THE “IF-THEN” MESSAGE

STAN’S STATION

A Column written by Stanley H. Walters, Ph.D. who is the Director of the Center for Children and Parents.
Dr. Walters is available at the Center for Children and Parents at 714-283-3390 for parent training and educational psychological evaluations. His specialty is school readiness for young children.

The “If-Then Message” is a statement that places responsibility on the child’s shoulders.

It is typical in our society to say to a child, “Pick up your toys” – “You didn’t pick up you toys so you can’t watch TV.” By this statement the parents are assuming responsibility. The goal is to teach the child to assume responsibility.

To place responsibility on the child, the above statement should be stated as “If you pick up your toys, then you can watch TV.” This statement places responsibility on the child’s shoulders for earning the privilege to watch TV, and if there is any “take away” the child chooses this.

If the child says “Then I won’t watch TV,” you respond with “That’s your decision.” This statement returns responsibility to the child.

If parents pick up the toys, the Sunday Box should be used.
(Sunday Box means that the toys in question can only be retrieved on Sunday)

The If-Then Message should be used to handle on the spot problems when the child refuses to or is not motivated to perform.

Charting systems are more formalized and structured programs, but also carry the “if-then” message.

Parents and teachers should post the poster on the wall for a period of time, until the “if then” message becomes a permanent part of your training system (message sending).

IF
THEN

The “if-then message is the bottom line statement of the world’s great religions. “If you have faith – THEN!?” It is the bottom line statement of capitalism. “If you do the job, then I’ll give you the pay check.” This is usually said to an individual, one on one. It is the bottom line statement of communism. “If the commune (group) produces more wheat, then you can keep a few more bushels for your own use.” It is said to a group.

It is the bottom line statement of positive shaping. “If you get your homework done, then you can watch TV.”

It is an old, old statement, “you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.”

It is peculiar in our culture, where the “if then” message is a major economic and religious statement, that it was not incorporated as a major approach to child rearing.

Evidence is accumulating that if a child is reared with the logic of the “if then” message, then the child is more likely to grow up to assume responsibility.

The “if then” message becomes the concrete way to teach the social abstraction, “If you want some goodies in this world, all we want you to do is put out decent, fair, reasonable behavior. That is our only request.”

The great psychological strategy in the use of the “if then” message is that it takes the parents out of the business of “take aways,” and make them the “givers.”

“IF” is the recommended word to use. “May” implies choice. Several linguistic people have told us that “when” is much closer to “may” than “if.” So use “if,” not “may” or “when.”

If you get your homework done, then you can go play.
If you get your seat work done, then you can go to recess. ###

Stanley H. Walters, Ph.D.
Orange County Learning Disabilities Association Newsletter
July/August, 2005
Posted in Learning Disabilities | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment




So Many Children Left Behind?

Editorial by Dr. Don Treffinger
Editor of Creative Learning Today, Newsletter of the Center for Creative Learning.
E-mail: don@creativelearning.com or website: www.creativelearning.com

For several years now, I have watched the effects of the “No Child Left Behind” legislation on opportunities for creative learning and talent development in the schools, and quietly said, “This, too, shall pass; the pendulum will swing again, as eventually it always does.” As I continue to see its impact, in both direct and subtle ways, however, I believe the time has come to speak out. A quotation, usually attributed to Edmund Burke (an 18th Century British statesman), expresses the importance of not remaining silent. It seems to take various forms, but this version is common: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Some argue that NCLB has, at least, served as a catalyst for attention to be given to the needs of struggling students and to the need to recognize indifference or lack of insistence on quality education in too many schools. But the effects of the cure may turn out to be even more troublesome than the ailment it is intended to address. NCLB may be pressing us to look at inadequate answers to the wrong questions. Others argue that the flaw in NCLB is simply that it has been seriously underfunded. Based on my own professional experience and judgment, and the reading I have done of work by a number of colleagues whose thinking on these issues I respect, I believe the problems with NCLB are far deeper than insufficient funding. Simply put, my concern is that it is a bad law, representing bad educational policy and procedure.

What’s wrong with that? Here are 14 key concerns. Given Creative Learning Today’s scope and format, these will be rather starkly stated. Readers who are interested in elaborations or any of the points can refer to the recommended resources or contact me. (In addition, if any reader is motivated to prepare a response or different point of view, we’ll consider it for publication in a future issue.)

  1. First, and arguably foremost, is its numbing preoccupation with standardized test scores, creating a thin veneer of “rigor” and high expectations that generally boils down to what some colleagues describe as “drill and kill” teaching. A student’s effectiveness is more than the aggregate of his or her students’ test scores. A school’s quality is reflected in much more that the total set of test scores or an arbitrary “grade” based on those scores.
  2. It is significantly out of alignment with real-world competencies for success. Take a look at the Microsoft Competencies (See page 7) and then ask, “How many of these competencies are represented and assessed by typical high-stakes tests?” That will give you a richer picture of what NCLB misses.

    NCLB contributes systematically to stifling creative inquiry and active problem solving; it turns the focus of educational goals (and instruction) away from helping students learn to manage change, question what they’re told (or read, or find on the Internet), challenge assumptions – or from stimulating them to engage in creative and critical inquiry. [Alas, this may fit in too well with an often anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, anti-thoughtfulness and reflection bias that seems to be creeping more and more into prominence at every level of society.]

  3. It “stacks the deck” against equal opportunity and educational challenge for high-ability learners and for students with specific talents in many domains. As more and more effort and time goes to pounding away at basic, low-level content, high-ability learners and talented students get pushed more and more to the background (see www.nagc.org for more on this.) It leaves application of knowledge to real-life situations –and the strengths and talents of kids and their teachers – behind in huge numbers.
  4. NCLB relies inappropriately on a single measure or a single source of data to assess students (and schools). It leads us to accept the false assumption that what is easiest to measure is most important. Einstein once said, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted, counts.” NCLB leads people to confuse what they can easily measure with what is most important and valuable. It makes “knowing about” a value in itself, rather than knowing how to apply, use, or extend what you have learned.
  5. NCLB is concerned with punishment and sanctions more than with diagnostic information and support (for students as well as for schools,) or instructional improvement.
  6. It assumes a uniform set of curricular goals and outcomes and equal instructional opportunity and support for students to attain them. It sets expectations for rapid and expansive growth that are unrealistic (and in some cases, statistically ill-founded). Every school cannot continue to improve every year. As performance rises above the mean, and starts to approach the ceiling of the measure, or sinks below the mean and starts to approach the “floor,” the statistical phenomenon of regression to the mean becomes an issue, for example.
  7. It can be used as a vehicle to divert assistance (and students, and, perhaps, qualified teachers) away from struggling schools rather than providing them the assistance they need to improve. In this way, the use of high-stakes tests, “school grades,” and other such “results” can become a thinly veiled rationale (especially when combined with efforts to use vouchers at non-public schools) for diverting public support to sectarian schools.
  8. NCLB’s reliance on traditional standardized testing formats and procedures immerses us in assessments that can be significantly biased – indicators largely of family background and socio-economic status – putting children from economically disadvantaged settings, geographically isolated settings, or culturally diverse backgrounds at peril of being “left behind.” Public policy can ignore decades of scientific controversy over fair and unbiased assessments only at the greatest of risks. Every student does not learn at the same rate, or in the same way, and is not prepared to demonstrate his or her competency in the same format, under the same time demands or even in the same language.
  9. NCLB appears to be driving curriculum and instruction to their lowest levels (recognition and recall) and deflecting teaching time and energy away from innovative, engaging, and challenging coursework. It can actually distract instructional improvement by redirecting teachers to short term test preparation and drill. We see teachers, for example, “drilling” test prep early in the school year, because “the test” is driving the entire instructional agenda. [We have forgotten (or ignored) Carol Ann Tomlinson's warning that "proficiency is not enough!]. The mindset, and the practices it engenders, appears to be turning “minimum competencies” into “maximum expectancies.”
  10. There are no clear and consistent standards and procedures for determining accountability and progress (consider, for example, the discrepancies among states and between state and federal demands in many states). There is no “level playing field” about what the playing field should be.
  11. Some writers have argued that NCLB may inadvertently promote falsification of data, “cheating,” or efforts to sidestep the rules – by educational administrators who are driven by stress created by arbitrary and punitive policies and procedures.
  12. Others have argued that NCLB may actually encourage, rather than contribute to reversing, the drop-out problem (if schools become too eager to get rid of students whose presence in school may “hurt” their school’s scores.
  13. It promotes an uncritical acceptance of traditional (and badly outdated) definitions of “basics.” The traditional “3 Rs” don’t tell the story of the “basic skills” that today’s students will need in order to be employable and competitive in the world of work and life in which they will need to survive.
  14. NCLB is divisive rather that unifying politically and educationally. Its proponents may well be deceiving the public and the business community as well (the appearance of rigor and high expectations may be creating a “smokescreen” that sounds appealing to business and community leaders who do not take the time, or invest the effort, to examine it carefully and critically. Who would be opposed to “rigor” or “high standards” of quality? They are not likely to have probed those claims beyond the superficial rhetoric.) NCLB does nothing to help focus or direct the local, state, or national levels of conversation or constructive debate on core educational goals or lofty aspirations. It gives us a quick and appealing buzz word to which we can latch on and “bandwagon.”

Some Recommended Resources

ASCD Position Statements on High–Stakes Testing and the Achievement Gap. Locate this 2004 statement in the “Positions” area of the ASCD website: www.ascd.org. .

Good Intentions, Bad Results: A Dozen Reasons Why the No Child Left Behind Act Is Failing Our Schools, By Dr. Robert J. Sternberg available at: http://lists.asu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411&L=aera-1&D=1&T=0&P=964.

Proficiency Is Not Enough, By Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson, Education Week, November 6, 2002, Volume 22, Number 10, Pages 36,38. It is also reprinted on the National Association for Gifted Children website; see: http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=997 ###

MICROSOFT’S COMPETENCIES FOR EDUCATION

The Microsoft Corporation defined a set of competencies (“functional and behavioral qualities” that one must possess in order to contribute to organizational success).

They have subsequently worked with an external consulting group to develop a parallel set of competencies that they propose are essential to help school districts to be successful in the 21st Century. They created a “Competency Wheel,” describing 37 competencies in six broad areas (individual excellence, organizational skills, courage, results, strategic skills, and operating skills). You may agree or disagree with the specific competencies they developed, or with their definitions of those competencies. We believe, however, that you will find them stimulating for your thinking about what effective educational leaders should believe, know, or be able to do to contribute to their school’s success and effectiveness. Many of the competencies relate directly to our primary areas of professional involvement: creative learning and problem solving, talent development, and style. You can find the “Competency Wheel” and download it as a PDF file, and you can also find quite a bit of additional descriptive material available relating to the Microsoft project at:

http://www.microsoft.com/education/competencies/default.mspx

###

Published in the newsletter of the Center for Creative Learning, Vol. 14, No. 7, Aug/Sept. 2006.
Published in the newsletter of the Orange County Learning Disabilities Association,
Vol. 45, No.3, May/June, 2007.

Dr. Don Treffinger, Editor of Creative Learning Today

Posted in Learning Disabilities | Tagged , , | Leave a comment




Ennis Cosby Knew the Worth of a Helping Hand

Reprinted with Permission.

THE PRESIDENT COULD TAKE A LESSON FROM THE DIFFERENCE THAT EDUCATION MADE IN THIS YOUNG MAN’S LIFE

Properly credentialed and steady at my post in the press section at the president’s inauguration, within shouting distance of the man himself, a witness to history surrounded by the most successful of my peers, I am, as so often before on such occasions, filled with fear. This time it makes me think of Ennis William Cosby.

Fear, not of the violence that took his life but rather the more mundane persistent and personal terror shared by all dyslexics over having to perform in conventional ways when your brain does not track quite that way. I my case today, it’s the pressure to file properly spelled, cogently organized, grammatically correct copy, on deadline. Small potatoes to some, a horror to others. I’m not complaining, mind you. I made my claim to be heard, and the fact that you are able to read this means that with the aid of great teachers, computerized spelling checks and my wife, sons Christopher and Peter, and friend Cara, all of whom are on line to protect me from the more egregious errors of syntax, I will be heard. But the fear never fully disappears.

It is a fear that young Cosby would have well understood, having devoted his life to working with kids with learning disabilities. It is a terror of failure, known keenly by those who, despite their ability and best efforts, flunked seventh grade. What we have in common, along with millions of others including my marvelous son Josh – who thrilled me by admonishing a smug Santa Monica school district special ed administrator to call it a “learning difference” and not “disability” or “handicap” – is a conundrum of difficulties loosely labeled dyslexia. What we have in common is the fact that we learn differently than most folks because letters or numbers get scrambled, or we have small motor problems or we become confused under time pressure or are flustered in our efforts to conceptualize in ways that lend themselves to standardized tests. What we also have in common is the potential to excel.

In my time, in the public schools of the Bronx, no one knew of such complexity in the learning process. I was simply pronounced dumb and slow because I couldn’t learn cursive writing or spell worth a damn and was tracked to oblivion until a friendly science teacher discovered that I was good at physics and some other subjects if given half a chance. Since then, a great deal of progress has been made in recognizing and treating dyslexia, but even one from so privileged a background as Cosby went undiagnosed until college years. As he poignantly wrote, “The happiest days of my life occurred when I found out I was dyslexic… the worst feeling to me is confusion.”

I have been thinking of young Cosby almost constantly since the news of his being gunned down off the San Diego Freeway not far from my home. The smiling optimism of his file photo burns into my brain and anger fills me that this young man’s optimism spilled out wasted on the indifferent concrete of that freeway off ramp. It’s the same freeway my son Josh takes to a school called Landmark, where he has opportunities that could save the lives of so many others now tracked to state prisons and other societal markers of educational failure.

It was Ennis Cosby’s dream to create a school for kids with dyslexia. “He wanted to make sure that kids who might not have the opportunity to have the help that he had would get it.” his professor recalled. “So he did all he could to help poor kids.” As I write help, it comes out HEPL and the reason I remain a bleeding heart liberal is that I think we all benefit when the cry for “hepl” is understood.

These are the thoughts that went though my frayed mind listening to the inauguration speech of William Jefferson Clinton, a guy who also came up the hard way but who was blessed with the saving grace of testing well. Clinton knows he benefited from the level playing field, and he will not compromise government’s obligation to keep it level. But where he has failed is in reaching out to those who need a helping hand, as Jesse Jackson might put it, to be pulled from the quicksand of failure to the high ground of opportunity.

Those of us with dyslexia, and that ranges from Albert Einstein to Cher, have known that a helping hand spells the difference between pain and performance. Bob Dole, who pushed through the Americans with Disabilities Act, ( this has helped dyslexics enormously,) knows that. If I had any moment of regret at the inauguration, it came with the sense that Clinton does not know what it means to flunk the seventh grade.

Ennis Cosby did. But despite that, he got a master’s, was going for a doctorate, and planning to start a school for dyslexic kids, making him – to use his father’s words -my hero, too. ###

Robert Scheer, LA Times contributing Editor
Published in the Los Angeles Times & in the Orange County Learning Disabilities Association Newsletter,Vol. 35, No. 1, January/February,1997
January, 1997

Posted in Learning Disabilities | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment