"creating quality in the classroom"

“creating quality in the classroom” By: Reginald T. Hardaway, Sr., MS, Ed.D Changing the paradigm of the classroom, created quality for some at-risk students in a Chicago inner city school. Creating quality in the classroom does not have to equate to reinventing the wheel, however, redesigning the wheel should be considered. William Glasser, M.D. expressed this concern when he wrote The Quality School (1989) and the Quality School Teacher (1993). Glassser and the Quality School I read William Glasser’s book The Quality School (1989) and was totally impressed. After reviewing this research, I was sure the quality school concept would work in the Chicago Public School System; nevertheless, I was out to prove it by performing three years of historical research. Dr. Glasser’s research concerning quality in American schools and Dr. Edward Deming’s research concerning quality in manufacturing were speaking to workers and students alike. In his book, Glasser, discussed love, empowerment, safety, fun and freedom being involved in the learning process. Glasser and Deming experienced social obstacles while attempting to present quality to the America people. After World War II, Dr. Deming was shunned by the automobile industry when he suggested quality in the manufacturing of automobiles and Dr. Glasser was rejected when he suggested quality in our schools. Dr. Deming was later hired by the Japanese auto industry to teach a better and, perhaps, more humane way to manage workers and to teach a higher level of quality. The Japanese, unlike Deming’s 1 former employer, did not resist his advances to teach quality to the Japanese people in an effort to produce quality products at a more affordable price. Dr. Glasser felt that teaching students should be need satisfying. He believed that teaching students should be presented in such a way that the students wanted to do quality work. He explained three conditions for quality work. First, the students need a quality work place, secondly, they should be taught work that is useful, and thirdly, there should be a stage for self-evaluation by the student. He further believed that if these conditions of quality are to become a reality, that teachers must implement quality teaching on a consistent basis. When the teacher presents quality consistently and the student experienced quality in their work, said Glasser, that the feel good feeling will want to be repeated by the student. Dr. Glasser further believed that if a student had difficulty defining quality that they would surely recognize it when they saw it in their work! Glasser continued discussing the urgency for quality when he stated that fewer than 15 percent of students are doing quality work in our schools. He compared the corporate workplace with the school, when he explained that in the corporations, employees are being paid and must perform at a specified level. Unlike the corporation, students are not being paid and must be persuaded to produce quality work and perform at a quality level. Dr. Glasser, believed that a management evolution to create quality had occurred in a few major industries, but that these changes are far from widespread, and almost none have reached the schools. He further believed that corporate employees and students were being managed by a method based on common sense, which he called 2 stimulus-response! He said when stimulus-response is used in management, it leads to what Doug McGregor called a boss-management style of managing. McGregor, known as the father of the Theory X and Theory Y styles of management, used Abraham Marlow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs to prove his case for leadmanagement. McGregor saw lead-management as one who manages with respect and empowerment. Drs. Glasser and Deming agreed with Doug McGregor when they stated that moving to lead-management from boss management, means breaking with tradition, and they saw this as being difficult to do. Multiple Intelligence Dr. Howard Gardner (1983) in his research on Multiple Intelligence, emphasized much of what Glasser stated about students feeling good when he discussed the importance of teachers planning their lessons around the learning style of each student. Dr. Gardner, a professor of education at Harvard University, developed the theory of multiple intelligence in 1983. He believed the traditional notion of intelligence, based on I.Q. testing, was too limited. He further proposed eight different intelligences to account for a broader range of human potential in children and adults. They are: (1) Linguistic Intelligence (word smart), LogicalMathematical Intelligence (number/reasoning smart), Spatial Intelligence (picture smart), Musical Intelligence (music smart) Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence (body smart), Interpersonal Intelligence (people smart), Intrapersonal Intelligence (self smart) and Naturalist Intelligence (nature smart). Drs. Glasser and Gardner agreed that although our schools and culture focused most their attention on linguistic and logical-mathematical intelligence, that we 3 should also place equal attention on individuals who show gifts in the other intelligences. Glasser, further believed that unfortunately, many children who are artists, architects, musicians, naturalists, designers, dancers, therapists, entrepreneurs and others are being ignored and often labeled learning disabled, ADD (attention deficit disordered) or underachiever! In my graduate teaching, I have taught graduate level teachers Gardner’s theory of Multiple Intelligence and it has grabbed the attention of other educators around the country. When educators take the time to evaluate and teach students using Multiple Intelligence, the success is visible. For the last ten years I have taught Problem Based Learning with Multiple Intelligence and the results have been overwhelmingly successful. Problem Based Learning gives a student the opportunity to work on research in groups and individually, researching the answer and discovering the results for themselves. Additionally, in the process, the students learn critical thinking and problem solving skills. I have further discovered that when teachers use the Multiple Intelligences with Problem Based Learning, learning and enjoyment returns to the classroom. What do other experts say? Experts have a great deal to say about quality in the schools of America. Some teachers have the attitude that Glasser’s ideas are good in theory but not in practice. However, many more feel Glasser’s model is the best thing to happen to the classroom (Catey, A., 2001). Glasser feels teachers should provide a curriculum that meets the basic needs of the students. These needs are survival, belonging, power, 4 fun and freedom (Charles, 1999). Charles (1999) like Glasser, knew the urgency for educators to distinguish between a boss teacher and lead teacher. Charles (1999) stated boss teachers:     Set tasks and standards. Talk rather than demonstrate and rarely ask the student’s input. Grade the work without involving students in the evaluation process. Use coercion when students resist. (Charles, 1999) Charles (1999) agreed with Glasser when he said a classroom with a boss teacher leads to boredom and misbehavior. Instead, he and Glasser feel that it is imperative to become a lead teacher. Lead teachers:  Discuss curriculum with the class in such a way that many topics of interest are identified.  Encourage students to identify topics they would like to explore in depth (Problem Based Learning).  Discuss with students the nature of the schoolwork that might ensue, emphasizing quality and asking for input on criteria of quality.  Explore with students resources that might be needed for quality work and the amount of time such work might require (empowerment).  Demonstrate ways in which the work can be done, using models that reflect quality.  Emphasize the importance of students continually inspecting and evaluating their own work in terms of quality. 5  Make evident to students that everything possible will be done to provide them with good tools and a good workplace that is noncoercive and nonadversarial. (Charles, 1999) Barbara McEwan is one of several experts who agreed with Glasser. She used something called “Democratic Classrooms” (Freymuth, 2001). V. Jones and L.S. Jones also agreed with Glasser that class meetings are a great way to help students improve their problem-solving skills (Freymuth, 2001). These experts were not alone. Jane Nelson, Lynn Lott and Stephen Glenn, according to Freymuth, also agreed with Glasser when he discussed empowerment in the classroom. The Quality Classroom In Chicago I began my doctoral research while teaching in a Chicago Public Schools and wanted my research to make a contribution to improving quality in the schools of America. The Chicago Public School System has 440,000 students. Many of these students have academic, discipline and truancy problems. I began my research by requesting, what many considered, the worse class in the school. I wanted students who had issues, issues in their learning and discipline. I later discovered that my principal and I were on the same page, because she was contemplating asking me to teach these students before I had a chance to approach her. I had recently read William Glasser’s Book The Quality School (1989) that was on my list of recommended reading. After reading this research, I was sure that the 6 quality school concept would work in the Chicago Public School System; nevertheless, I was out to prove it through three years of historical research. I also realized that this research would further validate Dr. Glasser’s theories concerning quality in American schools. In his book, Glasser, discussed love, empowerment, safety, fun and freedom being involved in the classroom environment. Initially, I met with the group of thirty heterogeneous African American students who participated in the study between 1995 and 1998. Five of the 30 students were pulled out daily and sent to another room for Chapter I. Chapter I is a federally funded program that gives additional support for special need students. The participants ranged in age from 10 to 12 the first year, 12 to 13 the second year and 13 to 14 the final year. The students had average IQ with a few below average. Most of the students were below average in performance and expectations, and below level in reading and mathematics. At the end of each year, the students received the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. I started the class by asking them to accept the quality idea of learning. We discussed quality in our work, discipline and respect for one another. They agreed. Secondly, I divided the students into teams of fours and they were instructed to choose a captain and co-captain for their individual teams. Within these teams, I included students at different learning, discipline and confidence levels. One of the young men in the class had issues in the area of academics and respect for his fellow students, mainly females. For our purposes, we will call him Carl. Carl did not respect women and hated school with a passion. He was absent 98 percent of the 7 time, prior to coming to the Quality Classroom and had pledged an oath of loyalty to one of the gangs in the area of the school. Academically, I worked with Carl one-on-one, used the Hook on Phonics reading materials and arranged a tutor for Carl twice weekly. Additionally, two of the young female students from Carl’s team were good readers and would often volunteer to assist him with his daily assignments. Consequently, his reading score doubled the first year and I daily improvement in his attitude toward females and school. The students were also instructed to learn the class motto. It started with I see the vision, I’m motivated to act, the future is up to me… This was one technique I used to improve the confidence of a group of children who had been mentally beaten down by the streets of Chicago. After a year, I saw the students’ reading; math, discipline and respectability for school improve greatly. Their conduct and love for school were also on the rebound. Prior to coming to the Quality Classroom, it was not unusual seeing them playing and perhaps fighting in the halls of the school. Upon entering the quality classroom, their behavior drastically changed. Thirdly, freedom and empowerment were taught. Simply, I gave them a voice in many of the classroom activities. This voice was mostly in the area of social activities that related to academics. Nevertheless, empowerment was one of their biggest enjoyments. I welcomed this because; I believe people should have a voice in their lives. 8 Discipline in the Quality Classroom Discipline was handled with mutual respect and coercion was not an option. Like Glasser (1989) and Charles (1999), the solution to discipline was to eliminate coercion as a main tool to discipline children. The large majority of the students often responded to a firm, nonthreatening tone. One year, we tested having a classroom court, which I later discovered was too advanced for their age group. Although the students all agreed to have a classroom court, when their day in court came, they could not accept the sentence handed down by their classmates. Eventually, the classroom discipline evolved to a level whereby they disciplined one another. Surprisingly, the students were receptive to the discipline of their peers. Fun in the Quality Classroom Fridays were often set aside as fun day. The students received social time as a reward for the great work they performed weekly. Friday afternoons became a time for me to introduce chess and other problem solving games. Fridays were also the time set aside for Grandparent’s Day, a Business Fair and other special events. Their enthusiasm and success were inspiring. Daily, I expressed my love for them and their importance to their families and their school family. Additionally, freedom and safety were discussed and implemented in our classroom. The students felt safe and knew they had my total protection. Dr. Glasser in the Quality School (1989) discussed what he called “that significant other in a student’s life.” He stated that a significant other is an individual who 9 loves the student and whom the student loves. This individual, says Glasser, can make a huge difference in the life of a student. That concept came alive when Carl raised his hand early one morning in the midst of our reading lesson and proclaimed, Doc, I want you to know that I thank God for you! In conclusion, my students graduated from elementary school three years later, more successful in their academics, discipline and social lives. The Chicago Tribune newspaper (1998) reported in their annual district report card, that my students were the most improved 8th grade reading class in all of Cook County, the biggest county in Illinois. These students validated my philosophy that all children can learn. We all discovered that when adults give students the quality curriculum, workplace and a quality evaluation, learning takes place and love for school is restored. Results  The reading and math results from the Iowa Test of Basis Skills included each year in the quality classroom. The biggest increase was from sixth to seventh grade. An Historical Case Study of a Quality Classroom (Hardaway, 1998). The survey results were as follows:  Did you enjoy school in the fifth through seventh grades? Yes  94 percent No 6 percent Did you understand the “quality classroom” idea? Yes 88 percent No 12 percent 10  Did you have an increase in enjoyment under the “quality classroom” Yes 80 percent No 20 percent  Did you learn to work better in teams? Yes 94 percent No 6 percent  Did your reading skills improve during this time? Yes 88 percent No 12 percent  Did your math skills improve during this time? Yes 94 percent No 6 percent  Did you feel more love in the “quality classroom”? Yes 81 percent No 19 percent  Did you enjoy being empowered with a class council? Yes 100 percent  Would you like to see more schools use this idea? Yes 94 percent No 6 percent Today, many of these students are matriculating in the colleges and businesses of America and I have the pleasure of knowing that they have experienced quality in their education. After experiencing the best three years of my elementary teaching career and writing An Historical Case Study of a Quality Classroom (UMI, Arbor, Michigan, Dr. William Glasser acknowledged my research in a congratulatory letter. 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY Charles, C.M. (1999), Building Classroom Discipline. Sixth Edition. New Longman. York: Demings, W. Edward. Out of the Crisis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1982. Freymuth, G. http://courseinfo. Cet. uicc. edu Gardner, H. (1983), Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligence. New York: Basic. Glasser, W. (1989), The Quality School. New York: Harper Perennial. Glasser, W. (1993), The Quality School Teacher. New York: Harper Perennial Hardaway, R. (1998), An Historical Case Study of a Quality Classroom, UMI. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Maslow, A. (1954). The hierarchy of needs. Communication and Interpersonal Skills. Boston: Irwin. . 12 13