Jessica Brannan
EDUC 366- Bosch
November 21, 2011
Theorist Paper
There is not any one theorist that I agree with one hundred percent. However, I really like
some of the ideas that come from William Glasser and Lee and Marlene Canter. These two
approaches do not seem to go together, but all theorists involved offer up some worthy ideas. In
general, I prefer the ideas of Canter a little more with sprinklings of Glasser.
Lee and Marlene Canter contend that students have a right to learn and teachers have a
right to teach without interruption. I definitely believe that both of those statements are true
(although the first is a little more important). Students should be able to go to their class and not
have to worry that they will be unable to get the material. Misbehavior can derail other students
in the class and render them unable to learn. For me, the teacher’s “right to teach” is directly
related to the student’s right to learn. The student will have diminished ability to learn if the
teacher is unable to teach. I feel like an ideal teacher should be assertive. Assertiveness, in my
eyes, does not equate to authoritarianism. Assertiveness is necessary for effective classroom
management. I feel like students are better off in a classroom with more structure. Rules should
be clear so that there is no ambiguity with how the teacher expects his or her students to behave.
I like that Canter says that the teacher should teach the rules and explain the consequences. I
really like discipline hierarchy. Students should know exactly what the rules are and be aware of
what consequences will follow if they choose to misbehave. The hierarchy should include things
that will deter student misbehavior. Furthermore, I like that if a consequence does not work, you
can throw it out and pick something different. My favorite thing from the Canters is the idea of
the marble jar. Peer pressure can be an effective tool and instead of the pressure being a negative
thing, it can be used for a good purpose. I like the marble jar because instead of imposing
consequences, you are encouraging them to make good choices.
There are a couple of things that William Glasser puts forth that I think are useful. I think
the triplets communication strategy is good because it requires the student to contemplate their
actions. Giving consequences does no good if the student does not understand why their behavior
is unacceptable. Asking them these questions puts the ball in their court and asks them to come
up with solutions. Furthermore, I like that his strategies revolve around actions that are in the
present. Dragging something up from three weeks previous will not resolve anything. However, I
do feel like Glasser is a little soft in his methods. I feel like you should find out what is causing
the problem, but that does not mean that there should not be consequences. It seems like he
suggests just talking about the issue and then fully letting it go without consequences. I also like
his idea that you should engage the students in topics that they find interesting; however, there
are topics that are absolutely necessary to cover and you will not always be able to cover
everything the students want to cover. That is a reality.
These are just some of the ideas I like from these two theorists. I am a person who likes
order and does think that the teacher should be the authority figure in the room. However, that
does not mean that you should not continue to care about students or figure out what is going on
in their lives. You should try to figure out why students act the way they do and help change the
way they think, rather than just offering a punishment. There should be punishments though. In
the real world, you have to face the consequences of your actions and an employer or authority
figure is not always going to ask you “Now Billy, why did you do that?” At the core of
everything, I feel like it is important to preserve student dignity.