting for short-term gratification.

Now let’s move to the fundamentals of how Choice The-ory works in the classroom. As Glasser states, a non-coercivestructure is vital to an effective school. Two ingredients thatcontribute to this structure are intentional friendships and rel-evant curriculum.

Intentional FriendshipsChoice Theory helps teachers to foster friendships and


Seven Deadly Habits• Criticizing• Blaming• Complaining• Nagging• Threatening• Punishing• Bribing or rewarding

to control

Seven Caring Habits• Supporting• Listening• Accepting• Respecting• Encouraging• Trusting• Negotiating

differences

Photos in this article were taken in the author’s classroom. Shown above, several of Sequeira’s students compile a list ofways they can have POWER.

build a sense of communityin the classroom. At its coreis the idea that almost all be-havior is chosen, and that weare driven by our genes tosatisfy five basic needs: sur-vival, love and belonging,freedom, fun, and power.The most important need is

love and belonging, since positive relationships are neces-sary for satisfying all the other needs. (In my classroom, Ihave added a sixth need, worship. As a Christian working ina Seventh-day Adventist school, I believe that God designedus to seek Him.)

Three Avenues of PowerThough “love and belonging” is of vital importance, in

my classroom we spend a lot of time trying to understandwhat I feel is the most character-shaping need—the need forpower. One can have three kinds of power: (1) power over,

(2) power with, and (3) power within. On a chart, my stu-dents and I write down each kind of power, and then brain-

storm a list of descriptive words for each. From that list, wework on definitions. For instance, power over is how we be-have when we consider only our own needs. (This wouldinvolve the application of the seven deadly habits and exter-nal control psychology.) Power with, on the other hand,means considering others’ needs as well as our own. Powerwithin is putting others’ needs before our own.

The last two types of power—power with and powerwithin—use Choice Theory and the seven caring habits. Mystudents have concluded that the best way to use powerwithin is to use the J-O-Y principle of Matthew 22:36–40.


Choice Theory helps teachersto foster friendships andbuild a sense of communityin the classroom.

Basic Needs• Survival• Love/Belonging• Freedom• Fun• Power• Worship

Chris Stevenson reads about JOY in Matthew 22:36-40.

That is, people canonly experience trueJOY in life when theyput Jesus first, theneeds of others second,and their own needslast.

This leads us to animportant question: “Does this classroom (and life in gen-eral) operate best by using rules or principles?” Whereasrules require an “enforcer,” principles reveal inner character.Ultimately, we conclude that we need to discover why wechoose to do things—that it’s important to have a reason forour actions and behavior. We can evaluate them using theWDEP tool. We ask ourselves four questions:

Want – “What did I want?”Do – “What did I do to get what I want?”Evaluate – “Did my behavior get me what I wanted?”Plan – “How could I have acted differently to get a better

result?”The principles that are posted to guide our classroom

combine the Agreements from Jeanne Gibbs’ Tribes: A NewWay of Learning and Being Together,3 which emphasize mutualrespect, attentive listening, appreciations/no put-downs, andthe right to pass; and the Lifelong Guidelines from Susan

Kovalik’s Integrated Thematic Instruction,4 which promoteactive listening, appreciations/no put-downs, personal best,trustworthiness, and truthfulness. These principles providethe daily structure necessary for a well-run classroom.

Control vs. InfluenceTo illustrate why principles are more valuable than rules,

we create a Control vs. Influence T-Chart. Under the Controlcolumn, we brainstorm, using red marker, looking for wordsthat describe how we attempt to control others. In the Influ-ence column, we write words in green that describe how wetry to influence others. The goal is to pull from, not push to.Ultimately we ask, “Is what I’m doing moving us closer to-


Though “love and belong-ing” is of vital importance,in my classroom we spend alot of time trying to under-stand what I feel is the mostcharacter-shaping need—theneed for power.

JOY Principle1. Jesus first2. Others second3. Yourself last

Blake Houser lists words he associates with CONTROL.

gether or farther apart?” We find ourselves replacing the red(“enforcer”) Control words to green (“principle”) Influencewords.

Since it is my job as a teacher to influence rather thancontrol students, I must keep asking them to challengethemselves, learn more, and move forward in life. Con-versely, it is not the students’ job to try to control anyone intheir lives, either. They can influence by listening, tellingtheir story or opinion, and sharing what they know.

Time and PlaceThis leads to the principle of “Time and Place.” As King

Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 3, there is a time and placefor everything. So as we conduct the self-evaluation process,we think about, “Where am I?”; “What type of behavior isacceptable?”; and “How do I want to represent myself?”Rather than lecturing students about inappropriate behavior,I simply redirect them by asking, “Time and place?”

Understanding and using Choice Theory has led to a


Ali Patterson and Megan Ahlquist create a list of words that compare CONTROL with INFLUENCE.

shift in my thinking, as well as inmy students’ thinking. They havebegun to view life from outside thebox. Choice Theory provides themwith tools to use in consideringother people’s perspectives, as wellas to make personal improvements.An activity that promotes this kindof thinking is called a “plus delta” (+D). When students leave my class-room at the end of the day, theyshare either a + D, a positive changethey have made, or a “keeper” forthe day, an academic nugget worthcoming to school to learn.


_- Feelings + Feelings Legend of Learning Cycle

expected learning cycle (curve)

unmotivated student (compliance)

actual learning cycle

Task in thinking out-side the box:Without lifting your pencil, connect thesenine dots with onlyfour straight lines. (Answer on page 41.)

� � �

� � �

� � �

The author facilitates a discussion of the JOY principle.

Relevant CurriculumIn order for us as teachers to provide academic “keep-

ers,” we need to make the curriculum relevant so that stu-dents view the assignments as useful and applicable to theirlives. To help my students understand what learning shouldbe like, I schedule a sharing activity. I start out by describinga skill I have acquired, such as snowboarding. I then askstudents to pair/share on “What is needed for learning?”When they report back, we discover that desire and useful-ness are high on the list. Then students pair/share a recentlearning experience.

After they have shared their stories, we list the activitieson the board. Next, I ask for one-word descriptors of“Learning: What is it really like?” We chart the words in twocolumns; negative feelings and positive feelings (see chart onpage 40). We discover that learning goes in cycles. As welearn, we tend to move from desire to frustration to excite-ment, etc. This cycle continues back and forth as we plateauand then move forward in our skills. I wrap up by asking,“What would be different if we all used this type of learninginstead of conventional schooling?” We conclude that thisstruggle, or grappling as Sizer and Sizer5 like to call it, ispart of the learning process.

When learners cannot see any gains, or in other words,spend too much time on the left side of the chart, they losethe desire to learn. If there is no grappling, they spend toomuch time on the right side of the chart, and learning be-

comes boring. The true chal-lenge of teaching is to help stu-dents cycle from right to leftand back again to achieve aprogressive learning curve thatmaintains and fosters their in-terest. Choice Theory invites usto move from assessing formemory toward assessing foranalysis, creativity, and real-lifeusefulness. Instead of askingstudents to recall who didsomething, what they did, andwhere and how it was done, I

ask them to analyze, evaluate, create, suppose, apply, imple-ment, put into practice, and show use.

We Practice . . .As I use Choice Theory in the classroom, I also encour-

age my students to apply its principles at school andthroughout their lives. Together, we seek to influence andnot control. We try to base our decisions in class, as in ourspiritual lives, on principles, not rules. When we have aconflict, we work it out without hurting others. Thinkingoutside the box and working on continuous improvementare two of our goals. We seek to be lifelong learners.

As an Adventist teacher, my purpose is not only to growresponsible citizens, it is also to help my students be suc-cessful and happy now and throughout eternity. ChoiceTheory provides me with a biblical model to achieve thesegoals. �

_________________________________________

Chris Sequeira was born and raised in Africa by mis-sionary parents. He now teaches math, health, and out-door life skills at Livingstone Adventist Academy inSalem, Oregon. During the summer, he works as a part-time associate for Susan Kovalik and Associates conduct-ing Model Teaching Weeks in Integrated Thematic Instruc-tion.

______________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. William Glasser, The Quality School: Managing Students Without Coer-cion (New York: Harper Collins, 1990).

2. __________, Choice Theory: A New Psychology for Personal Freedom(New York: Harper Collins, 1998), p. 9.

3. Jeanne Gibbs, Tribes: A New Way of Learning and Being Together (SantaRosa, Calif.: Center SourceSystems, 1995).

4. Susan Kovalik andKaren Olsen, ITI: TheModel—Integrated ThematicInstruction (Kent, Wash.:Books for Educators,1993).

5. Theodor Sizer andNancy Sizer, The StudentsAre Watching: Schools andthe Moral Contract (Boston:Beacon Press, 2000).


To illustratewhy princi-ples are morevaluable thanrules, we cre-ate a Controlvs. InfluenceT-Chart.

Answer:

� � �

�

� �

�

�

�

Jon Yarlott thinks he has the answer to thinking outside thebox.

The area of school reform thathas been the slowest to changeis the evaluation of professionalstaff. Clearly, ensuring optimalteacher performance con-tributes to the mission of teach-ing and learning. Although sig-nificant educational innovationsare being attempted across the

United States, teacher evaluation has undergone littlechange. Our teachers and students need and deserve better.

Evaluation, when done well, enhances teachers’ profes-sional growth and improvement. Equipping teachers to takeresponsibility for their own performance is the goal. Unfor-tunately, this kind of evaluation rarely takes place.

Two Evaluation ModelsTo illustrate, let’s review two of the most common evalu-

ation models. The first is known as the clinical supervisionmodel and is formative, which means it assumes that per-formance can be improved and that evaluation is an ongoingprocess. Clinical supervision generally involves announcedclassroom visits to observe teacher performance. It consistsof a pre-observation conference, the observation visit, ananalysis of the teacher’s performance, a post-observationconference, and a post-conference analysis. The analysis isthen written in letter form, with one copy going to theteacher and another to the teacher’s employment file.


BY MARTHA HAVENS AND JIM ROY

Teacher EvaluationFrom a Choice Theory Perspective

Although signifi-cant educational

innovations are be-ing attempted

across the UnitedStates, teacher

evaluation has un-dergone little

change.

The underlying principle here is thatappropriate ongoing feedback from aknowledgeable professional will encourageteachers to consider alternative classroomstrategies. This evaluation process has itsstrengths, especially with new or strugglingteachers, but its flaws are readily apparent.For instance, many competent teachersseem to merely tolerate the process. Super-intendents and principals make their ob-servation visits and hold their conferences,yet teachers return to their classrooms andcontinue doing the same things as before.

The second common model,performance evaluation, issummative, which means itsummarizes or describesthe employee’s perform-

ance during a designated period of timeand does not necessarily concern itselfwith ongoing improvement. Performanceevaluations are generally based on unan-nounced classroom visits by a principal orsupervisor and are conducted to informdecisions about changes in job status (pro-motion or dismissal). Using a checklist ofdesirable teacher behaviors, the supervisorindicates which ones he or she observedduring the lesson. There is little follow-up.If a post-observation meeting is scheduled,it is usually a formality when the teacher isasked to sign the completed form. In pub-lic schools, these forms become the basisfor future personnel actions such as termi-nation or merit pay. In theory, classroomteachers will respond appropriately tocommendations or criticisms of their per-formance.

Professional communicationand feedback are essential for thesuccess of teachers and princi-pals. The question is not whetherto evaluate, but how to do itmost effectively. In our experi-ence both as receivers and giversof evaluations, the models de-scribed above do not provide thekind of communication neces-sary to help teachers succeed. Both approaches are based ona top-down authority model and ignore the most importantpoints of an effective evaluation process—the recipient’s in-put and involvement in self-evaluation.

Teachers and evaluators often perceive the evaluationprocess very differently. Danielson and McGreal point outthat “the climate surrounding evaluation may be essentially

negative, with a prevailing perception on the part of teachersthat the real purpose of the exercise is one of ‘gotcha,’ inwhich administrators look for opportunities to find fault.But even when the climate is positive, the teacher’s role is es-sentially passive.”1 This is why management leaders such asDeming2 and Glasser3 regard standard methods of evaluationas counterproductive. Often, principals and superintendents


Performance evaluations are generallybased on unannounced classroom visitsby a principal or supervisor and areconducted to inform decisions aboutchanges in job status (promotion or dismissal).

are no more excited about such methods thanthe teachers who are on the receiving end.

A New ApproachSince becoming students of Choice Theory,

we have been applying its principles to theteacher-evaluation process. The model we pro-pose involves both the teacher and the evalua-tor and is based on the concepts of WilliamGlasser.4 This approach treats educators as re-spected professionals who are offered opportu-nities to set their own goals and then coachedin methods of self-evaluation. The processgives them both freedom and support, andleads to constant improvement.

In this model, the supervisor/evaluator alsohas a different role. What Glasser calls lead-management becomes the goal, instead of thestandard top-down, authoritative approach,which he refers to as boss-management.5

Rather than worrying about controlling em-ployees and manipulating them through pun-ishment and rewards, the lead-manager seeksto collaborate with them to create quality goals.A key part of this collaboration is teaching employees to ef-fectively self-evaluate.

Glasser makes a point of distinguishing between externaland internal control. External control refers to stimulus-re-sponse, which is foundational to behaviorism. External con-trol is based on the belief we can get someone to behave in away we choose. Expectations can be imposed or demanded.Rewards and punishments are strategically employed to mo-tivate people toward specific actions.

Internal control, or Choice Theory, is the exact oppo-site. It is based on the belief that all humans choosetheir behavior for reasons that are important to them.Choice Theory recognizes the value of personal con-viction and the satisfaction that comes from making

good choices. This internal-control model holds that meth-ods like punishment do not produce lasting success, andthat workers (in this case, teachers) benefit more fromcoaching that helps them identify what to focus on and thenuse the new focus to achieve their goals. With these con-cepts in mind, let’s look at the Choice Theory model and itsimplications. We will introduce a detailed form to use, aswell as specific self-evaluation questions.

The ModelThe model is based on some simple questions that guide

both the evaluators (superintendents and principals) and theevaluees (teachers). The acronym WDEP can be helpful inremembering these questions. The following questions,though not exhaustive, provide some examples:First, the W—What do you WANT?

How do you want your classroom to look and feel?

What are your specific curriculum expectations?How will know when your students achieve compe-tence?What kinds of student behavior and attitudes do you want to foster?Do you want to share power with your students?Do you want your students to like you?What constitutes a great class period in math (or science,or English)?

Second, the D—What are you DOING?What time do you leave work each day?How much work are you bringing home each evening?In what class are you doing your best work?In your third-period class, what evidence do you have that students are engaged in the learning?What is happening during recess or as the students enterthe classroom that creates management problems?

Third, the E—EVALUATION, or is it working?How do you feel about your “getting the day started” procedures?(If your management system is based on incentives and pun-ishments) On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible and10 being perfect, how would you rate your management plan?Which of your strategies work well in communicating with parents?In general, how would you describe your relationship with your students? Is it creating the class atmosphere you want?Is your current grading system helping the students to learn better?Do you consistently feel stressed?


And fourth, the P—What is yourPLAN?

What could you do tomorrow that would start the day better?In dealing with that student who is causing continual problems in music class, what are your options?How can you improve your working relationship with the pastor?What three things could you do in biology class next week that will make the learning relevant for students?

What are some things you can do to ease your stress?(Each of the above questions can also be stated in first

person by replacing you and your with I and my. The ques-tions then become effective self-evaluation tools. The ques-tions can also be customized to fit a specific classroom orcontent area and a variety of situations.)


Teachers and evaluators often perceivethe evaluation process very differently.

Table 1

Generic Questions to Guide the Evaluation Process

Teacher: ____________________________________________ Grade/Subject: _____________________________

School: ______________________________________________________________________________________

1. PLANNING AHEAD: FINDING THE GOAL/TARGET/PURPOSE/VISION Date __________

What is your lesson going to be about today?As you see the lesson unfolding, what will students be doing?What do you see yourself doing to produce these student outcomes?What will you want me to look for and give you feedback about while I am in yourclassroom?

2. DURING THE VISIT:INFORMATION/FACTS/ACTIONS Date ___________

What happened during the class period?Describe the students’ level of engagement during the period.Describe your own thinking and behavior during the period.Are there examples of situations during the period that you anticipated and plannedfor, or that you did not anticipate and had to deal with spontaneously?

3. AFTER THE EPISODE:SELF-EVALUATION Date __________

How well would you rate the learning experience during the period?To what extent did things go as planned?Is your management plan contributing to a quality learning level?What went well during the period? Why do you think it went so well?

4. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE:THE PLAN Date ___________

Is there an area for improvement on which you want to focus?How attainable is this goal?What are some steps that might be important in achieving the goal?Is there a person, or list of people, who can help you achieve this goal?

______________________________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: The questions above are intended as a sample. The questions, but not the categories, will change, according to the focusor goal for growth. Some of the sample questions were taken from the book Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation for RenaissanceSchools by Art Costa and Robert Garmston (Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publ., 1994).

These kinds of questions, when posed artfully by a su-pervisor or colleague, can lead to effective self-evaluationand improved performance. As we began to work throughthe evaluation process with teachers, we realized that suchquestions, and in fact the entire WDEP format, could be-come a helpful evaluation form. For instance, the (W) whatdo you want questions can form the basis for the observationpre-conference. The (D) what are you doing questions can fo-cus on the actual events during the observation. The (E)evaluation questions are the focus of discussion during thepost-observation conference. This discussion then leads tothe (P) what is your plan questions, which produce the ele-ments to be summarized in the follow-up letter. (See Table 1on page 46 for a sample form.)

The key to this Choice Theory evaluation model is theteacher’s involvement in identifying strengths, blind spots,and weaknesses. The supervisor may see these same things,but the power of this approach lies in skillfully leading theteacher to effective self-discovery. As Kendall Butler, assistantsuperintendent of the Oregon Conference, says, “It is betterto get it out of their mouth than to put it into their ear.”

A Coaching ModelTraditional evaluation is based on one human being judg-

ing another and telling him or her where and how to change.It is easy to see why this approach can lead to frustration,misunderstanding, resistance, and evenantagonism. On the other hand, evalua-tion based on a coaching model, wherethe person being evaluated is assisted to-ward accurate reflection, can lead tocompassionate and genuine communica-tion, positive relationships, and a pas-sion for ongoing improvement. W.Edwards Deming6 and Costa and Garm-ston7 have stressed the important role ofthe person being evaluated. Althoughthese writers were not necessarily moti-vated by Christian principles in achiev-ing their insights, we have benefitednonetheless. We can learn from their re-search and apply their ideas, especiallyGlasser’s Choice Theory, within a Chris-tian framework. Effective questioningand coaching can affirm and celebratesuccess, identify specific traits and prac-tices, and compassionately confront inef-fective tendencies and strategies, all the

while maintaining pos-itive relationships. �

________________

Martha Havens is theAssociate Director of Ele-mentary Education for thePacific Union Conference in

Westlake Village, California. She has served as an ele-mentary teacher and principal earlier in her career andAssociate Superintendent in the Southeastern Califor-nia Conference. Jim Roy is Chair of the EducationDepartment at Pacific Union College in Angwin, Cal-ifornia. He recently completed his doctorate, which fo-cused on the development of the ideas of WilliamGlasser. He is the author of Soul Shapers (Reviewand Herald, 2005), which compares the ideas ofGlasser to those of Ellen White. He can be contacted

at [email protected] or [email protected]._________________________________________________

REFERENCES

1. Charlotte Danielson and Thomas McGreal, Teacher Evaluation toEnhance Professional Practice (Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development, 2000).

2. William Deming, Out of the Crisis (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,1982).

3. William Glasser, The Quality School: Managing Students Without Co-ercion (New York: HarperCollins, 1990); _________, The Control TheoryManager (New York: HarperCollins, 1994).

4. __________, Choice Theory: A New Psychology of Personal Freedom(New York: HarperCollins, 1998).

5. __________, The Quality School. 6. Deming, op cit.7. Art Costa and Robert Garmston, Cognitive Coaching: A Foundation

for Renaissance Schools (Norwood, Mass.: Christopher-Gordon Publ.,1994).


Jim Roy

Martha Havens

The Website for the JJoouurrnnaall ooff AAddvveennttiisstt EEdduuccaattiioonn Now Has More Class!

Now is the time to either order a subscription to the Journal or obtain back issues that deal with special topics.The Summer 2004 issue focused on school boards and drew a great deal of interest even from people who do not regularly subscribe to the Journal.Some 8,300 extra copies have already been ordered for board members around the world.

Additional copies of the School Boards II issue are still available for a special bulk rate—up to 25: $2.50 each; 25-99: $2.00 each; 100 or more: $1.50each, plus the costs of handling and shipping. And you can still order a subscription to the Journal or order back issues by using the coupon below!

Yes! Here’s my check or money order. Please send me the following:

� One-year subscription (5 issues), $18.25 U.S. (Add $1.00 outside the U.S.)

� Two-year subscription (10 issues), Special price, $35.00 U.S. until June 1, 2007.Theme issues—please indicate how many copies. Each copy costs $3.00 U.S. (Includes shipping and handling in theU.S. Outside the U.S., add $1.00 for each.)

� School Boards II � School Libraries � Spiritual Assessment � Character Development � Marketing � Mathematics � Testing and Alternative Assessment � Administration and Leadership � Distance Learning � Exemplary Adventist Schools � Multicultural Teaching and Learning � Science � Special 2000-2005Report on Adventist Education � Reading � Religion Teaching � Early Childhood Education

Name_____________________________________________________________________________

Address___________________________________________________________________________

City_____________________________ State_________ Zip_____________ Country_____________

Journal of Adventist Education12501 Old Columbia Pike • Silver Spring, MD 20904 U.S.A. • (301) 680-5069http://education.gc.adventist.org/jae/

Check us out at http://education.gc.adventist.org/jae to seeour new, attractive look with up-to-date, easy-to-use features!

Now you can:� See the contents and cover for the most recent issue.� Examine the index for the 2005-2006 editions.� Search through 20 years’ worth of back articles (through Summer

2006) by author, title, or topic.� Order a subscription and obtain back issues or missing copies.� Get instructions for earning continuing education credit. (Study

materials can be downloaded in a PDF format.)� Write a letter to the editor.� Find information on international editions.� Get expanded guidelines for authors.

special issue: quality schools - adventist circlecircle.adventist.org/files/jae/jae_v69n3.pdf ·...

Documents