THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM
Personal freedom is more fundamental to the function of our nation than is Christianity; however, within Christianity, personal freedom is the most fundamental principle in the resolution of the spiritual battle known as the “angelic conflict.” Let’s examine the concept under the subtitles of “The Backdrop for All Freedom,” “Freedom Is the Environment in Which All Human Life Is to Be Lived,” “Freedom Is the Home Environment in Which Children Should Be Raised,” “Legalism: The Destroyer Of Freedom,” “Freedom Demands Responsibility,” “Parents’ Rights vs. Children’s Freedoms,” and “Parent’s Rules vs. Children’s Wants.”
The Backdrop for All Freedom
This section is designed to explain why the principle of freedom is so important to the human race and human history.
Why God Created in the First Place: A common question regards why God created in the first place. He created for the purpose of glorifying Himself through the manifestation of the unity of His attributes. This means that when an attribute or attributes of God are at work in any given life situation His attributes must work in harmony with each other. No single attribute can violate the function of another attribute, otherwise God would no longer be God.
Creation in Stages: In addition, everything was not created simultaneously. There was a separate creation for angels (Ezekiel 28:15), the universe (Genesis 1:1), and mankind (Genesis 1:27). Man is a late-comer on the scene—the earth is billions of years old–and God created man for the purpose of resolving the spiritual battle referred to as the angelic conflict (Ephesians 6:11-12).
Time Segments: Human history is divided into four time segments referred to as dispensations: the Dispensation of the Gentiles; the Dispensation of Israel; the Dispensation of the Church; and the Dispensation of Christ (the millennial kingdom). Each dispensation is marked by a distinct set of rules by which to live.
Satan Condemned: Satan was condemned by God in eternity past (Matthew 25:41) and appealed his condemnation. (That he appealed his condemnation is determined from the lapse of time between his sentence in eternity past and the execution of that sentence at the end of human history.)
God Creates Man: God, then, created man as a free moral agent and turned to man to resolve this conflict.
Freedom of Choice: The issue: if man, having been created lower than the angels (Hebrews 2:7) would freely choose obedience to his Creator , the higher creature, namely Satan, could have freely chosen obedience, but freely chose disobedience; therefore, God is justified in carrying out Satan’s sentence that was handed down in eternity past.
God Is Fair: Some might ask why God would permit Satan to appeal his condemnation in eternity past, and the answer is simple. God is just (fair), and He is fair to all, including Satan.
Conclusion: Freedom of choice is the most fundamental issue in all of life, and freedom of choice is the issue in RTP.
Freedom is the environment in which all human life is to be lived.
Freedom is the environment in which human life is to be lived in its entirety. Why? Because freedom is the policy of God toward mankind that He created. Freedom is the environment in which the spiritual battle known as the angelic conflict will be resolved. If man’s obedience to God is NOT born out of freedom, Satan will legitimately object that man’s obedience is forced, and God’s judgment upon him is unfair. Freedom, then, is absolutely essential to the resolution of the spiritual battle known as the angelic conflict.
Freedom is the home environment in which children should be raised.
The same freedom that God extends to the human race is extended to the home environment and is granted to every member of the household, including children. Since children are members of the human race, freedom is extended to them as members of the human race. They, too, are involved in the angelic conflict whether they or their parents realize it or not. Every member of the human race is drafted into this spiritual battle at the moment of physical birth. Parents have a responsibility before God to teach and train their children in spiritual matters. As the resolution phase of the angelic conflict unfolds in human history, children grow-up in their respective dispensation as part of the problem or part of the solution. As freely obedient children, they provide resolution in the conflict. As freely disobedient children, they provide no resolution in the conflict. The freedom-oriented home is where God expects children to learn the principles, promises, doctrines, and techniques associated with His plan for resolving the angelic conflict.
Legalism: the Destroyer of Freedom
Christian parents who demand obedience from their children through coercive tactics fail to understand the angelic conflict and the means by which it will be resolved—obedience associated with freedom of choice. Legalism destroys freedom. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary describes legalism as “the institutionalized legalism that restricts freedom of choice.” The issue in legalism: the restriction of choice. Parents who force obedience do not understand the angelic conflict and mankind’s purpose in it. If obedience is not born out of freedom of choice, it is born out of legalism, and legalistic obedience is not acceptable to God. Parents may be satisfied, but God cannot be satisfied because legalism violates the very principle for which mankind was created—freedom-oriented obedience that resolves the angelic conflict.
Freedom demands responsibility
Freedom does not imply freedom to do as one desires. Freedom demands responsibility. It must be responsible not to violate, reduce, or destroy the freedom of another person. One person’s freedom always ends where another person’s freedom begins. Let’s apply this to children in the home.
Freedom does not imply that children are free to do anything they desire. Freedom demands that children be responsible. Their freedom must not violate, reduce, or destroy the freedom of their parents, their siblings, or anyone living outside their home. A child’s freedom ends where another person’s freedom begins, and that includes the freedom of their parents and siblings. Children do not know this inherently. They must be taught that their freedom DOES NOT imply freedom to do all that they desire, and it is the responsibility of parents to teach them. The world is teaching children that freedom implies the inherent right to do whatever they desire, and their peers are reinforcing that belief.
Responsible freedom does not necessarily imply right choices. Responsible freedom includes wrong choices accompanied by personal accountability for those choices. Under the principle of freedom in the home, a wrong choice is NOT a choice that violates a biblical truth held by parents. A wrong choice as used here is a choice that violates, reduces, or destroys the freedom of parents or siblings. The word wrong does not negate or reject the existence of absolute truth. It simply recognizes that children’s choices can violate, reduce, or destroy the freedom of parents and siblings. If a wrong choice is made, the child who makes that choice must be held accountable for that choice, and accountability is carried out through RTP (the responsible thinking process) to be discussed in a later chapter.
Parents’ rights vs. children’s freedoms
Parents have the right to establish rules to guide their children while they are in the home and away from home. Parents should permit their children freedom of choice when they are making choices associated with operational procedures and rules established to maintain the integrity of the home, but the child should be held accountable for every violation. Accountable? For every violation? Absolutely yes—accountable for every violation, and the means by which accountability is carried out will be called discipline, not punishment.
Again, Mr. Ed Ford has defined and described discipline and punishment for us in his book, Discipline for Home and School, Book One, Revised and Expanded Edition, pp. 13-15. “Discipline is teaching children to respect the rights of others through responsible thinking by learning to obey rules.” Punishment is “trying to change what children do by hurting them, either physically or verbally, or giving them no options or choices.” He continues, “With discipline, none of the options might be what a child currently wants, but there are no other options available to the person in charge of the child.” He is correct when he says, “The ideal home . . . is one where children are happy and safe. . . .This is a home . . . where children have been given opportunities to learn the necessary social skills so that they can think and act responsibly. This is what a good discipline program should provide.”
Parenting skills are lacking in our country today. Some parents have few or no established rules. They just “wing-it”—a rule here, a rule there; a rule now, a rule then—establishing or changing from one circumstance to the next. Generally, procedures and rules are not based upon what is best for the child, but what is convenient for the parent.
Other parents have established procedures and rules but do not hold the child accountable for violations. The child soon learns that if he will only persist in challenging the rule or challenging the accountability feature, the parent will soon capitulate to the child’s persistence and whims. The child learns nothing except how to con-the-system.
Parents have a right to establish operational procedures and rules to maintain the integrity of their home environment—according to their own personal values–and they should be established early on, that is, long before a child’s actions that will be deemed disruptive. However, it may be necessary to establish a new operational procedure or rule, either immediately before or immediately after a child’s decision to do something that is devoid of common sense. Parents frequently learn that common sense is not always so common, and a new procedure or rule must be established on the spot. The child is then responsible to follow that new procedure or rule from the moment it is established.
Children should not be coerced, pressured, bullied, badgered, or forced to obey established procedures or rules. Parents should allow their children freedom of choice. This means that a child should be given the freedom to obey or disobey. As long as the child obeys, more freedoms can be extended because the child demonstrates the ability to make good decisions. However, there are two possibilities on the negative side. If a parent is aware that the child is preparing to make a decision that violates an established procedure or rule, the parent can ask the question, “Do you understand the consequence associated with what you are about to do in view of the established procedure or rule?” The child can either work on this and change his mind about violating the procedure or rule or choose to enter the home’s responsible thinking classroom to develop a plan that will allow him to achieve his own internalized goal without disrupting the parent’s goals for the home location in which the disruption occurred. If during or after an act of disruptive behavior a parent discovers the procedure or rule violation, the parent must confront the child with the appropriate RTP questions: “What are you doing?” “What is the rule?” What happens when you break the rule?” “Is that what you want to happen? What are you going to do now? These questions will be amplified in another chapter, but note that the parent is asking questions. The parent refrains from telling the child what to do.
The perceptual control theory (PCT) teaches that every human being, including all children, are designed for self-control. The question remains: If the parent tells the child what to do, who is in control? Likewise, if the parent asks the child questions, who is in control? This is why RTP has a questioning process for handling disruptive behavior. It permits the child to answer the questions and remain in control of his own destiny – remain in the environment where the disruption occurred or be sent to the RTC.
Under NO circumstance should the parent punish a child for disobedience. Discipline is the approach that truly develops and prepares a child for adulthood and life.
Parent’s rules vs. children’s wants
Parents may establish operational procedures and rules that are contrary to a child’s wants; however, it is important that parental operational procedures and rules be consistent with parent’s values–what they believe and what they live. The child will eventually rebel against the “do-as-I-say and not-as-I-do” procedure or rule. Parents should review their own set of values and make procedures and rules consistent with those values. Parents should be careful to not stifle a child’s creativity, ingenuity, or innovativeness in the pursuit of his own personal goals if those goals do not violate procedures or rules established to reflect parental values.
If parental operational procedures or rules are contrary to a child’s wants, the child should be permitted the following options: He should have the option to change his wants to become consistent with established parental values, or he should have the option of developing a plan that allows him to achieve his personal goals in a manner that will not violate established parental values. The child may not like the former option, but the parent should be pleased with the latter.
Chapter Summary: Freedom comes from God. The angelic conflict is the background against which all of life is lived. Freedom is the environment in which all of human life is to be lived and this includes freedom as the home environment. It is best to establish operational procedures and rules before violations occur. They may run contrary to a child’s wants. Children should be held accountable for disruptive actions, and they should be permitted options that will satisfactorily resolve parent/child conflict in the home.
PREPARING THE HOME FOR RTP
RTP is the only non-punitive, non-manipulative process that will teach and train a child to think for himself. How then do parents prepare their home for RTP? The following is assumed, but if falsely assumed, parents must make adjustments:
1. The parents have chosen to raise their child using RTP as the method of dealing with their child’s disruptive actions.
2. The parents have agreed to not modify the responsible thinking process in any manner.
3. Parents understand their authority role in the home. They understand that they, not the children, are in control of the home environment.
4. They have determined what and how they want their home to be, therefore, they have established goals to be achieved in their home.
5. They have established operational procedures and rules to guide everyone living in the home for the purpose of permitting the successful achievement of every established goal.
6. They have determined to implement the responsible thinking process on every occasion that a procedure or rule violation occurs.
7. They have a designated location that will serve as the responsible thinking classroom (RTC).
8. They realize that as the authority figures in the home, they will wear more than one hat. In any given home location, the parent wears the hat of a parent; however, in the responsible thinking classroom, a parent wears the hat of the responsible thinking classroom teacher; then after the disruptive child develops his plan, he once again becomes the parent for the purpose of negotiating the child’s plan to return to the area from which he was sent to RTC.
9. As the responsible thinking classroom (RTC) teacher, the parent has changed hats and realizes that he is now the one responsible to teach the child how to prepare a plan that will permit the child to re-enter the location from which he was sent to RTC.
10. Once the child has prepared his plan, the parent realizes that he must change hats again. It’s now back to becoming the parent in authority over the location from which the child was sent. At this time, the parent has the responsibility of negotiating the plan he trained the child to write.
11. The parent realizes that the child has the right to re-enter the area from which he was sent if the child’s plan is accepted.
12. The parent realizes that if the child fails to follow his plan, he must return to the responsible thinking classroom to develop a workable plan.
When these factors are in place, the home has been prepared to use RTP.
AUTHORITY ORIENTATION IN THE HOME
Text: Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20; Ephesians 6:4
Ephesians 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. (KJV)
Colossians 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. (KJV)
Ephesians 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. (KJV)
Scripture makes it clear. Parents are in-charge of the home environment. They are the authority figures in the home, and all children in the home are subject to that authority. This is not a matter for debate no matter what rationale may be used to dismiss this important parental responsibility. Parental responsibility over the home has been delegated by God Himself, and there are two ways in which parents can abuse this God-granted authority: 1) a parent becomes a tyrant, resulting in his child’s loss of God-granted freedom; and 2) a parent fails to exercise his authority resulting in a permissive environment wherein the child fails to learn that freedom has boundaries.
Parents need to understand the difference between two biblical Greek words for love: agape and philos. Agape love is unconditional love. Philos love is friendship love. Friendship is a matter of rapport and compatibility between two or more persons, and while parents may be their children’s friends, friendship is neither to be sought nor expected — on a child’s terms. Parents are first and foremost the authority figures in the home with the responsibility of rearing their children in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). This requires a parental attitude of agape love to cover all occasions, especially those in which the child is disruptive. Philos love is fragile. It depends upon rapport and compatibility. When rapport and compatibility end, philos love ends, and only agape love is able to sustain the relationship.
The word authority as used here does not imply control of others. While parents are the authority figures in the home, they are free to control the home environment, but they are not free to control their children. This latter statement is difficult for many to understand and even more difficult for most to accept, but here’s the truth of the matter. PCT teaches that human beings are designed for self-control. They are not designed to be controlled by others. Unless a person attempting to control gains control of another person’s mind, he will never effectively gain control of that person; and it ought to be understood that gaining control of another person’s mind robs that person of the personal freedom granted him by a Creator God who designed man as a free moral agent – and that includes children.
Control the home environment? What does that mean? It means that parents have a right to establish operational procedures and rules to guide every person functioning within the home toward the successful achievement of whatever goals they have established for their home.
Parents are to use their authority responsibly before God to rear their children so as to provide maximum opportunity for them to come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, and then to teach them how to fulfill the personal destiny designed for them by God. For them to have
maximum opportunity to achieve this objective, parents have a right to establish operational procedures and rules according their own personal desires.
The very fact that parents have functioned as the authority figures in the home, have established operational procedures and rules, trained and taught their child, and have clearly followed the responsible thinking process to the letter, and done so in Christian love, does not guarantee the child’s outcome. The child is a free moral agent and may leave home to pursue his own goals, the nature of which goals are clearly inconsistent with what he was taught throughout childhood by his loving and caring parents. However, if a child is to stand a chance of being successful in life as God considers success, the child has the best chance of being successful if he is raised by parents using the disciplinary process associated with RTP rather than being raised in a legalistic home that uses punishment as the method to modify behavior.
RULES, RULES, RULES IN THE HOME
Rules, rules, rules, they’re everywhere – at school, on the highway, in the shopping center, in the parking lot, at the library, on the job, in the locker room, on the team – and yes, even at home! Rules exist not to destroy freedom, but to protect freedom.
There are at least seven legitimate reasons for establishing home rules: safety, freedom, privacy, rights, property, respect, and goals. Rules are established to insure a child’s safety within the home environment. Rules are established to protect a child’s freedom within the home environment. Rules are established to protect a child’s privacy within the home environment. Rules are established to protect a child’s rights within the home environment. Rules are established to protect a child’s property within the home environment. Rules are established to insure respect for a child within the home environment; and rules are established to insure the achievement of parental home goals. Please accept the redundancy of “Rules are established . . .” in each of the preceding sentences. I have done so to insure clarity of understanding.
A distinction should be made between “operational procedures” and “rules.” Operational procedures focus on the home environment; rules focus on children in the home. Operational procedures are established guidelines that focus on more effective ways for the home to function so as to reach the goals that the parents have established for the home. Rules are guidelines established by parents to guide children’s conduct or actions both inside and outside the home. Let’s look at some examples of each.
First, some examples of “operational procedures”: supper will be served at five o’clock every day; the thermometer will be set at 74 degrees the year around; the last person leaving the room will turn-out the lights; the TV should be turned-off if no one is watching it; the door should be shut behind you when you go outside; the refrigerator door should not stand wide open while you’re setting the table.
Some examples of rules: don’t run in the house; don’t slide down the banister; don’t jump on the furniture; if the door is shut, knock before entering; don’t wear your sister’s clothes without permission; wash your hands before leaving the bathroom; be home before 10 PM the night before a school day; be in bed by 11 PM the night before a school day.
Operational procedures and rules should not be based upon parental preference or bias. For example, a parent says, “My favorite music is ‘country,’ and you can’t play anything but country music in this house.” If a child has a personal preference for ‘Christian rap,” he should be able to listen to his type of music as long as it doesn’t disrupt parental freedoms and standards for the home. Think about your procedures and rules. If they are simply a matter of personal preference or personal bias, they should be abandoned in the interest of personal freedom for all who live within the home environment – including the child’s personal freedom.
THE CONSEQUENCE IN RTP
After operational procedures and rules are established for the home, there must be a consequence for procedure or rule violation. Note the word consequence – singular, not plural. There should not be a multiplicity of consequences whether they be different methods or various intensity levels of the same method. Examples of different methods: grounded, removal of toys, time-out, spanking, verbal abuse. Examples of various intensity levels: grounded for a day, two days, a week; time-out for 10 minutes, 20 minutes, an hour; 1 swat with a paddle, 2 swats, 3 swats, 10 swats. These different methods and differing levels of intensity represent punishment, and while punishment may be thought to temporarily alter a child’s behavior, it will never alter it for the right reason; and right motivation is an important factor in God’s plan for every member of the human race during the Church Age (Hebrews 4:12).
There is a single consequence for dealing with children who violate operational procedures and rules. The consequence is being sent to the responsible thinking classroom (RTC). The responsible thinking process contains the only consequence that when properly administered is consistent with God’s plan of personal freedom that was designed by Him for every human being from the cradle to the grave.
Man is designed by God to be a free moral agent. That means that he is not designed to be controlled by anyone other than himself – and this includes children who may be being controlled by parents who perceive it to be their responsibility to do just that, namely, to raise their children by the control factor.
Suppose a child lives at home until he graduates from high school – say, until he is 18 years old – and then he leaves home for whatever his worldly pursuit might be. This means that parents have both the privilege and responsibility of rearing their child for 18 years in preparation for the day when he will leave home to fly-alone in a world that is waiting to “eat-his-lunch.” And the question is simple: Have his parents sufficiently and effectively trained and taught him to think for himself and make good decisions in the face of life’s adversities? That question must be faced by all parents, and when thoughtfully considered, that raises another question. “Are we teaching and training our children to think for themselves, or are we thinking for them?” And yet another question: “If I think for my child until he is eighteen, who will think for him after he leaves home?” That’s a very serious question seldom considered by most parents today.
For approximately eighteen years parents have time to teach and train their child to think responsibly for himself. Here’s a couple more questions: If you as a parent constantly tell your child what to do, who is doing the thinking? Answer: You, the parent, are. However, if you ask your child questions, who is doing the thinking? Answer: The child is doing the thinking. You may not like the way he’s thinking, but the point is that he is doing the thinking – and that prepares him for the life that awaits him – thinking responsibly for himself.
The responsible thinking process is a non-punitive and non-manipulative means of teaching and training a child to think responsibly for himself.
THE HOME’S RESPONSIBLE THINKING CLASSROOM
Let’s deal with an issue frequently raised by those who are being introduced to the responsible thinking process (RTP). When being told about the responsible thinking classroom (RTC), it occurs to some that RTC is a form of punishment. Since RTP is non-punitive in nature, RTC seems to violate the non-punitive principle when, in fact, it does not. Why is RTC non-punitive in nature? The answer is simple. Being sent to RTC is the consequence of procedure or rule violation. The child had been taught in advance that if a procedure or rule violation occurs, he will be sent to RTC if he is not willing to cooperate. If, like “time-out,” a child were required to spend a pre-determined amount of time in RTC before he could return to the area from which he was sent, that would be punishment. The person assigning the designated amount of time to be spent in RTC would be in control of the child rather than the child being in control of his own destiny. For the RTC experience to be non-punitive, the child must be permitted to leave RTC and return to the area from which he was sent the moment he has developed a plan with which to negotiate his return. This means that the child remains in control of his own life. He knew the rule in advance; he knew the consequence in advance; he made the decision to disrupt; he was sent to RTC as the consequence; and now, he can return to the area from which he was sent just as soon as he develops a plan with which to negotiate his return. RTC is non-punitive in nature. The child is in control of his own destiny.
There should be a predetermined location in the home designated as RTC. For older children, perhaps grade level three and up, RTC can be the child’s bedroom. For younger children, RTC can be a chair. I call this chair the responsible thinking chair, and it’s amazing how quickly children three years old and even younger catch on to the purpose for that chair.
Eventually, the question will arise: “What happens if the younger child will not sit in the chair?” The chair is not the issue. Isolation from the immediate area in which the disruption occurred is the issue. The child can sit on the floor facing the parent. The chair is simply provided for comfort. Now, let’s suppose the child won’t remain in his designated seat — chair or floor. The parent, then, will take a seat immediately in front of the child. In loving-kindness let the child know that he must remain in that location until he determines his plan – namely, how he will handle his problem the next time it occurs in the location from which he was sent. If the child becomes belligerent so that he will not remain seated, the parent may have to physically restrain the child in the designated location by applying sufficient pressure to the child’s body. This “holds him” in place until he realizes that he isn’t going anywhere. He soon learns that he might as well relax and come to grips with why he is in RTC in the first place – to develop a plan.
Holding the child in place should not be considered punishment any more than a cowboy riding on the back of a wild horse until the horse becomes broken. The cowboy didn’t hurt the horse. The question was one of who’s in-charge – the horse or the cowboy? Eventually, the horse gets the picture – might as well stop bucking. This guy – the cowboy – is in this thing for the long-haul. The same thing is true of child restraint. The issue is one of who’s in-charge. Soon, the child learns that it isn’t he, but the parent, who is in-charge, and the struggle is over. The next time he is sent to RTC, he remembers that disruptive behavior in RTC will get him nowhere; so, he sets his mind to the task of plan development.
For the older child, RTC can be his bedroom. Could it be another location? Absolutely. The issue once again is isolation from the location from which he was sent. Let’s assume that it will be his bedroom. When he is sent to RTC, he is not permitted to do any of the following: play with his toys or games, listen to his radio or iPod, watch TV, use the phone or his cell phone — you get the picture. He is there to develop a plan, and all of those things just mentioned, and perhaps some things that you would like to add to the list, are distractions from getting about the task of plan development. That’s the reason he’s in RTC. The fact that the child is not permitted the use of any of those things just mentioned should not be construed as punishment. The issue, again, is plan development. That could be accomplished in a room especially built on the side of the home to serve as RTC – minus the toys, games, phones – and that would not be considered punishment, so why go to the expense of building such a room. Just use the bedroom with instructions that the things mentioned above are not part of the RTC experience. The child can leave RTC as soon as he develops a negotiable plan, and how soon that occurs is entirely up to him. The ball is in his court. He’s the captain of his own ship.
I was invited to a church to explain RTP. I used a sixth grade boy to assist me in explaining RTC. After playfully violating an established rule, the boy took his seat in the responsible thinking chair in view of the congregation. I, then, asked the young man the following question: “Will you please tell the congregation how long you can remain in that chair?” and his response caused the congregation to roar with laughter. His response: “Until Jesus comes.” It was unprompted. It was totally spontaneous and demonstrated just how quickly even a sixth grader catches on to the responsible thinking process.
“Until Jesus comes?” The parent might say that that may be a little unrealistic. Its realism will be dealt with in the chapter titled “Your Child Develops His Own Plan.”
HOW RTP WORKS IN THE HOME
Having agreed that the home has been prepared to use RTP, when a child violates an established operational procedure or rule, the first round of the RTP questioning begins. These questions are available on a card provided by Ed Ford who has given me permission to print that information here.
“For your child to succeed, he must believe that you as a parent care. This belief is created through quality time. He must believe that you have confidence in his ability to solve problems. Always ask him questions in a respectful, calm, curious voice. Never punish, reward, lecture, or yell, because trying to control your child doesn’t teach him to think and shows him a lack of respect. Avoid dealing with his excuses; don’t ask him, “Why?” He will only offer an excuse, and then you’ll spend time arguing about the validity of the excuse, and never get to the real issue. It is important to remember that children MUST be dealt with individually, not as a group. When your child disrupts, ask:
1. What are you doing?
2. What is the rule? or Is that O.K.?
3. What happens when you break the rule?
4. Is that what you want to happen?
5. What do you want to do now?
6. What will happen if you disrupt again?
Always ask the underlined questions; the others can be omitted after a while.
If after settling down, a child disrupts later on, then ask:
1. What are you doing?
2. What did you say would happen the next time you disrupted?
3. Where do you need to go now?
Once you have said this, NEVER back down. The child must leave at once and go to a restricted area (a chair, a room, etc.) When he wants to return and obey the rules, he must be allowed to do so, providing he is willing to learn how to create a detailed plan for resolving his problem, and use this plan to negotiate with the parent or caretaker in charge of where he was disrupting.
WHEN A CHILD AVOIDS DEALING WITH YOU
If your child avoids answering a question, repeat it only once. If he persists in not dealing with you as his parent, including offering excuses, then ask:
“Do you want to work on this or not?”
If he continues to avoid dealing with you, then say:
“You need to go to your room (or other restricted area)
If after settling down, he later begins again to disrupt, then you ask:
“What are you doing?”
“What did you say would happen the next time you disrupted?”
“Where do you need to go now?”
Once you have said, “Where do you need to go now?” never back down. The child must leave at once and go to his room (or other restricted area). When he wants to return and obey the procedures and rules in the area from which he was sent, he must first create a detailed plan and use this plan to negotiate with the parent in charge of the area where he was disrupting. After creating a plan, the child reviews it with the responsible thinking classroom teacher (actually the parent wearing this hat).
NEGOTIATING PLANS IS IMPORTANT TO THE PROCESS
When a child approaches his parent or caretaker to negotiate his way back into the area where he was disrupting, he should be given time to explain how he is going to deal with his problem the next time it occurs. This should take about three to five minutes. If part of his plan is unacceptable, alternatives should be offered. His plan should never be ignored or refused. Negotiating is critical to building child-parent/guardian relationships.
As a reminder for a child to use his plan, a parent can ask, “Are you following your plan? Do you want to change your plan?
AFTER NEGOTIATING HIS PLAN, THE CHILD DISRUPTS AGAIN
Use one or two of these questions to help the child think responsibly:
“What are you doing?”
“Are you following your plan?”
“Are you still committed to your plan?”
“Is the plan working?”
“D you want help changing your plan?”
SUPPOSE YOUR CHILD IS INCORRIGIBLE
Not every child is incorrigible. In fact, few are, but this in no consolation to the parents whose child is incorrigible. By definition, the word means “incapable of being corrected; not reformable.”
Let me insert a word of personal testimony. As I began to understand RTP and how it works, I used RTP in the John T. Goad Christian School that I had organized as a ministry associated with my pastorate — 30-40 children from K5 through grade 12 for seven years. RTP worked. If a child was sent to the responsible thinking classroom and then disrupted THIS classroom, the child was dismissed from school to home. Eventually it dawned on me – one of my many ah-ha moments — that while a disrupting child might be sent home from the schools RTC, the home did not easily fit that pattern. You just can’t turn your child out onto the street without the possibility of legal ramifications toward you as a parent for doing so. The question then was this. If a child in your home proves to be incorrigible, disrupting in areas of the home, and then disrupting in the home’s responsible thinking classroom, what option is available to the parents? The only reasonable option is to seek legal advice. What are your options as a parent regarding removing your child from your home? Since laws may differ from one geographic location to another, it is incumbent upon the parents to seek legal advice relevant to the geographic location in which they live. One thing for certain is that if the child who constantly disrupts the home environment believes that his parents have no recourse to expel him from the home, he is sadly misinformed. The parent, after seeking legal advice, and determining the options available for removing the child from the home, can inform the child of parental options, and then ask the following question: “Are you willing to work on this or not?” and if the child shows no evidence of desire to remain in the home and obey the operational procedures or rules, the parents have the
option to dismiss the child from the home in a manner consistent with whatever legal option is available to them.
YOUR CHILD DEVELOPS HIS OWN PLAN
The following information will be helpful to parents who will serve as the responsible thinking classroom teacher in the home. There will be a written method used to train children who can read and write, and there will be a verbal questioning process to be followed with children who are yet unable to read and write. The information that follows is common to both groups of children – those who can read and write and those who can’t.
Ed Ford notes that plans are not always needed. A first or second time offense, involving a minor disturbance, rarely requires a plan. These are often resolved by a parent asking, “What are you doing?” Such “snap counseling” works extremely well with many children when asked about the rules, their goals, or “What are you doing?” It also works well with children who know the plan-making process well because of prior experience.
Children with a chronic problem must make a plan. There are elements in a plan that can make succeeding more likely, but without a firm commitment to the plan once made, there will be no likelihood of achieving success.
The following paragraph is copied with permission. It is copied from the “Responsible Thinking Process (RTP)® Card for Parents and Caretakers of Children”
Teaching Children How To Create an Effective Plan
This process helps children organize their thinking and builds the necessary self-discipline and self-confidence necessary to resolve future conflicts. Ask them how they are going to deal with this problem the next time it happens, by explaining in detail how they are going to work toward achieving their measurable goal. Teach the children to 1) work on one specific problem at a time, 2) set a measurable goal, 3) deal with possible disturbances, 4) create a chart or monitor form as an aid to achieving their goal, and 5) find an experienced adult to work with.
Concerning a Written Plan
Obviously, the child who has not yet learned to read and write is not required to have a written plan. In this case, a parent can lead the child through the plan making process by following a verbal questioning process. (See “Developing a Plan #2”)
Commitment to Resolving the Problem
A child should not begin to make a plan until he is committed to resolving his problem. This word commitment is important. If the child is not committed to solving his problem, he will hasten through the mechanics of plan development – just to get out of RTC. A weak commitment will result in plan failure soon after the child returns to the area from which he was sent. Therefore, commitment is important to the success of the responsible thinking process, and not until the child is committed to solving his problem should the plan development begin. This
means that the child may spend an extended amount of time in RTC. Extended amount of time? Yes, an extended amount of time. And how long is an extended amount of time? It refers to whatever amount of time it takes for the child to determine that he is ready to return to the location from which he came and obey the procedures and rules associated with that location. Then and only then does he begin the plan development process, and if he begins one second prior to that time, his weak commitment will result in plan failure – and back to RTC he goes.
The Child Develops His Own Plan
The child is responsible to develop his own plan. A plan? A plan for what? Remember, the child was a disruption in the area from which he was sent to RTC. His disruption was the result of violating an operational procedure or rule that was designed to control the location where the disruption occurred. Every location in the home is designed with purpose. For example: the bedroom is designed for sleep; the bathroom is designed for bathing; the kitchen is designed for cooking. The dining room is designed for dining. Extend that idea to every room in your home that I have not mentioned. Location control is said to occur when the operational procedures and rules governing any area are followed. When the child is in pursuit of his own internalized goal in whatever home location he is in, he is said to be a disruption if his pursuit violates the right of the parent or someone else in that same location to pursue their own internalized goals. In other words, the child’s freedom disrupted the freedom of someone else in the location where the disruption occurred.
By allowing the child to develop his own plan, the parent demonstrates his belief that the child is intelligent enough to determine his own workable plan. Remember, RTP is designed to train a child to think. Think? Think about what? How can I as a child reach my own internalized goal without disrupting the right of another person functioning in the same location to do the same?
Once the child is committed – there’s that word again, committed — to resolving his problem, he has to be taught how to make a plan. For the plan to be the child’s plan, the child has to learn how to resolve his own conflicts. This means that neither mom nor dad makes the plan for the child, but that the child must develop his own plan. Mom or dad can teach the child the mechanics (how-to) of plan development, but the plan must come for the child’s own thinking.
Elements in Plan Making
There are several elements in plan making: 1) Gather Information; 2) Teaching Responsibility Stage: Compare; Commit; Plan; 3) Establish a Measurable Goal. A form is provided to serve as a guideline for parents to both learn and teach the responsible thinking process. The written plan form is to be used with children who can read and write. The verbal questioning process should be used with children who have not yet learned to read and write.
RESPONSIBLE THINKING CLASSROOM
CHILD’S WRITTEN PLAN
I. ASK THE CHILD
Gather Information
What were you doing that caused your problem? ___________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
What did mom/dad say you were doing? ___________________________________________
What is the rule or procedure?
What is the consequence of what you did?
Is that what you want to happen? (Circle one) yes no
What would you rather be doing?
What do you want to do now?
II. TEACH RESPONSIBILITY
Compare Circle your choice
Is what you were doing against the procedure or rule? yes or no
Is what you were doing getting you what you want? yes or no
Is what you were doing getting you all the things that you want? yes or no
Commit
Are you willing to work at resolving (fixing) your problem? Write your commitment.
III. IF USING A MEASURABLE GOAL AND CHART
A. Establish a measurable goal. (Must tie to the chart below.)
B. Set a specific action plan. Detail what you are going to do to achieve your goal (time, place, days, with whom, how, long, how many). The plan must contain specifics for measuring progress over time.
C. Compare and commit to the plan.
Will this plan get you what you want? (Circle one) yes no
Are you willing to commit to this plan? (Circle one) yes no
D. Measurable Goal Chart
To whom will you report the progress of your plan?
How often? When? Where?
Signatures: Child Mom/Dad
Next Meeting: Date: Time: Place:
With whom?
Please note: This form is a guideline for learning the process for teaching responsible thinking. It does not include all questions, techniques, and strategies used in working with children.
RESPONSIBLE THINKING CLASSROOM
CHILD’S VERBAL, NON-WRITTEN PLAN
I. ASK THE CHILD
Gather Information
What were you doing that caused your problem?
What do you think that mom/dad said you were doing?
What is the way we do this or what is the rule?
What happens when you do this?
Is that what you want to happen?
What would you rather be doing now?
What do you want to do now?
II. TEACHING THE CHILD TO BE RESPONSIBILE
Compare
Is what you were doing against how we do things or against the rule? yes or no
Is what you were doing getting you what you want? yes or no
Is what you were doing getting you all the things that you want? yes or no
Commit
Are you willing to work at resolving (fixing) your problem?
III. IF USING A MEASURABLE GOAL AND CHART
If the parent deems that a measurable goal and chart is necessary, the following information will be helpful.
A. Establish a measurable goal. (Must tie to the chart below.)
B. Set a specific action plan. Detail what you are going to do to achieve your goal (time, place, days, with whom, how, long, how many). The plan must contain specifics for measuring progress over time.
C. Compare and commit to the plan.
Will this plan get you what you want? (Circle one) yes no
Are you willing to commit to this plan? (Circle one) yes no
D. Measurable Goal Chart
(The following information is a reminder for the parent and child.)
To whom will the child report to discuss progress in this plan?
How often? When? Where?
Next Meeting: Date: Time: Place:
With whom?
Please note: This form is a guideline for learning the process for teaching responsible thinking. It does not include all questions, techniques, and strategies used in working with children.
