Home › Forums › BOARD MEMBERS › Quality Schools › GQS Membership and Endorsement Proposal
- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by Brian Lennon.
- October 1, 2015 at 3:22 am #2355Juan Pablo AljureParticipant
Dear colleagues. Please find attached the proposal from the GQS Committee for your review. Cheers, JP
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.
- October 1, 2015 at 8:38 am #2357Brian LennonKeymaster
Hallelujah!! What a great document! This provides a basic template for the core of GQS training and yet at the same time has built-in flexibility so that each school can work out a training model that suits it. For me it’s a model of how we as WGI should be approaching training.
I love the idea of each school working out its training model in consultation with WGI. I also like the idea of identifying two angles: membership and training. Membership is something that can help school personnel get familiar with the concepts.
I would omit the $2,000 reference. Each country and even area will need to work out the cost depending on local conditions. What might be important here is to specify what percentage of the cost should be sent to WGI as dues. I would keep the renewal amount very low. (Related to this is how we involve our local member organisations and what portion of dues goes to them. This is an issue that needs discussion elsewhere so that all our courses can have a common approach to this.)
I like the idea of the alternative name BUT I would omit the word “international”. Around the world the term “international schools” tends to refer to private schools set up to cater for the children of diplomats and the like. Use of the term “Choice Theory International Schools” would be misleading and even off-putting for some.
You have reduced the 6 Glasser characteristics of a QS to 3. I would like to see mention of all 6 characteristics even if it is within the description of the 3. Otherwise I would be afraid of a dilution of Glasser’s idea of a Quality Project, of his emphasis on grades above B, the teaching of CT to the broad school community and of joy in the school. Joy might be considered as an outcome of a school using CT but I think, knowing schools, that management might need to see that it’s OK to have a bit of joy in the place and not to be surprised by it! 🙂
There is a mention of research for ongoing work but maybe it should be built into the certification. We badly need research on the QS and it would seem to be relatively easy to accumulate from schools.
Another idea you might consider is that of encouraging/requiring a school to pair with an established CT School as a way of improving their learning process, to have a “buddy school”.
We have had a discussion in the past about “declaring as a QS”. I think it comes down to whether we see it as achieving a certain standard or as being fully committed to a process, my preference being for the latter. Use of the term “Choice Theory Schools” has the advantage of skipping the word “quality” which can sound pretentious and implies standards. Maybe we could say that once a core group has reached certification and, on behalf of the school, commit to QS ideas, they then become a Choice Theory School.
I believe that the way this document was created could be a model for other WGI work. The committee consulted with QS experts in different countries and somehow managed to compress lots of ideas into a short summary. Congratulations to the team.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.