‘ MSU

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

 

LIBRARIES ,
“ your record. FINES MI]
7 » be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped beIow.
£L~4-—~i+—-
I 0 U “J“:WP“
fiCaLé/EBB

 

A IISCRIPTIVE STUDY OF GUIDED GROUP INTERACTION (GGI):
A DISCIPLIhE PROGRAM IN A MIDWEST SCHOOL

By

Nana P. Makaul a

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degee of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Admiristration

I986

Copyright by

NANA P. MAKAULA

I986

6"

ABSTRACT

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF GUIDED GROUP INTERACTION (GGI):
A DISCIPLINE PROGRAM IN A MIDWEST SCHOOL

BY

Nana P. Makaul a

The present study used field research methods to investigate and describe
in detail the activities of Guided Group Interaction (GGI) in a junior higi school
in the Midwest. GGI is a school youth advocacy program specially designed
during the early l970s to be an exemplary progam that can be disseminated to
schools with discipline problems.

Since its inception, it has been disseminated to 34 school districts in
Michigan. Despite its widespread distribution, there is little research to
document the functioning of GGI in sites that adopted the program.

The importance of studying progrcms like GGI has been made apparent by
the resounding call in the literature today for information about effective
programs for dealing with the seemingly-perennial problem of school discipline.
The problem persists in spite of a myriad of progcms specifically designed to
improve school discipline.

The present study revealed that GGI was not practiced as prescribed by its
designers because of stated specific and peculiar conditions at the time (i.e.,
inadequate time assigiment for the group leader) and because of plausible

unstated reasons (i.e., resistance to the progrcrn). In concert with the findings of

Nana P. Makaula

related studies, the study concluded that pre-packaged programs of change have
little chance of changing schools in targeted areas of change like discipline since
these programs cannot anticipate unique local conditions that could make full

implementation impossible.

DE DI CATION

To my courageous and inspiring mother,

Nontuthuzelo Makaula,

and to my loving and supportive sister,

Stombe.

DEDICATION

To my courageous and inspiring mother,

Nontuthuzelo Makaula,

and to my loving and supportive sister,

Stombe.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation is the result of the support of my thoughtful committee,
colleagues, the people at my research site, friends, and loved ones who
contributed professional and personal support.

The kindness md direction provided by Dr. Douglas Canpbell as director of
my study is deeply appreciated. I give Dr. James Costar my heartfelt thanks for
his initial encouragement of my decision to enter the progran, his understanding
of my neecb, and his role as an effective coordinator and chair of my guidance
committee. My special gatitude goes to Dr. John Suehr, Dr. Gary Stollak, and
Dr. Casmer Hellman for their constant support and understanding during the
most trying times.

I applaud my colleagues in the field research methods series for helping me
organize my study with constructive review. While I cannot list them all here,
my special thanks goes to Mr. Eliot Singer for the commitment and assistance he
gave me in planning the study.

Without the warm, accepting attitudes of the people at my research site,
this study would have not been possible. I appreciate their cordial and
cooperative acceptance of me. In particular, my thanks are directed to the
principal, group leader, GGI girls, assistant principals, and staff.

I extend my unending thanks to my typist, Ms. Barbara Reeves, for her
efficient and speedy typing and her unfailingly cheerful and helpful nature.
Barbara restored my hope and faith in believing my final draft would be done on

time after I suffered a mishap with a typing and editing service.

Keith and Robbe Pohl, Bob Hundley, Jon Lacy, Warren and Tony Vincent,
Abdou Fall, and the following friends with their families-lungie Goduka, Buhle
Chonco, Yaya Mthombeni, Naana Agymang-Menshah--many other friends I'm
unable to list: to all of you, I extend my thanks for having made my life in this
country meaningful in so many ways.

To Ms. Carol Gilchrist, to whom I will remain grateful for having been not
only a selfless friend but a loving and self-sacrificing and supportive sister, I
express my deepest appreciation. Without the computer she freely availed to me
to write and rewrite my data and first draft, producing this dissertation would
have been more of an ordeal than it was.

My special gratitude and love go to my family: my mother, my late father,
my stepfather, my sisters, my brothers, and my caring relatives, especially Aunt
Nosi, and friends for their encouragement.

I will not forget to acknowledge and appreciate the contributions of the
following organizations: the Oppenheimer Trust Fund, Sage and Altrusa
Foundations, United Nations, and Urban Affairs of Michigan State University,
particularly its former dean, Dr. Robert Green, for helping me realize the
impossible dream of earning university education as a Black South African.

Most importantly, I acknowledge my indebtedness to God Almighty.
Amidst millions of gifted Black South Africans, God miraculously made it

possible for me to reach this level of my education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

Introduction I
Operational Definition of Guided Group Interaction (GGI) 2
Purpose of the Study 3
Problem Statement ll
Need for the Study 5
Significance of the Study 6
Delimitations of the Study 8
Research Questions 9
Summa'y 9
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE l2
School Discipline l2
Introduction I2
ls Discipline Really a Problem in American
Public Schools Today? l3
Factors Confounding the Degree of Problems of
School Discipline l5
Causes of Disruption and Violence l7
Ineffective Approach to School Discipline 20
Effective Approach to School Discipline 23
Counseling Prograns to Improve School Discipline 27
Guided Group Interaction 29
Historical Background 29
GGI in Michigan Public Schools 3|
What Is Guided Group Interaction (GGI)? 32
Conclusions Drawn from the Review of Literature 36
State of the Art md Implications for the Study 36
Summary 37

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY

Entry Negotiations
Method
Data Collection
Observations
Frequency of Observations
Recording
Observations Outside of GGI
Interviews
Informal Interviews
Formal Interviews
Documents
Data Analysis
Summary

CHAPTER IV: REVIEW OF THE SETTING

The Community
The School Building

The GGI Classroom
Summary

CHAPTER V: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Part One
Why and How Were GGI Participants Chosen for GGI?
The Selection Process
How Did Teachers, Counselors, Administrators, and the
Group Leader Think GGI Worked?

Teachers

Counselors

Adninistrators

The Group Leader

Part Two
Based on Observations, What Actually Went on During
GGI Meetings?

What Were the Duties, Responsibilities, Rights,
and Obligations of Group Members
and the Group Leader?

What Were Appropriate Topics for Discussion in GGI?

Fanilial Problems
Social Relations Problems
Day-to-Day Social Experiences
What Were Inappropriate Topies of Discussion?
Part Three
What Did GGI Participants Think GGI Was All About?

A Place for Self-Disclosure

GGI Had a Caring, Supportive Adult

GGI: A Place to Understand Your Feelings and
Those of Others

vi

CHAPTER VI: SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND INTERPRETATION
OF FINDINGS

Summay

Discussion

Interpretation

Conclusions

Implications for Practice and Policy

APPENDICES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii

3.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of l37 Progams by Progrcm Focus
Membership in GGI Group I During the l984-85 School Year
Membership in GGI Group II During the l984-85 School Year

viii

26
59
60

U1 4-? u N
o o o 0

LIST OF FIGURES

The layout of the GGI classroom

Selection form

The Guided Group Interaction (GGI) process
A leader-centered group process

Member-centered group process

57
66
80
I08
I09

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

"The U.S. public continues to regard discipline as the most important
problem facing public schools. This has been true in every poll but one since this
series began in I969" (Gallup, I985, p. 42). This statement from the I7th Gallup
Poll of the public's attitude toward public schools indicates that for I6 of the
past I7 years, the United States public has ranked school discipline as the number
one educational problem. This problem has persisted for almost two decades;
yet, as stated by Curwin and Mendler (I980),

. . . because of the widespread need for improved methods of
dealing with discipline, a plethora of approaches and theories have
been developed and tried in colleges of education and classrooms
throughout the country . . . despite these books, workshops, courses,
and in—service training progams, teachers and schools are still
searching for solutions to the problems of discipline and the
frightening, tiring effects of disruptive youth. (pp. l-Z)

What Curwin and Mendler did not mention is the fact that the federal
government hm also sponsored the development of exemplary progams and
provided funds for the dissemination of those programs to schools with discipline
problems. Schools do not face this perennial problem because nothing has been
done; instead, as Golclstein, Apter, and Harootunian (I984) have observed, the
response of the educational community has been energetic, creative, and
sustained. A majority of these programs claim a high degree of success. For

both theoretical and practical reasons, research efforts should now be directed

toward examining most of the programs which have claimed a high degree of

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

"The U.S. public continues to regard discipline as the most important
problem facing public schools. This has been true in every poll but one since this
series began in I969" (Gallup, I985, p. 42). This statement from the I7th Gallup
Poll of the public's attitude toward public schools indicates that for l6 of the
past l7 years, the United States public has ranked school discipline as the number
one educational problem. This problem has persisted for almost two decades;
yet, as stated by Curwin and Mendler (I980),

. . . because of the widespread need for improved methods of
dealing with discipline, a plethora of approaches and theories have
been developed and tried in colleges of education and classrooms
throughout the country . . . despite these books, workshops, courses,
and in-service training programs, teachers and schools are still
searching for solutions to the problems of discipline and the
frightening, tiring effects of disruptive youth. (pp. I-2)

What Curwin and Mendler did not mention is the fact that the federal
government has also sponsored the development of exemplary progams and
provided funds for the dissemination of those programs to schools with discipline
problems. Schools do not face this perennial problem because nothing has been
done; instead, as Goldstein, Apter, and Harootunian (I984) have observed, the
response of the educational community has been energetic, creative, and
sustained. A majority of these programs claim a high degree of success. For

both theoretical and practical reasons, research efforts should now be directed

toward examining most of the programs which have claimed a high degree of

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Introduction

"The U.S. public continues to regard discipline as the most important
problem facing public schools. This hm been true in every poll but one since this
series began in I969" (Gallup, I985, p. 42). This statement from the I7th Gallup
Poll of the public's attitude toward public schools indicates that for l6 of the
past l7 years, the United States public has ranked school discipline as the number
one educational problem. This problem has persisted for almost two decades;
yet, as stated by Curwin and Mendler (I980),

. . . because of the widespread need for improved methods of
dealing with discipline, a plethora of approaches and theories have
been developed and tried in colleges of education and classrooms
throughout the country . . . despite these books, workshops, courses,
and in-service training progarns, teachers and schools are still
searching for solutions to the problems of discipline and the
frightening, tiring effects of disruptive youth. (pp. I-2)

What Curwin and Mendler did not mention is the fact that the federal
government hm also sponsored the development of exemplary progams and
provided funds for the dissemination of those programs to schools with discipline
problems. Schools do not face this perennial problem because nothing has been
done; instead, as Goldstein, Apter, and Harootunian (I984) have observed, the
response of the educational community has been energetic, creative, and
sustained. A majority of these programs claim a high degree of success. For

both theoretical and practical reasons, research efforts should now be directed

toward examining most of the programs which have claimed a high degree of

success so as to understand why all these efforts do not translate into
appreciable changes.

The present study is aimed at investigating and describing in detail Guided
Group Interaction (GGI), a peer counseling technique which was developed to be
an exemplary progarn that can be disseminated in Michigan schools with
discipline problems. It was introduced during the early I970s in Michigan's public
schools as the School Youth Advocacy program to cpell discipline problems at a
time when student activism, violence, and vandalism were at their peak. GGI
hm most of the elements considered important for a positive and effective
discipline proga'n according to current literature on school discipline.

Generally, the literature indicates that a discipline progrcm that gives
students a chance to participate in the management of students' affairs, as well
as a progrcrn that seeks to treat causes of misbehavior rather than symptoms, is
effective. Furthermore, the American public hm indicated a preference for
positive solutions that would involve discussion and instruction rather than harsh
or punitive memures, solutions that would deal with problem students within the
school system, rather than placing them in alternative schools (Gallup, I985).
Although GGI does not include formal instruction, it is still in accord with the
kind of a discipline progam the American public prefers.

Operational Definition of
Guided Group Interaction (GGI)

GGI is a peer counseling technique to change and manage student behavior.
GGI students are supposed to counsel one another in the presence of an adult
group leader. GGI aims at utilizing the power of peer influence to change
undesirable behavior. Peer leaders, both negative and positive, are put into a
counseling group where they can examine their own inappropriate behaviors. The

idea of having both negative and positive peer leaders in a counseling group is to

reverse and defme the power of negative leadership, thus avoiding the negative
labeling that could result if negative peer leaders were to be isolated. Designers
of the program had hoped that, because of the group experience, peer leaders
would command positive leadership in peer groups and that positive cultures
would be a consemence. Thus GGI was also considered to be a preventative
progran because of the assumed ripple effect.

As a School Youth Advocacy Progam, GGI advocates involvement of
students in the administration and management of students' affairs. For
example, GGI students can discuss what appears to be a general problem in the
school and bring those problems to the attention of administrators. GGI
participants can function as teacher aides and help control classroom misconduct
and misbehavior. Misbehaving students can be counseled by the GGI graduates,
and/or participants, who may suggest an appropriate cause of help where
femible. GGI members can be used in other community-bmed programs (e.g.,
addressing a parent goup or PTA meeting). The historical development of GGI
in public schools of this state, its rationale, aims, and goals will be fully

discussed in the literature review.

Purpose of the Study

Field research methom were used in this study to investigate and describe
in detail all the activities of the GGI program in Howard Junior Hidi School.
The study describes how GGI participants counseled one another in GGI meetings
and how non-GGI students were counseled by GGI students. Typical problems
brought to meetings by group members and the kind of non-members' problems
that were brought to GGI for discussion are described in detail. What GGI
participants could not do in the school community to further the purpose of GGI

is described. This is to demonstrate the scope of the GGI progan in this

reverse and defuse the power of negative leadership, thus avoiding the negative
labeling that could result if negative peer leaders were to be isolated. Designers
of the program had hoped that, because of the group experience, peer leaders
would command positive leadership in peer groups and that positive cultures
would be a consequence. Thus GGI was also considered to be a preventative
progrcm because of the assumed ripple effect.

As a School Youth Advocacy Progorn, GGI advocates involvement of
students in the administration and management of students' affairs. For
example, GGI students can discuss what appears to be a general problem in the
school and bring those problems to the attention of administrators. GGI
participants can function as teacher aides and help control clmsroom misconduct
and misbehavior. Misbehaving students can be counseled by the GGI graduates,
and/or participants, who may suggest an appropriate course of help where
femible. GGI members can be used in other community-bmed programs (e.g.,
addressing a parent goup or PTA meeting). The historical development of GGI
in public schools of this state, its rationale, aims, and goals will be fully

discussed in the literature review.

Purpose of the Study

Field research methods were used in this study to investigate and describe
in detail all the activities of the GGI program in Howard Junior Higw School.
The study describes how GGI participants counseled one another in GGI meetings
and how non-GGI students were counseled by GGI students. Typical problems
brought to meetings by group members and the kind of non-members' problems
that were brought to GGI for discussion are described in detail. What GGI
participants could not do in the school community to further the purpose of GGI

is described. This is to demonstrate the scope of the GGI proan in this

setting. The study concludes by relating the described activities of the GGI
program in this setting to the aims and broad goals of GGI as outlined by its
designers. In other words, conguence between the theory and practice of GGI is
described.

Problem Statement

The problem is that little is known about the practice of GGI in public
schools. Other than the natimal surveys which revealed disappointing results
about federally funded programs like GGI to improve schools (Marvin, McCann,
Connolly, Ternkin, & Henning, I976; Bermm & McLauglin, I978), the only
research study known to have directly examined GGI is Petrock's (I976). Petrock
investigated the impact and outcome of implementation of the GGI progam in
the four experimental schools where GGI was first introduced in this Midwest
state. Petrock lcmented that GGI had no theoretical base, no literature
adecpately explaining what it was and how it worked, and no empirical research
aimed at understanding the GGI process to support practices msociated with it.
He further noted that the little research connected with GGI mainly centered on
the effects of a GGI-based progrcm and not with explaining the process of GGI.
During his study, he observed that each practitioner at the four experimental
sites had his/her own stylistic variation of conducting GGI meetings and
managing GGI-bmed progams. He attributed this variation to the fact that GGI
was a difficult program to understand.

Unlike what Petrock believed was the reason for differential
implementation of the progrcm, in this study it is msurned that remons for
differential implementation could also be explained by the local conditions that

could force the progran to adapt to local conditions. The aim of this study is to

provide a detailed analytic account of the process of GGI and identify factors

that might be associated with the functioning of GGI in this setting.

Need for the Study

Petrock's (I976) study had focused on the outcome of implementation
efforts, although he recognized the need for the GGI process to be studied. The
results of Petrock's study demonstrated that GGI produced no significant impact
in almost any of the measures of impact. It wm only self reports of GGI
participants that gave significant positive results of the program's impact on its
participants, although these self-reports were sharply contradicted by negative
reports of teachers about GGI participants. The study also indicated that
implementation of the progran was not uniform in the four experimental sites.
For theoretical remons, knowing that the program has or has not achieved its
stated goals may not be as informative as knowing why the program hm or hm
not achieved its goals in one setting or another. As Gold and Mann (I984) put it,
". . . it is extremely important to study the underlying process by which progcms
seek to achieve their goals rather than focusing on outcomes" (p. I60). It is this
kind of knowledge that can inform future theory and practice.

Because educators are still searching for new positive models to help them
deal constructively with the problem of discipline (Bybee & Gee, I982; Curwin &
Mendler, I980; Goldstein et al., I984; Feldhusen, I979; First & Mizell, I980), there
is a compelling need to study programs that appear promising in their
conceptualization and claims of success (Gold & Mann, I984). Although most
writers in this area point out that there is no single progcm that can be suitable
for all settings, it is still important to study promising programs intensively so as
to identify factors influencing the success or failure of those progarns in

specific settings. As Brookover, Beaner, Efthim, Hathaway, Lezotte, Miller,

Passalaccpa, and Tornasky (I 982) have stated, ". . . the need for information on
successful and positive (discipline) programs cannot be overemphasized" (p. I77).
From case studies, potential adopters can vicariously learn about specific
conditions which determine the success and failure of a "promising" discipline
progcrn. The holistic approach of (palitative research illmtrates the
relationships and interconnectedness of factors influencing the functioning of
such progans. That there is a need for information about positive progams is
further evidenced by the new I984 National School Safety Center (NSSC) which
hm made the dissemination of information about outstanding discipline prog'crns

one of its primary goals (Nicholson, Stephens, Elder, & Leavitt, I985).

Sigiificance of the Study

There are several programs that are specially designed to control and/or
mmoge behavior. Gold and Mann (I 984) observe that data are rarely collected to
test either the effectiveness of these progams or their theoretical assumptions.
They contend one hm to glean hints from the empirical literature on how
separate components of the program might work if they were integrated. Gold
and Petronio (I 980) argue that one could fill a large back with brief descriptions
of the mmy different kinds of attempts to reduce delinquency. Nevertheless,
they add, "We know very little about what really works, and we suspect from
what careful research hm been done that very few methom have worked at all"
(p. 5”).

The analytical descriptive approach msumed in cpalitative research
necessitated the examination of the theoretical assumptions of the GGI model in
areas where undesirable and unintended consemences were produced. The study
illustrates how these assumptions were translated in practice in this particular

setting.

Myrick and Dixon (I 985), after a review of literature on effective counselor
interventions with students who have negative attitudes and behaviors, cane to
the realization that counselors only report results of successful progrcms
arranged for students with negative attitudes and/or behaviors. They urge
counselors to describe the methods they used. They believe there is a need for
such data. The present study provides information about the group process of
GGI, a progran that was intended to help students with behavior problems, as
practiced in this setting and factors influencing the group focus and style.
Illustrations of what was actually done in GGI group meetings and why are
contained in the study.

As stated before, Petrock (I976) points out that GGI hm no theoretical
bme, no literature adequately explaining what it is and how it works, and no
empirical research aimed at understanding the GGI process. What Petrock
probably meant is that research has not been conducted to validate and justify
different mpects considered essential for effective functioning of the GGI
process. This study depicts how different mpects of the GGI program operated
in practice and illustrates unintended consecpences of the prescribed operations.

This study is not evaluative, but descriptive. Yet, as Wirt and Kirst (I982)
argue about descriptive studies, "the description of a purported reality is
invariably accompanied by normative evaluations" (p. 25). Wirt and Kirst see
descriptive and evaluative studies indefinably merging into prescription--
recommendations for changing the reality to achieve normative objectives to ,
close the gap between the real and the ideal.

It should be poi nted out that although the analytical descriptive approach
of cpalitative research bears strong resemblances to some evaluative research
methods, such as process evaluation, which most typically require detailed

descriptions of progam operations or engages in normative evaluations as

suggested by Wirt and Kirst, ethnogaphy is still sigiificantly different from the
approach of evaluative studies. It is not just the process of accomplishing
desired goals that is important to this approach, but in particular the meaning
actors give to their actions or the process itself. In this study, for exanple, it is
demonstrated how the meaning local people attached to GGI affected the

process and focus of GGI.

Delimitations of the Study

The study does not provide information about which objectives were
accomplished and how .well, because the study did not seek to evaluate the
impact of GGI in this setting along the parameters and memures of impact given
by the designers of the proan. Instead, the study sought to understand the
focus of the program and its value from the meaning local people give to
program The meaning local people had of the program was then related to the
broad goals of the GGI model in order to demonstrate how the program had
translated itself in this setting.

Detailed information about group dynamim is not provided because the
focus of the study was not on group dynamics per se. In group meetings the
focus was on the content and purpose of discussions where the intent and
meaning of the progcm could be culled. The general aim of the study was to
observe the processes by which the GGI program achieves its goals in this
setting. GGI meetings happen to be one of the processes.

The study did not seek to evaluate the functional value of all the different
mpects and procedures recommended for the GGI progran.

Results of this study cannot be generalized beyond the studied case,
although implications of the findings, when viewed against findings of related

studies, speak to general policy issues.

Research Questions
This study describes what local people understand GGI to be, how it works,
and what participant observations demonstrates to be actually happening. The
focus was on the following areas: (a) recruitment to GGI, (b) GGI sessions, and.
(c) the role of GGI participants in the school community. Research qJestions
included the following.

I. Why and how were GGI participants chosen for GGI, according to
(a) teachers, (1)) administrators, (c) counselors, (d) GGI
participants, and (e) group leaders?

2. How did teachers, counselors, administrators, and goup leaders
think GGI worked (e.g., by what mechanism—psychological,
perhaps-mdo these role groups think GGI changes attitudes or
behaviors)?

3. Based on observations, what actually went on during GGI
meetings?

a. What were the duties, responsibilities, rights, and
obligations of members in the group and the group
leader?

b. What were appropriate topics for discussions?

c. What were inappropriate topies for discussions?

4. What did GGI goup participants think GGI was all about?

Summcry

Discipline is regaded by both the public and educators as the number one
problem facing American schools today. This problem hm unabatedly continued
as the geatest problem facing public schools today, despite the many programs
that have been installed in schools to ameliorate the problem. This study used
field research methods to investigate and describe in detail the activities of the
GGI progan in one setting. GGI is centered around peer counseling. In its
theoretical conceptualization, GGI appears to be a promising and positive

approach to mmaging student behavior. The study attempted to satisfy the need

for information about positive and creative discipline progams. A call for
information about such programs is echoed in most current literature on school
discipline and at the federal education administration sectors (e.g., the National
School Safety Center). The study focused on the meaning local people attached
to the program so as to understand why it worked in some particular way and not
in others in this setting. The forerunner of the present study by Petrock (I976)
had revealed that GGI was differentially implemented in the first four
experimental sites where GGI was first implemented. By studying GGI
ethnogaphically, it wm believed that environmental factors which influence the
functioning of the GGI progam in this particular setting could be identified.
The present study is not evaluative, but descriptive. It describes what was done
in the prog'cm and why what wm done was done.

A summcry of the contents of the next chapters is briefly presented here.
Chapter II contains a review of literature related to the study. The first part is
a review of literature on school discipline, and the second part is a review of
literature on the historical development of GGI as a method of changing
behavior. Chapter III discusses the methods med in the study and the rationale
for using them. Chapter IV describes the immediate setting of the GGI: the GGI
clmsroom, school, and community.

Chapter V presents the findings. This chapter is divided into fine parts.
The first part is mainly testimonies of school staff about GGI. Part two is
predominantly observational data which are still intertwined with testimonies of
school staff and GGI participants. The third part discusses GGI from the
perspective of GGI goup participants, although observational data support and

augnent testimonies of group participants.

for information about positive and creative discipline programs. A call for
information about such programs is echoed in most current literature on school
discipline and at the federal education administration sectors (e.g., the National
School Safety Center). The study focused on the meaning local people attached
to the program so as to understand why it worked in some particular way and not
in others in this setting. The forerunner of the present study by Petrock (I976)
had revealed that GGI was differentially implemented in the first four
experimental sites where GGI was first implemented. By studying GGI
ethnogaphically, it was believed that environmental factors which influence the
functioning of the GGI progqn in this particular setting could be identified.
The present study is not evaluative, but descriptive. It describes what was done
in the progcm and why what wm done was done.

A summay of the contents of the next chapters is briefly presented here.
Chapter II contains a review of literature related to the study. The first part is
a review of literature on school discipline, and the second part is a review of
literature on the historical development of GGI as a method of changing
behavior. Chapter III discusses the methods used in the study and the rationale
for using them. Chapter IV describes the immediate setting of the GGI: the GGI
cl msroom, school, and community.

Chapter V presents the findings. This chapter is divided into tl'ree parts.
The first part is mainly testimonies of school staff about GGI. Part two is
predominantly observational data which are still intertwined with testimonies of
school staff and GGI participants. The third part discusses GGI from the
perspective of GGI goup participants, although observational data support and

augnent testimonies of group participants.

for information about positive and creative discipline progams. A call for
information about such programs is echoed in most current literature on school
discipline and at the federal education administration sectors (e.g., the National
School Safety Center). The study focused on the meaning local people attached
to the program so as to understand why it worked in some particular way and not
in others in this setting. The forerunner of the present study by Petrock (I976)
had revealed that GGI was differentially implemented in the first four
experimental sites where GGI was first implemented. By studying GGI
ethnogaphically, it wm believed that environmental factors which influence the
functioning of the GGI program in this particular setting could be identified.
The present study is not evaluative, but descriptive. It describes what was done
in the progcm and why what was done was done.

A summary of the contents of the next chapters is briefly presented here.
Chapter II contains a review of literature related to the study. The first part is
a review of literature on school discipline, and the second part is a review of
literature on the historical development of GGI as a method of changing
behavior. Chapter III discusses the methods med in the study and the rationale
for using them. Chapter IV describes the immediate setting of the GGI: the GGI
cl msroorn, school, and community.

Chapter V presents the findings. This chapter is divided into three parts.
The first part is mainly testimonies of school staff about GGI. Part two is
predominantly observational data which are still intertwined with testimonies of
school staff and GGI participants. The third part discusses GGI from the
perspective of GGI goup participants, although observational data support and

augnent testimonies of group participants.

Finally, Chapter VI contains a summary of the previom chapter, discussion,
interpretation, and conclusions, as well as implications of the study and

recommendations.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This section presents a review of literature related to the study. It is
divided into two parts. The first part reviews literature on school discipline so
as to depict the state of the art and efforts that have been made to improve
school discipline and to relate the GGI effort to current trenm in matters
concerning school discipline in the United States. Part two reviews historical

deveIOpment and factors surrounding its adoption in public schools of this state.

School Discipline

Introduction

 

Discipline, Bybee and Gee (I982) reckon, hm always been a concern for
school personnel, but over the past three decades there hm been an increase in
violence, vandalism, and disruption in schools. Rich 0%” states that despite
concerted efforts to recognize student rights and develop educational
alternatives, school violence incremed throughout the I970s. Bauer (I985), like
almost all other authors reviewed, considers student misbehavior one of the most
serious problems facing American schools today. The disruptive behavior of
some students, especially in secondary schools, is widely believed to be impeding

the efforts of teachers to maintain enough order to impart knowledge and skills
(Goldstein et al., I985; Gold & Mann, I984; Curwin & Mendler, I980; Feitler,
I980).

Is Discipline Really a Problem
in American Publ ic Schools TodaL?

There is a minority of educators who believe that discipline is no worse
than before. lanni and Reuus-Ianni (I 980), cited by Braokaver et al. (I 982), for
exanple, lament that the public believes that crime is escalating because the
public does not keep up with the research findings which point to the contrary.
These educators also argue that school violence appears to be worse than before
because the media now focuses more attention on this problem than before.
Although no studies which poi nt to the contrary were encountered in this review,
the truth may be that whether or not school discipline is worse than before, it is
worse if it is perceived as worse by the general public. A social problem is
defined not so much by empirical reality as by concerns of the general public or
leaders of public opinion (Gold & Mann, I984).

The picture is confusing. It appears as though it depends on definitions of
terms like violence. Wayne (I985), for excmple, contends that when the term
violence is used to define what he calls petty annoyances and trivial disruptive
behaviors, it only confounds the true picture of school violence. He argues that
school violence is rare. Most authors appear to embrace a broad definition of
violence as exemplified in the following definition given by Feitler (I980):
"(violence) . . . any act or threatened act that has strongly negative physical or
psychological consecpences or which intentionally damages property . . ." (p. 80).
Marvin et al. (I976), in a national survey, established that educators preferred
this broad definition of the term violence.

The response to the perceived alarming state of school violence during the
I970$ was the commissioning of a series of fact-finding commissions such as the
Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency (l97I-l975), Safe
School Study (I974-l978), a commission from Research for Better Schools (I975-

I976). These commissions were set up to investigate the extent of crime,
violence, vandalism, and disruption in the schools. The aim of these commissions
was to investigate the extent and magnitude of discipline problems so as to find
solutions to them. Without exception, they all confirmed that school violence
was a big problem in American schools. The problem still persists because the
findings of these commissions had been confirmed by recent surveys conducted in
the '805. For example, the I980 NEA national survey of teachers indicates that
one of every 20 teachers was msaulted on school premises during that school
year (Feitler, I980). A statewide survey conducted by the Detroit Free Press in
Michigan revealed that 4696 of all Michigan teachers had been threatened with
violence during the I983-84 school year. One of every five teachers had been
msaulted by a student, and three of l00 had been msaulted by a parent. Another
study in Boston found that during the I983 school year, 63 crimes had occurred
for each l00 students (Bauer, I985; Baker, I985).

The results of these commissions and surveys have culminated in the
establishment of the National School Safety Center (NSSC) which was opened in
June I984. According to President Reagan as quoted by Nicholson et al. (I 985),
the center is ". . . addressing the neem of our nation's schools in the areas of
school safety and restoration of (good) discipline" (p. 492). Reagan is reported to
be waging a campaign against unruly behavior in schools and is focusing on
improved discipline and the reduction of school violence in an effort to faster
excellence in education (Bauer, I985). It is projected that the trend of violence
and disruption in schools is likely to rise or remain as high as it is throughout the

I9805 (Nicholson et al., I985; Bybee & Gee, I982).

Factors Confounding the Degree of
Problems of School Discipline

Possible solutions to the discipline problem can only be realized when a

realistic and accurate assessment of the problem is made. Bauer (I 985) asserts
. . . the simple truth is that there is a problem of lack of
discipline in our schools. And this lack of discipline in our schools
prevents many students from learning. The general public, teachers,

and students have all expressed concern over the issue of school

discipline. (p. 489)

On this regard, Baker (I985) urges that if discipline is to be improved in
American schools, educators must first agree that a problem exists. In the same
vein, Golmtein et al. (I 984) contend the failure to reduce school aggression in
American schools is due in large part to a failure of perspective. Bybee and Gee
(I 982), in acknowledging the problem of school violence, state that the extent
and intensity of school and clmsroom disruption—discipline problems—are
unprecedented in American education, if not in the history of education.

The apparent decline of violence in schools today could be resulting from
the fact that attention in recent years hm been focused on criminal acts of
violence and vandalism (Bybee & Gee, I982). This focus obscures the reality and
extent of the problem became criminal acts are only part of the problem that
confronts teachers daily in their classrooms (Baker, I985; Bybee & Gee, I982;
Hurley, I982; Alschuler, I980). Uncivil behavior interferes with the process of
teaching and learning. Still, whether or not criminal acts of violence have
declined is not clear. The Safe School Study, for example, revealed that at least
l57,000 incidents of crime and violent disruptions occur in American schools in a
typical month. Of these, only 50,000 are reported. Under-reporting is one

factor that clouds the accurate estimate of the problem. Many different remons

for this under-reporting are given by different authors.

Alschuler (I980), for example, states that only l0% of rebelliom acts are
reported. Same administrators pressure teachers not to report incidents that
would reflect poorly on their ability to run the school. Similarly, same school
boards pressure educators not to tarnish a school system's public image for fear
of losing the next bond issue or tax levy. Parents as well often pressure teachers
and administrators not to report their children to the police. Besides these
pressures, some teachers avoid or ignore problems because of the resulting
hmsles of reporting. From Cusick's (I983) study, it is appa'ent that the need for
school personnel to project the impression to the public that schools are orderly
and safe is of overriding importance and is, as a result, consuming most of the
energies of school personnel.

Students as well do not report shake downs, extortions, thefts, or beatings
because of fear of retaliation (Alschuler, I980). Teachers too do not intervene
because of fear of retaliation. Baker (I 985) cites an incident in New Orleans
where a teacher helplessly watched two boys throw a smaller boy off a second
floor balcony. The fear of intervention hm made some classrooms appear placid
when, in reality, they are not (Baker, I985; Alschuler, I980; Duke 8: Meckel,
I980). Baker (I 985) reports that in many clmsrooms teachers and students have
worked out a compromise, a tacit understanding that allows them to coexist in a
state of truce. A teacher "agrees" to let troublesome students sit in the back of
the room, read comic books, and ignore lessons. In return, these students tacitly
"agree" not to disrupt the clms--at least not too often. Arrangements like these
were seen by Cusick (I983) to be motivated by the need to "keep the lid on" so as
to convince administrators and the public that schools are orderly. Cusick
further speculates that students are so used to violence around them at school

that they seem not to take much notice of it.

Alschuler (I980), for example, states that only l096 of rebellious acts are
reported. Same administrators pressure teachers not to report incidents that
would reflect poorly on their ability to run the school. Similarly, same school
boards pressure educators not to tarnish a school system's public image for fear
of losing the next bond issue or tax levy. Parents as well often pressure teachers
and ackninistrators not to report their children to the police. Besides these
pressures, some teachers avoid or ignore problems became of the resulting
hmsles of reporting. From Cusick's (I983) study, it is appa'ent that the need for
school personnel to project the impression to the public that schools are orderly
and safe is of overriding importance and is, as a result, consuming most of the
energies of school personnel.

Students 03 well do not report shake downs, extortions, thefts, or beatings
because of fear of retaliation (Alschuler, I980). Teachers too do not intervene
because of fear of retaliation. Baker (I 985) cites an incident in New Orleans
where a teacher helplessly watched two boys throw a smaller boy off a second
floor balcony. The fear of intervention hm made some classrooms appear placid
when, in reality, they are not (Baker, I985; Alschuler, I980; Duke & Meckel,
I980). Baker (I 985) reports that in many classrooms teachers and students have
worked out a compromise, a tacit understanding that allows them to coexist in a
state of truce. A teacher "agrees" to let troublesome students sit in the back of
the room, read comic books, and ignore lessons. In return, these students tacitly
"agree" not to disrupt the clms--at least not too often. Arrangements like these
were seen by Cusick (I983) to be motivated by the need to "keep the lid on" so as
to convince administrators and the public that schools are orderly. Cusick
further speculates that students are so used to violence around them at school

that they seem not to take much notice of it.

Alschuler (I980), for example, states that only I096 of rebelliom acts are
reported. Same administrators pressure teachers not to report incidents that
would reflect poorly on their ability to run the school. Similarly, same school
boards pressure educators not to tarnish a school system's public image for fear
of Iming the next bond issue or tax levy. Parents as well often pressure teachers
and administrators not to report their children to the police. Besides these
pressures, some teachers avoid or ignore problems because of the resulting
hmsles of reporting. From Cusick's (I983) study, it is appa'ent that the need for
school personnel to project the impression to the public that schools are orderly
and safe is of overriding importance and is, as a result, consuming most of the
energies of school personnel.

Students as well do not report shake downs, extortions, thefts, or beatings
because of fear of retaliation (Alschuler, I980). Teachers too do not intervene
became of fear of retaliation. Baker (I985) cites an incident in New Orleans
where a teacher helplessly watched two boys throw a smaller boy off a second
floor balcony. The fear of intervention hm made some clmsrooms appear placid
when, in reality, they are not (Baker, I985; Alschuler, I980; Duke & Meckel,
I980). Baker (I 985) reports that in many clmsrooms teachers and students have
worked out a compromise, a tacit understanding that allows them to coexist in a
state of truce. A teacher "agrees" to let troublesome students sit in the back of
the room, read comic books, and ignore lessons. In return, these students tacitly
"agree" not to disrupt the clms—-at least not too often. Arrangements like these
were seen by Cusick (I983) to be motivated by the need to "keep the lid on" so as
to convince administrators and the public that schools are orderly. Cmick
further speculates that students are so used to violence around them at school

that they seem not to take much notice of it.

I7

Bybee and Gee (I982) state there are some educators who deny that the
problem exists on the grounds that adolescents are expected to fight and violate
rules; therefore, a majority of these problems can be considered normal. Yet,
the Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency hm warned that
discipline problems are reaching serious proportions. The range and type of
violent crimes found to exist in American schools include virtually every type
found on the street. Estimates of the degree of under-reporting vary, but not
the fact of under-reporting. Even with unknown statistics, the reported acts of
violence, vandalism, and disruption are high enough to justify the public,
goverrment, and educators' concern about discipline in American schools today.
What can be surmised from the above arguments is that discipline is still a

pressing problem in American schools.

Causes of Disruption and Violence

Alienation which results from several interrelated factors is believed to be
the central came of school disruption and violence. There are numerous factors
and conditions outside of the school setting which have a tremendous impact on
what takes place in school and are totally beyond the school's ability to control.
Some theorists believe that school disruption results from larger societal factors
such as housing patterns which create and intensity racial imbalance,
unemployment, poverty, and violence. Since schools are part of society, they
are, therefore, influenced by societal ills (Bayh, I977). The factors numerated
above help explain why, as stated by authors such as First and Mizell (I980),
discipline policies impact more on those who are different (e.g., minorities) than
on the average student.

Some other societal changes such as technological advancement have made

schooling almmt the only gateway to success. In the past, schools catered solely

to college preperatory students. Those who could not deal with academic
demands simply dropped out of school and joined the manual labor force. With
technological development, the need for manual force has rapidly declined and
left a large group of unemployable youth. The public then become concerned
about increasing numbers of uneducated and unemployable youth. Such concern
resulted in many changes to the educational system. Thus, the school was forced
to take responsibility for educating "non-academic" students. The resulting
change in student body composition hm affected cl msroorn and school discipline
(Gold & Mann, I984; Bourgeois, I979).

There is also the argument that school hm sown the seeds of crime through
its organizational structure, rules, and regulations. Most literature reviewed
considered oppressive practices of the school a major cause of disruption and
violence. Alschuler (I980) supported this view by citing a number of studies
indicating students were dissatisfied with the despotic governing styles of
schools. He cited Frymier et al.'s (I974) study, commissioned by the Association
for Supervision and Curriculum, investigating oppressive practices existing in
schools across the country. The study's sample included l0,73l students in grades
4-I2 in I40 representative school districts across the country. Questions
determining oppressive practices were to be answered. The results included the
following:

I. 80.5% said they did not have a chance to write rules and
regulatiom.

2. 73.I% said everyone must do the sane thing at the sane time.
3. 7l.2% claimed they needed permission to do anything.

4. 85.7% responded that teachers make decisions about what they
should learn, even when they should sit in class.

5. 44.4% said what they say is important to them as students is not
studied.

6. 80.4% said they cannot change the things they do not like, even
when they think a teacher's decision is unfair.

7. 7l.5% said they cannot get decisions changed.
Alschuler (I980) cited three other national surveys which found equally
pervasive student dissatisfaction with oppressive school practices. For example,

of the students responding to 0 Harris Poll (Life Magazine, I969), 88% said

 

participation in policy making was important, while 66% wanted participation in
curriculum decisions. In the I970 Gallup Poll, 83% of the students said they
wanted a geater voice in making rules, and 77% wanted similar participation in
determining the curriculum. De Cecco and Richards' (I974) study concluded that
of all injmtices students perceived in schools, their exclmion from the decision-
making process in their schools was the worst.

All factors given above regarding school rules and policies are factors
contributing to student alienation became students lack self-affirmation and
self-determination. Honey and Zimbardo (I980), cited by Alschuler, saw
students as "conscripts" in a system where they have no control and they
compared schools to prisons. The connection between oppressive school policies
and rebellion is seen by most advocates of just schools.

Also, curricular and extracurricular conditions that are repetitive,
unplemant, and irrelevant are known to be conducive to clmsroom and school
disruption. Other school-related preci pi tators of disruption and violence outlined
in the Safe School Study report are (a) the large size of schools (i.e., school's
impersonality) encourages vandalism and violence, (b) arbitrary and unnecessary
punitive enforcement of rules promotes crime and disruption, (c) schools
emphmizing good grades and ming grades for disciplinary purposes have a high
rate of vandalism, and (d) a principal's leadership style hm a great impact on a

school's climate and discipline. First (I980) added that adults insensitive to

20

cultural differences and teachers' classroom management styles also promote
disruption and violence.

Other causes of disruption and violence lie with individual students (e.g.,
mental, emotional, perceptual, or psychological disorders such as depression).
The school experience may be alienating because of students' inability to adjust
and cope with the school situation and its demands for various reasons. Because
of these inabilities, students often suffer rejection from school personnel which,
in turn, trigger disruption and violence. Some students experience nothing but
repeated failure in school. This promotes disenchantment with school (Gold &
Mann, I984; Feitler, I980). The Safe School Study indicated violent students are
more likely to be those who have given up on school, do not care about grades,
find courses irrelevant, and feel that nothing they do makes any difference.

Ineffective Approach to
School mscipl ine

 

Wold and Windsor (l98l) state many people believe most administrators
attend to their student management roles by restricting student mobility,
providing stiff penalties for school infractions, and increasing student
surveillance. Nicholson et al. (I985) comments that student behavior
management and school safety require more than stronger locks, alarms, and
higher fences. This response is believed to be geared only to problems' symptoms
and not causes (Hurley, I982; Mayer & Butterworth, I98I; Nicholson et al., I985).
The contention is that punitive measures have proved incapable of bringing about
lasting improvement in attitudes. Mayer and Butterworth (l98l) state that
studies have demonstrated the paradoxical effect of this approach.

Some educators are said to be guilty of overusing a single method,

especially suspension and/or expulsion at the secondary school level, to solve

2|

disciplinary problems (Baker, I985; First & Mizell, I980; Unger et al., I979).
Suspensions are even used to control minor offenses (Unger et al., I979). Baker
(I 985) cites that in one school, 45% of all smpensions were for tardiness. He
considers this approach ineffective because suspending students who have clearly ‘
indicated they do not wish to attend school is more of a reward than a
punishment. Mizell (I980) consider extensive use of suspension and expulsion for
minor offenses an irresponsible use of power by school personnel. First and
Mizell (I980) estimate more than a million and one-half students are suspended
from school for one or more days each year.

Many schools are reported to be still using corporal punishment (Baker,
I985; Brookover et al., I982; First 8 Mizell, I980). Corporal punishment is viewed
with skepticism and considered ineffective in student management (Baker, I985;
Bybee 8 Gee, I982; First 8: Mizell, I980). Detention without meaningful activity
for students in detention rooms and grade reduction are still widely used,
although considered inappropriate and ineffective (Mizell, I980).

Advocates of just schools believe schools exacerbate disciplinary problems
through the use of custodial and punitive methods. Schools' ineffective
disciplinary methods have stimulated many cpestions, both in communities and
the court system, concerning policies and practices in American schools. This
hm resulted in the reevaluation of rights and responsibilities of youth toward
school and, conversely, of school personnel toward youth. A number of court
rulings have redefined values for educators and provided protection for students'

rights in schools.

Court Decisions

 

Koff (I979) relates that in Bishop vs. Colow, the court was asked to rule on

the matter of a student's hair style. The court stated that school restrictions on

22

students' hair styles accomplished little more than projection of prejudices and
personal distmtes of certain adults in authority onto impressionable young
students. In Wood vs. Strickland, it was determined that in all probability
educators could be held personally liable for actions that violate a student's
Constitutional rights to due process (Bybee 8 Gee, I982; Koff, I979; Manon,
I979). In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the court ruled that
"students do not shed their Constitutional rights at the schoolhome door."
Freedom of speech for students was further upheld in this case (Bybee & Gee,
I982; Koff, I979).

Regarding Gault, the Supreme Court rejected the closed nature of
proceedings against juveniles, saying juveniles should be given similar due
process protection afforded adults. Before a youth can be found guilty and
punished, there must be (a) a notice of charges, 0)) right to counsel, (c) right to
question witnesses, (d) immunity from self-incrimination, and (e) right to a
review of the decision. In Goss vs. Lopez, the court ruled that 0 l0 day
smpensian could come sufficient damage to a student's educational prog‘am to
warrant due process of hearing, however informal. More recently, the court
refused to rule that the imposition of corporal punishment was tantamount to
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment in the lngran vs.
Wright decision.

There is speculation that school authority may have been eroded by most
court decisions. Baker (I985) feels recent court decisions may have had a chilling
effect on the willingness of school officials to enforce disciplinary standards
since school personnel seem to fail to act to reduce and/or prevent disruption
and violence.

These court decisions illmtrate that American societal values are

changing. The authority of school officials over school children is no longer

22

students' hair styles accomplished little more than projection of prejudices and
personal distmtes of certain adults in authority onto impressionable young
students. In Wood vs. Strickland, it was determined that in all probability
educators could be held personally liable for actions that violate a student's
Constitutional rights to due process (Bybee 8 Gee, I982; Koff, I979; Mdnon,
I979). In Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District, the court ruled that
"students do not shed their Constitutional rights at the schoolhome door."
Freedom of speech for students was further upheld in this case (Bybee 8 Gee,
I982; Koff, I979).

Regarding Gault, the Supreme Court rejected the closed nature of
proceedings against juveniles, saying juveniles should be given similar due
process protection afforded adults. Before a youth can be found guilty and
punished, there must be (a) a notice of charges, 0)) right to counsel, (c) right to
question witnesses, (d) immunity from self-incrimination, and (e) right to a
review of the decision. In Goss vs. Lopez, the court ruled that 0 I0 day
smpensian could cause sufficient damage to a student's educational progan to
warrant due process of hearing, however informal. More recently, the court
refused to rule that the imposition of corporal punishment was tantamount to
cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amenanent in the Ingram vs.
Wright decision.

There is speculation that school authority may have been eroded by most
court decisions. Baker (I985) feels recent court decisions may have had a chilling
effect on the willingness of school officials to enforce disciplinary standards
since school personnel seem to fail to act to reduce and/or prevent disruption
and violence.

These court decisions illmtrate that American societal values are

changing. The authority of school officials over school children is no longer

23

limitless. Legislative and judicial decisions are influenced by the values of the
larger society. Charges against teachers for civil and criminal damages reflect
the militancy of parents. The courts have recognized and reaffirmed students'
rights. This necessitates cautious actions toward behavior management of
students. Pressure for more democratic management of schools is apparent.
Yet, Duke and Meckel (I980) observe that ". . . although the student rights'
movement and several recent court decisions have challenged a variety of school
rules (e.g., dress codes) and sanctions (e.g., suspensions), we find little evidence

that school practice has changed much" (p. l6).

Effective Approach to School Discipline

 

The consensus appears to be the view that democratic involvement of
students in the administration of their affairs reduces student rebellion and
disruption although this is without research evidence. Bybee and Gee (I982)
argue that active involvement of students in a school's social and political
structure provides stronger lessons in moral education than formal presentation
on topics such as "law in America" or "democracy in action." Mizell (I980) states
that for all the talk about irresponsible students, there is too little initiative by
schools to teach students responsibility by giving them the opportunity to
exercise it. Bybee and Gee (I982) exhort that to the extent which it is possible
to encourage student involvement in matters pertaining to curriculum,
formulation of rules,‘discipline procedures, and student rights and obligations,
two valuable goals of moral education might be served. First, students are more
likely to accept rules and procedures developed through mutual interchange and
discussion. A more responsible student body can be produced through

involvement in the governing process. Second, mutual discussion and

involvement between students and school personnel may well provide a practical

23

limitless. Legislative and judicial decisions are influenced by the values of the
larger society. Charges against teachers for civil and criminal damages reflect
the militancy of parents. The courts have recognized and reaffirmed students'
rights. This necessitates cautious actions toward behavior management of
students. Pressure for more democratic management of schools is apparent.
Yet, Duke and Meckel (I980) observe that ". . . although the student rights'
movement and several recent court decisions have challenged a variety of school
rules (e.g., dress codes) and sanctions (e.g., suspensions), we find little evidence

that school practice has changed much" (p. I6).

Effective Approach to School Discipline

 

The consensus appears to be the view that democratic involvement of
students in the administration of their affairs reduces student rebellion and
disruption although this is without research evidence. Bybee and Gee (I982)
argue that active involvement of students in a school's social and political
structure provides stronger lessons in moral education than formal presentation
on topics such as "law in America" or "democracy in action." Mizell (I980) states
that for all the talk about irresponsible students, there is too little initiative by
schools to teach students responsibility by giving them the opportunity to
exercise it. Bybee and Gee (I982) exhort that to the extent which it is possible
to encourage student involvement in matters pertaining to curriculum,
formulation of rules,‘discipline procedures, and student rights and obligations,
two valuable goals of moral education might be served. First, students are more
likely to accept rules and procedures developed through mutual interchange and
discussion. A more responsible student body can be produced through

involvement in the governing process. Second, mutual discussion and

involvement between students and school personnel may well provide a practical

24

means of teaching for citizenship values in concrete and meaningful setting too
often ignored by educators.

Although strong arguments for democratic involvement of students in the
running of schools are made, problems associated with this approach are almost
nonexistent in the literature. This perhaps is the result of a lack of research or a
commitment to the approach. Cultice (I969) is the only author encountered in
this review who documented problems msociated with this lauded approach. He
argues that the program should never be based primarily upon student
disciplinary functions nor employed for the purpose of emancipating teachers.
He suggests that emphmis should be on bettering the conditions of students and
preparing them for citizenship. He also warns that a complicated machinery
should be avoided. He cites the following m potential problems.

I. A school may establish a student council machinery which is too
canplex, especially in a lage secondary school. Such
machinery, in addition to Iming student cooperation, is apt to
invite teacher apathy.

2. A misunderstanding of the meaning of the concept of student
participation by students, teachers, and sanetimes parents is
another potential problem area.

3. Teachers obliviom to or uninformed of the guiding philosophy
and objectives of a student participation program may construe
it to mean an abrogation of administrative authority or an effort
to relieve them of a memure of unplemant faculty duties.

Team approach to school discipline is almmt a buzz word in the literature
on successful discipline programs (Joyce, Hersh, 8 McKibbin, I983; Goldstein et
al., I984; Alschuler, I980; Duke 8 Meckel, l98l; Nicholson et al., I985). Alschuler
(I980) states that when teachers are forced to stand alone, they are in danger of
being overwhelmed by discipline problems. The democratic involvement of
students is still the heat of a team approach. This approach is broader than a

student council approach. Some authors discuss the team approach as involving

the working together of a school's community groups: administrators,

25

counselors, teachers, and students. Other broaden the term to include the
involvement of parents and community members and agents. This approach
though unresearched appears a promising management approach to student
discipline. In industry, the team approach to management hm been
demonstrated to be effective. All potential problems outlined by Cultice (I 969)
can be circumvented by this approach because constant reappraisal of methods
and strategies employed is an essential part of the team approach.

Seeking to treat causes instead of treating symptoms is another seemingly
effective approach to discipline. Most of the time, the causes are in the system.
Factors that promote disciplinary problems in the system need to be diagnosed
and rectified (Alschuler, I980; Duke 8 Meckel, I98l; Bybee 8 Gee, I982).
Conversely, problems that lie within individuals also need to be identified and
long-term solutions devised.

A firm, fair, and consistent system of student management with explicit
rules and regulations is another key to reducing disruption according to the
findinm of the Safe School Study. This approach is especially effective when
students are encouraged to set their own standards of behavior (Cultice, I969;
Bybee 8 Gee, I982). The visibility of a principal and other staff members is
regarded as an important factor in reducing violence and vandalism.

There are several approaches to effective school discipline. What hm been
reiterated in literature is the fact that no one model would be suitable for all
settings. For any one method to be effective in a particular setting, it must be
compatible with the specific needs of the school in which it operates. Covering
each and every local strategy devised to effectively deal with the problem of
discipline is impossible. In the following discussion, only broad areas from which

the discipline problem is often approached will be discussed.

26

Programs that are used generally to control behavior can be classified into
four major categories developed by Marvin et al. (I976), the Research for Better
Schools (RBS) people: (a) security systems, (b) counseling services, (c)
curricular/instructional programs, and (d) organizational modification. They
were commissioned by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA),
the agency charged with implementing federal crime control programs, to seek
information about the extent and magnitude of disruption and violence in schools
and existing programs devised to reduce and prevent disruption and violence.
This was to be a data base from which action to improve the situation in schools
would evolve. The RBS team came out with the categories shown in Table I
after collapsing l37 programs from descriptions given in telephone surveys and a
literature search of existing programs across the country devised to reduce and
prevent violence and disruption in schools.

Table I
Distribution of l37 Programs by Program Focus (from RBS Report)

 

 

 

Type of Program Number of Programs
Security systems 23
Counseling services 30
Curricular/instruction programs 36
Organizational modification 39
Other ‘ 9

TOTAL: I37

 

 

The distribution appears to be the same now as it was at the time of their

study. Literature abounds with programs that can be classified under the

27

organizational modification and curricular/instructional categories. lnforrmation
about effective security systems is scarce. There are several programs
developed under the second and especially third and fourth categories. Designers
often claim the programs have proved effective in reducing disruption in schools,
although the success claimed in these progans does not competently register
against the perceived increme in school violence. A majority of the programs
that claim success appear to be a cookbook variety. Others are so
canprehensive as to include anything and everything with fuzzy goals and
objectives. Mast typically they are untested, intuitive insights (Goldstein et al.,
I984). Same of them have been developed and field tested by university
professors of colleges of education. Whether positive results reported in the
"tested" programs stem frarm the effects of brief field testing, which most
typically yield positive results became of the experimental, Pygrnal ion effect, or
from the intransferability of the programs themselves, is unknown.

The fow broad categories are not exclusive. A school with a healthy
working envirorrnent where the democratic principle of administration is
espoused would still need security systems in its building although these would be
more unobtrusive than in schools that rely on high security systems. This would
be true about counseling services which would usually be expected to be an
integral part of all the systems outlined above.

Counselng Prgians to Improve
School Discipline

 

The central focus of this study is on a counseling program that was
specially designed to help with disruption and violence in schools. A brief review
of similar efforts documented in the literature will be presented here.

Bayh (I 977), in discussing strategies to improve the discipline problem in

schools, attests that the American Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA)

28

appointed a special task force on juvenile delinquency and school vandalism that
was to report back to the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency.
The APGA task force found that the availability of counseling services in schools
could be a significant factor in identifying and treating academic, social, or
behavioral problems. The APGA task force reported that there were many
counseling strategies that could be used to reduce tension between groups in
schools.

One of the counseling models recommended to the Subcommittee by the
task force report was a peer group technique found to be particularly helpful in
averting group and personal problems from developing into confrontations. In
this model, small student-led and counselor-assisted groups could meet to discuss
issues such as student rights, responsibilities, self-discipline, self-esteem, or the
role of the individual in the community. Such peer group counseling techniques
could be used either as a regular part of the school schedule or as a referral for
students involved in violation of school rules.

In essence this is what GGI is all about. The program described by the
APGA task force, the forerunner of GGI, is called Positive Peer Culture (PPC).
Vorrath and Brendtro (I974) outlined the philosophy and success of PPC in same
school districts in Michigan. The APGA task force reported the effectiveness of
this program in Illinois, although they relied on the reports of program managers.

First (I980), who edited information given on positive and effective
discipline programs across the country, mentioned the success of the PPC as
extrapolated from reports of building-level administrators where the PPC
program was in its first year of Operation. She reports findings were mixed when
she reviewed results obtained from the school district's research department
which indicated that some schools reported dramatic improvement and others did

not.

29

The only study known to have researched GGI in public schools empirically
is that of Petrock (I976). According to this study, not all schools in the
experimental program had implemented GGI as prescribed. Overall results from
the four sites were that there were no significant changes in arem targeted for

change.

Guided Group Interaction

Historical Background

 

Guided Group Interaction (GGI) can be traced back to group psychotherapy
sessions conducted at the Fort Knox Center to rehabilitate soldiers who
committed military and civil crimes during World War II (McCorkle, Elias, 8
Bixby, I958). McCorkle participated in the Fort Knox program. After the war,
Bixby and McCorkle introduced the group therapy program to the adult New
Jersey Department of Corrections in I948. Bixby was the director, and McCorkle
was to conduct groups at Rahway prison and at Bordentown reformatory. In the
beginning, in order to avoid confusion with group psychotherapy practiced by
psychiatrists and to avoid any implication that inmates were mentally abnormal
or unbalanced, Bixby and McCorkIe changed the name of the group activity to
guided group interaction. As the title suggests, a therapist was to be active in
group discussion, especially in the initial sessions. The major emphasis was on
the group and its development rather than on attempts to achieve an exhaustive
psychoanalysis of individuals in the group. Thus, Bixby and McCorkle separated
their group activity from that of the psychoanalytic orientation from which it
was developed.

In I950, McCorkIe became a director of the new, small Highfields
Residential Treatment Center for treatment of youthful offenders. No more

than 20 boys were admitted at one time at the center. The center experimented

30

with new types of correctional organization for delinquent youth. The rigidity
and canplexity of other, larger correctional organizations were eliminated in
this experimental center. All security measures, typical of other centers of its
kind, were lomened. There were no such things m high fences or locked doors.
The center operated with a minimum of regulations. Most rules needed for
everyday living were developed in group meetings.

McCorkle's contention was that the remons mast reformatory institutions
failed in their rehabilitative efforts was due to the large size of these
institutions and their focus on the mechanics of administration rather than on
interpersonal relationships. He also identified rules and regulations which
emphasized regimentation and enforcement as another source of problems
typical of larger reformatory institutions. All residents were admitted to
Hignfields as a condition of their juvenile court probation. If they failed to
adjust at Highfielm, they were only in violation of their probation and were to be
rearraigied for new court hearings.

In I952 McCorkle published an article which delineated basic tenets and
facets of a GGI program. He defined GGI as ". . . using free discussion in a
friendly supportive atmmplnere to re-educate the delinquent to accept the
restrictions of society by finding greater personal satisfaction in conforming to
social rules than following delinquent patterns" (p. 23). McCorkle saw GGI as
canbining psychological and sociological approaches to the control of human
behavior. The psychological approach was aimed at changing a boy's self concept
fram delinquent to nondelinquent. The sociological approach was an attempt to
reverse the process of delinquency in the same way it was learned; i.e., a boy
would learn nondelinquent behavior which would be approved by peers, believing
that delinquent behaviors were learned through peer support. McCorkle

explained that GGI had the following assumptions about the group experience:

30

with new types of correctional organization for delinquent youth. The rigidity
and canplexity of other, larger correctional organizations were eliminated in
this experimental center. All security measures, typical of other centers of its
kind, were lomened. There were no such things as high fences or locked doors.
The center operated with a minimurm of regulations. Most rules needed for
everyday living were developed in group meetings.

McCorkle's contention was that the remons mast reformatory institutions
failed in their rehabilitative efforts was due to the large size of these
institutions and their focus on the mechanics of administration rather than on
interpersonal relationships. He also identified rules and regulations which
emphasized regimentation and enforcement as another source of problems
typical of larger reforrmatory institutions. All residents were admitted to
Hignfields m a condition of their juvenile court probation. If they failed to
adjust at Highfields, they were only in violation of their probation and were to be
rearraigned for new court hearings.

In I952 McCorkle published an article which delineated basic tenets and
facets of a GGI proaan. He defined GGI as ". . . using free discussion in a
friendly supportive atmmplnere to re-educate the delinquent to accept the
restrictions of society by finding greater personal satisfaction in conforming to
social rules than following delinquent patterns" (p. 23). McCorkle saw GGI m
canbining psychological and sociological approaches to the control of human
behavior. The psychological approach was aimed at changing a boy's self concept
fran delinquent to nondelinquent. The sociological approach was an attempt to
reverse the process of delinquency in the same way it was learned; i.e., a boy
would learn nondelinquent behavior which would be approved by peers, believing
that delinquent behaviors were learned through peer support. McCorkle

explained that GGI had the following assumptions about the group experience:

3|

I. that delianents will benefit from a social experience where, in
concert with peers and a leader, they can freely discuss,
examine, and analyze their problems of living without the
threats so common in their previous learning experiences; and

2. that the mutual give-and-take of group discussion will stimulate
the inmate to same insight into the relationship between what
takes place in the learning situation and his immediate problems
of living.

McCorkle concluded by stating that GGI can be but one mpect of the total
rehabilitation program of an institution. Its full significance, he explained, will
be realized only if it is related to the total program of which it is part. Its goal
of strengthening the inmate by enabling him to find himself is reinforced and

made meaningful by its integation into the total program of the institution.

GGI in Michigan Public Schools

Until the I96Ik, GGI was almmt exclusively used in correctional
institutions. Harry Vorrath, a former goup leader at the Highfielm Residential
Treatment Center, pioneered the use of GGI in public schools by refining the
correctional schools' version. He renamed his refined version Positive Peer
Culture (PPC) which he introduced in public schools in Illinois and boys' training
schools in Minnesota and Michigan during the I9605.

When student activism, violence, and vandalism were at their peak during
the late I960s and early I970s, schools were expelling and suspending students in
great numbers. The idea was to preserve a climate conducive to better learning
(SYA Handbook, I976). These actions by schools created other problems for
society at large. Courts were pressed to find placements for young offenders.
Cmts of institutional care for school rejects were skyrocketing. Several
legislative acts and legislative bodies were formed on a national level to address
this problem. One example is the Juvenile Jmtice and Delinquency Act designed

to prevent young people frarm entering the failing juvenile justice system and to

32

assist communities in creating more sensible and economic approaches for
youngsters already in the system (Bayh, I977).

In Michigan, the Departments of Social Service and Education collaborated
to develop an exemplary program to be disseminated in public schools to assist
with students' behavioral problems. Funded by a ESAE Title III planning and
implementation grant which allowed state departments great freedom in
formulating innovative projects to achieve a broad range of objectives (Marvin et
al., I976), the collaborative effort between departments was aimed at:

I. developing a program to be conducted in public schools for

assisting the reintegration and maintenance of Department of

Social Service wards in the community,

2. developing a model prog'am for assisting school personnel in
managing difficult students and preventing behavior problems,
and

3. preventing delinquency in the community by ming the public
school as a medium of prevention.

These goals were to be achieved through a school youth advocacy (SYA) prog'am
which used the logic that ". . . allowing youth in schools self-determination and
participation in the disciplinary process, alienatian and its negative effects could
be dispelled" (SYA Handbook, p. 27). Fine-tuned by removing the institutional
flavor of its predecessor (in correctional institutions), GGI was chosen as a youth

advocacy program to change and manage student behavior.

What Is Guided Grog) Interaction (GGI)?

GGI is defined as". . . a peer counseling technique which utilizes the power
of the peer influence and small group interaction to teach self-reliance, personal
responsibility, problem-solving skills, and three social behavior values:

I. no one hm the right to hurt him/herself,

2. no one hm the right to hurt another human being, (and)

3. people have an obligation to help others" (SYA Handbook, p. 38).

33

Students selected for GGI were to be peer leaders chosen by teachers and/or
students. Participation in GGI had to be voluntary and endorsed with parental
approval. To avoid negative labeling, both positive and negative peer leaders
were to be in one group. A good balance between positive and negative leaders
was to be struck so that no group would have an excess of negative leaders. In
fact, the success of the group process was said to be contingent on a skillful
balance of negative and positive leaders. The following were the reasons for
selecting peer leaders: (0) other students would more readily accept the program
if peer leaders were involved in and accepting it, (b) school personnel would
accept or tolerate the program if they saw negative students being worked with,
and (c) change was more likely to occur in other students who came in contact
with leaders in peer groups.

Under the supervision of a trained adult group leader, a GGI group was to
meet for one hour every day to learn formalized problem-solving by analyzing
behavior and general problems in a school. Three types of meetings could occur:

I. regular daily meeting for members' personal problems;

2. emergency meetings for support in cmes of attempted suicide,

gigaway, arrest, and any other crisis or emergency in a building;

3. special meetings which are of three types:

a. intro-building meetings where all GGI groups of one
school meet to work on a building-wide problem;

b. joint meetings between groups at different buildings to
work on inter-building problems; and

c. presentations for staff meetings, inservices, PTA,
student body orientation, etc.

Membership in a group was to be treated as an elective course with
participants receiving one credit per term. Group members were to be scheduled

to have at least 65% of classes with two other group members so as to enhance

cohesiveness and to give members the chance to support one another with
desirable behaviors outside of group meetings. Boys and girls groups were to be
separated. A g'oup size of about 8-I2 participants was considered ideal. Groups
were to be open-ended, and students were to be gradually incorporated into a
group and gradually removed. Groups were expected to reach maturity in about
I2 weeks. By this time, it was believed, members would be ready to be utilized
as aides or representatives an variom governing boards as student spokespeople.
Groups were expected to be given opportunities in a variety of situations to
exercise their skills. They were to be involved in making recommendations for
disciplinary actions or student administration policy as well as giving advice in
personal matters. By allowing the goup this input, it was believed, GGI would
give participants an excellent opportunity to became good citizens in a

participatory democracy. The goals of the group experience were:

- to improve students' attitudes toward self,
- to improve students' attitudes toward others,
- to improve students' attitudes toward school,
-- to improve students' attitudes toward faculty and staff,

-- to increase cogiitive growth and maintain students' school
productivity.

The ultimate goal of the GGI prog'an was the development of self-
sustaining climate of positive cultures in school that will lessen incidents of
truancy, vandalism, substance abuse, and stealing among the school's population.
GGI meetings were seen as an experience that would give participants a chance
to analyze their values and an opportunity to practice democratic decision
making since students were to be given powers to run their affairs in group. It
was hoped that skills gained in the democratic management of groups would

prepare GGI participants for democratic management of the school.

35

Thus, the goals of GGI as presented by the designers of the progam were
broad and canprehensive. Those who redesigned GGI for public schools intended
to introduce a program that redressed same of the major factors believed to
cause disruption and violence in schools:

I. lack of self-determinatian and affirmation: they msurmed that
the program would allow students a voice in decision making as
GGI participants were supposed to discuss with administrators
issues affecting the well being of students in the building or
district;

2. concentrating on the syrnptarms of misbehavior: they msumed
that misbehavior was perpetuated by peer group values and that
reversing the values of peer group leaders would automatically
change values of followers. The group experience was
particularly intended to provide chances of getting down to root
causes of individual misbehavior; and

3. lack of acceptance of school regulations: it was msumed that

rules would be readily accepted by students since GGI
participants would have a say in the way rules and regulations
affect and impact students and could suggest a review and
revision of same regulations if they negatively affected students.
Furthermore, GGI participants could be involved in the
enforcement of rules and regulations since it was recommended
that they should be med as teacher-aides who could help in the
management of misbehaving students in clmsrooms.

Although the designers of the program assert that it is validated and does
not recpire adapters to reevaluate and validate procedures contained in it, there
is little evidence to prove that all the program's procedures have been
systematically evaluated. Formative evaluation was a stipulation and
expectation of the Title III fund, but like most other Title III programs of change
(as revealed by Mavin et al., I976), formative evaluations of the GGI program
were incanplete. Petrock (I976) found that program objectives and memures
were constantly changing even at the time of evaluation. From Petrock's study
and the incanplete progress report of the formative evaluations outlined in the
GGI package, it can be swmised that formative evaluations were to be based on

memures of outcarme rather than on process evaluations. Group leaders were

36

expected to keep records of group activities, especially activities accomplished
by the groups to be collected later for evaluation. The very records on which
formative evaluation was to be based were incomplete.

Conclusions Drawn from the
Review of Literature

 

Trends in school discipline seem to indicate the following:
I. an increasing emphasis on students' rights;

2. a call for more humanistic and productive methods of handling
school discipline;

3. a call for programs that treat causes of discipline problems
instead of symptoms; and

4. the need for all school constituencies (administrators, teachers,

counselors, students, parents, and community agencies) to be
involved in the development and enforcement of school rules.

State of the Art and
Implications for the Study
From this review of problems, the causes, and the cures, for
violence, crime, delinquency, vandalism, and truancy im the high
schools, it is apparent that we know the problem very well, the
causes only moderately well, and the solutions least well of all.

There is very little evidence from research to guide practitioners in

developing programs to deal with disciplinary problems. Only in the

field of behavior modification is there a sizeable body of research.

(Feldhusen, I979, p. 242)

The above quote aptly sums up the state of knowledge about scth
discipline. Solutions are least known despite a multitude of programs developed
over the years to abate this problem. True, there are many programs to curb
aggressive and disruptive behavior. They vary considerably in terms of their
financial support, focus, conceptual base, duration, and level of implementation
(Goldstein et al., I984). As Feldhusen (I979) and Gold and Mann (I984) have

noted, few of the many available programs have undergone systematic

evaluation. Many of these programs are based an intuitive insights rather than

37

research evidence. Without exception they all claim a high degree of success.
The validity of their claims of success may be less a matter of what they do than
a result of the fact that they do something (Goldstein et al., I984). There is an
apparent need for studies to examine the claims of success and theoretical
adequacy of "successful" programs.

In recent years, most research efforts have been expended toward
measuring the extent and magnitude of the problem. Beyond this effort, what
has been done is cataloguing what is reported to be working by program
managers nationwide in survey research studies or from stories of success in
literature written by program developers. At this point when most educators are
known to be searching for constructive, productive methods of handling
discipline, research efforts should go beyond cataloguing what is reported to be
working and seek to explain what makes programs work or not work. A few
studies such as Berman and McLaughlin's (l978‘ which followed-up federally—

funded programs to improve schools have taken on this course of research.

Summary

Rich (I982) reports that school discipline has not improved despite
concerted efforts during the l970$ to increase educational alternatives and
recognize students' rights. Duke and Meckel (I980) observed. ". . . although the
students rights' movement and several recent court decisions have challenged a
variety of school rules (e.g., dress codes) and sanctions (e.g., suspension), we find
little evidence that school practice has changed much" (p. l6).

The standard response to increased student behavior problems traditionally
has been more rules and/or harsher sanctions (Mayer 8 Butterworth, l98l; Duke 8
Meckel, I980; Wold 8 Windsor, l98l). Schools are criticized by both the public

and scholars in the field for their punitive and custodial approaches to discipline.

38

Scholars argue that schools are failing with discipline because of the
ineffectiveness of the punitive and custodial memures they often adopt to
manage student discipline.

Of the available positive and creative methods of dealing with discipline
problems, little is known about their scientific bmes and effectiveness
(Feldhusen, I979; Gold 8 Petronio, I980; Goldstein et al., I984; Gold 8 Mann,
I984).

Discipline is not perceived as a major problem by the public, but a majority
of educators and students as well admit that it is a problem. Cusick (I983)
dramatically depicts how much this problen consumes the energy of school
personnel, even at the expense of subjugating learning and teaching to secondary
roles.

From this review, it became evident that although there is a preponderance
of methom to improve school discipline, very little research hm been done to

verify and validate the scientific base of methods claiming success.

CHAPTER III

ME THODOL OGY

Entry Negotiations

For professional development remons, the researcher desired expmure to a
guidance and counseling unit of a high school. The researcher was hoping to
work as a volunteer-observer in a counseling department in one of the schools
surrounding her university so as to understand its internal, real-life operations.
Obtaining a site to play the volunteer-observer role was not emy. It was known
to students in the education departments of the university that neighboring
schools had become defensive and tired of being a readily-available learning
laboratory for the university and of being under its microscope. Near the end of
spring, I984, the researcher began to negotiate for access into a counseling unit.
Toward the end of summer, the researcher met a friend who had been in a not-
so-far-away school in the recent past, doing fieldwork research for a university
clms. The friend informed the researcher that she was impressed by a counselor
she had observed a few times, one who was working with "special needs"
students. The friend was willing to help the researcher gain access to the school
but she was leaving the following day for Japan. She gave the researcher the
name of the counselor, Mr. Smith.

The researcher contacted Mr. Smith when schools reopened in the fall,
using the friend as a reference. The researcher explained that she simply wanted
to observe counselors working and that she had heard about his program. Mr.
Smith did not remember the researcher's friend, but the international dimension

of the researcher's story appeared to be a door-opener. The researcher

39

volunteered for an interview which was set the following week on Monday,
October I, I984, at a few minutes before 8:00 am.

The researcher was entered the building I5 minutes before the meeting
time and inquired about Mr. Smith's office from the first adult she met who then
asked a boy to accompany the researcher. Since the researcher had med an
entrance for from Mr. Smith's office, a few minutes' walking was necessary
across the building. The escort suddenly stopped in front of three adults, one of
when was Mr. Smith. He thanked the escort and greeted and welcamed the
researcher to the building. He introduced the researcher to the other adults,
explaining why she was there and how she came to know about the school. He
said something like, "We are getting international ," joking with the other adults.
When the bell rang, student traffic came from all directions, jarmming the
hallway in no time; and Mr. Smith's attention was taken away from the
researcher as he was greeted and greeting fran all directions. By the time the
second bell rang about five minutes later, no student was in the hallway and Mr.
Smith invited the researcher to the GGI roam. He introduced the researcher to a
group of about l0-l2 teemaged girls, informing them that the researcher had
permission to observe the group.

After the two sessions that morning, Mr. Smith introduced the researcher
to the counselors, explaining the researcher's desires. They were all willing to be
observed and (pestianed by the researcher at any time she wished; thus the
researcher had access to the whole counseling department. Mr. Smith also took
the researcher to the principal's office for introduction. The principal acted as
if he knew the researcher were going to be in the building. Mr. Smith advised
the researcher to ask her major professor to forrmalize the site visits by writing
the principal a letter of appreciation for the favor the principal had done the

researcher as a gesture of courtesy (see Appendix A).

4I

Although the researcher had access to the whole counseling unit, her
interest and focus were centered around GGI because of (a) the intriguing nature
of GGI (the more the researcher observed and read about the program, the more
questions were raised in her mind); (b) the fact that the group leader of GGI in
this building was a consultant on GGI, giving the researcher the anticipation that
she could learn the prototype of GGI; (c) the welcomed, new experience of
observing a group counseling; and (d) career-development reasons explained in
Appendix F.

The researcher was enrolled in a fieldwork research methods clms
requiring a field-based research project. Therefore, by the end of fall term, the
researcher had to negotiate a change of status from being a casual observer to
that of a researcher. She had already ascertained frorm her notes written after
every site visit that a worthwhile study contributing to the understanding of the
nature of GGI could be conducted. By this time, the researcher had established
rapport with both the group leader and the building principal. She clearly
explained her short- and long-term intentions about the data she was going to
collect, making a promise to treat GGI information with confidentiality. Mr.
Smith and the building principal had no objections, but the authorization of
research had to come from the school district's central office. The principal
gave the researcher the name of a contact person there, assuring her he would
support her because authorization could not be issued without permission at the
building level.

During the second week of January, the researcher initiated the district-
level research site entry negotiations by telephoning the contact person. She
was advised to fill out forms sent to her before her request could be considered.
Upon receipt of the returned forms, she was to allow five working days for

processing and was informed the results would be mailed to her as soon as

42

possible. On the seventh working day, the researcher inquired about the results
of her request. She was told by the coordinator of the district's Evaluation
Services Cormmittee that she could pick up the response letter from the central
office.

When she arrived at the central office, the Evaluation Services Committee
coordinator reiterated and justified the limitations and terms of the permission
she was being granted (see Appendix B) and impressed upon her the confidential
nature of information dealt with in GGI meetings. In the coordinator's opinion,
GGI was a "pseudotherapy," and students were not only talking about confidential
information concerning themselves but their parents as well. Fran this
conference, the researcher realized the need to take more stringent steps toward
protecting the confidentiality of students and making the school anonymous. As
a result, all the names appearing in this study and those of the school and town
as well are pseudonyms. The researcher was also advised to seek permission
from students' parents (see Appendix C), all of whom gave permission for

observation.

Method

This study med fieldwork methods, also called ethnography, case or field
study, interpretative, qualitative, or field research. These methods are
naturalistic, observational, descriptive, contextual, open-ended, and indepth
(Wilcox in Spindler, I982). They are naturalistic because the investigator takes
care to avoid purposive manipulation of variables in the study. In these methods,
participant and nomparticipant observation are used to acquire firsthand sensory
accounts of phenomena as they occur in a real world setting (Goetz 8
Le Campte, I984). With their rich descriptive detail, fieldwork research methods

aim to provide the reader with a vicarious experience of what it was like to be in

43

the setting. Fieldwork research is holistic or contextual and analytical as well.
It assumes that to understand why things take place as they do, one must look at
the relationship between the setting and its context (Wilcox in Spindler, I982).

This approach does not seek to substantiate a theoretical framework; it
addresses the need for basic research. It is open-ended because the researcher
does not begin with gprio_ri standardization of concepts, measures, samples, and
data, but seeks to discover and revise these as more is learned during the study
(McCall 8 Simmons, I969). The design is continually modified and developed by
the researcher throughout the study (Burgess, I984; Bogdan 8 Biklen, I982). The
approach is intentionally flexible in its design to maximize discovery and
description. Fieldwork research is multimodal or eclectic in approach, using
direct observation, informant and respondent interviewing, document analysis,
systematic counting, and self-analysis to arrive at an indepth understanding and
description of the actors' world.

The appropriateness of this approach to study how GGI functions in the real
world is the direct observation of the social process and its complex
interdependencies that is afforded by fieldwork research. Schatzman and Strauss
(I973) believe an outsider's sensitivities are valuable in new situations because
people who work at anything for a relatively long period of time often lose
sensitivity to common, recurrent experiences and tend to thrust them into the
background, if for nogother reason than they get in the way of whatever else they
are immediately sensitive to. As an outsider in this setting, therefore, the
researcher had an advantage in the observation and analysis of events and
activities that could have easily escaped notice of the insiders. As an outsider,
the researcher could see properties lost to insiders and relate them to other
properties, thereby discovering something that could be of value to theory or to

hosts.

44

Furthermore, direct observation is virtually important in obtaining
firsthand information about the process of any social activity. Often, as in many
national surveys, information about programs like GGI, their goals, functioning,
and effectiveness are almost always furnished by program managers. As noted
by McDonnel and McLaughlin (I980, what could be learned from Berman and
McLaughlin's field studies which followed up federally-funded programs is that
". . . simple project descriptions cannot accurately convey projects' goals and
activities. Projects' goals often mask important secondary objectives and do not
offer information about a project's organizational objectives" (p. 25).

As McCall and Simmons (I969) have pointed out in same instances, sane
actors may distort information in order to justify their own actions or to elevate
their own status. An attempt to circumvent this pitfall by a survey that would
include the opinion of other role groups in the setting may not be enough
because, as McCall and Simmons have stated, there are many actions and
relationships which the actors in one setting are simply unaware of, particularly
in carmplex organizations where each category of persons is typically uninformed
about what goes on in other sectors of the organization. Sometimes actors for
remons known to themselves would not cormmunicate facts or deviant acts, but
would be motivated to distort them. Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it
became evident that fieldwork research methods might yield better results than
a questionnaire or an interview survey research study in obtaining information

needed.

Data Collection
The primary data collection mechanism was participant observation which
was supplemented by interviewing and document analysis. These techniques—-

participant observation, interviewing, and document analysisupravided cross-

45

checking of data to assure validity. Data collected with one method could be

verified by another method.

Observations

 

Gold (I979) has identified four possible roles the researcher can assume in
observing. They are summarized below:

I. complete participant: the researcher's true identity and purpose
of the study are not known by those observed. The researcher
interacts as naturally as possible so his/her true identity is not
discovered. While this role offers possibilities of learning
aspects of behavior that might otherwise be kept away from an
outsider, it raises ethical questions about studying people
without their consent and knowledge. Several other
methodological problems are also involved. First, the researcher
stands the risk of exposure and failure of the study. Second,
because it is a pretended role, the researcher may be so self
conscious about revealing self that s/he is handicapped in
collecting data needed. Third, the researcher may perform the
new role so well that s/he may "go native" and no longer be
sensitive to data s/he otherwise would have been sensitive to,
therefore collecting and reporting no data and findings;

2. participant-as-observer: the researcher participates as well as
observes, but the identity and intent of the researcher is known
to those observed or studied. The researcher observes formally
and informally and tries to develop relationships with the
observed so as to understand them. The researcher may
sometimes try to identify with the observed. There is still a
danger of "going native" if the researcher over-identifies with
the researched;

3. observer-as-participant: the researcher in this role is involved
only in short-term, formally-arranged observation periods.
Because the visits are brief, there is a danger of being
superficial, the likelihood of misunderstanding informants and of
being misunderstood by informants. The brevity of the visits
also introduces a lot of room for bias; and

4. complete observer: the observer attempts to observe those
studied in ways which make it unnecessary for them to take
her/him into account. Those observed would not know the
researcher is observing them. This role is identified with
eavesdropping and reconnaissance in which the researcher is
removed from sustained interaction with the informants.
Ethnocentrism is the danger that might result from this approach
as the researcher may reject an informant's views without ever
getting to know them.

46

The above observational roles need not be med exclusively and
independently. Even where a dominant role is chosen, the researcher may find it
necessary to work out a plan that might maximize the benefits of her/his
observational role. This researcher, for example, had varied the degree of her
participation according to settings and activities. Because she was concerned
about not distorting the very process she was trying to capture conceptually, this
researcher conducted passive observations in the GGI group meetings. The
intention was to be m unobtrusive as possible and to ensure that the flow of
events would not be influenced by her presence in the group.

At the beginning of her visits to the meetings, GGI participants invited the
researcher's opinions and comments about issues they discussed. The researcher
would politely smile and shrug her shoulders, never volunteering a cormment or
opinion. After a few attempts at bringing the researcher into discussions,
participants ceased to invite her to make contributions in GGI group discussions.
The complete observer role she msumed in GGI made it emier for the researcher
to note behaviors and take down words that were used by participants. Active
participation would have limited her note-taking task. In other informal settings
such as hallways, bathrooms, lunch roan, or any place outside GGI meetings, the
researcher was an active participant observer, asking questions about things
observed and heard and answering questions about herself. Answers about the

study were well-guarded.

Fregency of Observations

 

When the researcher first visited the research site in the fall of I984, she
thought it suitable to visit the site every day and attend two sessions daily so as
to fol low the beginning and wrapping up of themes and problems tackled in GGI.

After a month, the researcher blended so well into groups that her absence in

46

The above observational roles need not be med exclusively and
independently. Even where a dominant role is chosen, the researcher may find it
necessary to work out a plan that might maximize the benefits of her/his
observational role. This researcher, for example, had varied the degree of her
participation according to settings and activities. Because she was concerned
about not distorting the very process she was trying to capture conceptually, this
researcher conducted passive observations in the GGI group meetings. The
intention was to be as unobtrusive as possible and to ensure that the flow of
events would not be influenced by her presence in the group.

At the beginning of her visits to the meetings, GGI participants invited the
researcher's opinions and comments about issues they discussed. The researcher
would politely smile and shrug her shoulders, never volunteering a comment or
opinion. After a few attempts at bringing the researcher into discussions,
participants ceased to invite her to make contributions in GGI group discussions.
The complete observer role she msumed in GGI made it emier for the researcher
to note behaviors and take down words that were used by participants. Active
participation would have limited her note-taking task. In other informal settings
such as hallways, bathrooms, lunch room, or any place outside GGI meetings, the
researcher was an active participant observer, asking questions about things
observed and heard and answering questions about herself. Answers about the

study were well-guarded.

Frequency of Observations

When the researcher first visited the research site in the fall of I984, she
thought it suitable to visit the site every day and attend two sessions daily so as
to fol low the beginning and wrapping up of themes and problems tackled in GGI.

After a month, the researcher blended so well into groups that her absence in

47

them was conspicuous. Almmt all group members individually asked the
researcher whereever they met her in the building where she had been during a
previous meeting. She often felt obligated to tell Mr. Smith when she was going
to be absent. During the spring of I985, the researcher started reducing the
number of her visits to the site to an average of three times a week. By this
time, group members were keen to volunteer an update of events that happened
during the researcher's absence when they chatted informally in places like the

lunchroom (see Appendix E for a tabulation of hours observed in the lunchroom).

Recording

At the times when the researcher was in the field as a casual observer, she
relied on retrospective notetaking. She had planned to record GGI meetings with
either an audio or video recorder so she could be free of the chore of writing
detailed notes during meetings. The school district denied her permission to
machine-record meetings. Because the Evaluation Services Committee knew
that students in GGI were talking about confidential information, it was
concerned about protecting the privacy of these students. The researcher
considered this denial an inconvenience and appealed the limitations of the
permission conditions with no success (see Appendix D). Observations in GGI
meetings often meant constant recording of almmt every detail.

In groups meetings, the researcher always occupied a seat outside the
discussion circle at a position where she could see everyone's face and
movements. At the beginning of note-taking, group members appeared to want
to guess topics of importance and interest to the researcher. Their attempts to
do this were defeated by the fact that she wrote even during marments when

nothing seemed to be happening. What they did not know was that moments of

48

"nothing happening" or lai ssez-fai re were as valuable to the study as manemts of

high action when discussions were focmed and tense.

Observations Outside of GGI

 

Although the central focus of this study was GGI meetings, halfway
through the winter term the researcher decided to use the students' lunchroom
instead of the staff one in order to relate with and observe GGI students. She
realized the need to observe GGI students outside the meetings because (a)
fieldwork research is holistic, requiring a researcher to look at relationships
between the setting of an observation and its context; 0)) relating to GGI
students would enable the researcher to find answers to puzzling statements
elicited during meetings; and (c) literature on GGI had suggested that the GGI
goup experience would change students' behavior toward positive behaviors.
Thus, the researcher was motivated to search for GGl's group experience's
spillover benefits that could be observed outside of GGI. The researcher decided
to observe GGI students and their fellow students in other settings where there
was action, e.g., clmsroorms, teacher-parent meetimm, sports' practice,
entertainment, prize awarding ceremonies, etc. Because of this, the researcher
was once surprised by a qJestion that one l3-l4 year old boy asked her: if she
were studying to be a principal or msistant principal. When asked to explain why
he thought so, he replied that the researcher was everywhere and in everything
in the school. Lumchroarm was observed about three times a week frorm the
middle of February to the end of May, while clmsrooms were only observed
about three times a week during the month of May. The researcher observed
randomly selected eighth grade clmses that had one or two GGI students (see

Appendix E for a tabulation of cl mses observed).

49

Interviews

Two kinds of interviews were conducted: informal and formal interviews.

Informal Interviews

 

Informal interviews were ongoing. They were seldom arranged and were
short and conversational in style and tone. For example, the researcher
informally interviewed the group leader after every GGI meeting to ascertain
that she had not misinterpreted words, meanings, feelings, and implications of
some issues raised in the meeting. Since in ethnography actors' perceptions and
the meanings they attach to their actions are important in understanding the
social situation, informal interviews were carried out with GGI group members
during lunch hours. Teachers, especially those with whom the researcher had
built a rapport, were informally interviewed about GGI students and the GGI
program during casual conversations. This was especially true with special
education teachers. The researcher would ask questions about things she wanted
clarification on with regard to school policy and rules and relate them to GGI.
Informal interviews with teachers were not limited to the school building. GGI
was a Springboard for conversations whenever the researcher met the teachers in

the community.

Formal Interviews

Formal interviews were longer and lmting anywhere between 30 and 45
minutes. They occurred at pre-arranged times and places. Role groups in the
school building who were considered most likely to give concrete and factual
information about GGI were formally interviewed: the building principal,
assistant principals, counselors, and six eighth grade teachers. Eighth grade
teachers were selected because GGI was for eighth graders only. Toward the end

of the study, the group leader was formally interviewed in two lengthy sessions

50

so as to verify conclusions and overall impressions the researcher made of the
program. An informant in the Social Services Department, founding members of
the GGI program, was formally interviewed.

All formal interviews were semi-structured and tape-recorded for later
review. They were semi-structured because the researcher had developed
interview guides for each group of prospective interviewees. As interviews
progressed, the researcher revised and augmented guides for subsequent
interviews whenever information worth probing was elicited. Thus, the use of
interview guides was not to standardize interviews, but to act as reminders of
the arem the researcher wanted to cover in each interview. Garden (I980) aptly
explained the use of guides as follows.

The interview guide, in contrmt to an interview schedule,
provides only an outline or a checklist of the topics and subtopics to

be covered but does not specify a sequence. In some cases, it might

also include several ways of wording questions or various probes

which might be useful in pursuing the subject. The interviewer is not

only free to vary the sequence of topics and subtopics to fit the

particular situation but he may also return to a topic more than once.

He is free to omit questions suggested by the guide if he feels that

the information was already obtained indirectly. He is free to add

questions and reward others when this help conveys the meaning. (p.
60)

 

The researcher did not rigidly follow the sequence of topics in the interview
guides during interviews but simply ascertained that all information desired was
covered. Questions were open-ended and interviewees were invited to volunteer
any unsolicited information or comment about the GGI program and its

participants.

Documents
Both official and anecdotal records about GGI were scanned. Before the
researcher began informal interviews with GGI participants, she solicited

anything they could write about themselves or the GGI group experience. To

5|

facilitate free expression of thoughts and feelings, members were given the
option not to identify themselves if they so wished. The aim was to get personal
feelings of members so as to learn what GGI meant to them. The Social Services
Department's documents about the GGI program were solicited. The researcher

was particularly interested in obtaining updated information about the program.

Data Analysis

Analysis of data was an ongoing process that went along with data
collection. This was done so as to search for patterns and linkages. The process
began with recording behaviors, topics, and reactions of members and the group
leader to actions and topics introduced in GGI. This was followed by detailed
write-ups following every visit to the site. In these write-ups, themes of topics
covered in GGI and what they implied were noted. As data grew in amount, it
became possible to code tapics covered in each meeting under thematic
categories.

Patterns emerged about what were acceptable behaviors and topics in GGI
as many of them recurred over time. The researcher could then make assertions
. about what appeared to be happening in GGI. These assertions necessitated
collecting data by other methods in order to ascertain if assertions arrived at
through analysis of data from observations had any validity. Thus data had to be
analyzed during data collection so as to interrogate and validate data by
verifying emerging patterns.

A deliberate search for discrepant cases was made so as to guard against
possible bim which might inadvertently result from an unconscious focus on data
that confirmed assertions already made. Discrepant cmes were analyzed for
meaning and scanned to see if they did not demand modification of assertions or
if they did not need the development of sub-assertions to account for exceptions

to the rule. The ongoing interrogation of data facilitated classification of data

52

and identification of properties of each category. Categories were then
compared to find differences and underlying relationships or linkages among
them. These underlying linkages in turn led to the discovery of the key linkage
or the overall meaning that could be extracted as a theory that explains why
things happened as they did in GGI.

Research questions were formulated so as to focus on patterns that had
emerged and to capture the meaning local people had of GGI. Questions were
developed after several observations at the time when a theory about what
seemed to be happening was discernible (i.e., the isolation of the GGI program).

Active pursuit of meaning and efforts to obtain a convergence between the
researcher's and participants' perceptions were carried out throughout data
collection and data analysis. This practice promoted a more self-conscious
attempt to control for researcher's bias because the researcher did not rely on
observations alone to answer the questions set for the study, but on triangulation
of evidence. Triangulation of evidence (i.e., checking one set of data against
another) also controlled for participants' reactivity because what the researcher
received as an answer from any one participant could be checked against other

SOUTCCS.

Summary
Fieldwork research methods were used to gather data that could describe
the functioning of GGI in this setting. Because fieldwork research methods allow
direct observation of the social process, they were considered appropriate for
this study. The primary data gathering strategy was participant observation.
Interviewing and document analysis complemented and supplemented data
collected through participant observation. Cross—checking of data collected with

one method provided verification and validation of data.

53

Observation of GGI meetings constituted the basic data gathering. To
obtain a global view of the setting, observations were also carried on outside of
GGI meetings. This was not only a methodological imperative, but a legitimate
necessity for understanding the scope of GGI since it was intended to go beyond
the GGI meeting.

The analysis of data was an ongoing process of identifying patterns and
linkages. Patterns could be coded into categories which were then campared to
find differences and relationships or linkages among them. These underlying
linkages led to the formulation of a theory about the functioning of GGI in this
setting and factors influencing its functioning. Questions were formulated to

elicit patterns that had emerged.

CHAPTER IV
REVIEW OF THE SETTING

The Community

Howard Junior High School is in the north of Edemvale, a small city in the
Midwest. It is in an old, inner-city neighborhood. According to the Bureau of
Census Neighborhood Statistics Program developed by Edenvale's Planning and
Municipal Development Division from the I980 census of population and housing,
4.3% of the housing units in Howard's neighborhood were built in I970 or later,
while 53.I% of the housing units were built before I940. Cheap housing is
abundant in this area. As a result, many students who attend a local community
college reside in this neighborhood. Generally, the north side of Edenvale is not
a business area; stores and business establishments are scattered in a few streets
in this residential area. The outside appearance of some stores found here, like
the housing units surrounding them, are weather-worn and appear sooted or
wmhed-out with old paint peeling off the walls. The insides of most of the
stores are dingy and dark. In fact, most of the stores are used furniture or
antique stores, Salvation Army-auspices stores. A majority of them are small
family, non-franchised type stores and restaurants and/or bars. Franchised fast
food stores occur randomly, mainly around the neighborhood's factories and
schools.

The racial composition of this area is mixed. It is one of the city's areas
with a majority percentage of minorities. These minorities constitute blacks,

Hispanics, American Indians, and a large population of Asian refugees. The

54

55

community is largely in the lower socioeconomic level and is patched here and
there by pockets of upper middle class incame families.

As of the I980 census, 2I.8% of the people in this neighborhood were
determined to be living in poverty, and 40.6% of the children under I8 years of
age were in this poverty bracket. The official data base of Howard Junior Higln
illustrated that, for academic year I984-85, 46% of students in this school were
eligible for free lunches and 24% were students from families on ADC.
According to this data bme, 45% of the students' parents were not high school
graduates. The I980 census indicated that more than 50% of the persons eligible
for work were in the labor force. The school's data bme sheet also indicated
that 36% of the students were from one-parent families. A sizeable nurmber not
reflected in this data bme were from remarried families. Over the years, the
school has attracted students from low income families because of the

availability of cheap housing around it.

The School Building

Howard Junior High School had a student population of about 850 during
the I984-85 school year, including 28% black, l3% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 55%
white students. The school was in transition to become a middle school by the
next academic year. It was neat, well-maintained, and did not reflect the
picture of the community it served. The building was strikingly clean with
almost graffiti-free walls. A somewhat permanent dialogue and philosophy-free
graffiti occurred as isolated streaks in the girls' bathrooms, often in the form of
insults such as, "Stacy, you are a bitch."

The fact that the building was as clean as it was was no surprise because
same adults appeared to make special efforts to keep the building clean. For

example, it was not uncommon to see the principal picking up papers as he

56

moved up and down the hallways supervising class shifts. He once told the
researcher, "visibility prevents a lot of nonsense," so he and the two assistant
principals supervised the arrival and departure of buses as well. Cleanliness of
the building might perhaps be attributed to this visibility policy as irresponsible
behaviors such as scratching and scribbling on walls could be arrested by it.
According to the principal, it was also commendable for teachers to supervise
clms changes, and they could often be seen standing in the doorways of their
homerooms during these intermissions. Mr. Smith, guards, assistant principals,
and the principal routinely stood or walked up and down hallways during class

changes. Occasionally, counselors also were seen doing this surveillance job.

The GGI Classroom

As of February l8, I985, GGI was conducted in one of the least-utilized
clmsrooms in the wing that was the last to be added to the original building when
the enrollment increased some few years before. It was one of three carpeted
clmsrooms intended to be an office, and it had been one for bilingual education
teachers in the recent past. The former GGI room, now an office for a special
education official, was more of an office than a classroom. It was small and
accommodated only about l2 closely-arranged chairs without a table.

The new, carpeted GGI room was equipped with classroom furniture and
accessories (see Figure I). There was a wide chalkboard, a teacher's table and
chair, trash can, students' tables and chairs facing the teacher's table, and a
notice board with two charts displaying Mexican cuisine. GGI brought in a box of
tissues, and a hand-drawn GGI chart with names of some members randomly
scribbled on it. A supply of tissues was an essential accessory because crying

was common in GGI.

57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 F 1 1, J
C] 5
U 2 :34
3 f
“.1 6 ‘
7 8
5 E3
2 r: B . ‘1
V
group D [3 O 821' e
leader
...,_ :1 E]
_I 9
El El
Cl
, III
10 III E]
I. III
El [El Cl
6
I 11 I
Key:
I. chalkboard 2. teacher's table 3. tissue box
4. trash can 5. chai rs 6. tables
7. notice board 8. drawer 9. cupboard
l0. doors ll. telephone
Figure I. The layout of the GGI classroom.

 

58

The room had few tables and was convenient for the formation of a
discussion circle, a ritualistic seating arrangement in GGI. Upon arrival, GGI
group I students simply pulled out chairs to the back of room and left them there
for group II. Group II members might or might not return the chairs to their
tables before leaving the roorm, depending on the availability of time at the end
of the discussion. At the time of this. research, the group leader (with the help
of the researcher) had taken it upon himself to leave the GGI room in good order
by returning chairs to their places, picking up papers, turning off lights, and
locking the door before returning to his office in the counseling unit.

Other than the physical chaacteristics of the GGI room mentioned above,
the GGI roorm was similar to a regular clms in other ways:

I. GGI was scheduled like any other clms at a fixed time within the
time boundaries of a class period;

2. GGI required students msigmed to it to meet every morning (first
and second hour for the I984-85 school year for groups I and II,
respectively), just as they would for a regular clms;

3. GGI was treated as an elective course with students' receiving
one credit per term; and

4. GGI had one adult working with a group of young people.

Despite the above-stated similarities between GGl's physical and
organizational arangements and those of a regular clms, GGI had sorme
technical and operational features that were unique to it. For example, although
GGI was a credited clms, there were no in-clms written work, homework,
msignments, class projects, or oral or written exams for it. The group leader did
not come with a planned lesson or agenda for each group meeting. No formal
lecturing was done in GGI. Predicting the course and outcome of each GGI
meeting was impossible. What was to be discussed in each GGI session depended
on GGI members. They were given a chance to discuss their concerns and

problems of whatever nature.

59

GGI was striving to give students a clmsroom environment that was
different from what they had been socialized to. GGI members were given the
option to decide one another's grades. How this was done is described in Chapter
V. The chance to democratically decide grades was a unique feature of GGI
which was intended to further the purposes of GGI—giving students the right to
decide group matters. Although students earned grades in GGI at the end of
each term, there was no judgment made about whether students had met or
canpleted all requirements of GGI. Tables 2 and 3 show membership in GGI
during the I984-85 school year.

Table 2
Membership in GGI Group I During the I984-85 School Year

 

 

Name Race Duration in GGI
Beth white 9/84 - 6/85
Debbie white 9/84 - 6/85
Jeannette black 9/84 - 6/85
* Mary-Ellen white 9/84 - 6/85
Jill white lI/84 - 6/85
Marcia black 9/84 - 2/85
Tracy white 9/84 - 2/85
Tricia white 9/84 - 2/85
Jackie white l/85 - 6/85
Shirley Amer. Indian l/85 - 6/85
Susan Amer. Indian I/85 - 6/85
Patty bl ack I/85 - 3/85
Judy white 4/85 - 6/85
Marge white 4/85 - 6/85
Vicki Hispanic 4/85 - 6/85

* indicates member who was moved from one group to the other

 

 

Table 3

Membership in GGI Group II During the I984-85 School Year

 

 

Name Race Duration in GGI
Betsy white 9/84 - 6/85
Carol white 9/84 - 6/85
Cindy black 9/84 - 6/85
Elaine black 9/84 - 6/85
Emily black 9/84 - 6/85
* Karen white 9/84 - 6/85
Nancy white 9/84 - 6/85
Dianne black 9/84 - 2/85
Lucy white 9/84 - 2/85
Melody black 9/84 - 2/85
Michelle black 9/84 - 2/85
Gail white l/85 - 2/85
Valerie white 3/85 - 5/85
Sara black 4/85 - 6/85

 

 

* indicates member who was moved from one group to the other

 

 

As the above tables demonstrate, most students in both groups were
enrolled in GGI for the whole school year. They also illustrate the following:

I. A total of l3 of 30 students enrolled in GGI during the course of
the I984-85 school year were minorities.

2. Group II enrolled more minorities than group I.
3. There was more mobility in amp I than in goup II. Group II was
almost a closed group as only three new members were added to
the original group throughout the school year, while eight new
members were added to group I.
Another striking feature of GGI seen in the above tables is the fact that
GGI was unisexual. Only girls were in GGI during the I984-85 school year.

Detailed descriptions of how GGI girls were selected is presented in Chapter V.

Summary
The community surrounding the school was mainly in the low

socioeconomic level. It was a community with a large population of minorities,

6|

and the school reflected the same high percentage of minorities in its
enrollment, over 40%. Similarly, during the I984-85 school year, GGI enrolled
more than 40% minority students. GGI was scheduled like a regular clms, and it
wm conducted in a classroom. The organization of this clms was different:
students gathered in a discussion circle every morning rather than sitting behind
tables facing an adult (teacher). The group leader did not come to the GGI
clmsroom with a planned lesson. What was discussed in GGI meetinm were
topics members brought. Typically, topics of discussions were of social and

emotional nature.

CHAPTER V
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Part One
I. Why and How Were GGI Participants Chosen for GGI, According
to (a) Teachers, (b) Administrators, 7c) Counselors, (d) GGI
Participants, and (e) Group Leaders?
When this study was conducted during the I984-85 school year, only girls

were in GGI. The group leader and principal informed the researcher there had

 

been boys' groups in the past, but they were eliminated when Mr. Smith, the
group leader, was given a half—time msignment at Howard Junior High School
(8:00 - l0:45 an). The group leader explained girls were considered a priority
because they (a) were getting into more trouble than boys in that building
because of group gossip and (b) had a tendency to form camps and fight one
another in groups (Fieldnotes, l0/24/84). He reiterated the some points later in
the study during an interview.
The reason for only girls is that they seem to have more trouble

with junior high school girls, the girls between the grades of seventh

and ninth grades. It's usually where most problems are: the gossip,

the falling in love . . . . More girls, the statistics have been shown, in

junior high school are having more trouble at home with their parents

than boys. They have trouble with their mothers more than boys with

their mothers or boys with their fathers. So it is because girls have

shown and demonstrated more problems within the school and also

outside the school than the boys have. (Tape recorded interview,

5/6/85)

The following discussion demonstrates reasons why participants were
chmen for GGI differed among teachers, between teachers and administrators,

and between counselors and administrators.

62

63

Ms. Hall, a teacher of more than l0 years in the building, told the

researcher the following:
Most people don't know anything about GGI. I'm not sure either,

but I think it was introduced at the time when schools in this area had

a lot of racial problems. But since we no longer have serious racial

problems, GGI is now geared towardneh—mh—emotional problems.

(Fieldnotes, 7/l2/85)

Mr. Smith once told the research that GGI was introduced in this school
building to quell racial problems same years ago.

One of the teachers in the school, Mr. Scott, responded thus about GGI:

I have no idea of what GGI is or what it is doing--I don't know

how and why those students are in GGI—and I think most teachers

don't know why too (Mr. Scott's tone was one of resentment if not

anger) . . . . I see them crying in there--just because they are next to

my hameroarm. I seriously don't think many people know what they

are doing in there. (Interview notes, 5/30/85)

With the exception of Mr. Scott, all teachers interviewed both formally and
informally saw GGI as helping its participants with their social and/or emotional
problems. No teacher interviewed knew why only girls were chmen for GGI.
They made it clear to the researcher that they were not sure what was happening
in GGI meetings.

Two of the three counselors in the school, Mr. Williams and Mr. Gilbert,
believed that students in GGI had more familial and peer-related problems than
other students. Mr. Gilbert said, "GGI is a program where students who basically
have problems--l guess all students do, but I think the majority of students there
have problems more than the average . . . ." (Tape recorded interview, 3/l/85).
Neither counselor knew how students were chmen for GGI. In fact, Mr. Williams
said, ". . . there are some students that I wonder what type of problems they
could have had that could have fostered their getting into GGI in the first place

other than the reason I have already mentioned (on easy grade)" (Tape recorded

interview, 2/26/85). In contrast to the evidence of the briefing sessions attended

by the researcher, Mr. Williams believed it was easy for Mr. Smith to get clients
for GGI because of "an emy grade."

The counselor who knew why and how GGI participants were selected
worked as a GGI group leader some years ago when the program was first
introduced in the state. She recommended students she thought would benefit
from group counseling for GGI.

The impression teachers and counselors had of GGI was different from that
of building administrators. When the principal was asked why he chose to have
GGI in his building, he replied:

Well, from my poi nt of view it is a very, very helpful progam in
taking kids with negative attitudes—negative leadership skills—and
either neutralizing or turning those attitudes around . . . . If a kid is a
leader of a subgroup within the building, if we change his attitude, we
may change the attitudes of several other kids often respecting and
following that youngster. So, for me, it's a management tool. I can
manage the building more effectively if we somehow neutralize some
of those negative attitudes. It's a real asset if . . . actually not only
neutralizing but actually turn him around to work for us by solving
problems constructively. I look at is as an opportunity to train
leaders-eh--who are out there--helping us manage the building in a
positive way. (Tape recorded interview, 2/22/85)

Although the principal's view of GGI was different from that of his
teachers and counselors, it was similar to that of his msistant principals.
Assistant principals were responsible for discipline problems in the building.
When asked if GGI were of any help to discipline in the building, they both
singled out problen students in GGI whom they believed had changed as a result
of their involvement in GGI. They thought GGI was also helping general
discipline in the school. They imagined GGI was not only helping GGI
participants to change their negative behaviors, but also changing behaviors of

those students around GGI participants and converts, too. One msistant

principal agued that most misbehavior and misconduct occurring in the school

by the researcher, Mr. Williams believed it was easy for Mr. Smith to get clients
for GGI because of "an emy grade."

The counselor who knew why and how GGI participants were selected
worked as a GGI group leader some years ago when the program was first
introduced in the state. She recommended students she thought would benefit
fram group counseling for GGI.

The impression teachers and counselors had of GGI was different from that
of building administrators. When the principal was asked why he chose to have
GGI in his building, he replied:

Well, from my poi nt of view it is a very, very helpful progam in
taking kids with negative attitudes—negative leadership skills—and
either neutralizing or turning those attitudes around . . . . If a kid is a
leader of a subgroup within the building, if we change his attitude, we
may change the attitudes of several other kids often respecting and
following that youngster. So, for me, it's a management tool. I can
manage the building more effectively if we sormehow neutralize same
of those negative attitudes. It's a real asset if . . . actually not only
neutralizing but actually turn him around to work for us by solving
problems constructively. I look at is as an opportunity to train
Ieaders--eh--who are out there-«helping us manage the building in a
positive way. (Tape recorded interview, 2/22/85)

Although the principal's view of GGI was different from that of his
teachers and counselors, it was similar to that of his msistant principals.
Assistant principals were responsible for discipline problems in the building.
When asked if GGI were of any help to discipline in the building, they both
singled out problem students in GGI whom they believed had changed as a result
of their involvement in GGI. They thought GGI was also helping general
discipline in the school. They imagined GGI was not only helping GGI
participants to change their negative behaviors, but also changing behaviors of

those students around GGI participants and converts, too. One msistant

principal agued that most misbehavior and misconduct occurring in the school

65

was often supported and reinforced by peers. They assumed GGI participants
reinforced the positive behaviors of their associates or followers.

GGI participants believed they were in GGI not become they had more
problems that other students, but because they chose to be in GGI. They
believed everyone had problem. Sarme students related they were in GGI to help
others and receive help with their problems, too. The kind of problems they
were talking about were mundane, day-to-day social problems (boyfriends, sibling
rivalry, parents, etc.). Others attested they had no problems, but were only in
GGI to help those who did have problems. Still others told the researcher they
were in GGI because it was a better elective for them than swimming, typing, or
gym (see pp. 69-70, I30). These individuals confessed they hated those electives

because of the efforts demanded of them.

The Selection Process

 

At Howard Junior High School, the researcher was told by the group leader
that the selection process for I984-85 GGI participants began with the
circulation of a selection form to teachers (see Figure 2), stating that teachers
should help select outstanding positive and negative leaders. The criteria for
choosing these leaders were not stated in the form, other than the fact that girls
should be extroverted. Teachers were not required to justify or explain their
categorization of individual students or the criteria they used. The group leader
arranged this selection process in an anonymous fmhion. He dropped selection
forms into the mail slots of eighth grade teachers.

The researcher failed in her attempt to determine the criteria teachers
used in selecting positive and negative leaders from teachers themselves through
interviews conducted for this study in May of I985. Some teachers vaguely

remembered the form left in their mail slots at the beginning of the I984-85

65

was often supported and reinforced by peers. They assumed GGI participants
reinforced the positive behaviors of their associates or followers.

GGI participants believed they were in GGI not because they had more
problems that other students, but because they chose to be in GGI. They
believed everyone had problem. Some students related they were in GGI to help
others and receive help with their problems, too. The kind of problems they
were talking about were mundane, day-to-day social problems (boyfriends, sibling
rivalry, parents, etc.). Others attested they had no problems, but were only in
GGI to help those who did have problems. Still others told the researcher they
were in GGI because it was a better elective for them than swimming, typing, or
gym (see pp. 69-70, I30). These individuals confessed they hated those electives

because of the efforts demanded of then.

The Selection Process

 

At Howard Junior High School, the researcher was told by the group leader
that the selection process for I984-85 GGI participants began with the
circulation of a selection form to teachers (see Figure 2), stating that teachers
should help select outstanding positive and negative leaders. The criteria for
choosing these leaders were not stated in the form, other than the fact that girls
should be extroverted. Teachers were not recpired to justify or e>q3lain their
categorization of individual students or the criteria they med. The group leader
arranged this selection process in an anonymous fmhion. He dropped selection
forms into the mail slots of eighth grade teachers.

The researcher failed in her attempt to determine the criteria teachers
med in selecting positive and negative leaders from teachers themselves through
interviews conducted for this study in May of I985. Some teachers vaguely

remembered the form left in their mail slots at the beginning of the I984-85

66

CONFIDENTIAL
FROM: David Smith
TO: Howard's Staff
RE: GGI Girl 5' Group
DATE: September 4, I984

The GGI (Guided Group Interaction) Program will begin soon.

In order for this program to be a success, I will need asitive and negative
leaders: students who stand out in your mind who have influence, whether
positive or negative.

Please list below those students whom you feel could benefit from this program.

GIRLS OINLY
EXTROVERT - POSITIVE EXTROVERT - NEGATIVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will be interviewing students for the next two weeks. Pleme bear with me.
Thank you,
David Smith

Figure 2. Selection form.

 

 

school year. Mr. Scott told the researcher he did not know how or why students
were in GGI. When asked if he received the selection form in his mail slot at the
beginning of the year, Mr. Scott remembered the form and sounded resentful

about the negative and positive categorization of students on the form. He

67

thought it likely to be bimed. He argued if a teacher were not getting along
with an otherwise—good student, that teacher was more likely to categorize the
student as negative. He confessed he never selected any student became he
thought it unfair to categorize students that way. He told the reseacher the
most important fact that made him not select anyone for GGI was his ignorance
of why those students had to be chmen for GGI. In the remaining five eighth-
grade teachers interviewed, two remembered receiving selection forms and
suggesting names they could not recall. On the whole, interviewed teachers
appeared to believe that the criteia med to select GGI students for GGI were
the emotional and social problems students had.

Students were given no chance to select people they thought should be in
GGI. In reality, as later discussions will indicate, GGI was not known to most
students in this building, including eighth g'aders, the very group GGI selected to
focus on (see p. I25). However, the group leader informed the researcher the
selectian process did not end with teachers; he also interviewed nominees for
screening and placement. He related that he had to have an idea of the kind of
problems each nominee had. Balancing negative and positive leaders in a group
was considered crucial to the success of the group process. Those he considered
eligible were given the privilege of either accepting or refusing the offer to be in
GGI. GGI is supposed to be voluntary. Those accepting the offer were given
handbooks, written by the group leader, that explained what was done in GGI.
These handbooks were to be taken to their parents and included permission forms
to be signed, indicating whether or not parents ganted permission for their
individual children to be in GGI.

Subsequent selection procedures observed by the researcher were different
from those related by the group leader. For example, the selection procedures

witnessed by the researcher did not involve teachers and individual screening

68

interviews for placement as wm the case in the beginning of the year's selection
period. The researcher observed the selection process of candidates to replace
seven GGI participants from the two goups (three from group I and four from
group II) who had been taken out of GGI before the end of the school year so as
to "revitalize" the groups. GGI is supposed to be open-ended. At the time when
the group leader was to replace the seven GGI participants, the new
superintendent of this school district suggested that Article III students be
involved in GGI. This was not surprising became the principal had informed the
researcher that, at the time of this research, GGI wm funded by the Article III
fund of the state of Michigan. He explained it was a fund "dealing with kids who
are reading or doing math two or three levels below gade level" (Tape recorded
interview, 2/22/85).

For this selection period, the group leader had a list of eighth grade Article
III students. The group leader informally asked an msistant principals to suggest
names of students who could be in GGI; one student was suggested this way.
Another was suggested by the ex-GGI leader counselor. In addition, the group
leader picked l5 names from Article III students. He invited the I? candidates to
a briefing about GGI in the social roan. During this briefing, he told candidates
that GGI was an elective clms like gym and that they would be gaded on it. He
explained that students in GGI talk about anything and could "laugh, cry, help, or
be helped" by others with their problems. He poi nted out that they were not
selected for GGI because "you are bad—there are no bad people in GGI, or
became you are not doing well in your clmses" (Fieldnotes, 3/I3/85). He told
them they were chmen became they were believed to be strong enough to be
able to help those who needed help in GGI and to receive help if they needed it
with their own problerms. He made it clear that participation was voluntary.

After the briefing, he invited those who wanted to be in GGI to remain behind.

69

behind. These interested candidates were told they should pick up handbooks to
take to their parents for permission to be in GGI and to consult with their
counselors for schedule changes if they decided to be in GGI. After all students
had left the roam, the group leader complained to the researcher in despair,
"You saw this tall girl who was here (painting)? I really wanted her to be in GGI.
This is the second time she is turning the offer down."

The girl he was talking about was easy to remember became of her striking
face and tall and slender body. He explained that she had a lot of problems and
really needed to be in GGI. One of the msistant principals had suggested that
she be considered for GGI became of her problem with stealing (she had been
caught in her office). She also had familial problems known to the staff.

Fran the recruitment efforts of March l3, I985, described above, Mr. Smith
was only able to get one GGI client from the l7 candidates he interviewed.

About four weeks' later, on April 4, I985, Mr. Smith changed his
recruitment strategy. He invited four GGI veterans, two from each group, to
participate in a panel informing I2 potential candidates about GGI. These
candidates were eighth grade, Article III students, and none was in the previom
group of recruits. Mr. Smith introduced GGI, explaining where it fitted into the
curriculum. He explained recpirements much as he had done with the previous
group of candidates, adding "nobody flunks GGI." He then gave the panel the
floor.

Jeanette: In GGI we talk about our problems and help others with

their problems. You don't have to have problems to be in
GGI . . .

Jackie: Yeah, it doesn't mean that you have more problems when

you are in GGI. You can go in to help others with their

problems-—but everybody hm their problems. I mean, no
one has pg problems.

69

behind. These interested candidates were told they should pick up handbooks to
take to their parents for permission to be in GGl and to consult with their
counselors for schedule changes if they decided to be in GGI. After all students
had left the room, the group leader complained to the researcher in despair,
"You saw this tall girl who was here (painting)? I really wanted her to be in GGI.
This is the second time she is turning the offer down."

The girl he was talking about was easy to remember because of her striking
face and tall and slender body. He explained that she had a lot of problems and
really needed to be in GGI. One of the assistant principals had suggested that
she be considered for GGI because of her problem with stealing (she had been
caught in her office). She also had familial problems known to the staff.

Fran the recruiMent efforts of March l3, I985, described above, Mr. Smith
was only able to get one GGI client from the l7 candidates he interviewed.

About four weeks' later, on April 4, I985, Mr. Smith changed his
recruitrment strategy. He invited four GGI veterans, two from each group, to
participate in a panel informing 12 potential candidates about GGI. These
candidates were eighth grade, Article Ill students, and none was in the previous
group of recruits. Mr. Smith introduced GGI, explaining where it fitted into the
curriculum. He explained requirements much as he had done with the previous
group of candidates, adding "nobody flunks GGI." He then gave the panel the
floor.

Jeanette: ln GGI we talk about our problems and help others with

their problems. You don't have to have problems to be in
GGI . . .

Jackie: Yeah, it doesn‘t mean that you have more problems when

you are in GGI. You can go in to help others with their

prablems--but everybody has their problems. I mean, no
one has no problems.

7O

Betsey: Some of them are no big deal. We talk about anything in
GGI—boyfriends, stuff like that (giggling). It's a place
where you can come and be yourself.

Nancy: Sometimes it can get violent-4 mean, really rough. Then
you really don't know how to handle things. But I like it;
you can be yourself and learn about other people-4 mean,
who they are, how they think, and their problems.

Jeanette: What we talk about doesn't get out of the GGI roarm. The
stuff we talk about is not supposed to be known to other
people. Thisis important.

Jackie: People wouldn't say nothing if what we talk about was
getting out.

Betsey: If you don't like gym, you might just as well be in GGI. I
hate gym and typing.

Mr. Smith interrupted the testimonies of the GGI veterans to explain to the
recruits that they were selected because, "You can deal with GGI. GGI is not
easy; it is a problem-solving class." He gave the candidates a chance to ask
questions and no one did. Mr. Smith invited the interested to remain behind and
signed permission slips of the uninterested for readmission into the respective
classes they left for this briefing. Six students remained behind. They were told
they should pick up handbooks for their parents and consult their individual
counselors for schedule changes. Four of the l2 recruits joined GGI. Three were
placed into group I and one into group ll. As was the case with the placement of
these additional members, it seemed that the group to which a student were
assigned was determined by that student's schedule.

Both the selection procedures narrated by the group leader and those
witnessed by the researcher suggested that there was no way of guaranteeing
positive and negative peer leaders would be selected into GGI because

I. students were not given a chance to choose students they

regarded as influential, outstanding, or their leaders (the group

leader indicated they were not supposed to be given a chance);

2. teachers had no clear criteria to use in choosing positive and
negative peer leaders; and

7|

3. the superintendent's recommendation that Article III kids be
included in GGI cast further doubt as to whether peer leaders
would be in GGI.

It also became evident that the group leader had no control over who would
and who would not be in GGI among nominated candidates. This was illustrated
by the girl who twice had turned down the offer to be in the program (see p. 69).
In the best judgment of both the group leader and the assistant principal, the girl
needed to be in GGI. The group leader could do nothing about it because GGI
wm voluntary. This voluntay nature also implied that the strategic balancing of
negative and positive leaders would not be feasible because volunteers might
form a distribution skewed to either side. The way group placements were
arranged for additional GGI members suggested it depended on the schedule a
counselor could work out with a student. The group leader could only tell
students to inform their counselors where he would like them placed, if possible.
The group leader expressed regret about this constriction to the researcher.
Although he needed new people in group II, student schedules didn't allow such

placement. This explains why there was more mobility in group I than in group
ll.
How Did Teachers, Counselors, Administrators,
and the, Group Leader Think GGI Worked?

With the exception of one teacher—an ex—elementary school counselor, one
counselor--an ex-group leader, an art teacher, a trained GGI leader, and those
who substituted for the group leader during his absence, no teacher or counselor
spoke lmowledgeably about GGI. Administrators had a good understanding of
GGI as outlined in its model. The only people with first-hand information about
GGI were those substituting for Mr. Smith. It was generally believed GGI dealt

with confidential information only those in the group should know. Mr. Scott

sounded displeased about the inaccessibility of GGI as will be demonstrated

later.

Teachers

Of the six eighth grade teachers interviewed, only one spoke about GGI
with certainty. Statements made by all other teachers about what GGI was or
what it was doing in the school came from vague recollections of what they
assumed the program might be doing. They were obviously guarded and cautious
because statements they made were bracketed by expressions like "I guess . . ."
"that's what I think . . ." "I may be wrong, but I think . . . " "I can only guess . . ."
"what I personally think is . . . but check with other people."

This uncertainty was true for all other teachers the researcher interviewed
except for those substituting for Mr. Smith during his absences. Mrs. Evans, an
English teacher and former elementary school counselor of seven years, was the
only teacher who spoke with certainty about GGI. She said, "GGI is peer
counseling. I know about how GGI works. My husband was a GGI leader, too.
GGI gives students a chance to solve their problems . . ." (Interview notes,
6/5/85). She felt GGI wcs providing "sarmething that is otherwise missing" in the
school system--helping students with "developrmental problems and social
relationships problems." She explained that high school counselors were not
providing social and emotional development counseling to the average student.
She believed counselors were only talking to students about classroarm and heme
problems when those problems interfered with school achievement and never
about the "social relationships problems" that many students experience in their
daily lives at school. That students were burdened by problems in their daily
lives at school was revealed to Mrs. Evans by stories they wrote in their journals

for her English class. She encouraged students to keep journals they could share

73

with her alone. Most students confided their problems to her in those journals.
She told the reseacher she spoke privately with one girl who had suicidal
thoughts to try to talk her out of such thoughts. She was certain, therefore, that
a program like GGI was vital to the school. She believed students in GGI could
talk to their peers about their problems and come to understand that most people
have problems too.

Ms. Colbert, a special education teacher (not an eighth grade teacher) who
had on occasion acted as a substitute GGI group leader when Mr. Smith was
absent spoke with confidence about GGI and its role in the school building: "a
viable alternative to 'counseling' because counselors do not focus on behavioral
and social problems" (Fieldnotes, 5/23/85). She felt counselors were too busy
with paperwork or preparing students for careers to deal with students'
behavioral and/or social problems.

Similarly, although less confident than the two preceding informants, Mr.
Gordon, an eighth grade teacher, thought GGI was a much-needed program
because "schools do not address emotional and psychological needs of developing
children—feelings are not touched at all" (Interview notes, 6/5/85). He believed
GGI had helped a student (Lucy) in his history class. He said the program
changed her attitude; in his opinion, she was no longer the angry child she used to
be before she joined GGI. He told the researcher he never attended any GGI
meeting and, therefore, had no first hand information about what was happening
in GGI because of the confidential nature of the program. He recalled that some
years ago when GGI was introduced in this school district, teachers and parents
were told in a PTA meeting that GGI was going to give students a chance to talk
about their problems.

Ms. Torres, a special education teacher who had an eighth grade GGI

student in her special reading class, told the researcher that she did not know

74

what Mr. Smith was doing in GGI but that she had seen a remarkable change in
Karen's attitude and behavior, and her guess was that GGI had perhaps
contributed to her change. She defined Karen as having been an acting-out child
who threw tantrums whenever efforts were made to correct her dyslexia. She
told the researcher that Karen was the most defiant student in her class when
they first started in the fall of I984, but was one of her best students by the end
of the year, receiving four awards from four different special education teachers
in an award ceremony specially arranged for special education students.

Like Mr. Hanes, Mr. Scott saw no change in students who were in GGI. Mr.
Scott explained it as follows.

The way I see it (GGI) is that it's a free hour. They sit there and

talk and cry . . . about what? Nobody knows what the goals of the

program are. People are asking how come GGI is not evaluated, why

there are no males in the program? I simply don't know what the

program does. Mr. Smith does not give us any feedback . . . I see no

difference in the kids who are in GGI from other kids . . . I'm not

against GGI; but just like most other people, I'm wondering why he

cannot come out with the goals and be evaluated according to those

goals. (Interview notes, 5/30/85)

Mr. Hanes stated that he knew nothing about GGI except that Mr. Smith
was helping the GGI kids with their problems. To his understanding, they were
not supposed to be told what students were talking about in GGI because

everything was supposed to be confidential.

Counselors
Other than the former GGI group leader among counselors, they knew no
more about GGI in this building than teachers. What they said about GGI was not
first hand information, but assumptions. Mr. Williams was uncertain about what
GGI was doing in this school. He viewed it with su5picion as he said:
I think some students may look upon it as an easy way . . . if they

are quite on time, don't give the teacher any problem, don't give their
teacher any difficulty--ah--that's an automatic A, and I think a lot of

75

students get into GGI because of that reason as well. If I'm wrong,
I'm sorry but I think that's what it comes out to be. (Tape recorded
interview, 2/26/85)

Mr. Williams knew that students were talking about their problems in GGI,
"problems with peers." He assumed that students were given the chance to talk
freely about their problems as he said, ". . . as l understand--I've never attended
any of the GGI sessions—they have a chance to discuss problems on restricted
basis and they are not unduly criticised because of that."

Another school counselor, Mr. Gilbert, stated that he knew little about
GGI.

l have not had a lot of contact with GGI. Mr. Smith has been the
teacher. But I have a general feeling that students—what they say in
there is basically confidential . . . . l have the idea that they can
freely talk anyway they want about anything they want to in there.
(Tape recorded interview, 3/l/85)

When asked what GGI was doing in that school building and how it worked, he
replied with uncertainty,

. . . students with problems . . . have a chance to talk things over
(in GGI). It's basically the idea of peer influences—with people of
their same age listening and, I think, what he does is kind of
moderates the thing—and, again, I'm not there to see what he is
doing--but I would think that--eh--the teacher would try to take a
little bit of a back seat and let the kids talk more and not impose his
ideas much. (Tape recorded interview, 3/30/85)

The counselor who had worked as a GGI leader some years ago said about

GGI:
I know what GGI is--it's Guided Group Interaction. It's a form of

peer counseling, and it is a behavior modification system for changing

undesirable behavior through group pressure . . . . It's only as good as

the group members and the group as far as bringing about change

. . . GGI is goup counseling. I see it as group counseling. (Tape

recorded interview, 2/27/85)

Although two of the three counselors in this school building had only a
fuzzy idea of what GGI was and what it wcn doing in the school building, on the

whole counselors regarded GGI as a peer counseling group despite the fact that

76

they did not see GGI as part of the counseling department. They all made it
clear that it had nothing to do with the counseling departrment. One counselor
considered it to be an "added blessing" while another considered it to be a

program the school (administrators) wanted.

Administrators

What the principal thought the GGI progam was doing in his school
building and how it worked are presented here. He saw GGI as:

l. turning around kids with negative attitudes,

2. a leadership training opportunity,

3. a constructive problen solving (activity), and

it. a program that was aiding his administration.

When asked if GGI participants were given a hands-on experience in
administration and management of the school, he replied:
Not now. In the past there were times that we felt so strongly
about the capabilities of these youngsters that we actually had them

go out and be aides to the teachers and help teachers with the

problems in the classrooms. Whether or not that will happen again, I

don't know. (Tape recorded interview, 2/22/85)

The researcher inquired about the reasons for the discontinuation of that
practice. The principal told the researcher "they were thinking about it" and
suggested she asked the group leader about it.

The principal also regaded GGI as a problem solving class. Although he
never attended any goup meeting because he did not want to appear as though
he were prying or "eavesdropping," he knew that GGI was dealing with "real life
stuff." He believed that students were bringing problems to the group and that

positive solutions were sought with the most viable of these decided upon. Those

with solutions to implement were monitored by the group so as to follow through

77

on chosen solutions. "They consciously monitor each other during the day," he
informed the researcher.

The principal's understanding of what GGI wm doing and how it operated
was still different frorm that of his staff. He viewed GGI as a tool aiding him to
manage the building as well as a problem solving class. His staff took GGI to be
same form of courseling that was only helping students in the program with
emotional problems. One of the assistant principals, due to the ripple effect
assumed about GGI, assured the researcher that the program was doing same
good in the building. He stated that GGI could not be expected to solve all
discipline problems but "we are better off with it than without it" (Fieldnotes,

6/6 [85).

The Group Leader

 

Mr. Smith attested that GGI wm not working as it should have been for two
remons: (a) the limited time he had in Howard Junior High School and (b) the
kids schools are dealing with today--"the selfish generation" (Interview, 5/6/85).
"You should see GGI when the group leader is full-time in a building. It's
different from the GGI we had this past year" (Interview, 8/I4/85). He believed
that had he been full-time in Howard Junior High School during the l98h-85
school year, he could havetaken GGI beyond group meetings. He was convinced
GGI could have assumed one of its legitimate functions in a school—"helping
teachers to teach." He gave the example that in the past, when teachers were
having problems in classrooms with certain kids, they did not have to send the
kids away from classes because they knew they could get help from GGI
students. They could "just make a phone cal I" to the GGI office to get help; and,
if the problem were severe enough, it would be attended to by the group leader.

GGI graduates, those who had been through the program, had an office in the

78

counseling department and a telephone at which they could be reached.
According to Mr. Smith, this was how GGI was same years ago in the building
where he had previously worked. He pointed out that
. . . in order to do that, you have to do several things: prepare
the kids for it and then, the most important thing, prepare the
teachers to use them and use them rightly. I haven't been able to do

that because I haven't had the time. (Tape recorded interview,
5/6/85)

He told the researcher that the I984-85 GGI kids left him a little
disappointed because they did not progress as fast as he had hoped and wished,
due in part, he said, to the "kind of kick we are dealing with now--it's a very
selfish group. They are more inward than giving out." In order to give out, they
always look for what they would get back. "I want . . . me . . . I. . . my . . . "
typified this generation's outlook, according to Mr. Smith. "The '605—these are
their children that are now in the schools today," he further explained as the root
of the problem.

He said because of (a) lack of time and (b) the self-centeredness of this
generation, he had to spend a lot of time helping GGI participants "deal with
self." He imagined that had he been full-time in the school, he could have
worked hard to heighten their seme of responsibility and their willingness to help
others in the building. He could have always been there to prompt and support
them if time had allowed it. He believed he could have followed GGI students
into their classrooms, conferred with individual teachers about their behaviors,
and how they could be beneficially used in each cl ass.

In short, in Mr. Smith's opinion, GGI was not at the time of this research
what it should have been. Its focus was limited. It was limited to what was

happening in GGI meeting.

79

Part Two

Based on Observations, What Actually
Went on During GGI Meetings?

What Were the Duties, Responsibilities,
fights, and Obligations of Grog;
Members and the Groufleader?

 

A pattern emerging from nearly all observations was that there was no pre-
packaged or predetermined agenda brought by the group leader to meetings.
Bringing problems to meetings for discussion appeared to be the exclusive duty
of group members. It was still members' responsibility to initiate discussions.
There was a standard procedure to begin the group process. Figure 3 is a
flowchart depicting two possible circuits the group process might go through
when it begins. Under abnormal circumstances, as when a member comes crying
to the group, the pathway is A-H. Under mammal circumstances, as when there is
no pressing problem, the pathway is A through any variety of B: AB-H or AB-I.

Under normal circumstances, the standard opening procedure in GGI is for
members to go around the circle every morning to find out if individual members
have had problems since the last meeting. Those who affirrm are given a chance
to briefly describe their problems. These problems are not discussed until
everyone had been given a chance to give brief descriptions of the problems
encountered as of the last meeting. For those affirrming, the pathway is BEF.
For those disaffirming, the pathway may be BCF, BDF, or BDEF. From F, the
group process may move to I if there is no member with a problem, to H if there
is only one member with a problem, and through G to H if there is more than one
member with a problem. Group members decide to whose problem a meeting
should be awarded. Seriousness, emotional impact, and urgency of the problem

are bases on which decisions to award a meeting are made.

79

Part Two

Based on Observations,What Actually
Went om DJring GGI Meetings?

What Were the Duties, Responsibilities,
Rights, and Obligations of Group
Members and the Group Leader?

 

A pattern emerging from nearly all observations was that there was no pre-
packaged or predetermined agenda brought by the group leader to meetings.
Bringing problems to meeting for discussion appeared to be the exclusive duty
of group members. It was still members' responsibility to initiate discussions.
There was a standard procedure to begin the group process. Figure 3 is a
flowchart depicting two possible circuits the group process might go through
when it begins. Under abnormal circumstances, as when a member comes crying
to the group, the pathway is A-H. Under morrmal circumstances, as when there is
no pressing problem, the pathway is A through any variety of B: AB-H or AB-l.

Under mammal circumstances, the standard opening procedure in GGI is for
members to go around the circle every morning to find out if individual members
have had problems since the last meeting. Those who affirm are given a chance
to briefly describe their problems. These problems are not discussed until
everyone had been given a chance to give brief descriptions of the problems
encountered as of the lgt meeting. For those affirming, the pathway is BEF.
For those disaffirming, the pathway may be BCF, BDF, or BDEF. From F, the
group process may move to I if there is no member with a problem, to H if there
is only one member with a problem, and through G to H if there is more than one
member with a problem. Group members decide to whose problem a meeting
should be awarded. Seriousness, emotional impact, and urgency of the problem

are bases on which decisions to award a meeting are made.

79

Part Two

Based on Observations, What Actually
Went on DarimgGGl Meetimgfl

What Were the Duties, Responsibilities,
Rights, and Obligations of Group
Members and the Group Leader?

 

 

A pattern emerging from nearly all observations was that there was no pre-
packaged or predetermined agenda brought by the group leader to meeting.
Bringing problems to meeting for discussion appeared to be the exclusive duty
of group members. It was still members' responsibility to initiate discussions.
There was a standard procedure to begin the group process. Figure 3 is a
flowchart depicting two possible circuits the group process might go through
when it begins. Under abnormal circumstances, as when a member comes crying
to the group, the pathway is A-H. Under normal circumstances, as when there is
no pressing problem, the pathway is A through any variety of B: AB-H or AB-l.

Under norrmal circumstances, the standard opening procedure in GGI is for
members to go around the circle every morning to find out if individual members
have had problems since the last meeting. Those who affimm are given a chance
to briefly describe their problems. These problems are not discussed until
everyone had been given a chance to give brief descriptions of the problems
encountered as of the last meeting. For those affirming, the pathway is BEF.
For those disaffirming, the pathway may be BCF, BDF, or BDEF. From F, the
goup process may move to I if there is no member with a problem, to H if there
is only one member with a problem, and through G to H if there is more than one
member with a problem. Group members decide to whose problem a meeting
should be awarded. Seriousness, emotional impact, and agency of the problem

are bases on which decisions to award a meeting are made.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circmstances
I . ‘ng

the beginning
of the process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. The Guided Group Interaction (GGI) process.

 

8|

In the following vignette, the standard procedure was overlooked.

Jill: You guys, I need your opinion on this. I don't think I
should walk to my mum and say, "I think you married low
class; you should get a divorce from him."

Patty: Does she think she should get a divorce from him?

Jackie: Why do you want them to divorce? (Fieldnotes, 2/l8/85)

Before she could reply, the group leader reminded them of the standard
procedure for beginning group discussion. Members short-circuited the
procedure of beginning the process (A-H) when circurmstances did not indicate
such a need. When the standard procedure was fol lowed, it turned out that Patty
had had a problem with her mother over the weekend, too. Because Jill had
sounded emotional about her problem, the meeting was awarded to her problem.

What the above vignette demonstrates is that group members were also

responsible for igniting group process. The group leader was responsible for the
group's structure. He had to see to it that rules were adhered to, set boundaries
by prohibiting certain actions and topics, and monitor the direction of the group
process through reinforcing, rephrasing, and questioning to stimulate discussions.
Discussing and examining problems brought to the groups was members'
responsibility, especially because GGI had been built on the concept of peer
counseling.

D'Andrea and Sol ovey (I983) define peer counseling as

. . . the use of active listening and problem-solving skills . . . to
counsel people who are our peers--peers in age, status, and
knowledge. Peer counseling, then, is both a method and a philosophy.

The basic premise behind it is that people are capable of solving most

of their problems of daily living if given the chance. The role of the

counselor in peer counseling is not to solve people's problems for

them but rather to assist them in fimdi mg their own solutiom.
In many ways, during the I984-85 school year GGI met the basic premises of a
peer counseling group in its structure, philosophy, and method. Only eighth

grade girls were eligible for GGI. Girls in lower gades were considered too

82

young to deal with the assumed confrontational nature of GGI and
responsibilities ensuing from it. The designers of the GGI program intended it to
be more than just another counseling group; they wanted it to be a political
forum for students as well.

GGI, as a youth advocacy program, was introduced into the school system
to provide students a chance to have a say in the management of the school. It
was assumed that GGI would facilitate participative management in a school
(involvement of students in solving behavior problems). GGI group meetings,
according to its proponents, were to be run in a manner that would give GGI
participants the power to make decisions about group members and matters
affecting them. In other words, participative management had to begin at the
group level.

When GGI members first came to the group, they were told they were
supposed to run the group. Unclear was what rights and obligations group
members and the group leader had. Group members did not appear to know
exactly what was expected of them in running the group. This expectation was
reiterated and (pestioned by members each time they were dissatisfied with the
group's conditions.

The following vignette demonstrates this uncertainty about what was
meant by members running the group.

Jeannette announced that she wanted to get out of GGI. Jill said

she knew she wcs getting out because GGI was "just a social group."

Mr. Smith inquired why she was looking at him when she was saying

that. She replied that he was the teacher. "So?" Mr. Smith asked.

"You told us we are supposed to run the group, but have you ever

thought that we don't know what it is we are supposed to do?" Jill

asked. "But we are supposed to run the group. We do have problems,

but we don't want to talk about them," Jeanette defended. Mr. Smith

inquired, "So should I came here and tell you what you should do

every day?" "What are you here for? I'm bored with this," Jill
stated. "Why are you angry at me? I'm the only one you can take out

your anger the way you want to—-l'm not bothered about that" Mr.
Smith inquired. Jill did not reply. (Fieldnotes, 3/27/85)

Apparently, Jill did not know what was expected of the students because she had
had a similar camplaimt about a month before this incident. Her anger might
have stemmed from the frustration of not knowing what their responsibilities and
those of the group leader were. The researcher learned when groups were first
organized, members were told what was expected of them. The researcher was
not at the research site at that time, nor was Jill. Jill joined group I late in the
fall of I984. This suggests that she, as might be the case for other late-comers,
did not know who was responsible for what between the group and group leaders.

It is possible that Jill never believed the students had any power as group
members. Actually, when she was angy with Mr. Smith before the above
incident, she burst out with "don't tell me all that technical shit" when reminded
that they were to run the group (Fieldnotes, 2/28/85). Another possibility is that
Jill was a person who preferred to work with concrete goals and objectives-~i.e.,
knowing exactly what was expected of them as a group at any given time.

The above discussion demonstrates, duties and responsibilities of group
members did not receive explicit review or update. Many a time what the group
members were supposed to have done and did not do was implied in Mr. Smith's
camplaints when reprimanding the groups. For example, on February l8, Mr.
Smith returned from a sick leave. He was displeased about some negative
reports received frorm Ms. Vincent, his substitute, especially about group II. Mr.
Smith was harsh and stern with both g'oups. Just after goup I settled down, he
matter-of-factly asked the following:

"Has Patty been getting any help from this group?"

"No," was the quite group response.

"Where's Tracy?" Mr. Smith asked.

"She is always not here or late," one of the group members responded.

"Have you told her that?" Mr. Smith asked.
"Several times," was the group response.

84

Similarly, when group II came in, Mr. Smith asked the following.

"ls Carol getting help in this group?"

"No," the group quickly responded.

"It's your fault," the leader accused group II.

"It's your fault, too," Elaine counter-accused.

"I td<e responsibility, too," the group leader admitted. (Fieldnotes,

2/I8/85)

He singled out individuals known to have the most problems in each group to
demonstrate how the groups had failed to do what they were supposed to do, i.e.,
help people with problems. In essence, he told both groups that they were only
playing around. Also implied in the first vignette cited above is that group I
members should have confronted Tracy about her habitual tardiness.

Creating tension, it seemed, was one of the strategies Mr. Smith frequently
employed to spur the groups into assuming the responsibilities of running the
groups and helping one another. He sometimes used this strategy to refocus the
groups when they detoured into meaningless discussions during GGI sessions.
Almost without exception, he pointed out what they should have been
concentrating on instead of wasting time.

In the following case, he brought group I back on track by saying, "People
have problems here. You don't sense it because you don't pay close attention to
one another." Marcia retorted, "How can we? People choose not to tell their
problems even if we go around the circle and ask. Beth, for example, has a
problem; she doesn't tell us" (Fieldnotes, 2/27/85). Mr. Smith objected to group
members who, when asked during the ritual of going around to find out about
problems since the last meeting, quickly replied "no problems" and immediately
lapsed into small group discussions. The BCF pathway presented the least effort

of all possible pathways. The above reprimand implied that members should not

take the "no problem" response from members at face value, but probe further

where a response were not convincing. It turned out that Beth was feeling low
because of a problem with her boyfriend.

Attempts to implement the ideal of giving members a chance to run the
groups was a source of role confusion to the members. Mr. Smith was obliged
not to usurp all powers for himself, but to give members a chance to exert
influence on and control over one another. Mr. Smith earnestly believed if he did
not intervene in all wrong—doing in group meeting, in time group members would
be obliged to confront and correct one another with wrong doing. His belief is
well illustrated in the way he treated Melody, a girl who wg outstanding with
negative leadership in group II.

During the fall of I984, use of cosmetics, eating candy, and chewing gum
were prohibited during GGI meetings. Mr. Smith had problems enforcing the
chewing gum regulation, reminding members about it at every session. He was
forced to assurme the role of a police office. Melody gave Mr. Smith the
greatest problem with this rule. At the beginning of each session, Mr. Smith
reminded the girls to throw their gum into a rubbish bin. Melody did not do so.
She pretended to take her gum out and stapped chewing for a few minutes; then
she defiantly resumed chewing after a while as hard and loud as she could.
Sarmetimes Mr. Smith gave Melody a second reminder, but he generally igtored
what she was doing.

One Wednesday morning, the l4th of November, I984, Melody took her
defiance a step further. Before Mr. Smith came into the classroom from his
class shift supervision, Melody distributed big suckers to everyone in GGI. When
Mr. Smith entered the roorm a minute or two after the GGI participants had
settled down, he found everyone with a sucker in her mouth. He was taken aback
and sternly ordered them to remove the suckers. He asked who brought them

and was told it was Melody. He said nothing.

86

After the session, Mr. Smith explained to the researcher that Melody was
deliberately setting him up against the whole group. He interpreted what she
was doing as a struggle for power. He thought Melody wanted to win the group
to her side. He was convinced that if he lashed out at Melody for bringing the
suckers, she would have had the group's sympathy on her side because they were
all eating. He told the researcher he never allowed himself to be caught in such
plays. Despite Mr. Smith's insights into what he believed to be Melody's ulterior
motives, whose responsibility it was to deal with Melody's persistent defiance of
rules was not clear. Mr. Smith optimistically believed the group would soon get
tired of her defiant behavior and would straighten her out.

Later observations proved Mr. Smith wrong. Instead, Melody formed a
strong coalition that controlled the group and thwarted every sensible voice
against it. For example, when members were given a chance to decide grades
for one another during the marking period in February, I985, Melody and her
clique conspired to give Nancy, an honor roll student, the lowest grade in the
group. When grades were decided by group members, a name would be taken
from the alphabetical class list, and, going around the circle, each member would
suggest the grade she believed the member deserved. The average of all
suggested grades would be what that member received as a grade.

When Nancy's grade was decided, Melody asked to be passed when it was
her turn to suggest aagrade for Nancy, as did members of her coalition--Emily,
Lucy, and Dianne. One of the coalition members, Michelle, was absent. The
turn came back around the circle to Melody, who again passed, as did the other
three girls. The third time around, Melody turned to look at her friends, as if to
say, "Who wants to go?" Lucy responded with a C3 for Nancy, the lowest grade
anyone had suggested for any member in the group. Mr. Smith asked why Lucy

was giving Nancy that grade. She replied, "It's because she likes interrupting

87

people when they'll be talking about their problems." The other three girls gave
Nancy 85.

Members of the coalition were apparently untouchable. They could say
irrational things in the group, and no one questioned them because they defended
one another. Nancy was the only person who, on occasion, dared to challenge
their thinking and reckless responses to other people. The dirty looks and retorts
she received indicated they resented her. They also communicated disapproval
by rolling eyes to one another, as if to say "there she goes again."

After the group meeting, Mr. Smith confessed to the researcher that he did
not like what happened with Nancy's grade. "This group disappoints me," he
reflected. He hoped someone would take up the prompt of challenging Lucy
when he started questioning her for the low grade she maliciously suggested for
Nancy. In a reverie, he said, "Something is wrong with this group."

The following day, Mr. Smith tried to prompt the group into reviewing what
had happened the previous day by asking, "Who is the power in this group?"
Nancy quickly answered, "Melody and Emily." No one else made a comment, and
the case was closed. Toward the end of the session, Mr. Smith reprimanded the
group for pursuing small group discussions instead of getting down to business,
implying the failure of the group to challenge the power of the coalition. He
warned, "Things will have to change. This group is controlled by a few people,
and you allow it to go that way" (2/26/85). Mr. Smith was so unhappy with the
conspiracy against Nancy that he decided to move all members of the coalition,
with the exception of Emily, out of the group in an attempt to "revitalize" the
group and remove it from the strong grip of negative leadership.

Generally, group grading always produced schisms and extreme
dissatisfaction in members. For example, when grades were decided by the

group in February, Beth in group I was absent. When she returned, she strongly

complained that her gade was lower than Tricia's and "Tricia don't say no damn
good thing here . . .she got a BI." Yet, this was all in the principle of giving
members a chance to decide group matters. Group grading could produce
anamalies where people who had never received A's in other classes could
receive A+'s in GGI. Ironically, people like Nancy who enjoyed A's in other
classes received the lowest grades in GGI. This was discovered by the researcher
when she reviewed both academic and discipline records of GGI participants to
get their profiles as students.

When the groups first came together, how clearly spelled the responsibility
of group members to confront one another wg difficult to establish. The
researcher gathered from qoup members that they were told they were supposed
to help one another with problems. To them, methods of accomplishing this did
not involve confrontation. Inforrmal interviews indicated that group members
expected Mr. Smith to intervene when people were misbehaving in the groups.
They avoided confronting one another for wrong doing because they took that to
be the group leader's responsibility. Group members, it seemed, also avoided
confronting one another because, as Elaine once told the researcher, "When you
tell people they are wrong, they'll be cutting and rolling eyes at you. People get
mad!" (Fieldnotes, 5/2l/85). Perhaps g'oup members were angry at criticisms
coming from peers because they thought group members had no right to tell
them anything. An alternative explanation would be that their lifetime
socialization at school conditioned them to expect and accept criticism from
adults but not from peers.

In addition, perhaps what was confusing to members was the fact that Mr.
Smith imposed limits in same instances. They, therefore, had the right to expect
his intervention in all wrong-doing in the goup. For strategic reasons, the group

leader had the right to selectively decide when to intervene and when not to.

89

This very right was the source of confusion and conflict. It made Mr. Smith
appear inconsistent when, in reality, it might have been all in the attempt to
make the members feel as if they were running the group. Group members did.
not seem to understand his selective intervention. Instead, they were sometimes
angered by it as demonstrated by the following vignette:
In group II, Karen took out a candy and ate it. Mr. Smith
objected and ordered her to take it out. With her face pulled into a
frown, Karen angrily asked Mr. Smith, "Why didn't you stop Elaine
yesterday?" She angrily snatched the candy from her mouth and
wrapped it back into its wrapper. (Fieldnotes, 4/l0/85)
Apparently, Karen interpreted Mr. Smith's objection as a violation of her rights.
If other people in the group ate candies without getting into trouble, she should
have the same right, too. By this time, Mr. Smith had relaxed rules and was now
allowing chewing gum and candies if eaten quietly. A close look at the occasions
when Mr. Smith openly prohibited violation of rules reveals that timing was
important. He appeared more likely to prohibit violation of these rules when
they were most likely to disturb the group process and focus. This discretion
might not have been obvious to GGI participants, hence the anger and reference
to those who had previously engaged in acts that violated these regulations.

Wha_t Were Appropriate Topics
for Discussion in GGI?

 

 

GGI participants were allowed to discuss freely any personal problems and
concerns in group meetings. These problems and concerns were both of a
confidential nature and somewhat directly impinging on members' lives.
Examples are found in the following vignette:

Michelle came into the GGI room crying. Nancy was crying, too.

The two were hugged by friends who whispered soft words. A tissue

box was placed inside the discussion circle for easy access to those

who offered crying members tissues to dry their faces. It was tense
and quiet in the group.

89

This very right was the source of confusion and conflict. It made Mr. Smith
appear inconsistent when, in reality, it might have been all in the attempt to
make the members feel as if they were running the group. Group members did.
not seem to understand his selective intervention. Instead, they were sormetimes
angered by it as demonstrated by the following vignette:

In group II, Karen took out a candy and ate it. Mr. Smith

objected and ordered her to take it out. With her face pulled into a

frown, Karen angrily asked Mr. Smith, "Why didn't you stop Elaine

yesterday?" She angrily snatched the candy from her mouth and
wrapped it back into its wrapper. (Fieldnotes, 4/I0/85)
Apparently, Karen interpreted Mr. Smith's objection as a violation of her rights.
If other people in the group ate candies without getting into trouble, she should
have the same right, too. By this time, Mr. Smith had relaxed rules and was now
allowing chewing gum and candies if eaten quietly. A close look at the occasions
when Mr. Smith openly prohibited violation of rules reveals that timing was
important. He appeared more likely to prohibit violation of these rules when
they were most likely to disturb the group process and focus. This discretion
might not have been obvious to GGI participants, hence the anger and reference
to those who had previously engaged in acts that violated these regulations.
What Were Appropriate Topics
for Discussion in GGI?

GGI participants were allowed to discuss freely any personal problems and
concerns in group meetings. These problems and concerns were both of a
confidential nature and somewhat directly impinging on members' lives.
Examples are found in the following vignette:

Michelle came into the GGI room crying. Nancy was crying, too.

The two were hugged by friends who whispered soft words. A tissue

box was placed inside the discussion circle for easy access to those

who offered crying members tissues to dry their faces. It was tense
and quiet in the group.

89

This very right was the source of confusion and conflict. It made Mr. Smith
appear inconsistent when, in reality, it might have been all in the attempt to
make the members feel as if they were running the group. Group members did.
not seem to understand his selective intervention. Instead, they were sometimes
angered by it as demonstrated by the following vignette:
In group II, Karen took out a candy and ate it. Mr. Smith
objected and ordered her to take it out. With her face pulled into a
frown, Karen angrily asked Mr. Smith, "Why didn't you stop Elaine
yesterday?" She angrily snatched the candy from her mouth and
wrapped it back into its wrapper. (Fieldnotes, 4/IO/85)
Apparently, Karen interpreted Mr. Smith's objection as a violation of her rights.
If othe people in the group ate candies without getting into trouble, she should
have the same right, too. By this time, Mr. Smith had relaxed rules and was now
allowing chewing gum and candies if eaten quietly. A close look at the occasions
when Mr. Smith openly prohibited violation of rules reveals that timing was
important. He appeared more likely to prohibit violation of these rules when
they were most likely to disturb the group process and focus. This discretion
might not have been obvious to GGI participants, hence the anger and reference
to those who had previously engaged in acts that violated these regulations.

WhaL Were Appropriate Topics
for Discussion in GGI?

 

GGI participants were allowed to discuss freely any personal problems and
concerns in group meetings. These problems and concerns were both of a
confidential mature and somewhat directly impinging on members' lives.
Examples are found in the following vignette:

Michelle came into the GGI room crying. Nancy was crying, too.

The two were hugged by friends who whispered soft words. A tissue

box was placed inside the discussion circle for easy access to those

who offered crying members tissues to dry their faces. It was tense
and quiet in the group.

90

Nancy was the first to be questioned by Mr. Smith about her
crying. She explained she was accused of cheating on a test and she
was called names and given dirty looks by a bunch of boys for
something she did not do. She explained she was suspected of
cheating because her friend sat next to her when they were writing a
test. (It sounded as if that was what people often did when they
wanted to cheat.) She told the group that Kay (the friend) insisted on
sitting next to her when she suggested sitting somewhere else. She
was consoled by the group and told not to worry about what they said
if she knew she did not do it. By the end of IS minutes, Nancy was
smiling and answering questions without sobbing.

Mr. Smith turned the focus of the group from Nancy to Michelle
by asking what was troubling her. Sniffling, she said, "I don't want to
tel I" because if she did, everyone would think "I'm a whore." The
group expressed shock at what she seemed to believe and assured her
that she could trust them.

She explained that she missed her period and was afraid she was
pregnant again. This time, her sister was threatening that she would
have the baby. She broke into a fit of crying. She told the group
when she last had her period and sex. She said she and her boyfriend
broke up two weeks earlier before she became concerned and that
they were not on speaking terms. Michelle was still awaiting results
of a blood test, but she was convinced she was pregnant. She told the
group she had all the symptoms, the "morning sickness stuff." One of
the girls told her that morning sickness could come if she thought she
was pregnant, even if she were not.

Things moved slowly since Michelle's narration was occasionally
interrupted by crying. The group stayed over for the next hour
because the meeting was emotionally charged when the bell rang.
(Fieldnotes, I /l6/85)

It was an accepted practice for members not to leave for class when there was a
member who needed support, especially when the troubled member was in a fit
of crying. Michelle was shaking with heavy sobs when the bell rang at the end of
the second hour. When troubled members were not engulfed in a fervor of
crying, problems of great concern were set aside for the next meeting.

In instances where members were crying or emotional about their
problems, group members often moved with some hesitation in questioning and
commenting. There would be lapses of silence. Group members' voices would be
subdued and consoling in tone, and members appeared to make efforts to use the

right words to communicate empathy. Typically, the atmosphere would be tense

9l

and subdued. The group focus would be totally on the troubled member and
would be intermittently shifted to those who uttered something.

Also worth noting is the fact that the group process took the A-H pathway
and was begun by the group leader (see Figure 3). The pathway was legitimate
because there were members with obvious pressing problems. The group leader
was compelled to begin the group process since it was tense in the group and
members tended to be more reserved on such occasions. Therefore, Mr. Smith
had to break the ice to get the group process going. At its best, peer counseling
in GGI included attentive listening, questioning, exploration of feelings,
volunteering opinions, or giving advice on the issue at hand.

The above vignettes demonstrate that personal problems and concerns of
any magnitude, be it fretting over name calling and dirty looks received from
peers or worrying about devastating personal crises such as a possible pregnancy,
were acceptable topics of discussion. Typically, the nature of personal problems
discussed seldom if ever included personal frustrations with school work.
Reasons for this bias are discussed later in this chapter. Topics of discussions
centered around familial and social relations' problems and day-to-day social

experiences.

Familial problems. When GGI group members first came into the group,
they were required to tell a "life story," i.e., where they were born, how many
people were in their families, their feelings about members of the family, etc.
Questioning by other members as the life stories were told helped to cormplete
profiles of members' family situations. Following is an example of a life story
told by Elaine.

Elaine told the group she was living with her divorced mother.

She said her mother was white and her dad black. The group asked if

the marriage did not work because it was a mixed race marriage.
Elaine replied that she did not think so, but she thought they divorced

9|

and subdued. The group focus would be totally on the troubled member and
would be intermittently shifted to those who uttered something.

Also worth noting is the fact that the group process took the A-H pathway
and was begun by the group leader (see Figure 3). The pathway was legitimate
because there were members with obvious pressing problems. The group leader
was compelled to begin the group process since it was tense in the group and
members tended to be more reserved on such occasions. Therefore, Mr. Smith
had to break the ice to get the group process going. At its best, peer counseling
in GGI included attentive listening, questioning, exploration of feelings,
volunteering opinions, or giving advice on the issue at hand.

The above vignettes demonstrate that personal problems and concerns of
any magnitude, be it fretting over name calling and dirty looks received from
peers or worrying about devastating personal crises such as a possible pregnancy,
were acceptable topics of discussion. Typically, the nature of personal problems
discussed seldom if ever included personal frustrations with school work.
Reasons for this bias are discussed later in this chapter. Topics of discussions
centered around familial and social relations' problems and day-to—day social

experiences.

Familial problems. When GGI group members first came into the group,
they were required to tell a "life story," i.e., where they were born, how many
people were in their families, their feelings about members of the family, etc.
Questioning by other members as the life stories were told helped to complete
profiles of members' family situations. Following is an example of a life story
told by Elaine.

Elaine told the group she was living with her divorced mother.

She said her mother was white and her dad black. The group asked if

the marriage did not work because it was a mixed race marriage.
Elaine replied that she did not think so, but she thought they divorced

9|

and subdued. The group focus would be totally on the troubled member and
would be intermittently shifted to those who uttered something.

Also worth noting is the fact that the group process took the A-H pathway
and was begun by the group leader (see Figure 3). The pathway was legitimate
because there were members with obvious pressing problems. The group leader
wg compelled to begin the group process since it was tense in the group and
members tended to be more reserved on such occasions. Therefore, Mr. Smith
had to break the ice to get the group process going. At its best, peer counseling
in GGI included attentive listening, questioning, exploration of feelings,
volunteering opinions, or giving advice on the issue at hand.

The above vignettes demonstrate that personal problems and concerns of
any magnitude, be it fretting over name calling and dirty looks received from
peers or worrying about devastating personal crises such as a possible pregnancy,
were acceptable topics of discussion. Typically, the nature of personal problems
discussed seldom if ever included personal frustrations with school work.
Reasons for this bias are discussed later in this chapter. Topics of discussions
centered around familial and social relations' problems and day-to—day social

experiences.

Familial problems. When GGI group members first came into the group,
they were required to tell a "life story," i.e., where they were born, how many
people were in their families, their feelings about members of the family, etc.
Questioning by other members as the life stories were told helped to complete
profiles of members' family situations. Following is an example of a life story
told by Elaine.

Elaine told the group she was living with her divorced mother.

She said her mother was white and her dad black. The group asked if

the marriage did not work because it was a mixed race marriage.
Elaine replied that she did not think so, but she thought they divorced

92

because her mother nagged. The group asked how she felt about her
father, and she answered she liked him and that she always visited
him during weekends. She narrated that her mother was jealous of
her and her dad. Her mother did not like her visiting her dad because
she thought her father was spoiling her. She said she could talk on
the phone as long as she wanted in her dad's house. She said her
mother was also jealous of her dad because she always wanted to find
out from Elaine who her father was seeing. She went on to say that
one time her father was going out with a real cute lady and her
mother was always criticizing the lady and saying she was ugly. The
group asked if she liked her mother. She answered she did, although
she was always getting on her nerves. She told the group what she
and her mother usually did, e.g., going to church and prayer meetings,
even when Elaine did not feel like it. (Fieldnotes, l0/l8/84)

Life stories were snapshots of familial conditions and were preparatory
ground for peer counseling. By the time individual members brought problems to
the GGI groups, other participants (peers) as well as the group leader had a fair
understanding of individual members' family situations. They knew the
concerned imdividual's thoughts and feelings concerning family background. The
following exchange between Betsey and Mr. Smith indicates the vital utility of
the life story in GGI.

Betsey told the group leader that she wanted to move in with her mother.
Mr. Smith reminded her that she once said she did not want to live with her "for
same reasons."

Betsey: I said she was a whore and a bitch, but at least she wants
me. My dad and Janet (stepmother) don't want me there.

Mr. 5: What about the boyfriend she stays with? You said you
hated him.

Betsey: She broke up with him (she quickly added).

Mr. S: But if you called her all the names you just called her, you
still feel you want to live with her?

Betsey: At least she wants me. (Fieldnotes, 3/22/85)
Without knowing her life story, Mr. Smith would not have been able to challenge

Betsey to think twice about her desire to live with her mother.

93

All the concerns and problems brought to the groups about immediate
family members were permissible in GGI, especially if they were sources of
concern for individual members. The most frquent problems md concerns
brought to GGI were squabbles group members had with their mothers. Mother-
related problems and concerns included friction over household chores, double
messages, rationing of television watching and time spent on the telephone,
choice of friends, denial of privileges for punishment, and mothers' boyfriends.
How cormmon the "mother problem" was is well portrayed by the following
commett:

Shirley: l have a problem. It's my mother. She is a big problem.

Mary E: Everybody's mother is a problem! (Fieldnotes, 2/26/85)

 

Mary-Ellen's response captures the general view GGI participants had about their
mothers. They saw their mothers as naggers. Without exception, anything
reported with "nyea, nyea, nyea" was a summary of everything their mothers said
in what they regarded as nagging. In many instances, this was mothers' efforts
to call them to order, as in the following instance.
Valerie: My morn got on my nerves yesterday. She asked me to
get the dishes just when I started watching "The Love
Boat." She said, if you start doing that you won't get--
nyea, nyea, nyea—thase dishes done. I told her to give me

a break and to get the hell off my back. lsaid I'll get the
damn dishes after my program.

Emily: Is that how you speak to your mom? My man wouldn't let
me. SM . O 0
Elaine: Mine, too (the same frorm several other goup members).

Valerie: Mine won't say nothing. I speak anyway I want.

Gail: You know what I think? I think you are abusing your
mother.

Choral Yeah; yeah, why are you so mean to your mother? My
responses: mom would kill me. I know mine would disown me, etc.
(Fieldnotes, 3/22/85).

94

Comments like these randomly dropped into the choral responses quoted above
formed the bulk of peer counseling in GGI. Pressure for members to change
their behaviors or attitudes was rarely applied. In fact, during the period of this
study which included ”9 hours of observation in each group, in only one instance
in each group was direct pressure for members to change their behaviors applied,
and that was on least-threatening members. Pressure was perhaps vicariously
experienced by members in instances where they felt different from most people
in the group as when group members told Valerie that they would not speak that
way to their mothers.

Problems and concerns brought to the group were not limited to complaints
about mothers, but also included complaints about other adults and family
conditions.

Elaine: Something bugs me. We slept with a man yesterday in our
house. I saw him when l was going to the bathroom this
morning. I think he is from Saudi Arabia.

Emily: You know him?

Elaine: Yes, I do. He is my aunt's boyfriend.

Nancy: Did your mother see him?

Elaine: She works at night and my aunt is supposed to be watching
me.

Lucy: Boy, my aunt is a whore! I have no business to say that--
she is my aunt. But I know it's true. She sees different
guys almost every weekend. I'll be embarrassed because
they'll be sitting in embarrassing ways with her
boyfriends. I'll go into my room so I don't see them, but
I'll be more embarrassed when I hear them at night.

Elaine: What does your grandmother say?

Lucy: Nothing. She keeps away. I guess she gets embarrassed,
too.

Michelle: I was embarrassed by my dad, too. I found him in bed
with a white girlfriend almost my age. How would you
feel when your father goes out with girls your age?

95

Choral That's gross. That's bold. Boy! That's b-a-d! etc.
response:

Gail: Was your father embarrassed when you caught him?
Michelle: He was mad at me. I told him I didn't do nothing. All I
did was walk into his apartment. The door was open, so I

didn't have to knock. I didn't know she was there.
(Fieldnotes, 2/28/85)

The group zig-zagged around Elaine's concern, dropping in comments about
similar situations and experiences and how they felt and handled those situations.
This was how peer counseling in GGI proceeded sormetimes--sharing of similar
situations and the ways in which those situations were handled. The group
process was not always linear.

The group finally returned to question Elaine about her concern. She was
asked what she was going to do about it. She replied that she wanted to
blackmail her 20 year old aunt, threatening to tell on her. Gail advised her to
wait until she did sormething wrong, and if her aunt threatened to tell on her that
she would also tell on her aunt. "I do that every time," "Me, too," etc., several
group members offered, throwing in support for the blackmail. "Why would you
do that?" Mr. Smith asked as if surprised. Emily picked up the cue of disapproval
from Mr. Smith's question and disagreed with the group's advice. She advised her
not to do that, but to ask her aunt to tell her when there would be sarmeone in
the house. Mr. Smith nodded in approval.

Some of the family problems and conditions were of the type concerned
individuals could do nothing about. Such conditions included the absence of a
parent or parental rejection or violence in households. For example, Lucy had a
distressing family background she could do very little to change. Lucy was an
attractive white girl. Her mother committed suicide and she was in the custody
of her grandmother. Her father had recently been released from jail after

serving a sentence for a drug felony, and he wanted nothing to do with her. GGI

9S

Choral That's gross. That's bold. Boy! That's b-a-d! etc.
response:

Gail: Was your father embarrassed when you caught him?
Michelle: He was mad at me. I told him I didn't do nothing. All I
did was walk into his apartment. The door was open, so I

didn't have to knock. I didn't know she was there.
(Fieldnotes, 2/28/85)

The group zig-zagged around Elaine's concern, dropping in comments about
similar situations and experiences and how they felt and handled those situations.
This was how peer counseling in GGI proceeded sometimes-~sharing of similar
situations and the ways in which those situations were handled. The group
process was not always linear.

The group finally returned to question Elaine about her concern. She was
asked what she was going to do about it. She replied that she wanted to
blackmail her 20 year old aunt, threatening to tell on her. Gail advised her to
wait until she did sormething wrong, and if her aunt threatened to tell on her that
she would also tell on her aunt. "I do that every time," "Me, too," etc., several
group members offered, throwing in support for the blackmail. "Why would you
do that?" Mr. Smith asked as if surprised. Emily picked up the cue of disapproval
from Mr. Smith's question and disagreed with the group's advice. She advised her
not to do that, but to ask her aunt to tell her when there would be sormeone in
the house. Mr. Smith modded in approval.

Some of the family problems and conditions were of the type concerned
individuals could do nothing about. Such conditions included the absence of a
parent or parental rejection or violence in households. For example, Lucy had a
distressing family background she could do very little to change. Lucy was an
attractive white girl. Her mother committed suicide and she was in the custody
of her grandmother. Her father had recently been released frorm jail after

serving a sentence for a drug felony, and he wanted nothing to do with her. GGI

96

provided support and an opportunity for ventilation and reflection for people who
lived under frustrating conditions they were unable to change. An excerpt from
Lucy's letter written for the researcher brought out this aspect of GGI. In a
confidential letter, she wrote,

. . . there was a time I wanted to die 8: I was gonna kill myself. I
tryed. Well the group found out 8: they helped me alote made me get
my life strighten out. They made me feel real bad because they all
started crying well Emily did she told me to think about all the pain I
would be putting my family threw . . . (Fieldnotes, 2/28/85)

In another letter written by Cindy to Mr. Smith, there cm be seen the
suggestion that GGI provided support and time for reflection in cases where
members were faced with overwhelming familial conditions.

Mr. Smith,

Hi how are you? Me not so good. There has been ant of
commotion at horme. We now have l0 people living in our house. My
aunt her 4 kids. me. My grandma, My sisters & her son, My aunt's
boyfriend & My Uncle. Ever since my My Uncle got back from
Missouri My Aunt has been on the house constmtly she even took
back an old boyfriend who is bad news. My grandma puts up with it
and doesnt say anything but I cant hold it back anylonger. Sometimes
I just want to go to my roorm & cry but crying doesmt do any good. I
tell people about & they say live with it (I want better treatment) I
have tried to many times to live with it I cant handle it sometimes I
feel like im, going crasy I even feel like commiting suicide but there
is no one I can tell my true feelings too that will listen. Anne is so
caught up in her husband she hasn't time for me. All im asking for is
a little care and help!

Love
Cindy

When Cindy came to the group the following day, her problem was discussed.

She told the group that the worst frustration with her harme
situation was that nobody worked but they still could afford "booze"
and that the ashtrays were always full when there was no food in the
house. She narrated that all they had the previous day were hot dog
buns. She said she used to count on Anne, her sister, but not
anymore. She felt ignored by both her white sister and and her white
husband when she went to visit her in one of the Southern states
where Anne lived with her husband. She suspected her sister's
husband was prejudiced because Cindy was black. She also pointed
out that she was scared to leave her grandmother who had had three
strokes already at the age of 62. She was afraid she would die. She

97

explained, "Grandma doesn't know how to say no." She thought her
grandmother was afraid of her sisters, aunts, and uncle.

The goup leader rephrased her concern and said, "What I hear
you saying is that you wish to leave the house but you care a lot
about your gandm0ther. Is that what you mean?" She ag'eed.
Members of the group gked questions and interjected suggestions and
reactions along with her narration. (Fieldnotes, 4/l0/85)

A few days later, a card with the following message wg posted on the notice
board:

To GGI Group II

Thank you for your support.

Cindy. (Fieldnotes, 4/I6/85)

Sorme other common problems discussed in GGI were sibling related. How
much time and attention were given to such problems depended on the nature of
each problem.

Dianne came to group II concerned about her brother. She
sneaked into her I7 year old brother's room when he was out and saw
a gun hidden under his pillow. She was afraid and didn't know what to
do, partly because she would be asked what she was doing there in the
first place. She imagined her brother would beat her up for reporting
the gun to their mother.

The group asked if she were close to her mother. They asked if
she could tell her mother about the gun but ask that her mother not
tell her brother where the information came from. The group made
her realize the risks of not telling her mother. They asked how she
would feel if her brother were to shoot sameone. They asked if she
would not feel guilty and responsible because if she had told sameone
about the gum she could have saved her brother from a jail sentence.
She finally agreed to tell her mother that evening and report to the
group on Monday. (Fieldnotes, lO/l2/85)

The following Monday, Dianne reported she told her mother about the gun. Her
mother took the gun without revealing where she had received the information.
A friend had given her brother the gun. The matter was also referred to the
friend's family.

Most sibling-related concerns were those involving common sibling rivalry.
Such concerns were discussed when members did not have personal problems to

talk about. How most members appeared to feel about their sibling, especially

97

explained, "Grandma doesn't know how to say no." She thought her
grandmother was afraid of her sisters, aunts, and uncle.

The group leader rephrased her concern and said, "What I hear
you saying is that you wish to leave the house but you care a lot
about your gandmcther. Is that what you mean?" She ag'eed.
Members of the group asked questions and interjected suggestions and
reactions along with her narration. (Fieldnotes, 4/IO/85)

A few days later, a card with the following message was posted on the notice
board:

To GGI Group II

Thank you for your support.

Cindy. (Fieldnotes, 4/I6/85)

Sarme other common problems discussed in GGI were sibling related. How
much time and attention were given to such problems depended on the nature of
each problem.

Dianne came to group II concerned about her brother. She
sneaked into her l7 year old brother's room when he was out and saw
a gun hidden under his pillow. She was afraid and didn't know what to
do, partly because she would be asked what she was doing there in the
first place. She imagined her brother would beat her up for reporting
the gun to their mother.

The group asked if she were close to her mother. They asked if
she could tell her mother about the gun but ask that her mother not
tell her brother where the information came from. The goup made
her realize the risks of not telling her mother. They asked how she
would feel if her brother were to shoot someone. They asked if she
would not feel guilty and responsible because if she had told saneone
about the gun she could have saved her brother from a jail sentence.
She finally agreed to tell her mother that evening and report to the
group on Monday. (Fieldnotes, l0/l2/85)

The following Monday, Dianne reported she told her mother about the gun. Her
mother took the gun without revealing where she had received the information.
A friend had given her brother the gun. The matter was also referred to the
friend's family.

Mast sibling-related concerns were those involving common sibling rivalry.
Such concerns were discussed when members did not have personal problems to

talk about. How most members appeared to feel about their sibling, especially

98

younger ones, is aptly expressed by the choral response members gave in the
following vignette:

Jackie was excited that her gandfather was going to take her to
his house. She told the group that the last time she was there, her
grandfather bought her everything she wanted. "It's nice when you
are the only child and get everything you want."

Mr. S: You don't mean that?
Jackie: If you had my sister, you would understand!

Choral or my brother . . . my sister . . . and my brother. Oh,
response: God, he is such a pest! You know how mean my brother
is?

The following are other examples of these problems discussed in GGI:

Jill related that her brother acted as mean as always the
previous day. She narrated how he ransacked grocery parcels when
she returned frorm the store with her mother, saying Ken flung out
goceries and picked out what he wanted. She said he acted as if he
were crazy. Ken and Jill were both adopted children. Tracy
suggested that her parents should take him to a juvenile home
because he was making everybody's life miserable. (Fieldnotes,

2/22/85)
Shirley: I called my sister a bitch. I feel bad. I've called her
names before, but not that. (Fieldnotes, 5/24/85)

Social relations problems. The category of social relations problems
includes both same-sex md heterosexual peer relations as well as sexual
relationships' problems. These problems ranged from pain suffered from being
ignored by persons considered friends to emotional pain suffered because of a
rape or an abortion. A sample of vignettes illustrating the kinds of topics
covered under this category is presented below.

Jackie: Pam is my friend, but she igtores me when she is with

Terressa—she treats me so bad. I don't know why I ever
let her. I don't want to hang around her anyway because I

don't smoke and I don't get drunk when I am with Betsey,
but my morn does not like Betsey; she thinks Pam is an

angel . . . . She doesn't like Betsey because she thinks
Betsey talks bad about her stepmom. She goes "I know
Janet is not good to her, but she has no business to go
around talking that way about her" . . . . She thinks Pam is
a nice girl because when she comes to my horme, she hugs
my mom and she goes "hi, mom"--stuff like that. My
mom thinks I have an attitude problem. ("My mom, too--
mine, too-and mine, too" come as a chorus from most
people in the group) (Fieldnotes, 4/l6/85)
Discussing Jackie's problem took the whole session because she came to the
group feeling miserable about the way she thought Pam was treating her. Group
members advised her to tell her mother the truth about what she was doing when
she was with Pam. "That's what I did. I told my mother everything I was doing
last summer and last fall."

Beth assured Jackie about the credibility and viability of a confession.
Group members also tried to show her what the friendship was costing her. They
believed her problems would be solved by a confession because her mother would
not prefer Pam to Betsey and she would not be under "peer pressure" (Mary-
Ellen's term) to drink and smoke.

A similar complaint was expressed by Judy who said, "You know what, you
guys? Lucy--the first time she was nice to me was yesterday. I always try to be
friends with her. She sits next to me. I'll say 'hi' and she goes" (demonstrating
by frowning and looking away) (F ieldnotes, 5” I85).

Judy sounded relieved that Lucy was now becoming friendlier toward her.
She had previously told the group that she did not know what she had done to
make Lucy feel so bad about her. The group told her she should do the same
thing to Lucy-~ignore her, because it would not help to push herself at Lucy.

Members with complaints like Judy's were consoled and reassured of their

personal worth in both groups.

IOO

Generally, it appeared that friendships were taken seriously. They
expected friends to demonstrate allegiance and devotion at all times. Same
members, particulme in goup II, had friends within GGI. Whenever goup
members suspected there was some trouble between friends, they worked hard to
bring the friends back together. Members easily noticed trouble between friends

by such simple cues as the seats they occupied.

When Melody and Emily came into the GGI classroom, they sat
apart. When the opening ritual of finding out about problems was
carried out, neither of them hinted about a problem. One of the
group members asked if there were a problem between them. Emily
started crying and said sarmething like, "I don't wanna kiss anybody's
butt to be my friend." She explained that she had been pushing
herself at a person who was determined to ignore and overlook her.
Melody camplained that Emily had betrayed their friendship because
someone told her that some boys were talking ill of her in Emily's
presence and Emily did not defend her or inform her as a friend.
Emily explained that she was waiting to find a way to tell her without
hurting her.

Group members mediated on each girl's behalf. Emphasis was on
the value of f riencbhip. Finally, they exchange apologies, and group
members asked them to seal the peace pact with a hug. (Fieldnotes,
l|/l4/84)

Similarly, group I sensed a problem between Jill and Mary-Ellen when they sat
apart. Questioning revealed the following.

Jill had decided not to have anything to do with Mary-Ellen
because her mother advised her to cut Mary-Ellen out of her life.
Almost every time she visited the girl at her home or spoke to her
over the phone, Jill. ended up feeling "pissed off." May-Ellen
defensively explained, "I've tried to help you with your problems, but
you wouldn't listen." Jill explained that she was not talking about her
family problems, but about May-Ellen's attitude towarcb her. She
explained that Mary-Ellen was always mean to and critical of her,
saying things that hurt her, as when Mary-Ellen commented that Jill
haccll the same shirt on for two days when one wg pink and the other
re .

Mary-Ellen stated crying when she heard the thing she claimed
were jokes reported by Jill to the group. She apologized. The group
wanted to know if Jill were accepting the apology so they could make
a fresh start. Jill agreed, and at the end of the session they left the
roorm together. (Fieldnotes, 4/I0/85)

IOI

The samber atmosphere and linear shape assumed by the group process when
problems between close friends in the same goup were discussed indicated that
friendships were highly valued by GGI members. Peer counseling mainly involved
mediation and renegotiation of a friendship.

Other same-sex peer relation problems reported with more frequency in
group II than in group I were physical fights. Karen, Emily, Lucy, and Valerie
reported physical fights with peers. (The researcher witnessed two separate
incidents where Lucy and Emily were involved in fights with other students
during the lunch hour.) Karen and Emily had two fighting records, while Lucy
and Valerie had three and four, respectively, during the I984-85 school year.
Valerie did not finish the school year because of her fighting, truancy, and drug
problems. This was the second consecutive year she had been suspended. Melody
was once involved in a fight with a boyfriend, but the incident went on the
record against him since he publicly beat her. No one in group I had an officially
recorded fig'lt, although Marge and Jackie once reported fig'lts they involved in
during weekeng. These fights were usually over mundane things such (5 cutting
in line during lunch or name calling. Fighting wg almost always cpestioned and
received with surprise by the group leader. Members were only interested in the
events leading to the figtts and made no condemning or judgrmental comments.

Same problems and concerns reported to the groups emanated frorm male
peer countepart relations, as exemplified in the following vignette.

Betsey camplained that same boys in her math class have been
calling her narmes although she "didn't do nothing to them." She
mentioned that Keith, who had once turned the whole class against
her in the fourth grade, was among the people calling her a "bitch."
Emily advised her, "Don't let him." Some group members expressed

dislike of Keith and his meanness. Betsey was advised to igtore the
boys. (Fieldnotes, 2/2l/85)

l02

As the above vignette illustrates, members experiencing fears and frustrations
over heterosexual peer relations were strengthened and alloyed of fears in
groups. Unpopular individuals who troubled a concerned group member were
quickly put down to show support to the troubled member. Generally,
heterosexual peer relations' problems were reported with less frequency than
same-sex and sexual relations' problems in both groups.

Problems with sexual relationships were more cormmonly discussed in group
II than in group I. The following vignette is illustrative.

Gail was depressed. She explained that she was told the
depressing news in confidence and could, therefore, not talk about it.
Karen reminded her that "GGI is GGI; say it." She confided that her
new boyfriend Jim had told Debbie and Marcia that he was going to
break up with her. Karen advised Gail that she should break up with
him first "before he breaks up with you; that's what I would do."
"What if it's not true?" Nancy asked. Gail thought it was true
because Jim had known her informants for a long time and they were
good frieng. (Fieldnotes, 5/22/85)

Karen's advice was typical of the advice and the move GGI girls took when faced
with this kind of problem. In group I, Beth rejected her boyfriend after learning
that he intended to do the same to her. Where there were problems to be solved,
it seemed group members used their own value systems rather than formally-
learned problem solving methods. If any learning were done, it was knowing that
the group leader questioned and disapproved of some of their irrational problem
solving methods. The only person known to have dealt with the problem of
rejection differently was Lucy. She was praised by the group leader for boldness
and honesty because, in his observation, most girls preferred to be known to have
broken up with their boyfriends rather than the reverse. Lucy had reported the
following:

Her black boyfriend had "fired her." "Do you still like Roger?"
asked Dianne. Lucy admitted she did. "So you still think that he is
worth trying for?" Betsey asked. Lucy answered that she had two

problems with him. First, her grandmother did not like him because
he was black; and, second, he was too jealous. "If he is black, what's

l03

the big deal?" Elaine asked. Lucy explained that her grandmother
was not necessarily prejudiced, but she simply thought that black and
white people should not go together. The group leader explained that
they should understand her grandmother had grown up in a different
world. He explained that in the past, black and white dating was not
acceptable. (Fieldnotes, 2/22/85)

In similar instances where group members based their arguments on
misconceptions or ignorance, the group leader always volunteered factual
information. He also represented the adult perspective.

Day-to-day social experiences. That members could bring to each and

 

every GGI meeting real problems and concerns about themselves would have
been an unrealistic expectation. If the routine of discovering problems was
carried out and everyone responded with "no problem" and if members and the
group leader had no reason to suspect that someone were harboring a problem,
the practice was to go around the circle to find out what individual members had
done since the previous meeting. These discussions never began with what
members did within the school after leaving GGI (i.e., after the first or second
hour); they always began with what members had done when they left school.
Typically, members narrated activities they engaged in during weekdays in a
listing fashion.
"I watched Guiding Light I called Beth and we talked on the

phone. After that I went to straighten up my room, and what else? I

did my homework-—er--mh--l ate dinner and I went to bed." "What

did you have for dinner?" someone asked. "We had meatballs

(accompanied by a palatal sound) and macaroni," Tracy told the

group. (Fieldnotes, 2/2I/85)

When individual members told other group members about their activities,
they elaborated on exciting portions of their review. Questions about interesting
or puzzling aspects of the stories were asked during narratioms. These were
occasions when several brief tapics would be covered in one session, and

members would wander from topic to topic. Customarily, several conversations

went on at the same time in pairs or small cliques. It appeared that focused

I04

discussions were possible only when members brought emotional or real problems
to meetings. Real problems were sanetimes "lost" amidst small group
conversations when affected individuals were not emotional about them.
Discussions about weekend social experiences were more detailed and focused
than those about weekday social experiences. Weekend reviews were
particularly more focused when narrators revealed interesting details. Any topic
was acceptable if members discussed things involving themselves as individuals.
Topics ranged from what members ate for dinner the previous day to sexual
escapades or drugs used during weekends for fun.

On the surface, these discussions appeared to be of no value. When closely
examined, however, the social experiences' discussions revealed that they were
serving a worthwhile purpose in peer counseling because, during these seemingly
causal discussions, members came to know who other members truly were.
Members' values and lifestyles were revealed through these discussions. Just
how much social experiences' discussions could further or enhance the purpose
and goals of peer counseling depended on the group itself. Had members been
questioned about reckless lifestyles, this would have been an ideal use of the
social experiences' discussions. Group I approximated this ideal, as shown in the
following example of a weekend story told in group.

Jackie went to visit her boyfriend Kevin who was drinking with

his friends at one of their apartments. On arrival, her boyfriend gave

her keys to his room so she could go there to wait for him. After

waiting for same time, she felt bored and went back to where Kevin

was. Kevin said he wanted Jackie to feel as good as he did and that

he was going to teach her to mix a drink, Bacardi and Pepsi. She told

the group that Kevin was in such a good mood he promised they would

be married the following day. She realized that most of the things he

said made no sense.

Jackie was offered "speed" by Kevin's friend. "You take that,
too?" Jill asked with an obvious tone of astonishment. "No, I used

to." Jackie said that she "was feeling good" but had problems walking

back hame because she wobbled. "Where were your parents?" Mary-

Ellen asked reflectively. "They were out of town," Jackie replied.
"You must be ashamed of yourself—those are big guys you hang

|05

around with," Jeannette commented. "I know," Jackie admitted.
(Fieldnotes, 4/5/85)

Stories like these were not common in group I, and whenever they surfaced they
were questioned. During the fall term, Beth and Tracy told stories about wild
hit-and-run parties they habitually organized at Beth's home on weekends. Beth's
mother had an evening job. By the middle of winter term, they were self-
confessed converts.

Conversely, stories of impropriety were normal and almost never
questioned in group II. The following is an example of such a story told by Gail.

Gail told the group that she was mad at Kurt her boyfriend. She
told Kurt that her mother was going to be away for the weekend and
that she was going to be with her little brother and a friend. She,
therefore, expected Kurt to spend some time with them. Kurt
promised he would call her after work at about ”:30 pm and arrange
to come over. He did not call until I:00 am and promised he would be
over "in a little while." He did not show up, but called again at about
3:00 am to say that he could not make it. Gail stated how angry she
was. "I couldn't sleep. I smoked one cigarette after another." The
following day Kurt called again to find out if her friend had left (she
had). Gail hung up on him.

She thought of calling Ed, Kurt's friend. "You guys know what I
did last year with Ed?" The group answered "no." (Gail hid her face
with her hands as though she were ashamed of what she did.) The
group urged her to say it and reminded her that "this is GGI." She
told the group that she walked out on her mother one night after a
squabble and went over toEd's place. She said Kurt never knew
about it. "Kurt knows now. I feel terrible about this, but I was drunk
the first time." "Does Kurt ever ask you . . . ?" Emily asked. "Nope;
he is a dummy." Gail explained that Kurt was not mad at her but at
Ed. She told the group that she was through with Kurt but did not
think that she could go on with Ed. Someone asked her what Ed was
saying about their going together, and she answered that he would not
want that to happen because of Kurt. (Fieldnotes, 4/I5/85) '

Gail's behavior was received without astonishment or disapproval by the group.
Her behavior was not questioned by the group even though the content of the
story was loaded with socially-unacceptable behaviors for a girl of her age (l3-I4
years). Evidently, group norms sanctioned this kind of behavior.

The group leader's prompts to question such behaviors had little or no

effect when they moved against the group's norms and values. For example, Mr.

I06

Smith fought a losing battle with cigarette smoking and drug abuse. His efforts
received no support from group II; as a matter of fact, they were counteracted
by condoning comments like the following:
Valerie: Was it nice to get high? (She referred the (pestiom to
Karen who had just related being "high" the previous

weekend).

Karen: Always. It's always nice, but we were sharing a joint--
three of us.

Valerie: My mom had coke.

Mr. 5: Is that the reason why you smoke marijuana? (to Karen)

Karen: No, Mr. Smith (giggling as though embarrassed).

Karen, Gail, Valerie, and Lucy were regular cigarette smokers and drug
users. Elaine claimed to have stopped cigarette smoking during the year she was
in GGI. It appeared that group II members believed there was nothing wrong
with "getting high" if it were done off school premises where people would not
get into trouble. The only time group II criticized the use of drugs was in an
instance were Valerie was reported to have been using drugs during school hours.
Yet, cigarette smoking on school premises was not strongly criticized by the
group.

The group leader focused attention on cigarette smoking and drug abuse as
problems by asking "Areiyou still smoking?" or "When did you last smoke
marijuana?" whenever the victims of these substances answered with a mick "no
problem" when asked if they had any problems since the last meeting. Group
members never made it their business to inquire about such thing. The group
leader single-handedly pursued the battle against drugs and cigarette smoking
even on an informal and individual basis as well. Whenever the drug users and
cigarette smokers came to chat with Mr. Smith during the five-ten minute chit-

chat time at the end of the lecture, he told them thing like, "I don't like what

l06

Smith fought a losing battle with cigarette smoking and drug abuse. His efforts
received no support from group II; as a matter of fact, they were counteracted
by condoning comments like the following:
Valerie: Was it nice to get high? (She referred the question to
Karen who had just related being "high" the previous

weekend).

Karen: Always. It's always nice, but we were sharing a joint--
three of us.

Valerie: My mom had coke.

Mr. 5: Is that the reason why you smoke marijuana? (to Karen)

Karen: No, Mr. Smith (giggling as though embarrassed).

Karen, Gail, Valerie, and Lucy were regular cigarette smokers and drug
users. Elaine claimed to have stopped cigarette smoking during the year she was
in GGI. It appeared that group II members believed there was nothing wrong
with "getting high" if it were done off school premises where people would not
get into trouble. The only time group II criticized the use of drugs was in an
instance were Valerie was reported to have been using drugs during school hours.
Yet, cigarette smoking on school premises was not strongly criticized by the
group.

The group leader focused attention on cigarette smoking and drug abuse as
problems by asking "Are'you still smoking?" or "When did you last smoke
marijuana?" whenever the victims of these substances answered with a quick "no
problem" when asked if they had any problems since the last meeting. Group
members never made it their business to incmire about such thing. The group
leader single-handedly pursued the battle against drugs and cigarette srmoking
even on an informal and individual basis as well. Whenever the drug users and
cigarette smokers came to chat with Mr. Smith during the five-ten minute chit-

chat time at the end of the lecture, he told them thing like, "I don't like what

|07

you are doing to yourself." On this one—to—one basis, they promised him they
would cut down or quit smoking and drug use. He monitored smokers' and drug
users' progress by asking them both in group and individually when they last
smoked.

The most common answer he received in group II was "I'm trying but it's
hard." People like Karen, Lucy, and Valerie professed it was hard "because
everybody is smoking at home and it's hard to resist it," Karen once explained,
and she received support from Lucy. Karen's parents, Lucy's grandmother, and
Valerie's mother bought them cigarettes. Valerie's mother also shared drugs with
her daughter. Elaine's mother never knew she was smoking. Gail's parents
caught her smoking and disapproved.

With the whole group's focus on this problem, pressure to change would
have probably been felt more by users of these addictive substances. As one
counselor in the school building, a GGI veteran, put it, "GGI is only as good as
the group members and the group as far as bringing about change." Mr. Smith
could not easily bring about desired change in group members if he single-
handedly pressured members to change without group and parental support.
Jackie was the only person in group I reported to have used and stopped using
drugs. She still smoked but was considering quitting smoking and drinking. She
received neither the group's nor her parents' support in the use of these
substances.

Generally, members did not consider it their responsibility to confront one
another with behavior problems. Mr. Smith had trouble making them feel
obligated to assume that responsibility, especially in goup II where there were
more behavior problems. When behavior problems such as sexual escapades and

physical fights were brought to the group, they were not questioned by members.

l08

Such stories were ignored by members, particularly in group II where members
continued with private conversations as though nothing wrong had been said.

Mr. Smith focused and monitored the group's process by urging group
members to pay attention to what people were saying about themselves. Even
when he managed to focus the group's attention on what he wanted members to
see as a problem, members simply remained quiet. No one dared say anything
that might sound like an attack on the person with the problem. When this
happened, Mr. Smith called upon individual members to comment on how they
would handle the situation. Those called upon were guarded in their responses as
evidenced by the observation Gail once made about members' responses. She
asked group members, "Do you realize we use 'maybe' when we speak? The thing
is, when you don't use 'maybe,' people will jump at you" (Fieldnotes, 2/l9/85).

Typically, the structure of the group process in group II took the following

shape when there were no emotional problems.

II’ ’0 ‘ \ \
/ ~ \
group leader . \\
\ .
\
\

\
\
\\
groun . x
. \

\
\

\

\

 

interaction:

\ / I

srmall group . , ,’

interaction? \ ' ,’ .“
7“ ’6 .

students 5i

 

 

Figure 4. A leader-centered group process.

l09

By definition, peer counseling is not supposed to be leader-centered or leader-
led, as demonstrated in Figure 4.
When emotional problems were brought to the group, the structure of the

group process took an ideal shape (see Figure 5).

group leader

group /
interaction

 

Figure 5. Member-centered group process.

 

 

The spontaneous emergence of the ideal group process when emotional
problems were brought to the group implied members knew exactly what to do or
were more comfortable assuming a supportive role than a confrontive one.

In group I the group process was seldom leader-centered. Reasons why
group I seemed better than group II are multiple and not easy to explain;
informal leadership, norms, limited mobility (see Table 3), and a high number of
individuals with behavior problems and frorm broken homes in goup II were same
of the mitigating factors. Perhaps the desire and course to at least question one

another about inappropriate behaviors in g‘oup II was dampened and completely

l|0

extinguished by Melody and her clique when they made it impossible for anyone
to question any member of the clique (see pp. 86-87. This might have left the
group reluctant to question what any one was doing and that perhaps became an
acceptable norm.

Generally, members remained unconvinced that social experiences'
discussions were worth their time, as evidenced by the following complaint.

Beth burst out, irritated, "It's boring here. I want to be out of

this group." She was looking at Mr. Smith as she complained. Mr.

Smith did not comment, and no one followed up her complaint.

(Fieldnotes, 4/l6/85)

Jeannette had previously made the same announcement as indicated in the
vignette cited on page 82. Beth and Jeanette made the above declarations in
group I when no one brought "a real problem" and when the atmosphere was non-
commital. In group II, members complained similarly when a week or more
passed without sormeone's reporting a real problem to the group.

The way they understood a problem was perhaps inadvertently implied in
the way a problem was defined in the handbook written by the group leader that
explained GGI to parents. The handbook's definition of a problem was something
that hurts oneself or others. In light of the fact that members were told they
were to help one another with problems in the groups, members might have
deduced they were expected to help one another with issues that were hurting
individuals or others. Although deviant behaviors such as drug use, promiscuity,
smoking cigarettes, and drinking alcohol ultimately led to personal hurt, such a
hurt is usually remote to young peOple.

It is understandable why GGI members failed to recognize the utility of
social experiences' discussions. These discussions rarely maintained a distinct
plot or topic of focus. Topics such as the following did not have an obvious

utility in GGI:

What do you say when a guy want to do more than just kissing?

Guess who I like, you guys?

George Hart wants me and he is so ugly.

I like a boy who is l9. Does age matter?

I think I'm going to try Charlie. I don't really like him, but I just want

to pl ay around with him.

You took Bill's pin off. What happened?

I just kissed Mark.

We went to the mall, me and my mom, and she bought me desigter

jeans.

I have a problem-ml like two guys: Jerry and . . . I won't tell you.

I think Bob Sheldon is cute—his butt is cute.

I know of someone who did it under the bridge this weekend.

We were not going anywhere. We were just boy-hunting. Who doesn't

do that?
Most of these topies were simply thrown out as fleeting comments, although
same were worth probing. Many times those problems worth probing, if not
followed up by the group leader, simply got "lost" amigt the informal talking so
typical of emotion-free sessions.

Although it would not be easy to demonstrate the utility of most of these
causal topics of discussion, same of the experiences narrated by group members
during these discussions had a hidden educative value because it was during these
discussions that members could sanetimes correct some misconceptions and
irratimal fears about their sexuality. For example, Marcia once asked the group
if she could became pregnant with her pants on when a guy smothers her with
kisses, presses his body hard against hers, and breathes fast as though he were
doing sormething. She was concerned and her fears were alloyed by the group. In
another instance, Elaine told the group she would be embarrassed to attend the
special course on sex education offered to the school by a cormmunity agency.
Mr. Smith prompted the group to discuss the value of sex education. Group
members brought out aguments that in that class people learned about sex

organs, sexual diseases and how to recogize and prevent them, and the

inception, progression, and consequences of pregnancy. Not every casual social

ll2

experience discussion had an obvious or hidden heuristic value and not every

topic introduced had behavioral ramifications deserving the group's attention.

What Were Inappropriate
Topics of Discussion?

 

 

As a general rule, Mr. Smith did not allow members to discuss other
people's problems if those problems did not directly involve or affect them as
individuals. He regarded discussing other people's problems in the group as
gossiping, as demonstrated in the following vignette.

Jeannette: You guys, you know Roberta?

Group Yeah, she is weird. I think she is gross. People started

response: calling her a whore in the fifth grade. Yeah, she is. She

was on drugs in sixth grade.

Jeannette: She is bad-~bad! She always talks about people behind

their backs and denies when peOple ask her. She makes
me sick. I can't stand her.

Mr. S: Are we gossiping?

Jeannette: No . . . l . . .

Mr. S: Then why should what she is doing concern us?

Jeannette: It's because I'm mad at her.

Mr. S: All I could hear was that you were calling her names. I

don't like it when you talk that way about other people.
(Fieldnotes, 3/8/85)
The group did not pursue the discussion on Roberta because Mr. Smith always
clamped down on this activity, especially when the gossip was malicious or petty.
Generally, the group leader did not allow any discussion of other people's

business, as in the following instance.

Susan: A fight broke out this morning because Sandy Graham
called Lucy a nigger lover.

Barb: You know who Sandy goes out with?

Beth: She goes with Matt, but you never see those two together.

”3

Mr. S: Are you guys finished? (continued finding out about
problems members had since the last meeting.

Beth: We are still talking.
Mr. 5: You are gossiping. (Fieldnotes, 4/I5/85)
The petty gossip about Sandy's boyfriend was preceded by a real problem of an
ex—GGI member, Lucy. Problems of former GGI members were not allowed as
topics of discussiors. Mr. Smith seemed to prevent elaborate discussions of
people's problems when they were not in the goup to defend themselves against
obvious biases accruing f ram one-sided and second-hand reporting.
This winciple was also applicable to current members. Mr. Smith did not
encourage members to discuss current members' problems during their absence.
Yesterday, we was at lunch, and Gail was smoking outside with a
bunch of boys," Emily reported during Gail's absence. There was no
comment from anyone. "Be (piet! Everybody has their own little
group," she complained when no one seemed to have heard what she
reported. (Fieldnotes, 2/2l/85)
Members appeared more free about criticizing other members' behaviors during
their absence, and Mr. Smith always prohibited that practice.
Sometimes members mentioned other people's problems out of apparent
humanitarian concern, as in the following vignettes:
"One of the girls in my class is depressed and she is talking
suicide," Tricia reported to the group. No one followed up on what
she said. (Fieldnotes, 2/2l/85)
"One of my teachers says there is someone who needs to be in
GGI because she hg problems," Judy announced. Vickie and Marge
followed up the announcement. It seemed that Judy mentioned that
person because Marge commented that "she is a Cabbage Patch Doll,"
and the topic ended up with the three. (Fieldnotes, 5/l/85)
As the above instances illustrate, Mr. Smith did not encourage discussions of
other people's problems even if they were not topics of malicious gossip. He

simply ignored the announcements of other people's problems. In this way,

members' attempts to discuss non-members' problems were not reinforced.

Il4

There was an incident where he could not overlook members' attempts to
bring non-members' problems into GGI. On this day, GGl's first hour started a
little late because Mr. Smith was not in the group. No one knew what had
delayed him. When he arrived l5 minutes late, Beth and Shirley were with him.
He learned that Mr. Scott had stormed into the room because of noise and
threatened he would have the group removed from there if that behavior
continued. Mr. Smith expressed disappointment about such irresponsible
behavior and told them other teachers and the principal expected GGI members
to be responsible. The decision to apologize to Mr. Scott before the end of the
lecture was made. As soon as that issue was set aside, Debbie made an
announcement.

Debbie: Wendy Robertson is pregnant.

Mr. S: Are you sure? You have to be careful about what you are
saying. Are you . . .

Jeanette: She is. But she says she is not. It's only a tumor.

Mr. S: How do you know? Be careful--are you sure? (directing
the question this time to Jeannette)

Jeannette: I don't know. There are rumors in the whole school
(backing off).

Judy: Yes, she is pregnant. She told Leslie that she is pregnant.

Mr. S: Did you hear her tell Leslie that? Can you be a witness to
that?

Jackie: Leslie could be making it up. (Fieldnotes, 5/2/85)
The group gave up on trying to convince Mr. Smith that Wendy was pregnant. He
played the devil's advocate so as to prevent them from discussing the topic.
Marge turned the focus of the group to Beth and asked what was upsetting her.
Beth said "nothing" in a shrill, trembling voice, then broke down crying as if in
anger. Group members were both angry and confused about her behavior. Mr.

Smith told them not to worry. "But we should have an idea of what is making her

|l5

mad," Mary-Ellen demanded and was supported by several group members whose
tone conveyed anger and dismay at Beth's refusal to inform the group about what
was troubling her. "It's not my problem—is everybody mad at me? I'm not
supposed to tell," Beth whimpered. It was time to call on Mr. Scott with an
apology, and the group left without getting answers about Beth's problem.

After the group meeting, the group leader told the researcher that Beth
was crying over Wendy's pregnancy. He explained that Beth and Shirley
approached him about the rumor, and he suggested they go with him to speak to
one of the assistant principals. During the lunch hour, the researcher spoke to
Shirley and Debbie about the rumor. Shirley explained they were tired of the
rumor because it was all over school (group II brought up the rurmor when they
came to GGI, too). Shirley said they were warned by both Mr. Smith and the
assistant principal to be careful about this matter because it could turn out to be
a false rurmor. The assistmt principal promised to look into the matter and
advised them not to say or do anything about it. She told the researcher they
were a little disappointed because they wanted her to be invited to GGI. Shirley
argued that whether the rumor were true or false, they only wanted to help
Wendy. They imagined the rumor would probably affect her deeply. They
wanted Wendy to be invited to GGI so she could talk about the rumor herself and
explain how she was affected by it. Debbie argued along the same lines, saying
she was convinced Wendy wg pregnant and imagined that she did not have
anyone to talk to about the problem. She thought if Wendy were allowed to visit
GGI, she could share her problems with others.

This was one of the clear cases where GGI could have extended its services
to the school community wee it not for the bureaucratic realities denarcating

boundaries within which GGI could operate.

|l5

mad," Mary-Ellen demanded and was supported by several group members whose
tone conveyed anger and dismay at Beth's refusal to inform the goup about what
was troubling her. "It's not my problem—is everybody mad at me? I'm not
supposed to tell," Beth whimpered. It was time to call on Mr. Scott with an
apology, and the group left without getting answers about Beth's problem.

After the group meeting, the group leader told the researcher that Beth
was crying over Wendy's pregnancy. He explained that Beth and Shirley
approached him about the rumor, and he suggested they go with him to speak to
one of the assistant principals. During the lunch hour, the researcher spoke to
Shirley and Debbie about the rurmor. Shirley emlained they were tired of the
rumor because it was all over school (group II brought up the rumor when they
came to GGI, too). Shirley said they were warned by both Mr. Smith and the
assistant principal to be careful about this matter because it could turn out to be
a false rumor. The assistant principal promised to look into the matter and
advised them not to say or do anything about it. She told the researcher they
were a little disappointed because they wanted her to be invited to GGI. Shirley
argued that whether the rumor were true or false, they only wanted to help
Wendy. They imagined the rumor would probably affect her deeply. They
wanted Wendy to be invited to GGI so she could talk about the rumor herself and
e>q3lain how she was affected by it. Debbie argued along the same lines, saying
she was convinced Wendy wg pregnant and imagined that she did not have
anyone to talk to about the problem. She thought if Wendy were allowed to visit
GGI, she could share her problems with others.

This was one of the clear cases where GGI could have extended its services
to the school community were it not for the bureaucratic realities denarcating

boundaries within which GGI could operate.

l|5

mad," Mary-Ellen demanded and was supported by several group members whose
tone conveyed anger and dismay at Beth's refusal to inform the goup about what
was troubling her. "It's not my problem—is everybody mad at me? I'm not
supposed to tell," Beth whimpered. It was time to call on Mr. Scott with an
apology, and the group left without getting answers about Beth's problem.

After the group meeting, the group leader told the researcher that Beth
was crying over Wendy's pregnancy. He explained that Beth and Shirley
approached him about the rurmor, and he suggested they go with him to speak to
one of the assistant principals. During the lunch hour, the researcher spoke to
Shirley and Debbie about the rumor. Shirley explained they were tired of the
rumor because it was all over school (group II brought up the rumor when they
came to GGI, too). Shirley said they were warned by both Mr. Smith and the
assistant principal to be careful about this matter because it could turn out to be
a false rumor. The assistant principal promised to look into the matter and
advised them not to say or do anything about it. She told the researcher they
were a little disappointed because they wanted her to be invited to GGI. Shirley
argued that whether the rurmor were true or false, they only wanted to help
Wendy. They imagined the rumor would probably affect her deeply. They
wanted Wendy to be invited to GGI so she could talk about the rumor herself and
explain how she was affected by it. Debbie argued along the same lines, saying
she was convinced Wendy was pregnant and imagined that she did not have
anyone to talk to about the problem. She thought if Wendy were allowed to visit
GGI, she could share her problems with others.

This was one of the clear cases where GGI could have extended its services
to the school cormmunity wee it not for the bureaucratic realities denarcating

boundaries within which GGI could operate.

|l5

mad," Mary-Ellen demanded and was supported by several group members whose
tone conveyed anger and dismay at Beth's refusal to inform the g'oup about what
was troubling her. "It's not my problem—is everybody mad at me? I'm not
supposed to tell," Beth whimpered. It was time to call on Mr. Scott with an
apology, and the group left without getting answers about Beth's problem.

After the group meeting, the group leader told the researcher that Beth
was crying over Wendy's pregnancy. He explained that Beth and Shirley
approached him about the rumor, and he suggested they go with him to speak to
one of the assistant principals. During the lunch hour, the researcher spoke to
Shirley and Debbie about the rumor. Shirley explained they were tired of the
rumor because it was all over school (group II brought up the rumor when they
came to GGI, too). Shirley said they were warned by both Mr. Smith and the
assistant principal to be careful about this matter because it could turn out to be
a false rurmor. The assistant principal promised to look into the matter and
advised them not to say or do anything about it. She told the researcher they
were a little disappointed because they wanted her to be invited to GGI. Shirley
argued that whether the rurmor were true or false, they only wanted to help
Wendy. They imagined the rumor would probably affect her deeply. They
wanted Wendy to be invited to GGI so she could talk about the rumor herself and
explain how she was affected by it. Debbie argued along the same lines, saying
she was convinced Wendy was pregnant and imagined that she did not have
anyone to talk to about the problem. She thought if Wendy were allowed to visit
GGI, she could share her problems with others.

This was one of the clear cases where GGI could have extended its services
to the school community wee it not for the bureaucratic realities denarcating

boundaries within which GGI could operate.

Il6

Although GGI participants were allowed to discuss any problems and
concerns directly affecting them as individuals, problems stemming from
members' relationships with their teachers were not given full hearing in GGI.
The group leader appeared to be protective and defensive when complaints about
teachers were introduced by members in goups.

Marcia announced she hated Mr. Raines' class because he did not
teach them anything. Group members supported her complaints and
added that he was an alcoholic. The group leader warned group
members about labelling people and making allegations they could not
prove or support. "Yes, we can prove that," Marcia asserted. "He is
always smelling of whiskey or beer every day," someone explained.
"He is always drunk in class—all he does is check attendance and tell
us to work quietly."

Mr. Smith's attempts to dampen discussions about mounting
evidence against Mr. Raines failed. Members had strong negative
feeling about Mr. Raines. They said they resented the fact that he
was always yelling at people and that he would sit in front and sleep
with "his head falling like this" (demonstrating the head falling to all
directions and jerking back into position). "Nobody asks him any
questions," they further complained. (Fieldnotes, 2/27/85)

The group leader changed the subject by urging group members to finish going
around the circle to find out about problems members might have. In sorme
instances, the group leader simply ignored negative comments about teachers, as
in the following:

"Rick almost punched Mr. Hones," Susan commented.
(Fieldnotes, 3/8/85)

"Ms. Robinson, that old witch; I hate her!" Karen burst out. With
the mention of Ms. Robinson's name, group members groaned and
growled and said thinks like "oh, no, she is such a pain." The group
started talking about how nosy and irritating she was because she had
always attended dance parties in the school uninvited to see to that
"nobody kisses or holds hands." "She is acting like she is a principal;
578/835)” getting people into trouble; she is a bitch!" (Fieldnotes,

Neither the group leader nor group members followed up on Susm's comments
about Mr. Homes in the first instance cited above. When Karen burst out about
Ms. Robinson, the group did not bother to find out what Ms. Robinson did to her,

but joined in support of the statement that she was always bothering people. The

||7

group leader might have been aware of the fact that Ms. Robinson was perceived
as bothersome by students. Perhaps that was the reason he refrained from
immediately prohibiting the group from discussing her as a problem. Similar
complaints about Ms. Robinson were also made by group I members. In other
instances, Mr. Smith rationalized about teachers' behaviors and words such as
when Barb reported with obvious displeasure, "You know what Mr. Scott said in
my English class yesterday about GGI? He said GGI is just a crying session"
(Fieldnotes, 5/24/85). Mr. Smith responded, "Maybe Mr. Scott does not
understand what GGI is all about." Generally, it appeared that Mr. Smith were
exercising extreme caution by not encouraging students to discuss complaints
about teachers. He rarely followed up their hints about teacher-related
problems.

There was an instance where he dared to fol low up a complaint about a
teacher. It was the morning of the 27th of February at the end of the first hour.
The researcher followed Mr. Smith when he stepped out of the GGI classroom to
supervise class shifts. Betsey and Nancy approached him on their way to class.
Nancy told Mr. Smith that Betsey had a problem with the math teacher, Mr.
Hones. Mr. Smith asked what kind of problem it wg. Betsey said samething
like, "That teacher is perverted." Mr. Smith wanted to know what she meant by
that, and she explained that Mr. Hones was always "doing eyes" at her and
touching her on her hips. She was now concerned because Mr. Hones wanted to
see her alone—not with Nancy—after school. Mr. Smith did not respond. Betsey
added she was not doing well in math, but Mr. Hones always inflated her grades.
The last time her grade was supposed to have been an E but Mr. Hanes gave her a
C. They left Mr. Smith and the researcher standing outside to join other group

members in the GGI classroom.

ll8

As a general rule, when GGI students approached Mr. Smith with their
problems privately, he always encouraged them to talk about those problems in
the group. This time he did not. When it was Betsey's turn to report to the
group if she had any problems, she hinted at her problem with the math teacher
but did not want to talk about it. Neither Mr. Smith nor the group members
followed up her hint. Mr. Smith appeared to treat this hint about a teacher with
the usual nonchalant, noncommital attitude.

After the group session, Mr. Smith called chy and Betsey aside to discuss
Mr. Hanes' case. He earnestly aged them to consider the consequences of what
they were saying if what they said and thought the teacher was doing were not
true. Betsey had no doubts. Nancy explained she learned what Mr. Hames was
doing from Betsey and had never witnessed anything herself. Mr. Smith told
them he was going to investigate the matter.

In an interview a few weeks later, the researcher learned from Mr. Smith
that before he investigated the case he tipped the principal about it because he
trusted that the principal would not blow it out of proportion. He asked the
principal not to do or say anything until he could find out samething more
tang'ble. Mr. Smith told the researcher that he tactfully approached Mr. Homes
to find out facts about the issue. He learned the math teacher did ask Betsey to
come in without Nancy whom he suspected of wasting Betsey's time. Nancy was
doing well and was in an enriched math program. Mr. Hones explained that
Betsey was not going to be alone with him, but with a few other students who
were doing as badly as she was. (Mr. Hones was among the researcher's
interviewees, and he mentioned Betsey's misinterpretation of his efforts to help
her. He did not want to dwell on the subject when the researcher wanted to
probe further.) Mr. Smith told the researcher that Betsey later retracted it,

indicating that she might have misinterpreted Mr. Hanes' actions. "Tom (the

l|9

principal) was shocked when I told him about my findings and what Betsey was
now saying-~you have to be careful not to take everything students say about
teachers" (Tape recorded interview, 5/6/85).

From this incident it became clear Mr. Smith deliberately avoided full
discussions about teacher-related cormplaints because of (a) dangers he might
face in legal suits if he were not careful and (1)) his inability to comment and act
on teachers' inefficiency implied in most complaints since that was an
administrative duty.

There were sorme comments worth probing if GGI were explicitly focused
on helping members with behavior problems. For example, "Karen, you were
kicked out of class yesterday; what happened?" Cindy asked. "It's not anything
serious," Karen replied (Fieldnotes, 5/20/85). And "My fourth hour teacher
allows me to do anything I want," Melody proudly told the group when members
were talking about classes they liked and disliked (Fieldnotes, 2/2l/85). Both
examples displayed implicit students' behavioral problems, but they were not
followed-up on. On the same day Melody made her remark she added that she
liked her English teacher because she had told Melody that Melody had changed
since joining GGI. She confessed she knew she had an attitude problem and
wanted to work on changing it. Mr. Smith praised her for the perceived change
and the desire to change further. Ignoring sarme subjects and topics and focusing
on positive ones might have been part of the reinforcement strategies of the
well-known behavior modification paradigm.

It is difficult to postulate all topics and subjects that received Mr. Smith's
disapproval and sanctioning because he sanetimes showed disapproval and
approval nonverbally. The functioning of this channel of communication was
sanetimes inferred fram defensive comments and complaints directed to him by

group members during discussions, as in the following instances. ". . . you make

I20

me feel like I said something wrong," Michelle paused in her narration and
directed the comment to the group leader (Fieldnotes, 2/I9/85). "Why are you
looking at me that way? I know what you are thinking. I said that funken
teacher—-it's different--l'm not swearing," Jill defensively explained (Fieldnotes, '
4/l0/85).

The way members stumbled over words or rephrased their statements to
explain what they exactly meant or withdraw certain words during narration
whenever glancing at the group leader after saying sormething unbecoming also
indicated the impact of the nonverbal channel of communication and its ability

to control what should and should not be said in GGI.

Part Three
What Did GGI Participants Think GGI Was All About?

This section describes GGI group members' perceptions of GGI. Data
portraying members' perceptions were gathered from their own testimonies in
informal interviews, their utterances and behaviors during group meetings, and
solicited and unsolicited documents written by members about GGI.

The following magazine article describing GGI was unsolicited. A student
in GGI wrote it for her English class' annual magazine for an assignment to write

about anything of interest students wanted others to learn about.

WHAT IS GGI?
by Jeannette Austin

A lot of people have wondered what GGI is all about. GGI means
Guided Group Interaction. How do you get in GGI? Not just anybody
can get in GGI. The teacher of GGI asked other teachers to
recommend students who seem to need help or students who seem to
be strong enough to help people.

What is done in GGI? The student in GGI goes into a classroom
and sits in a circle and talks about her own problems and helps other
people with their problems.

l2l

Can you come in GGI if you have a serious problem? Yes, you

can. Talk to Mr. Smith and tell him the reason why. He might let

you come in a group meeting. GGI is confidential. Nothing goes

outside the roarm.

The above article is a concise, formal representation of GGI in this setting
at the time of this research. It summarizes important points already made about
GGI in this setting and has elements that will be highlighted in this section.

The informal understanding of what GGI was to GGI participants was
portrayed well by both the behaviors and utterances of GGI participants in g'oup
meetings and their testimonies about GGI. Frorm group members' perspectives,
GGI was a place where (a) members were able to reveal their darkest secrets
through self-disclosure; (b) a caring, supportive, and accepting adult could be

found; and (c) members learned to understand their feeling and be sensitive to

other people's feeling.

A Place for Self Disclosure

 

First and foremost, GGI was a place for self-disclosure. From the
beginning, this wg galvanized by the requirement to tell life histories. This act
was an opportunity for a GGI member to put her life into perspective and
examine feelings about factors and events surrounding her life. For same
members, telling a life history was a morment of catharsis as some members
broke down and cried when reviewing certain areas of their lives. The
willingtess to disclose oneself to others was made possible by the confidentiality
guaranteed and stressed when GGI participants first came together. GGI
participants were able to tell others such thing as a rape suffered at age nine.
As a result, confidentiality was fiercely safeguarded by GGI members.

This fiercely guarded confidentiality was dramatically demonstrated in the
way group I members treated Patty, the only seventh grader who requested to be

in GGI because she "heard that GGI was a place where you can talk about your

l22

problems." Patty joined a term later than other group members. Within the first
month she joined, Patty was accused of telling outside of GGI what had been said
there. Group members were angry at her and ready to confront her on the day
she was absent. Ms. Vincent, one of the trained group leaders in the building who
was substituting for Mr. Smith this day, advised them not to talk about Patty
during her absence unless they were planning how best to approach and help her
with her problem of talking. Ms. Vincent argued that, as a new member, Patty
needed to be told what GGI was about.
The following day, Patty was in the group, and the problem of her talking
outside the group was discussed.
Jackie: Gee, I don't know how to start this. Patty, we want to see
how we can help you stop what you are doing. You should
try to keep cpiet just a little bit. You are holding us
back.
(Patty appeared to be taken by surprise and did not
respond. Jackie explained they heard Patty told her
friends what was said by someone in the group. Patty
dropped her eyes to the floor and did not refute or deny
the allegations.)
Beth: If you keep on taking thing out of the group, we won't be
free to say anything we want to say. You know what GGI
is about? It is a place where you talk about your problems
and no one else should know them.
Marcia: Patty, can we trust you?
(Patty was almost in tears. She responded with a nod.
Ms. Vincent intervened and advised that Patty be given a
chance to learn as a new member.) (Fieldnotes, 2/I4/85)
Unfortunately, about a month later, Patty was again accused of telling.
The group lashed out at her with statements like
Can't you keep your mouth shut? You have a big mouth. How
many times should we tell you to keep your big mouth shut? What

you are doing is gross! You are bold! I think she is sick, and we are
sick of her, too!

l23

The group was so hard on her that the group leader had to intervene. He began
by asking, "Why jump on her like that?" He objected to their attackihg her
without getting the facts from her. Patty quivered with heavy sobs. Mr. Smith
asked Patty to explain what she had said. Patty whimpered what she claimed she
told a friend. Mr. Smith asked if Joanne, Patty's friend, the informant, were
lying. She nodded. Mr. Smith asked if she could say that in Joanme's presence,
and she nodded again. Mr. Smith sent for Joanne, and Joanne told the story
Patty told her as was told in GGI. Joanne was sent back to her class after her
testimony, and the group members were now even angrier with Patty. They
started to attack her again with comments like, "You have the nerve to deny
what you know you said? You are bold." "I think you're a liar. How come you
always lie until you have no way out?" "I don't think that I can ever trust you
again." The group leader intervened and sent Patty to his office to stay there
until she was called back.

Mr. S: This is not an attack group (he stated as soon as Patty left
the room).

Jeannette: She won't learn unless she is yelled at. We were nice to
her the first time and she did not learn from that.

Jackie: Yeah, some people won't learn unless they are yelled at.
Mr. S: You can be firm without being harsh on people.

Debbie: (to Mr. Smith) How come you did not yell at Patty and you
yelled at Karen?

(Karen was in group I during the fall of I984. The group
supported Debbie's question with comments like "oh,
yeah," "yes, Mr. Smith, how come?")

Mr. S: She could not have handled it. People handle things
differently; they have different breaking points. I have to
do my job and see to it that people's feelings are not
unduly hurt. I can't sit here and watch you crush another
person as you did. She has problems and she needs your
help.

l24

Mr. Smith reminded them of pressures at her home and
her request to be in GGI to talk about those problems. He
pleaded with the group to be kind to her. (Fieldnotes,
3/l3/85)

The following day the group leader asked Patty to wait in his office again.
Same group members reminded him that he had said if, as a seventh grade,
Patty could not handle GGI, he would have to remove her. The group agreed she
had problems but most members believed she needed a "shrink" because they felt
they could not deal with her. "How can we tell her to keep her mouth shut?"
Susan asked. "We cannot be free if she is here," Jackie added and everyone
agreed. The group told Mr. Smith that if he was considering bringing her back to
the group, GGI would never be the same again since her presence would hold
them back from talking freely about themselves. Mr. Smith and Patty herself
thought it was best for Patty to be removed frorm the group. Patty felt
unwanted and ostracized by the group.

Valerie was attacked in much the same way in goup II for allegedly talking
outside the group about what people had said in GGI. It was not only the late
comes in the groups that were snapped at for alleged telling. Anyone known to
have told was confronted by group members. It was the only time heated
confrontations were observed in GGI. Group members treated telling as one of
the worst things a member could do. When grades were decided by peers, those
accused of telling had their grades brought down as a penalty. Karen, Marcia,
and Patty all had grades penalized because of telling. Snapping at people who
have told appeared to be a prerogative Mr. Smith set when the groups first came
together. Understandably, confidentiality was vital to the functioning of GGI.
Utterances of GGI participants conveyed the belief that GGI was a place where

members could bring out secrets or delicate information about themselves and

trust it would be safe with the group, as evidenced by popular cliches like, "This

|25

is GGI; say what you want to say." "This is GGI, remember?" These were used
whenever goup members were hesitant about sharing information with the g'oup

(see p. I02).

GGI Had a Caring, Supportive Adult

Over the period of this study, the researcher saw GGI members crying
bitterly, fretting, and venting anger, sometimes directed at the group leader. It
was not unusual for members to begin crying at the threshold of the classroom
over samething that had happened hours or days earlier. Lucy aptly expressed
the supportive, accepting attitudes most members expressed about Mr. Smith in
her letter to the researcher.

. . . (Mr. Smith) is one good teacher. You can talk to him about
anything . . . . He don't tell you you're wrong or right but he has ways

to make you feel alote better. You could walk in the room crying &

you feel like it's the end of the world most of the time you walk out

feeling good about yourself. (Document, 2/28/85)

GGI members told the researcher that Mr. Smith wg different frorm most
teachers and counselors. They believed he was more approachable and never
unduly critical of them. They told the researcher that Mr. Smith was the first
person they thought of in times of emotional troubles. Jackie wondered why
they did not make GGI known to everyone in the school because she believed that
most people did not lmow about it. She said she only knew about GGI when she
was recruited for it. That GGI was not known to most students is also indicated
in the article opening this section where Jeannette wrote that "a lot of people
have wondered what GGI is all about" (see p. l20). Jackie also wondered why
they did not have GGI for boys because she said she knew some with problems
who would benefit from talking about them in GGI. When the reseacher gked if

they could talk to counselors about their problems, a choral response from five

|26

GGI members came out in statements like, "No way!" "Counselors are not for
that." "They don't talk about people's problems" (Fieldnotes, 4/l0/85)

That GGI was a place for support in times of emotional upheavals was
indicated by the fact that those who left the progam before the end of the year '
brought their emotional problems to GGI. For example, Melody was once
devastated by her boyfriend's calling her names and shoving her around in front
of a big crowd. After reporting the incident to one of the assistant principals,
she asked permission to be allowed to talk over her problem in GGI. She cried
bitterly (3 she poured out what she thought was making her boyfriend mean
toward her. "He is spoiled; just because I refuse to have sex with him, he is
always mean to me," she explained (Fieldnotes, 4/l6/85).

Sorme students with friends in GGI were advised by them to ask Mr. Smith
to allow them to talk about their problems. For example, in the fall of I984, a
girl who had been hospitalized for an attempted suicide was advised by a friend
in GGI to ask Mr. Smith to visit GGI so she could talk about her problem. She
was ganted permission by Mr. Smith. Another girl who had almost turned purple
with crying over a problem with a boyfriend her mother did not like was advised
to ask Mr. Smith to be allowed to attend a GGI session to talk about her problem.
She, too, wg granted permission. This is the reason that Jeannette gave the
readers advice to see Mr. Smith if they had serious problems they wanted to
discuss (see p. l2l).

Generally, free expression of all emotions was allowed in GGI. For
example, expression of negative affect and profanity in response to frustration
were not prohibited in GGI. Mr. Smith always met negative affect with
accepting but dampening statements like, "I t's okay to be angry, but . . . " "There
is nothing wrong to feel the way you feel about this, but . . . " The "but"

following acceptance of the emotions often poi nted to questionable behavior. He

l27

was a target of anger at times and most predictably responded with statements
like, "I'm the only one you can take out anger on anyway you want; I am not
bothered by that. It's okay to be angry at me if you really believe I was doing or
saying . . . . " (see p. 82). Statements like these appeared to dilute the intensity
of frustrations or anger. The following incident demonstrates how the group
leader typically handled expressions of negative affect.

In group II, Karen picked a quarrel with Emily over what Karen had
whispered to her. Emily snapped at Karen, telling her she had no business to talk
about other people. Karen felt unduly criticized and explained she only
commented that the researcher looked sad; therefore, there was nothing bad in
what she said. Emily self-righteously reminded Karen she was not to talk about
other people. Karen sprang up from her seat and threw the attendance book she
was in charge of at Emily saying, "You want to be in charge here? Okay, take
charge!" Emily jumped to her feet, too, and threw the attendance book back at
Karen angrily, saying, "I'll kick your ass, you bitch! You don't have the right to
throw thing at me. I don't mind your being angry but don't you be throwing
things at me." Without asking for permission from the group leader, Karen took
long strides toward the door, telling Emily that she and her friends wanted their
will to be done in the group. She said they always whispered to one another, yet
were very quick to call people to order whenever other people did the same
thing.

Mr. Smith asked Karen where she was going. She replied in a shrill voice,
"Sign me out of this group; I wanna be out of here. Sign me out!" Mr. Smith
ordered Karen not to go out, but she ignored him and slammed the door behind
her. There was a brief mament of silence, with Karen's footsteps heard fading
down the hallway. Group members looked at Mr. Smith as though they expected

him to say or do samething about what had just happened. Betsey, perhaps in an

l28

attempt to draw out a reaction from Mr. Smith, commented that she didn't like
what Karen had just done. Mr. Smith still made no comment and showed no
reactions on his face. He told Carol to continue with the account she was giving
before the drama.

In reality, Mr. Smith empathised with Karen. After the session, he told the
researcher that Karen was right. In his opinion, Karen bottled up her anger
watching Melody, Emily, Lucy, Michelle, and Dianne dominating the group. He
believed Emily was exercising control when she told Karen not to talk about
other people.

About three minutes later, Mr. Smith sent for Karen. When she came in,
he asked in a calm, non-threatening voice where she had been. "I don't wanna be
here; I want you to sign me out of here," she demanded in a deliberately
controlled voice. Mr. Smith nodded and said it was okay. Betsey interrupted the
confrontation and told Karen she could speak without a "tone." Karen's
challenging store was removed frorm the group leader. She answered, "Everybody
has a tone when angy." In a calm voice, Mr. Smith told Karen, "It's okay to be
angry" but that throwing things at people when angry could be dangerous. He
told her if she made that a habit, she could break thing and injure other people
or that others could throw things back at her that could hurt her. Karen slowly
went back to her seat. As soon as Mr. Smith finished, Karen said, "I'm sorry,
Emily; I shouldn't have thrown that book at you." "I'm sorry, too, Kaen; I know I
swore at you--excuse my language" (Fieldnotes, 3/8/85).

Carol's problem, interrupted by the squabble between Karen and Emily, was
brought back for discussion. Fifteen minute later, Karen left her seat to occupy
one next to Mr. Smith's outside the circle. She pushed her chair close to Mr.

Smith and rested her head on his upper arm. As she was positioning herself to

l29

rest on his arm, Mr. Smith gked what she was doing. With a shy smile, Karen
said, "I want to sit here next to you."

What Karen was doing was not surprising to group members. If it were, the
surprise was in the fact that she chose to sit next to him after the explosive
anger she leveled at him. Girls in GGI enjoyed sitting next to Mr. Smith and
touching him for attention whenever time allowed chit-chat during the last few
minutes of sarme sessions. It was still their habit to send feelers out later to
gauge what Mr. Smith really felt about expressions of negative feeling. They
went to him md confessed what they thought was inappropriate in the way they
behaved during emotional pressure. Statements like, "I know you think that . . .
are you mad at me?" "I feel bad about what I said, Mr. Smith. lwant to explain
why I . . . ." "I know what you are thinking; you think that . . . ." "I know I
shouldw't have done (or said) . . . . " were typically mood or feeling gauging.

Mr. Smith's ability to accept negative affect expressed from emotional
suffering was of sigificant importance to GGI members. As Betsey once put it
to GGI candidates during a recruitment session, " . . . (GGI) is a place where you
can come and be yourself" (see p. 70). Some members were so appreciative of
the group leader's accepting attitude they opted to be protective of him. Jackie
wrote, "Mr. Smith is a great guy. People take advantage of him sanetimes they
get mad at him and I don't like it when some people do that. He has to have a
great sense of humor not to get mad!" (Document, 3/8,85; see p. 82).

It should be noted that Mr. Smith disapproved of unjustifiable profanity.
For example, he expelled Valerie in anger for unjustified abusive language,
coupled with defiance. She insisted "kiss my butt" three times to Mr. Smith
after he warned her not to talk that way to him. The following day, Valerie
came in tears looking for Mr. Smith. She didn't find him because he had had to

rush back home that day. A few days later, before she could meet Mr. Smith,

I30

Valerie was suspended from school for the rest of the year, and Mr. Smith

blamed the group for having failed to help her.

GGI: A Place to Understand
Your Feelings and Those of Others

 

 

A recurrett theme in the solicited confidential letters the researcher asked
members to write about GGI was members' perceived ability to handle and
accept their feeling for what they were and the ability to understand other
people's feelings. For example, Nancy wrote the following:

My first impression of GGI was that you had to have problems to
be in it. I have to admit, I just wanted out of Gyrm . . . . I learnt a
lesson on people, life and most important of all me! . . . . I also an
more awae of things. I notice people more. Now I see how cruel the
world is sometimes. Last year I was in a way living in my own world.
I never realized what kind of problems people I knew had.
(Document, 2/27/85)

Similarly, saneone else wrote the following:

I have learnt to relate to people. And how they really are deep
down. (Anonymous document, 2/27/85)

Another letter from another anonymous source said the following of GGI.

GGI has been a real different experience for me . . . . I've saw
what different problems todays teenagers have whether they be hey
problems, parents, school or anything else. Boy, I thought I had a
hard life . . . . The real big reason I wanted in GGI was so I didn't
have to go swimming in gym but I learnt something in GGI I did not

know. (Document, 2/28/85)
Finally, Mary-Ellen wrote this of GGI.

GGI has been a great experience for me it helped me not to
judge people I really don't know. It's helped with many of my family
problems . . . GGI has also helped my personality. Last year I was
scarred to death to say anything to anyone I didn't know well. This
year I'm trying. It's hard though. (Document, 3/l/85)
lnforrmal interviews with GGI members supported the fact that GGI

members believed they learned to understand and accept their feeling. For
example, Jill informed the researcher she was no longer as miserable as she was

before joining GGI. The researcher reminded Jill she once declared that GGI wg

I30

Valerie was suspended from school for the rest of the year, and Mr. Smith

blamed the group for having failed to help her.

GGI: A Place to Understand
Your Feelings and Those of Others

 

A recurreit theme in the solicited confidential letters the researcher asked
members to write about GGI was members' perceived ability to handle and
accept their feeling for what they were and the ability to understand other
people's feelings. For example, Nancy wrote the following:

My first impression of GGI was that you had to have problems to
be in it. I have to admit, I just wanted out of Gym . . . . I learnt a
lesson on people, life and most important of all me! . . . . I also am
more awae of things. I notice people more. Now I see how cruel the
world is sormetimes. Last year I was in a way living in my own world.
I never realized what kind of problems people I knew had.
(Document, 2/27/85)

Similarly, someone else wrote the following:

I have learnt to relate to people. And how they really are deep
down. (Anonymous document, 2/27/85)

Another letter from another anonymous source said the following of GGI.

GGI has been a real different experience for me . . . . I've saw
what different problems todays teenagers have whether they be hey
problems, parents, school or anything else. Boy, I thought I had a
hard life . . . . The real big reason I wanted in GGI was so I didn't
have to go swimming in gyrm but I learnt samething in GGI I did not
know. (Document, 2/28/85)

Finally, Mary-Ellen wrote this of GGI.

GGI has been a great experience for me it helped me not to
judge people I really don't know. It's helped with many of my farmily
problems . . . GGI has also helped my personality. Last year I was
scarred to death to say anything to anyone I didn't know well. This
year I'm trying. It's hard though. (Document, 3/l/85)
lnforrmal interviews with GGI members supported the fact that GGI

members believed they learned to understand and accept their feeling. For

example, Jill informed the researcher she was no longer as miserable as she was

before joining GGI. The researcher reminded Jill she once declared that GGI was

I30

Valerie was suspended from school for the rest of the year, and Mr. Smith

blamed the group for having failed to help her.

GGI: A Place to Understand
Your Feelings andThose of Others

 

A recurrett theme in the solicited confidential letters the researcher asked
members to write about GGI was members' perceived ability to handle and
accept their feeling for what they were and the ability to understand other
people's feelings. For example, Nancy wrote the following:

My first impression of GGI was that you had to have problems to
be in it. I have to admit, I just wanted out of Gym . . . . I learnt a
lesson on people, life and most important of all me! . . . . I also am
more awae of things. I notice people more. Now I see how cruel the
world is sormetimes. Last year I was in a way living in my own world.
I never realized what kind of problems people I knew had.
(Document, 2/27/85)

Similarly, someone else wrote the following:

I have learnt to relate to people. And how they really are deep
down. (Anonymous document, 2/27/85)

Another letter from another anonymous source said the following of GGI.

GGI has been a real different experience for me . . . . I've saw
what different problems todays teenagers have whether they be hey
problems, parents, school or anything else. Boy, I thought I had a
hard life . . . . The real big reason I wanted in GGI was so I didn't
have to go swimming in gyrm but I learnt something in GGI I did not

know. (Document, 2/28/85)
Finally, Mary-Ellen wrote this of GGI.

GGI has been a great experience for me it helped me not to
judge people I really don't know. It's helped with many of my family
problems . . . GGI has also helped my personality. Lgt year I was
scarred to death to say anything to anyone I didn't know well. This
year I'm trying. It's hard though. (Document, 3/I/85)

Inforrmal interviews with GGI members supported the fact that GGI
members believed they learned to understand and accept their feeling. For
example, Jill informed the researcher she was no longer as miserable as she was

before joining GGI. The researcher reminded Jill she once declared that GGI was

I30

Valerie was suspended from school for the rest of the year, and Mr. Smith

blamed the group for having failed to help her.

GGI: A Place to Understand
Your Feeding and Those of Others

 

 

A recurrent theme in the solicited confidential letters the researcher asked
members to write about GGI was members' perceived ability to handle and
accept their feeling for what they were and the ability to understand other
people's feelings. For example, Nancy wrote the following:

My first impression of GGI was that you had to have problems to
be in it. I have to admit, I just wanted out of Gym . . . . I learnt a
lesson on people, life and most important of all me! . . . . I also am
more awae of things. I notice people more. Now I see how cruel the
world is sometimes. Last year I was in a way living in my own world.
I never realized what kind of problems people I knew had.
(Document, 2/27/85)

Similarly, saneone else wrote the following:

I have learnt to relate to people. And how they really are deep
down. (Anonymous document, 2/27/85)

Another letter from another anonymous source said the following of GGI.

GGI has been a real different experience for me . . . . I've saw
what different problems todays teenagers have whether they be hey
problems, parents, school or anything else. Boy, I thought I had a
hard life . . . . The real big reason I wanted in GGI was so I didn't
have to go swimming in gym but I learnt samething in GGI I did not

know. (Document, 2/28/85)
Finally, Mary-Ellen wrote this of GGI.

GGI has been a great experience for me it helped me not to
judge people I really don't know. It's helped with many of my family
problems . . . GGI has also helped my personality. Lgt year I was
scarred to death to say anything to anyone I didn't know well. This
year I'm trying. It's hard though. (Document, 3/l/85)

Informal interviews with GGI members supported the fact that GGI
members believed they learned to understand and accept their feeling. For

example, Jill informed the researcher she was no longer as miserable as she was

before joining GGI. The researcher reminded Jill she once declared that GGI was

l30

Valerie was suspended frorm school for the rest of the year, and Mr. Smith

blamed the group for having failed to help her.

GGI: A Place to Understand
Your Feelings and Those of Others

 

 

A recurrefl theme in the solicited confidential letters the researcher asked
members to write about GGI was members' perceived ability to handle and
accept their feeling for what they were and the ability to understand other
people's feelings. For example, Nancy wrote the following:

My first impression of GGI was that you had to have problems to
be in it. I have to admit, I just wanted out of Gym . . . . I learnt a
lesson on people, life and most important of all me! . . . . I also am
more awae of things. I notice people more. Now I see how cruel the
world is sometimes. Last year I was in a way living in my own world.
I never realized what kind of problems people I knew had.
(Document, 2/27/85)

Similarly, saneone else wrote the following:

I have learnt to relate to people. And how they really are deep
down. (Anonymous document, 2/27/85)

Another letter from another anonymous source said the following of GGI.

GGI hg been a real different experience for me . . . . I've saw
what different problems todays teenagers have whether they be hey
problems, parents, school or anything else. Boy, I thought I had a
hard life . . . . The real big reason I wanted in GGI was so I didn't
have to go swimming in gyrm but I learnt something in GGI I did not

know. (Document, 2/28/85)
Finally, Mary-Ellen wrote this of GGI.

GGI has been a great experience for me it helped me not to
judge people I really don't know. It's helped with many of my family
problems . . . GGI has also helped my personality. Last year I was
scarred to death to say anything to anyone I didn't know well. This
year I'm trying. It's hard though. (Document, 3/I/85)
lnforrmal interviews with GGI members supported the fact that GGI

members believed they learned to understand and accept their feeling. For

example, Jill informed the researcher she was no longer as miserable as she was

before joining GGI. The researcher reminded Jill she once declared that GGI was

l3l

just a social group (see p. 82). Her response was something like, "Did I say that?
Maybe I was mad at Mr. Smith when I said that." She explained that after joining
GGI she realized she was not the only person with family problems. This
realization helped to alleviate her self-pity and miseries.

Another striking testimony was given by Melody two months after she left
GGI. She told the researcher that the GGI experienced had helped her to be
sensitive to other people's feelings. She testified all her life she had always
wanted her way with teachers, her mother, and everyone around her. She told
the researcher she used to feel bad when people disagreed with her without being
personal. She stated some of her teachers saw a remarkable change in her, and
she wanted to improve on what she was already (see p. II9). Indeed, her claims
were supported by the "good citizen" award she received at the end of year
recognition ceremony for eighth grade, May 3|, I985.

Testimonies of GGI participants gave the distinct impression that the group
experience helped them develop understanding of self and others. The
importance of self-understanding and/ or self-discipline cannot be underestimated
in averting discipline problems; yet it is difficult to imagine how significant the
impact of only two groups was on changing the tone of school discipline.
Granted, if some of the potential trouble makers were in GGI and their energies
were converted into socially-acceptable behaviors, it could be speculated that
GGI might have had apreventative role, however negligible it might have been.

Testimonies of the staff and GGI participants as well as observations
outside the GGI classroom indicated no specific impact of the GGI program on
the school community other than personal gains and the probable indirect effects

on school discipline mentioned above.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
In this chapter, results presented at length in the preceding chapter are
summarized and summarily related to the overall design, goals, and objectives of
the GGI program as outlined by its designers. Discussion of data and patterns
emerging from them will follow. Interpretation of data linked both to theory and
other related research findings and conclusions will be made. Implications for
future practice and policy related to educational reforms and recommendations

will be postulated.

Summary

Research questions formulated to probe patterns observed during the
course of this study will be restated and followed by a summary of finding under
each question. How the patterns emerging frorm this study differed frorm the
prescribed design, goals, and objectives of the GGI program as outlined by its
designers will be highlighted.

l. Why and how were GGI participants chosen for GGI, according to

(a) teachers, (b) administrators, (c) counselors, (d) GGI
participants, and (e) the group leader?

According to the GGI program's designers, the program should never be
coeducational. Because of the group leader's half-time assignment at Howard
Junior High School during the I984-85 year, boys' groups were eliminated.
According to the group leader, eighth grade girls were considered a priority

because of the problems they demonstrated within the school and the "known"

problems teenaged girls seem to have with their mothers at home.

I32

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND
INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
In this chapter, results presented at length in the preceding chapter are
summarized and summarily related to the overall design, goals, and objectives of
the GGI program as outlined by its designers. Discussion of data and patterns
emerging from them will follow. Interpretation of data linked both to theory and
other related research findings and conclusions will be made. Implications for
future practice and policy related to educational reforms and recommendations

will be postulated.

Summary

Research questions formulated to probe patterns observed during the
course of this study will be restated and followed by a summary of finding under
each question. How the patterns emerging from this study differed frorm the
prescribed design, goals, and objectives of the GGI program as outlined by its
designers will be highlighted.

l. Why and how were GGI participants chosen for GGI, according to

(a) teachers, (b) administrators, (c) counselors, (d) GGI
participants, and (e) the group leader?

According to the GGI program's designers, the program should never be
coeducational. Because of the group leader's half-time assignment at Howard
Junior High School during the I984-85 year, boys' groups were eliminated.
According to the group leader, eighth grade girls were considered a priority

because of the problems they demonstrated within the school and the "known"

problems teenaged girls seem to have with their mothers at home.

I32

I33

The reasons why GGI participants were chosen for the program were not
clearly known to teachers. The general view teachers maintained was that
participants were chosen for GGI because of their emotional and social problems.
Among formally and informally interviewed teachers, none knew why only girls
were chosen for GGI.

Administrators considered GGI a program that teaches constructive
problem solving and helps with disciplinary problems in school, thus helping the
administration.

All counselors except one, an ex-GGI group leader, were uncertain about
why or how members were chosen for GGI. They assumed that students in the
program had problems with peers or family.

GGI participants did not consider themselves to have any more problems
than the average student. Sorme indicated they had no problems when they joined
GGI, but chose to be in the program to avoid electives like gym and swimming.
Others believed they were in GGI because they were strong enough to help others
with problems, and still others believed everyone had some kind of problem, i.e.,
mundane problems such as quarrels with peers, boyfriends, and parents.

Apparently, the reasons why GGI participants were chosen for GGI differed
among all role groups quoted above.

According to the GGI model, both negative and positive peer leaders should
be nominated for GGI by both staff and students. GGI should be voluntary and
endorsed by written parental approval. To facilitate a desire to join GGI, those
chosen should be told that they were chosen because "they are strong, smart, and
can influence their friends" (SYA Handbook, I976, p. l06). Those committed to
joining GGI should be interviewed by the group leader to determine their value
systems and group placements. To avoid negative labeling, both negative and

positive leaders were to be put together into one group. It was alleged that the

I34

success of GGI depended on a carefully balanced group cormposition. It was
recommended that students taking more than one class together should be put
into GGI so they could support one another with positive behaviors outside the
group.

Accounts by the group leader of how group members were selected at the
beginning of the I984-85 school year indicate he approximated prescribed
procedures. The goup leader asked teachers, through a selection form (see
Figure 2) circulated through the school's internal mail system, to help with the
selection of GGI candidates. Students were not given a chance to nominate their
peer leaders. Candidates were briefed about GGI, interviewed, and interested
candidates given handbooks, with attached permission slips, explaining GGI to
take home to parents.

Subsequent selection procedures witnessed by the researcher were
different. Teachers did not help in the selection process. The group leader
needed to fill seven opening, three and four from groups I and II, respectively,
and candidates were mostly Article III students suggested by the new
superintendent. These candidates were invited to a briefing session and were
told that they were chosen because there were thought strong enough to cope
with GGI, not because they were doing poorly at school. In reality, Article III
students were underachievers. This selection endeavor yielded only one client
out of l7 candidates. The second recruitment effort was aided by testimonies of
GGI veterans during the recruitment briefing, and it yielded four clients out of l2
candidates.

The two selection sessions attended by the researcher demonstrated it was
not feasible to achieve the recommended balance in compiling groups because
those believed to be needing of or needed by GGI could not be co-opted into

joining since participation was voluntary.

I35

2. How did teachers, counselors, administrators, and the group
leader think GGI worked (e.g., by what mechanism--
psychological, perhaps--did these people think GGI changes
attitudes or behaviors)?

Three of the six fonmally interviewed teachers saw GGI as providing an
otherwise-missing aspect in education—the caring for emotional and social needs
of students. Two of these three teachers spoke knowledgeably about GGI: a
teacher who was an ex-elementary school counselor and whose husband was a
GGI leader in sorme school in the past, and a special education teacher who on
several occasions had substituted for the group leader during his absence. Sorme
teachers believed GGI was doing something good; although they knew little if
anything about what actually happened in the program, they had seen positive
attitudinal changes in same GGI students. Two of the formally interviewed
eighth grade teachers saw no changes in GGI students. In fact, one of them, like
one of the counselors, considered GGI a "free hour."

The principal believed, through constructive confrontations and group
monitoring, that students in GGI were helped by others in the groups to find and
implement solutions to school- and community-related problems. Assistant
principals singled out some students whose behavior they believed had been
changed by GGI. They saw the program as helping participants talk about their
problems just as they would in a counseling group. They assumed students were
leaning constructive solutions to problems in GGI and that participants were
transmitting that knowledge to those around them.

Counselors, although not regarding GGI as part of the counseling
department, saw it to be a peer counseling program where students were allowed
to talk freely to their peers about their problems.

The group leader attested that GGI was limited in its operation because of

his half-time assignment in the building and the selfish nature of today's kids,

I36

with the latter reason being secondary to the former. He acknowledged that GGI
was limited to group meetings and to dealing with self. He regretted not having
had enough time to prepare GGI students, as well as teachers, to be aids in
instances of misbehavior in classrooms as he once had in his former building.
"GGI was helping teachers to teach," he stated.

What all the role groups said about GGI were assumptions about the
program. Other than those teachers substituting for the group leader during his
absences (a trained GGI leader and a special education teacher), no one had first-
hand infonmation about what was actually happening in GGI at this site.
Everyone, including the principal, considered GGI to be out of purview because
of its confidentiality. The program had no locally-established goals and
objectives and was not formally evaluated. The principal had a close relationship
with the group leader and could have received reports about GGl's progress from
him. Actually, the GGI package states "it is not necessary to prove the
effectiveness and worth of the GGI process" for a school to adopt the GGI model
since GGI is a validated program (SYA Handbook, I976, p. 85).

GGI program designers envisaged the program as more than just a
counseling program; they hoped that meetings would be a political forum for
students, too. It was assumed that individual schools would allow GGI
participants to be involved in the decision-making and behavior management of
all students in the whole school. The program's designers also assumed that
school staff would work together with GGI participants in improving classroom
and school discipline.

3. Based on observations, what actually went on during GGI

meetings?
a. What were the duties, responsibilities, rights, and

obligations of members in the group and the group
leader?

I37

Duties, responsibilities, rights, and obligations were not clearly stated, but
often implied in the group leader's reprimands. He informed the researcher that
group members were told what was expected of them when they first came
together. They were told it was their responsibility to bring, and talk about,
problems. The duty of starting and keeping the group going fell to members.
They were also told they were supposed to run the group. Group members
seemed not to have understood what was expected of them in this regard. As
implied in the group leader's reprimands, it was the members' duty to correct one
another for inappropriate attitudes and behaviors. Either because they were ill-
inforrned about their obligations in the group or because they believed they had
no legitimate right to do so, members avoided confronting one another for
wrong-doing. They also believed it was the group leader's responsibility to
correct and confront members for their wrong-doing. Role confusion was
apparent because it was the group leader's duty and right to enforce operational
rules and limit harmful behavior in the group.

The group leader selectively chose to intervene in wrong-doing. This
selective intervention appeared to confound role expectations and compound the
confusion. Perhaps members expected him to always intervene in wrong-doing,
yet he sometimes wanted to give them a chance to see and correct unacceptable
behaviors in the group.

The group leader stayed close to the group process design prescribed in the
GGI model: that members be given the chance to "run the group" so they could
learn to manage their own affairs and behaviors from the environment of small
groups. Thus, they practiced the skills needed in becoming involved in decision
making and management of behavior problems in the whole school.

Designers of the GGI model assumed members would willingly confront one

another with inappropriate behaviors and that constructive and positive

I38

alternatives would be suggested by peers. It was assumed that positive
behaviors, when suggested by peers, would be more acceptable than when
prescribed and imposed by adults. Designers of the program also assumed that

negative leadership would be overpowered by positive leadership in the group.

b. What were appropriate topics for discussion?

GGI participants were allowed to discuss any personal problems and
concerns directly affecting them as individuals. Typically, discussions were
centered around family and social (peer and sexual) problems and concerns.
Discussions almost never included personal frustrations with school work.

When emotional problems and concerns were brought to the group, the
group process was linear. Everyone paid close attention to the concerned or
troubled group member. The group process was slower and more deliberate, and
the environment was supportive and empathic. Group members explored feeling
by questioning and volunteering advice about how they would handle the situation
as individuals.

In the absence of real concerns and problems, group members were allowed
to discuss their social activities and experiences. Typically, the group process
was less focused at this time: it zig-zagged or blurred completely by private,
person-to-person discussions. Any topic was acceptable if it directly involved
individual members, whether sharing excitement about new love, what an
individual ate at dinner the previous night, etc. Group members appeared not to
be convinced that social experiences discussions were worth their time. They
complained that some people among them were not divulging their real problems.

Designers of the GGI model assumed members would always have a gamut
of problems to discuss: their own personal problems, those of other students in

school, student-administrative policies in the school building or district, etc.

I39

They envisaged students solving inter-building problems that affected students'
well being in the school system as a whole. They expected GGI to be more than

just a counseling session.

c. What were inappropriate topics of discussion?

Other people's problems, if they did not directly affect individual members
of the group, were prohibited and taken as gossip by the group leader. Indeed,
sane topics brought out about other people in GGI sounded malicious or
resembled petty gossip, yet sorme were apparently brought to the group out of
genuine concern and altruism-the desire to help others in the school community.

Complaints and problems about teachers were not given a full hearing in
GGI. The group leader appeared to exercise extreme caution when it came to
complaints about teachers' behaviors. Most of the time, he was defensive about
teachers' words and actions.

Designers of the GGI program expected problems of all students in the
school to be legitimate topics of discussion in the program. They expected GGI
members to work hand-in-hand with administrators and staff to find solutions to

those problems.

d. What did GGI participants think GGI was all about?

GGI participants believed GGI was a place for self-disclosure where
members could talk freely about dark secrets burdening their lives with the hope
and comfort that nothing discussed in the group would leave the GGI classroom.
GGI participants believed they could find an accessible and accepting adult in
the program. They appreciated GGI for allowing them to be themselves. They
freely expressed any genuine emotions without fear of criticism or negative
repercussions. They could cry, express anger and frustration. Anger was

sometimes directed at the group leader.

I40

GGI participants also believed GGI was a place where they could
understand and accept their own feelings and those of others. They attested to
the fact that they learned to understand problems and suffering other young
people were subjected to in their lives. Some students testified they began to
accept their own familial miseries when they realized almost everyone had a
problem to deal with in his/her life.

It could be surmised from the testimonies of participants that GGI was
more of a support and/or personal growth group than an advocacy group with the

political power the designers of the program had hoped it would be.

Discussion

The major purpose of this study was to investigate and describe in detail
the process of GGI; i.e., how it proceeded in achieving the goal of improving
school discipline in this setting. Since ethnographic research is contextual or
ecological in approach, the study also aimed at identifying and analyzing
environmental factors associated with the functioning of GGI in this setting.

The contextual analysis of GGI revealed that the program was not
assimilated into the mainstream of school business operations; GGI was isolated.
This isolation is the key linkage to understanding why GGI operated as it did in
this setting. It accounts for (a) the varied perceptions different role group in
this school had about what GGI was doing in this building and (b) the program's
focus on personal and social problems to the exclusion of school- or teacher-
related ones.

The fact that there are different roles and statuses in schools with
different interests and concerns results in the formation of subgroups with
subcultures. Each and every subgroup usually perceives the world and events

around it according to subcultural experiences, values, interests, and concerns.

I4|

Unless subgroups share information about certain aspects of their environment,
they are much more likely to maintain different views and perceptions about
those aspects about which they do not exchange information. The limited and
unverified subcultural view of reality may be built upon illusions and
misconceptions. This cultural phenomenon was clearly evident in Howard Junior
High School.

Most teachers, although uncertain about what was actually taking place in
the groups, believed GGI addressed emotional and social problems of students in
the program. This is not surprising since eighth grade teachers were used to
students being late, absent, or emotionally drained in classes adjacent to GGI.
All this was explained with the statement that "someone had a problem and
group members were helping the individual with that problem." Unlike
administrators, teachers did not see the ripple effect of GGI. Some teachers saw
attitudes change in some GGI students and attributed that change to the
program's group experience.

Administrators, whose concern was the overall discipline in the school,
lived with the comfort that GGI was a program aiding them with the overall
discipline problem. Apparently what GGI was doing as far as administrators
were concerned could be extrapolated frorm the principal's view that "it is what
you don't see more than what you see" (prevention). This implies that GGI was
taken to be a "safety valve" by administrators. This was also implied in the
words of one of the assistant principals who asserted, "We are better off with it
(GGI) than without it." The problem with safety valves is the illusion of security
they provide. Administrators in this building were secure with the belief that
GGI was aiding the problem of diScipline in the building without testing the
utility of this safety-valve (GGI). Assistant principals could single out students

whose behavior they believed had been positively changed by GGI. The attitude

l4|

Unless subgroups share information about certain aspects of their environment,
they are much more likely to maintain different views and perceptions about
those aspects about which they do not exchange information. The limited and
unverified subcultural view of reality may be built upon illusions and
misconceptions. This cultural phenomenon was clearly evident in Howard Junior
High School.

Most teachers, although uncertain about what was actually taking place in
the groups, believed GGI addressed emotional and social problems of students in
the program. This is not surprising since eighth grade teachers were used to
students being late, absent, or emotionally drained in classes adjacent to GGI.
All this was explained with the statement that "someone had a problem and
group members were helping the individual with that problem." Unlike
administrators, teachers did not see the ripple effect of GGI. Some teachers saw
attitudes change in some GGI students and attributed that change to the
program's group experience.

Administrators, whose concern was the overall discipline in the school,
lived with the comfort that GGI was a program aiding them with the overall
discipline problem. Apparently what GGI was doing as far as administrators
were concerned could be extrapolated frorm the principal's view that "it is what
you don't see more than what you see" (prevention). This implies that GGI was
taken to be a "safety valve" by administrators. This was also implied in the
words of one of the assistant principals who asserted, "We are better off with it
(GGI) than without it." The problem with safety valves is the illusion of security
they provide. Administrators in this building were secure with the belief that
GGI was aiding the problem of discipline in the building without testing the
utility of this safety-valve (GGI). Assistant principals could single out students

whose behavior they believed had been positively changed by GGI. The attitude

I42

change perceived by teachers is still different from behavior change in some
GGI students perceived by assistant principals.

Counselors appear to have shut off their interest in GGI. In fact, GGI's
isolation from the traditional, general business of school life was dramatically
demonstrated by counselors' apparent lack of knowledge about the program.
Statements like the following from a counselor poignantly bear testimony to this
lack of knowledge.

There are some students that I wonder what type of problems
could have fostered their getting into GGI in the first place other

than the fact I have already mentioned (on easy grade, on automatic

A). (Tape-recorded interview, 2/26/85)

Somehow this lack of knowledge about GGI overrides accepted theories about
organizational communication where spatial proximity and common area of
interests are believed to remove barriers of communication (Fisher, l98l). The

group leader's office was in the counseling depatment, and GGI was concerned

with students' behavior and/or emotional problems, one of the major raisom d'etre

 

of counselors in a school system.

All counselors perceived GGI as a peer counseling program, but did not
regard it as part of the counseling department. They embraced the view that
GGI was an additional program administrators wanted. Perhaps this is where the
whole problem lies. GGI might have been perceived by counselors as a program
imposed by administrators. If this were not true, counselors might not have
appreciated the need for and value of the program in this school building.

Isolation of the GGI program from the mainstream of the school's business
operations still accounts for the focus GGI assumed under the circumstances. If
there were no communication among the group leader, teachers, and counselors,
GGI could not focus on students' behavior problems in the school as a whole,

hence the focus on personal problems to the exclusion of school-wide problems

I42

change perceived by teachers is still different from behavior change in some
GGI students perceived by assistant principals.

Counselors appear to have shut off their interest in GGI. In fact, GGI's
isolation from the traditional, general business of school life was dramatically
demonstrated by counselors' apparent lack of knowledge about the program.
Statements like the following from a counselor poignantly bear testimony to this
lack of knowledge.

There are some students that I wonder what type of problems
could have fostered their getting into GGI in the first place other

than the fact I have already mentioned (on easy grade, on automatic

A). (Tape-recorded interview, 2/26/85)

Somehow this lack of knowledge about GGI overrides accepted theories about
organizational communication where spatial proximity and common area of
interests are believed to remove barriers of communication (Fisher, l98l). The

group leader's office was in the counseling depatment, and GGI was concerned

with students' behavior and/or emotional problems, one of the major raisom d'etre

 

of counselors in a school system.

All counselors perceived GGI as a peer counseling program, but did not
regard it as part of the counseling department. They embraced the view that
GGI was an additional program administrators wanted. Perhaps this is where the
whole problem lies. GGI might have been perceived by counselors as a program
imposed by administrators. If this were not true, counselors might not have
appreciated the need for and value of the program in this school building.

Isolation of the GGI program from the mainstream of the school's business
operations still accounts for the focus GGI assumed under the circumstances. If
there were no communication among the group leader, teachers, and counselors,
GGI could not focus on students' behavior problems in the school as a whole,

hence the focus on personal problems to the exclusion of school-wide problems

I43

and problems related to school work and teachers. If the focus of GGI were as
broad as outlined in the GGI package, then solutions to such problems could not
be attained without the cooperative involvement of all parties concerned in the
schooL

The group leader explained that GGI was limited to dealing with self
mainly because of lack of time since he had a half-time assignment in the
building. Although this stated reason (limited time in the building) offered a
plausible explanation for the limited focus GGI assumed at the time of this
study, there were several implicit issues that were inadequately explained by the
group leader's limited time in the building. For example, the ignorance of both
teachers and counselors about who should be in GGI and why could not be fully
explained by the group leader's limited time in the building when the GGI

program had been there for more than two years.

Interpretation

When viewing results of this study from a cultural perspective, it becomes
less difficult to understand why GGI was not assimilated into the mainstream of
the school's business operations. What designers of the model appeared to have
overlooked is the fact that schools are institutions with their own distinct
cultural traditions and idiosyncracies. For example, 0 schools' cultural tradition
involves specialized role performances of several role groups. What can be seen
in the GGI model is 'a sharp reversal of role performances of almost all role
groups in a school:

I. students involved in the decision making and management of a
school when experience indicates that not even teachers are
meaningfully involved in the decision making of most schools;

2. teachers seeking help from students with behavior problems in

classrooms and not turning students over to administrators and
counselors for help; and

I44

3. students accepting confrontations and criticisms from peers
when their lifetime socialization has taught them to expect and
accept criticism from teachers and other adults in the school
system.

Failure to consider how the changes outlined in the GGI package may
conflict with a school's customary procedures might have encouraged resistance
to the program and doomed it to a permanent marginal status. Compatibility,
i.e., the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with existing
values, past experiences, and needs of adopters, determine whether or not an
innovation will be meaningfully adapted in a culture (Rogers, I983). Changes in
the culture are slow and are attributable to the meaning people in that culture
attach to the advocated changes.

There are plausible reasons to believe that there are very few, if any,
outsiders' pre-packaged programs that can aptly meet the needs of local
communities. As Berman and McLaughlin (I978), who conducted nation-wide
studies to determine the impact of federally-sponsored programs to improve
schools, noted, the problem with packaged approaches to planned change is their
inability to anticipate those local conditions or events that require projects'
plans and practices to be modified.

However perfect on innovation may appear on its outline, no innovation can
be suitable or gain acceptance in all settings believed by outsiders to need that
innovation. Change is not just the technology itself and its management, but
something that involves people, their values, social mores, and idiosyncracies of
communities. This is why nearly every systematic study aimed at assessing the
impact of educational innovations has concluded that anticipated outcomes were
not achieved or that they were not fully implemented (Herriot & Gross, I979).

Another observation implicitly supporting the importance of the cultural

aspect in adoption of innovations was made by Marvin et al. (I976) who studied

I45

federally-sponsored programs installed in schools to reverse school violence.
About the ESEA Title III program, the federal program under which GGI is
funded, they wrote, "The experience of the ESEA Title ”I program indicates that
the development and demonstration of exemplary practices will not necessarily
result in the widespread adoption of those practices" (p. III). GGI is a "validated"
exemplary program developed out of the initiative of the Michigan Department
of Social Services to be disseminated to schools with discipline problems. Over
the past I3 years, the packaged GGI program has been introduced in 34 school
districts as an exemplary program that can solve discipline problems in

Michigan's schools.

Conclusions

Conclusions drawn from the results of this study and findings of related
studies indicate that exemplary programs may not be translated as outlined in
their packages due to local conditions that designers of the programs (outsiders)
could not have anticipated. As the introduction of this study and literature
review section demonstrated, most programs instituted in schools to solve
discipline problems were developed by university professors or other experts
outside of school systems. One of the shortcomings of these imported programs,
as deduced from the findings of this study, is the inability of outsiders to
perceive the reality of a school's culture and build on that reality instead of
disrupting it by introducing changes in dissonance with every aspect of a school's
cultural tradition. The result of this oversight is the possibility of resistance to
the program as implicated by the peripheral position into which GGI was cast in
this setting. As Morrish (I976) stated, "It is held by anthropologists that the
resistance to change is proportional to the amount of change required in a

system" (p. 87).

I45

federally-sponsored programs installed in schools to reverse school violence.
About the ESEA Title ”I program, the federal program under which GGI is
funded, they wrote, "The experience of the ESEA Title III program indicates that
the development and demonstration of exemplary practices will not necessarily
result in the widespread adoption of those practices" (p. III). GGI is a "validated"
exemplary program developed out of the initiative of the Michigan Department
of Social Services to be disseminated to schools with discipline problems. Over
the past l3 years, the packaged GGI program has been introduced in 34 school
districts as an exemplary program that can solve discipline problems in

Michigan's schools.

Conclusions

Conclusions drawn frorm the results of this study and findings of related
studies indicate that exemplary programs may not be translated as outlined in
their packages due to local conditions that designers of the programs (outsiders)
could not have anticipated. As the introduction of this study and literature
review section demonstrated, most programs instituted in schools to solve
discipline problems were developed by university professors or other experts
outside of school systems. One of the shortcomings of these imported programs,
as deduced from the findings of this study, is the inability of outsiders to
perceive the reality of a school's culture and build on that reality instead of
disrupting it by introducing changes in dissonance with every aspect of a school's
cultural tradition. The result of this oversight is the possibility of resistance to
the program as implicated by the peripheral position into which GGI was cast in
this setting. As Morrish (I976) stated, "It is held by anthropologists that the
resistance to change is proportional to the amount of change required in a

system" (p. 87).

I46

Other than the significant finding which was a key linkage in understanding
why GGI operated as it did in this setting (i.e., the isolation of the program and
plausible reasons for this isolation), there are reasons to believe that the
program has been oversold. The suggestion that because the program has already
been validated, ". . . certainly, it is not necessary to prove the effectiveness and
worth of the GGI process . . . . nor does the district necessarily have to validate
the procedures described in this handbook" (SYA Handbook, I976, p. 88), is
deceptive. Unintended consequences of prescribed procedures where accurately
followed in group selection and process in this study make the above suggestion
unwarranted and unfounded. For example, if, as claimed by the designers of the
GGI program, a group's success depends on good balance between positive and
negative leaders when there is no way to ensure that a required number of both
positive and negative leaders will volunteer to join GGI, how can this balance
always be reached? This study established that it was not easy to get individuals
believed to be needed or needing GGI into the program due to the GGI's
voluntary nature. Also, the assumption that once positive and negative leaders
are in a group together, negative leadership will succumb to positive leadership
is naive. Of the two groups observed in this site, group II was under a strong
negative leadership which grew into a coalition taking control of the group.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the so—called validated

exemplary programs are not as perfect as their models imply.

Implications for Practice and Policy
Zaltman, Florio, and Sikorski (I977) state it is widely acknowledged that
most changes in education are externally generated. The marginality of the GGI
program in this setting is interpreted as resistance stemming from outsiders'

failure to make the program compatible with the cultural traditions of the

lll7

school. Findings of this study may support the observation Joyce, Hersh, and
Kibbin (I983) made about efforts to improve schools that "Change has been
attempted in additive ways rarely with an insight into the synergistic nature of
the complex process called schooling . . . . these attempts have only served as
Band-Aids" (p. 5). What is implied by this is the fact that change efforts that
can penetrate a school system's bloodstream, rather than Band-Aids that remain
as outliers, are needed if educational reforms are to be successful. How can this
be achieved? This researcher embraces the view expressed by Fisher (l98l) for
business organizations.

There is only one most important factor in overcoming
resistance to change and making organizational development efforts
successful; it is the OD (organizational development)
practitioner . . . . Many organizations, including General Electric,

Polaroid, Corning Glass and General Motors, md<e use of internal OD
staffs. (pp. 396-397)

internally or locally initiated change appears to be the only promising
solution for educational reforms since all school districts and schools have unique
needs and/or cultural characteristics outsiders would not easily penetrate and
understand. Educators and policy makers need to adopt the concept and
principle of organizational development if meaningful and lasting changes are to
be made in areas of concern such as school discipline. Fisher (I980) defines
organizational development thus.

Organizational development can be defined as a planned,

sustained effort, based on behavioral science knowledge, to change

the human and social process of work groups and organizations in the

direction of improved problem solving and renewal process. (p. 380)

If schools were to have OD practitioners, there would be no need to acquire
new professionals because professionals with skills and knowledge relevant to
those of an OD practitioner are already present in school systems: counselors.

The call for counselors to assume the role of change agents in schools has been

repeatedly echoed in literature on school counseling for more than a decade.

M7

school. Findings of this study may support the observation Joyce, Hersh, and
Kibbin (I983) made about efforts to improve schools that "Change has been
attempted in additive ways rarely with an insight into the synergistic nature of
the complex process called schooling . . . . these attempts have only served as
Band-Aids" (p. 5). What is implied by this is the fact that change efforts that
can penetrate a school system's bloodstream, rather than Band—Aids that remain
as outliers, are needed if educational reforms are to be successful. How can this
be achieved? This researcher embraces the view expressed by Fisher (l98l) for
business organizations.

There is only one most important factor in overcoming
resistance to change and making organizational development efforts
successful; it is the OD (organizational development)
practitioner . . . . Many organizations, including General Electric,

Polaroid, Corning Glass and General Motors, md<e use of internal OD
staffs. (pp. 396-397)

Internally or locally initiated change appears to be the only promising
solution for educational reforms since all school districts and schools have unique
needs and/or cultural characteristics outsiders would not easily penetrate and
understand. Educators and policy makers need to adopt the concept and
principle of organizational development if meaningful and lasting changes are to
be made in areas of concern such as school discipline. Fisher (I980) defines
organizational development thus.

Organizational development can be defined as a planned,
sustained effort, based on behavioral science knowledge, to change

the human and social process of work groups and organizations in the

direction of improved problem solving and renewal process. (p. 380)

If schools were to have OD practitioners, there would be no need to acquire
new professionals because professionals with skills and knowledge relevant to
those of an OD practitioner are already present in school systems: counselors.

The call for counselors to assume the role of change agents in schools has been

repeatedly echoed in literature on school counseling for more than a decade.

MB

Yet this call has always been sabotaged by policymakers who would install and
finance quick-fix additional programs and personnel to effect needed changes in
schools. Evidence that this approach is not effective is mounting. The truth, as
stated by Hawkins (I985), is ". . . the solution is not more programs that intrude
into the classroom or impose intolerable administrative burdens on school
officials" (p. 30). What is needed are deliberate, systematized, and ongoing
change efforts in all individual schools which would respond to local and national
needs.

Almost every systematic study conducted to assess the impact of
educational reforms came out with the recommendation that locally-initiated
programs of change might yield better results than superimposed and remotely
initiated and controlled change programs because of the failure of most of the
latter programs (Marvin et al., I976; Berman 8. McLaughlin, I978; McDonnel &
McLaughlin, I980). With reaffirmation of counselors as OD practitioners in
schools, change would be ongoing, deliberate, and planned. In other words,
change would be proactive and interactive instead of reactive. This would allow
schools to have some control over the forces of change, whether those forces
stemmed from inside or outside the school system (Zaltman et al., I977).

The OD practitioner role in business organizations as defined by Fisher
(l98l) is identical to the role outlined in literature on school counseling for a
counselor as a change agent or a counselor as a consultant. Yet roles presently
performed by counselors in most schools are those of technicians. For example,
this researcher observed with dismay two teacher-parent meetings at this
research site where teachers consulted with parents about students' school
performance as professionals, while counselors were assigned the duty of handing
out grade slips to parents. It is regrettable that counselors in most schools are

mainly responsible for making schedules, monitoring grades, and checking the

M9

accomplishments of graduation (Aubrey, I985; Wells & Ritter, I985). These
assignments do not require Master's degrees in psychology or human development
and behavior, but, rather, clerical staff with no university degrees.

Current literature on counseling blames counselors for having failed to
assume the idealized role of acting as change agents in schools. This is like
blaming a victim. It could be that over the years, the idea of a counselor as
change agent has been resisted by administrators who have traditionally carried
out most of the roles expected of a counselor-consultant. More important, is
this author's conviction that professional ideologies alone cannot bestow this
idealized role to counselors if actions of policy makers are subversive. Perhaps
if policy makers were to recognize counselors as OD practitioners or change
agents, counselors' roles would be legitimized to everyone involved:
administrators, counselors, teachers, parents, and students. Principals, already
burdened by the multiple roles they need to perform to keep the legislative and
administrative machinery of schools running, might relinquish the interactive
function counselors need to perform as OD practitioners with no feelings of
uneasiness.

To argue that a counselor's job is mainly to prepare students for career
choices is questionable and of less significance and value to individuals and
society in this Post-technological era because change is so rapid that a majority
of pupils now in junior high school will work at jobs which as yet do not exist
(Fullmer & Bernard, I972). Indeed, many peOpIe today are doing jobs no
counselor could have prepared them for. Therefore, if preparing students for
careers is to be taken as the main function of counselors in schools, this would be
an underutilization if not misuse of professional potential. Advocates of
counselors as change agents in schools believe counselors have a better chance of

reaching a large number of students with social and personal problems since the

ISO

whole school staff will be involved in helping students with such problems. The
challenge, it would seem, is to make a better use of existing staff, even if that
were to mean renaming counselors as OD practitioners. In fact, most professions
are named after roles and competencies of incumbents.

How would counselors as OD practitioners improve the unremitting
problem of school discipline? If the major function of la counselor-consultant as
defined by Fullmer and Bernard (I972) is ". . . getting the parts of the (school)
system to work together in a coordinated manner" (p. 2), then schools have a
better chance of solving the discipline problem or of assimilating innovative
efforts like GGI. In a counselor-consultant role, as Dinkmeyer (I975) explains, ".
. . the emphasis is placed on joint planning and collaboration" (p. 65). The
importance of getting all the constituencies of a school--teachers, counselors,
administrators, students, parents, community members and/or agents--to work
together in solving discipline problems cannot be overemphasized. Team
approach is almost a catch word in literature on effective school discipline
today. What literature on school discipline did not provide is who should bring all
these parties together. This study is suggesting OD practitioners (counselor—

consultants).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSlTY

 

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST MNSING 0 HICIIIGAN 0 {III4-IOM
I)H’AIITMENT OI‘ EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION

{RICKSON llALL

APPENDIX A

October 26, I 984

Mr. Tom Bratton, Principal
Howard Junior High School
33l Bridge Street
Edenvale, MI 40339

Dear Mr. Bratton:

This is to thank you for allowing Patience (she prefers to be called "Nana")
Makaula to observe in your school during this fall term. Ms. Makaula is a
doctoral student in pupil personnel administration from South Africa and is very
much in need of observing guidance at work in United States schools. She is not
conducting a research study but, imtead, is observing counselors at work so that
she will be able to take many practical ideas home with her to South Africa
where she will likely hold a guidance supervisor position for the section of the
Ministry of Education dealing with Black schools.

We also appreciate the willingtess of Mr. Smith to help her become faniliar with
the specifics of the Guided Group Interaction program which is of special
interest to her. We know this takes time for people who have very busy
schedules, so we have made every effort to help her see the necessity for being a
silent observer both at school and elsewhere.

I hope that sane time in the future we will be able to repay you and your staff
for this professional kindness which is appreciated by both Ms. Makaula and
Michigan State University.

Cordially yours,

mm

Jones W. Costar, Professor

l5l

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

Edenvale School District
Office of Evaluation Services

972 Underhill Drive
Edenvale, Ml 40336

January 29, I985
Patience Nana Makaula
I405 G Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48824
Dear Ms. Makaula:

Your request to conduct research in the Edenvale School District has X
been approved,* not been approved.

 

The following comments apply to your study (*approval is contingent on the
following qualifications):

l. written parental permission for each child in the group to be
observed must be on file with the school before the
observations begin;

2. no audio or video taping of group sessions is to be done;

3. should you require access to student records, the records must
be accessed by appropriate school staff in such a way to assure
that no student'ncmes are revealed; and

4. all interviews with teachers and counselors must be voluntary.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me (899-
4532 .

Thank you.
Sincerely,

aw

Emily Wolf
Evaluation Specialist

cc: Research Review Committee Members

l52

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

I405 G Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48823
January 3|, I985

Dear Parent:

The Edenvale School District has granted me permission to conduct research at
Howard Junior High School to fulfill requirements of a research methods class. I
intend observing GGI sessions so as to learn about the program--what it is and
how it functions. Since your child is in GGI, I, therefore, remest your permission
to observe your child as part of the group. I wish to emphasize that the focus of
my study is GGI as a program and practice of observational methods in research.
I will not be evaluating individual participants in the program.

I guarantee that data collected from GGI will be treated with the caution and
confidentiality it deserves. I will be sharing completed portions of the final
report of the study with the group counselor and the building principal. This is
intended to reduce the risk of violating students' privacy. The right is reserved
for the group leader and the principal to censor anything they consider an
infringement of the students‘ rights to privacy. They also have the right to
terminate the study any time they think the study is jeopardizing GGI students
and/or the school.

I hereby extend the right to you to withdraw your permission to observe your
child in GGI any time, with no prejudice or repercussions on the child should you
have second thoughts about it. I also guarantee that any information gathered
during my observation will never be volunteered to authorities for other use.
Detach the permission slip below, fill it in and sign it, please, and bring it back
to school.

For further information, I can be contacted at this number: (5l7) 355-0786.

Yours sincerely,

@Mél

Patience Nana Makaula

I hereby APPROVE DISAPPROVE involvement of my child in the
observation study of—GGT. I understand that I reserve the right to withdraw my
approval or disapproval any time I see fit without prejudice or negative
repercussions from the school or Michigan State University to my child.

NAME: Signature:

l53

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

I405 G Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48823
January 30, I985

The Research Review Committee

972 Underhill Drive

Edenvale, MI 40336

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am appealing the limitations imposed by item number two on the conditions of
my permission to conduct research with GGI students at Howard Junior High
School. I appreciate the precautions exercised by the committee on this aspect.

I wish that item number two of the terms of my permission be reviewed in light
of explanations and guarantees I am prepared to make to protect privacy of
students in this study. Though not stated in my original application, it was my
intention to extend the right to students and group leader to request that I do not
tape some of the discussions or to delete certain parts of the tape if they so
choose.

As a student in a fieldwork research methods course, part of my training involves
guidance in handling delicate data without hurting participants of the study. The
aim of having a tape recorder is purely for academic reasons since that would
enable my instructors to sample some of the taped material so as to ascertain if
I am interpreting in my own worcb what is happening in the field from what
people are saying. Evaluations of the accuracy of my interpretations depend on
first-hand information.

I guarantee that the material on the tapes will not be played to anyone except
my instructors when they need to verify some of the claims and interpretations I
will be making of GGI. GGI students and the group leader will have the right to
recall tapes or to erase parts of them any time they so desire. Portions of the
final report will be shared with the group leader and the building principal before
a composite final reported is issued. The principal and group leader will be
extended the right to censor some portions of the report if they think it
jeopardizes students in GGI and/or the school. Identities of individual students
will be protected.

I will appreciate your favorable consideration in this respect. I am willing to

come for an interview with some or all of the committee members to explain
myself.

You incerly,
W I

Patience Nana Makaula

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX E

A Summary of Sessions and Places Observed

 

OBSERVATIONS
I. Number of sessions in group I ”9
Number of sessions in group ll ”9
Total number of sessions observed 238
2. Number of observations in lunch I 32
Number of observations in lunch 2 3|
Number of observations in lunch 3 20
Total number of lunchroom observations 83

3. C lmsroom observations

English (Ms. Evans) 3
English (Mr. Scott) 3
English (Ms. Stuart) 2
History (Mr. Gordon) 3
Mathematics (Mr. Hones) I
Music (Mr. Dickson) 2

Total number of classroom observations l3

INTERVIEWS

Formal interviews
Principal
Assistant principals (two, one each)
Counselors (three, one each)
Group leader
Teachers (six, one each)
Social Services Department informant
Total number of formal interviews

mNmNWN—

A substantial amount of data gathered for the purpose of this study cannot be
quantified. Such data include various official and anecdotal documents reviewed
and several informal places observed as well as informal interviews conducted on

GGI.

l55

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

Background Information

My previous work experience motivated the career path I followed and the
kind of research I conducted. I worked as a vocational counselor at the National
Institute for Personnel Research (NIPR) in Johannesburg, South Africa. In l98l,
the government contracted with the counseling department of the NIPR to train
the first group of guidance teachers for Black schools. The Ministry of
Education intended to redress the unmanageability of Black schools by
introducing this innovation. Black schools were plagued by constant riots,
violence, arson, and high dropout rates. I was in the training team. As trainers,
we relied on theory written in books from America to conceptualize the role of a
guidance teacher, know what a guidance progrcrn should entail, and figure out
how a guidance program could improve the condition of schools. It was not an
easy task. .

In the year we started the training program, I left South Africa to study
agency counseling in America. The development of guidance programs was a
priority in my mind. My Master's program entailed learning general theory,
techniques, and skills of dyadic counseling. For a doctoral degree, I enrolled in a
program with a pupil personnel services focus in the Educational Administration

Department at Michigan State University.

l56

APPENDIX F
PERSONAL REFLECTIONS

Background Information

My previous work experience motivated the career path I followed and the
kind of research I conducted. I worked as a vocational counselor at the National
Institute for Personnel Research (NIPR) in Johannesburg, South Africa. In l98l,
the government contracted with the counseling department of the NIPR to train
the first group of guidance teachers for Black schools. The Ministry of
Education intended to redress the unmanageability of Black schools by
introducing this innovation. Black schools were plagued by constant riots,
violence, arson, and high dropout rates. I was in the training team. As trainers,
we relied on theory written in books from America to conceptualize the role of a
guidance teacher, know what a guidance program should entail, and figure out
how a guidance program could improve the condition of schools. It was not an
easy task.

In the year we started the training program, I left South Africa to study
agency counseling in America. The development of guidance programs was a
priority in my mind. My Master's progam entailed learning general theory,
technimes, and skills of dyadic counseling. For a doctoral degree, I enrolled in a
program with a pupil personnel services focus in the Educational Administration

Department at Michigan State University.

l56

I57

Entry Negotiations

As stated in the methodology section of this study, obtaining a site to
observe was not easy. During the summer of I984, my advisor approached some
of his former students in the immediate neighboring schools with no luck. This
was in spite of guarantees of unobtrusiveness and my willingness to help in the
department for no pay. After learning about the defensiveness of neighboring
schools, I decided to increase the radius from which to find a school to observe.

It was by chance I met a friend I effectively used as a reference in
negotiating entry into my research site. My preference was for a school in a low
socioeconomic neighborhood, like Howard Junior High School, as my prospective
clientele in South Africa will mainly be from this level. At the time, my desire
was simply to observe the internal undertakings of a counseling department. I
considered practical experience essential for my professional development
because, were I to go back to South Africa with a Ph.D. degree in this (tea, I
would be expected to be more knowledgeable about counseling and guidance.

From the status of a casual observer, it was not difficult, at the building
level, to renegotiate my role as researcher. Not all elements of my request were
approved at the school district level (e.g., machine recording). I appealed the
denial to use machine recording with no success (see Appendix D). This denial
did not hurt the study, but was an inconvenience and a source of apprehension at
the beginning of note-taking. I was afraid that my writing would stifle GGI
participants more than a recorder which I believed they would easily forget after

a few days.

Reasons for Focusing on GGI
After attaining access into Howard Junior High School, I focused on GGI.

The first two sessions I observed on the first day of my on-site visit showed me

I58

that GGI was interesting and intriguing. In group I a teenaged girl was helped to
explore bitter feelings about the father she never knew or heard from. Plausible
reasons that could prevent her father from contacting her were explored. The
some impressive exploration of feelings and weighing of facts was done in group
II with a girl who was tormented by the guilt feelings she suffered when her
grandmother intentionally or unintentionally condemned abortions in her
presence when the girl had been through one only a few months earlier.

My background in counseling informed me that the sessions I observed were
group counseling. After the first two sessions, I asked Mr. Smith the criteria he
used in selecting girls for GGI. To my surprise, he told me they were not
selected because they had more problems than average students. I inquired
about the title "special needs counselor" that my referent said he was called. He
explained the title did not mean he was working with emotionally or socially

impaired students. He gave me a handbook explaining GGI.

My Experience in the Groups

On my first day on site, I suffered a cultural and/or generational shock.
coming from a culture where students wear compulsory uniforms in high school,
seeing colorfully dressed students with bright make up and long, multiple
dangling earrings was difficult to assimilate. The college-aged population I had
met in the three previous years in the USA had not overdressed or used as much
makeup as these high school students.

With time, I looked at their colorfulness with quiet anusement and
fascination. I also learned their language. For example, they used words like
"bold," "gross," "bitch," "whore," etc.--the most hackneyed--with a slight
different sense than the standard. It is my conviction that I could not have

collected data for this study within the first three months I was at the site

I59

because that was a time for learning and socialization for me. Other than drug-
related problems, some of the problems these teenagers discussed were the same
ones that teenagers are wrestling with today in urban areas of South Africa.

When I first visited the group, I was concerned that girls in GGI might
regard me as an intruder. l becane comfortable when they missed me during my
absences. This gave me a sense of belonging and obligation to inform Mr. Smith
every time I was going to be absent. The groups made me feel I were part of
them. At the beginning of my visits, they invited my contributions during
discussions, which I was not at liberty to make. My intention was to be
unobtrusive. The quarrel between Karen and Emily cited in the text indicates
that I could not be completely unobtrusive.

My Relationship with People
at the Research Site

Without the warm and accepting attitudes with which the group leader, the
principal, and assistant principals received me, I could never have requested to
lengthen my stay after the fall term, and this study would never have been
conducted. Counselors, teachers, and other adults working in the building were
as warm as were the administrators and the group leader. I was privileged to
share the lunchroom facilities with staff during the fall term and first part of
winter term. I interacted with the majority of staff and received personal
invitations from some. I developed a close personal relationship with Ms.
Colbert and Ms. Torres. Ms. Colbert substituted for Mr. Smith most of the
time.

In November of I984, when I had been at the cite for approximately a
month and a half, the principal invited me to discuss the organization of the
school. This was one of the most informative experiences as it gave me a global

view of the school and its philosophy and a chance to informally interview the

I60

principal about the position of GGI in the organization. Toward the end of the
study, in May of I985, one of the assistant principals extended a similar
invitation which was as informative as the principal's had been.

Mr. Smith's willingness to explain every question I had after every session
was exceptionally helpful. As we rearranged chairs in the room after group II
participants left the room, we commented about what individuals said or did. It
was an advantage to observe a person with Mr. Smith's experience with GGI. He
informed me he had used the GGI group modality for a number of years in
correctional schools before he was recruited to work full-time in the GGI
program in this school district. He was a consultant on GGI modality and was
invited to two out-of—state school districts for consultation about GGI while I
was at the site. He was not a conventionally trained counselor, but had a
licensed private, part-time counseling business. His experience probably made
him less defensive about things insecure people would have been defensive about.
He did not try to make me believe everything was perfect in GGI.

As Appendix G bears witness, I found GGI girls friendly, and this alloyed
the fear of intrusion I suffered when I first visited GGI groups. They regarded
me as a legitimate member of the groups. They included me in the
extracurricular activities they planned (e.g., slumber parties), although none of
the out-of-school activities materialized. My interaction with them in the lunch
room facilitated an open relationship between most of the GGI girls and me.
During the spring term, when my visits to the site were not on a daily basis, the
girls volunteered updates of what had happened during the days I was absent.
Most typically, they told me about events of tense sessions. Comments like,
"Hey, you missed good stuff for your notes yesterday," made me suspect they
believed what was newsworthy and interesting for the "book" was such moments.

They were keen to help me write the "book" I was writing about GGI, and they

l6l

wanted to see their nanes appearing in my book. That their names would not

appear in it because of confidentiality was disappointing to them.

Problems with the Methodology .

Probably, because of the good relationship I established with the people at
my research site, I had no research-site related problems. The problems I had
were with processing my observations into a research study. I unintentionally
violated almost all the conventional sequence of beginning a research. I could
not start with an approved research proposal because of the emergent nature of
this methodology, nor was I able to get the approval of the Human Subjects
Committee of the University before beginning the study. I felt deviant and
awkward in instances where I had to explain my apparent non-conventional style.
Regrettably, the Human Subjects Committee refused to review the methods I
used to protect my subjects from social and/or psychological harm because of
the timing—asking them to review the adequacy of the methods used after data
had been collected. I considered the denial unfair and irrational because if any
harm were to be done by the study, it could not be done before the study was
published. At the time I sought the review, the Committee had a chance to
prevent inadvertent danage from happening.

This does not imply that I collected data without supervision. I was under
the directive of my instructors in the research methods series. They knew my
intentions and provided relevant guidance with matters concerning ethnicality
and appropriateness of methods I used. Later, one of my instructors in that
series became the director of this study.

Other than the problems of processing the official approval of the study, I
found ethnography taxing in terms of time and effort. Collecting data alone

took me the whole academic year. The methodology demanded extensive writing

I62

and reading. The need to establish validity of observations demanded time and
special effort, especially because ethnography is much more likely to be accused
of bias. Because I was trained in qualitative and quantitative research methods,
I was much more aware of the bias charge. The training in qualitative research
methods equipped me with the methods of controlling bias—triagulation of

evidence, search for discrepant cases, and self analysis.

Benefits Accrued

The methodology I chose granted me an exceptional, hands-on learning
experience. As Agar (I980) put it, "Ethnography, whatever else it is, is an
experientially rich social experience" (p. 3). No other method of learning could
have enabled me to understand the functioning of GGI in this setting, and the
GGI model more than field research. The dialectical analysis the method
demanded during data collection enabled me to question some acceptable
assumptions and ways of doing things that go unquestioned and to be sensitive to
contradictions embedded in some of them.

The importance of this experience to my professional development and
desire to assist the development of guidance programs in South Africa cannot be
overemphasized. As indicated before, I incidentally landed into a program that
sought to achieve the same goals the guidance teacher program for Black school
in South Africa intended to.

Would I introduce GGI in South Africa were I to be given a chance? Yes, I
would, but not for the reasons GGI was introduced here. Instead, I would
introduce it for personal and emotional growth and/or support. Impressions l
have about the aims of programs like GGI and the guidance program for Black
schools in South Africa are cynical. I believe they are programs which avoid real
issues-or causes or problems. Perhaps that may be the "dangerous truth,"

especially for the South African context, I learned from observing GGI.

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

I405 G Spartan Village
East Lansing, MI 48823
June 5, I985

GGI Girls

Howard Junior High School
33l Bridge Street
Edenvale, Ml 40336

Hi, Girls,

I want to thank you for the kindness you have extended toward me by allowing
me to share your world as young people. When I first cane in to attend GGI
meetings last fall, I was afra‘d that you would never accept me. I was wrong.
You have always been very warm and accepting, and that I greatly appreciate.

I will have the report ready on my study in about four-five months. As I
promised your parents and school authorities, I will protect your privacy. I will
not have anyone's real name in the report. If you are interested in the report,
you can get a copy from Mr. Smith.

Enjoy your new high school experience. I will miss you. I have grown attached
to you.

I love you all.

Yours thankfully,

€97.42:

Nana Makaula

I63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agar, M. H. (I980). The professional stranger: An introduction to ethnography.
New York: Academic Press.

Alschuler, A. 5. (I980). School discipline: A socially literate solution. San
Francisco: McGraw-Hill.

Aubrey, R. F. (I985). A counseling perspective on recent educational reform
reports. The School Counselor, _3_3_, 9l-99.

 

Bogdan, R. C., & Bidlen, D. (I982). Qualitative research: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston: Allyn 8. Bacon.

 

Chamberlain, L. J., & Carnot, J. B. (Eds.). (I974). Improving school discipline.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Cultice, W. W. (I969). Positive discipline for a more productive educational
climate. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Curwin, R. L., & Mendler, A. N. (I980). The discipline book: A complete guide
to school and classroom management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Reston.

Cusick, P. A. (I983). Egalitarian ideal and American high school: Studies of
three schools. New ork: Longman.

 

D'Andrea, V., & Solovey, P. (I983). Peer counseling: Skills and perSpectives.
Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.

 

Dinkmeyer, D. (I975). The counselor as a consultant: The rationale and
procedures. In J. Carlson, H. Splete, & R. Kern (Eds.), The consulting
process. Washington, DC: APGA Reprint Series.

Duke, D. L., & Meckel, A. M. (I980). Mana in student behavior problems. New
York: Teachers'College, Columbia nlversity.

Feitler, F. C. (I982). Violence in the schools: Time to improve the record. In B.
D. Johnson (Ed.), Dealig with social problems in the classroom, pp. 79-9l.
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Feldhusen, J. (I979). Problems of student behavior in secondary schools. In D.
L. Duke (Ed.), Classroom management: The sevent -ei hth yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education, pp. ZII-244, Part II. Chicago:
University of ChicagoPress.

I64

I65

First, J. M. (I9800). Causes. In J. M. First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.), Everybody's
business: A book about school discipline, pp. lI-I4. Columbia: Southern
PubficEducation Program.

First, J. M. (I980b). Some interventions. In J. M. First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.),
Everybody's business: A book about school discipline, pp. 59-93. Columbia:
Southern Public Educafion Program.

 

First, J. M., 8 Mizell, M. H. (Eds.). (I980). Everybody's business: A book about
school discipline. Columbia: Southern Public Education Program.

 

 

Fisher, D. (l98l). Communication in organizations. Minnesota: West Publishing.

 

Fullmer, D. N., 8 Bernard, H. W. (I972). The school counselor-consultant. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.

Furtwengler, W. J., 8 Konnert, W. (I982). Improving school discipline: An
administrator'sflde. Boston: Allyn 8Bacon.

Gallup, A. M. (I985). The I7th annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward
public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 35-47.

Goetz, J. P., 8 LeCompte, D. L. (I984). Ethnogggahy and qualitative design in
educational research. New York: Academic Press.

 

Gold, M. (I974). Time for skepticism. Crime and Delinquency, .2_0, 20-24.

Gold, M., 8 Mann, D. W. (I984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of
effective alternative schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Gold, M., 8 Petronio, R. J. (I980). Delinquent behavior in adolescents. In J.
Adelson (Ed.), A handbook of adolescents, pp. 495-53l. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons.

Gold, R. L. (I969). Roles in sociological field observations. In G. J. McCall 8 J.
L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant observation: A text and reader, pp.
30-45. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goldstein, A. P., Apter, S. J., 8 Harootunian, B. (I984). School violence.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Gordon, R. L. (I980). Interviewing: StrategiesJ techniques, and tactics.
Homewood, IL: The DorseyPress.

Hawkins, R. B., Jr. (I985). A strategy for revitalizing public education. In J. H.
Bunzel (Ed.), Challenge to American schools: The case for standards and
values, pp. 29-46. New York: Longman.

Herriott, R. E., 8 Gross, N. (Eds.). (I979). The dynamics of planned educational
change: Case studies analyses. Berkeléy, CA: McCutchan.

Hurley, L. (I982). Crusade for the '805: Is alternative education the best
response to student disruption? NASSP, 66, 58-64.

I65

First, J. M. (l9800). Causes. In J. M. First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.), Everybody's
business: A book about school discipline, pp. II-l4. Columbia: Southern
Pubfic Education Program.

First, J. M. (I980b). Some interventions. In J. M. First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.),
Everybody's business: A book about school discipline, pp. 59-93. Columbia:
Southern Public Education Program.

 

First, J. M., 8 Mizell, M. H. (Eds.). (I980). Evegybody's business: A book about
school discipline. Columbia: Southern PUblic Education Program.

Fisher, D. (I98I). Communication in organizations. Minnesota: West Publishing.

 

Fullmer, D. N., 8 Bernard, H. W. (I972). The school counselor-consultant. New
York: Houghton Mifflin.

Furtwengler, W. J., 8 Konnert, W. (I982). Improving school discipline: An
administrator'sguide. Boston: Allyn 8Bacon.

Gallup, A. M. (I985). The I7th annual Gallup poll of the public's attitudes toward
public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 35-47.

Goetz, J. P., 8 LeCompte, D. L. (I984). Ethngraphy and qualitative dtflgn in
educational research. New York: Academic Press.

 

Gold, M. (I974). Time for skepticism. Crime and Delinguency, Q, 20-24.

 

Gold, M., 8 Mann, D. W. (I984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of
effective alternative schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

 

Gold, M., 8 Petronio, R. J. (I980). Delinquent behavior in adolescents. In J.
Adelson (Ed.), A handbook of adolescents, pp. 495-53l. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons.

Gold, R. L. (I969). Roles in sociological field observations. In G. J. McCall 8 J.
L. Simmons (Eds.), Issues in participant observation: A text and reader, pp.
30-45. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Goldstein, A. P., Apter, S. J., 8 Harootunian, B. (I984). School violence.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Gordon, R. L. (I980). Interviewing: Strategies, techniques, and tactics.
Homewood, IL: The DorseyPress.

Hawkins, R. B., Jr. (I985). A strategy for revitalizing public education. In J. H.
Bunzel (Ed.), Challenge to American schools: The case for standards and
values, pp. 29-46. New York: Longman.

Herriott, R. E., 8 Gross, N. (Eds.). (I979). The dynamics of planned educational
change: Case studies analyses. Berkeleiy, CA: McCutchan.

 

Hurley, L. (I982). Crusade for the '805: Is alternative education the best
response to student disruption? NASSP, _6_6_, 58-64.

I66

Ives, E. D. (I974). The tape-recorded interview: A manual for field workers in
folklore and orarhistorj. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee.

 

Joyce, B. R., Hersh, R. H., 8 McKibbin, M. (I983). The structure of school
improvement. New York: Longman.

 

Koff, R. H. (I979). The toughest game in town. NASSP, 63, 8-l8.

Lehming, R., 8 Kane, M. (Eds.). (l98l). Improving schools using what we know,
Beverly Hills: Sage.

 

Mahon, J. P. (I979). Beyond judicial intervention: Student discipline and the
courts. NASSP, p}, 68-73.

Marvin, M., McCann, R., Connolly, J., Temkin, S., 8 Henning, P. (Eds.). (I976).
Planning programs to reduce school violence and disruption, research for
better schools. Washington, DC: US. Department of Justice.

Mayer, R., 8 Butterworth, T. W. 0980. Evaluating a preventative approach to
reducing school vandalism, Phi Delta Kappan, I98I, 498-499.

McCall, G. J., 8 Simmons, J. L. (Eds.). (I969). Issues in participant observation:
A text and reader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

McCorkle, L. W. (I952). Group therapy in the treatment of offenders. Federal
Probation, _l_6_, 22-27.

McCorkle, L. W., Elias, A., 8 Bixby, F. L. (I958). The highfields story: An
e_xperimental treatment project for youth offenders. New York: Henry
Holt.

 

McDonnel, L. M., 8 McLaughlin, M. W. (I980). Program consolidation and the
state role in ESEA Title IV. Prepared for the U. S. Office of Education,
Department of FleaTth, Education and Welfare. R-253I-HEW. Santa
Monica: Rand.

 

Mehan, H. (I975). The reality of ethnomethodology. New York: John Wiley 8
Sons.

Miles, M. B. (Ed.). (I964). Innovations in education. New York: Bureau of
Publications, Teacher's College, Columbia University.

Mizell, M. H. (l980a). The design/implementation of alternatives. In J. M.
First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.), Everybody's business: A book about school
discipline. Columbia: Southern Public Education Program.

Mizell, M. H (I980b). Introduction. In J. M. First 8 M. H. Mizell (Eds.),
Everybody's business: A book about scth discipline, pp. xv-xviii.
Columbia: Southern Public Education Program.

Morgan, C. A. (I984). A curricular approach to primary prevention. 1'2
Personnel and Guidance Journal, 467-469.

I67

Morgan, S. R. (I985). Children in crisis: A team approach to schools. San
Diego: College-Hill.

Morrish, I. (I976). Aggcts of educational Chang. New York: John Wiley 8
Sons.

Myrick, R. R., 8 Dixon, R. W. (I985). Changing student attitudes and behavior
through group counseling. The School Counselor, 3;, 325-330.

Nicholson, G., Stephens, R., Elder, R., 8 Leavitt, V. (I985). Safe schools: You
can't do it alone. Phi Delta Kappag, 49l-496.

Overman, W. (I979). Effective communication: The key to student
management, NASSP, _6_3, 34-39.

Peer, G. G. (I985). The status of secondary school guidance: A national survey.
The School Counselor, 3}, I8l-l89.

 

Petrock, F. (I976). Guided group interaction in public schools: Managing

student behavior throu h eer roup advocacy. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, UniversTty of Michigan.

Rich, J. M. (I982). Discipline and authority in school and fanily.
Massachusetts: Lexington.

Rich, J. M. (l98l). School violence: four theories explain why it hmpens.
NASSP, §_5, 46-49.

Rogers, E. M. (I983). Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York: The Free
Press.

 

Sarason, S. B. (I97l). The culture of the school and the problem of change.
Boston: Allyn 8 Bacon.

Schatzman, L., 8 Strauss, A. L. (I973). field research: Strategies for a natural
sociolgz. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

School outh advocac : An im Iementation handbook. Michigan Department of
Social Services, ESEA I itIe IV-C, DSS Publication No. 308 (9-76).

Smith, L. M., 8 Keith, P. M. (I97l). Anatomy of educational innovation: An
prganization analysis of an elementary school. New York: John Wiley 8
on

Spindler, G. (Ed.). (I982). Doing the ethnography of schoolini Educational
anthropology in action. New York: Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.

Sweat, C. H., Durflinger, L., 8 Pate, E. C. (Eds.). (I976). Discipline in the
Enior high/middle school: I976 study report of the junior high school
association of Illinois. Daneville, IL: Interstate Printers 8 Publishers.

Unger, K. V., Douds, A., 8 Pierce, R. M. (I979). A behavior curriculum: Skills
training can reduce problems. NASSP, _6_3, 72-76.

I68

Violent schools--safe schools: The safe school study report to the Congress, Vol.
I. (I978). Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.

Vorrath, H. H., 8 Brendtro, L. K. (I974). Positive peer culture. Chicago:
Aldine.

 

Wayson, W. W. (I985). The politics of violence in school: Doublespeak and
disruptions in public confidence. Phi Delta Kgpan, I27-l32.

 

Wells, C. E., 8 Ritter, K. Y. (I985). School counseling and research obstacles
Opposing change agents. The School Counselor, 3_3, llI-ll9.

Wilcox, K. (I982). Ethnography as a method and its application to the study of
schooling: A review. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doin the ethno ra h of
schooling: Educational anthropology in action, pp. 436-488. New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston.

Wirst, F. M., 8 Kirst, M. W. (I982). The politics of education. Schools in
conflict. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

Wold, D. C., 8 Windsor, R. E. (I98I). A discipline approach: Student
management through incentives: Positive reinforcement. NASSP, Q, 46-
49.

Wrenn, C. G. (I962). The school counselor in a changing world. Washington, DC:
APGA.

Wright, J. (I979). A participatory model: Students can be effective change
agents. NASSP, £3, 44-46.

Zaltman, G., Florio, D., 8 Sikorski, L. (I977). Dynamics of educational changg:
Models, strategies, tactics, and management. New York: TheFree Press.

Zimmerman, J., 8 Archibald, L. A. (I979). On-campus suspensions: What it is
and why it works. NASSP, 63, 63-67.

I'IIC GRN STRTE U

llllllllllllllllllllllES