|
CONTROL
By: Lon Woodbury
lon@woodbury.com
(The following
is taken from some of the concepts the author uses when he visits
a program for evaluation, or provides in-service training.)
In order for
an Emotional Growth/Therapeutic school or program to succeed, the
staff must be in control. Part of the school's objective, of course,
is to teach the students how to develop self-control. As they learn
this, the students can be of immeasurable help assisting the school
to operate smoothly, while they also gain excellent practice learning
to balance leadership with responsibility. But, the way in which a
school maintains control has a profound influence on the degree to
which lasting change will occur in the students, and how much real
responsibility the student will be able to learn.
I am aware of two basic models that can be used to establish control
in a school. One might be termed the “institutional” model, based on
rules and punishment. In this model, the staff is obviously in charge,
and students gain privileges by convincing the staff to grant them.
While this can produce compliance, it can also encourage manipulation,
passive resistance and the like. This is what we usually see in state-run
juvenile detention facilities and boot camps for troubled teens.
The other model might be termed a “community” model, which is based
on relationships and mutual respect between the students and staff.
The staff are hired for experience and sensitivity; they already have
their personal lives essentially in order. Based on their own merit,
they have the ability to quickly earn the respect of the students.
On the other hand, the students are there because their lives have
not been working well. They still have to learn how to become responsible
and gain positive respect from staff and the other students, thus earning
privileges. The trick is to structure the school in a way that a student's
responsibility and privilege level matches the level of responsibility
the student is capable of handling appropriately. Of course common
sense must apply, and when students start undermining the community
through manipulation or other techniques, the staff must be able to
recognize what is happening and take charge to eliminate the weakness
in the structure.
Some of the indicators I have seen in programs where the staff are
using institutional means of control are to require a group of students
to walk in single file, to do body searches frequently, to have the
staff watch the students with the posturing and vigilance that is suggestive
of guards, locking dorm rooms during off hours, assigned seating, and
having the staff carry obvious and blaring walkie talkies. All of these
foster an us vs. them attitude, and communicates a very low level of
trust for the students. The students realize they are not trusted and
that their job is compliance; rather than changing their attitudes,
they learn to comply until they can get released. In a school based
on this model, an underground mentality thrives, and the students see
little reason to change their thinking.
In a community model, the control is more subtle, but when the right
elements are present, it is a much more effective way of helping students
learn to change their behavior as a result of altering their view of
themselves and their world. When relationships are based on trust,
the staff will not ask the students to do anything the staff would
not do. This is one of the most important principles I have seen. Thus,
if the job is to clean out the stables, the staff is shoveling right
along with the students. This is a much better way to build healthy
and healing relationships than to have a staff member stand and watch
the students, telling them what to do.
In addition, in a community model, if a student feels a staff member
hasn't been fair, he or she can confront the staff member in a group,
without reprisals. However, the issue has to be a valid one. A spurious
accusation will undermine credibility, and the trustworthiness of that
student will quickly become an issue both with the other students as
well as with the staff.
Another way of determining which model is being used for maintaining
control is to closely watch the students. If you get the impression
the students are merely complying, with the staff obviously in control
of the students, then you are witnessing a staff who tends to think
institutionally. In this scenario you can expect the students to be
having private thoughts that are radically different from their public
expressions.
However, if the students seem relaxed, and the school has a feeling
of safety, then the staff is thinking like a community, and the students
are more likely to feel that's its their school, and have a personal
stake in its successful operation. And, most importantly, the students
are more likely to accept the lessons the staff is trying to teach.
It would take a book to explain how a community model can be used to
run a school, but in a very real sense, the staff are teachers, and
the teachers are the lesson. It is when the staff accepts the responsibility
of being the lesson, that they treat the students with respect rather
than suspicion; then they can exert the means of control that is most
effective in helping kids with problems.
|
