Lost at School (32 page)

      Z
ACH
:
I don’t know. That was a long time ago.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Do you remember how you guys figured out what to do on last year’s project?

      Z
ACH
:
No.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Do you remember Anna doing most of the work?

      Z
ACH
:
Sort of. But that’s because she didn’t like the way I was doing it so she decided to do it herself.

      A
NNA
:
That is so not true. I did most of the work because you wouldn’t do anything.

      Z
ACH
:
Well, that’s not how I remember it.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
It sounds like you both have different recollections about what happened last year and why it didn’t go so well, so maybe we shouldn’t concentrate so much on what happened last year. I don’t know if you would ever agree on that. Maybe we should focus on the concerns that are getting in the way of you working together this year. Anna, your concern is that Zach won’t listen to any of your ideas. And you’re both concerned about Anna having to do all the work. I wonder if there’s a way for you guys to make sure that you have equal input into the design of the project, without Anna having to do all the work in the end. Do you guys have any ideas?

      A
NNA
:
This is so pointless. He won’t listen to my ideas.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Well, I know that’s what you feel happened last
year, but I can’t do anything about last year. We’re trying to focus on this year and on coming up with a solution so that you and Zach have equal input and put in equal work.

      A
NNA
:
Can you sit with us while we’re figuring out what to do? Then you’ll see what I mean.

      Z
ACH
:
Then you’ll see what I mean.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
So, Anna, you’re saying that maybe if I sit in on your discussions I might be able to help you guys have a more equal exchange of ideas?

      A
NNA
:
That’s not really what I meant.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
I know, but I’m thinking that it might not be a bad idea for ensuring the equal exchange of ideas. What do you think?

      Z
ACH
:
I think we can work together.

      A
NNA
:
Fine, sit in on our discussion and help us have equal input.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Only if that works for you guys.

      A
NNA
:
It only works for me if I have to work with him.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
I’m not saying you have to work with him. I’m saying I’d like you to give it a shot so the other kids don’t have to break up their pairs. We can entertain other options if that solution doesn’t work for you.

      A
NNA
:
What other solutions?

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
I don’t know. Whatever we come up with. Can you guys think of any others?

      Z
ACH
:
We could do the project by ourselves, you know, alone. She could do one and I could do one.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Well, that would probably work for you guys, but it wouldn’t work for me. One of the goals of this project was for kids to learn to work together. I think it’s an important skill.

      A
NNA
:
Why don’t we try to work together, with you helping us, and if that doesn’t work we can do our own projects.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
Zach, does that solution work for you?

      Z
ACH
:
Sure, whatever.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
I need to think about whether it works for me. You guys’ll try hard to work together with me helping you?

      A
NNA
:
Yes.

      
Z
ACH
:
Yes.

      M
R.
B
ARTLETT
:
OK, let’s go with it. We’re working on the project again tomorrow. I’ll sit in on your discussion with each other and see if I can help make sure the exchange of ideas is equal and the workload is equal. Let’s see how it goes.

Plan B in Groups

Discussions are a common occurrence in many classrooms, but mostly on topics that have an academic orientation and a right or wrong answer. What does Plan B add to a group discussion? To begin with, three steps. But beyond the three steps, Plan B will help the class focus on issues that are above and beyond academics, learn to listen and take into account one another’s concerns, and recognize that there are no “right” answers, only solutions that are mutually satisfactory.

When doing Plan B with a group, the first goal is to achieve the clearest possible understanding of the concerns and perspectives of each group member related to a given problem. Eventually, kids come to recognize the need to thoroughly clarify one another’s concerns. Naturally, the group needs to stay totally focused on concerns before moving on to solutions. Adults should add their concerns to the mix as well. You may find it useful to record the concerns for later reference.

Once the concerns have been well clarified, the group is on to the next challenge: finding a solution that will address those concerns (the Invitation). As hard as this can be when Plan B involves two individuals, it’s harder, but also productive, when it involves an entire group. When exploring potential solutions, be sure to encourage participation and to gather all the ideas. Record these as well; a list will make it easier to gauge the degree to which each solution addresses the various concerns. Stress the fact that the solutions that will stand the test of time are those that address all the concerns. The definition of an ingenious solution remains the same: It must be realistic and mutually satisfactory.

Group problem-solving is no harder and messier than having problems that never get solved or having problems that “go underground” because there is no mechanism for solving them. It is also one of the
best ways to give kids an incredible, yearlong lesson in true democracy.

You will find that it’s important, early on, for the group to establish some expectations for communicating, listening, and taking turns, and for you to remind the group of those expectations if they aren’t being met. Kids aren’t always great at listening to one another in the first place, and sometimes become less so when they are verbalizing concerns about important problems. But these skills can be taught.

In group Plan B, the teacher is, once again, the facilitator. The teacher helps the group decide what problems to tackle first, keeps the group focused and serious (group members will eventually take on these responsibilities as well), and ensures that the exploration of concerns and solutions is exhaustive. The teacher’s stance in helping the group sort through concerns and solutions is generally one of neutrality. There are no good or bad concerns, no such thing as “competing” concerns, only concerns that need to be addressed. Likewise, there are no right or wrong solutions, only those that are realistic (or not) and mutually satisfactory (or not).

In his book
Beyond Discipline: From Compliance to Community,
Alfie Kohn writes:

It sounds easier than it is, this business of holding class meetings. Sometimes participants can’t agree on a solution. Does that mean we carry the item over to the next meeting—or have we done something sufficiently constructive just by raising the issue and airing our ideas and feelings? Sometimes students don’t participate. Shall we break into pairs to talk, or write down our individual responses, and then come back together to share our new proposals? Or might people be getting something of value from the discussion even when they don’t contribute? Sometimes students snicker unkindly at someone else’s idea, or don’t pay attention, or let a couple of their peers effectively take over a meeting. These are not problems for the teacher to solve alone; they are issues to be folded back into the meeting and dealt with by its members.

Once the kids become accustomed to Plan B, in those (hopefully rare) instances in which Emergency B is necessary, the teacher can often turn for help to what is often the great untapped resource in the
classroom: the kids. The teacher isn’t the Lone Ranger. Everyone has the skills.

If you’re wondering what group Plan B looks like, be sure to read “The Story Continues” section in this chapter.

SPECIAL EDUCATION CLASSROOMS

Thus far, we’ve focused exclusively on general education classrooms, but everything you’ve read in this and the preceding chapters is equally applicable to special education and self-contained classrooms, especially those specifically geared toward kids with behavioral challenges. Such classrooms may serve anywhere from a handful to a dozen challenging kids, depending on the school and school system, and are populated by kids whose needs exceed what can be delivered in general education. Some kids are better served in smaller settings. But many are placed in special education classrooms because no one in general education has the wherewithal to pinpoint and teach their lagging skills and work toward resolving their unsolved problems. Many special education classrooms rely heavily on consequence-based programs that, as you now know, don’t teach skills or solve problems, and may actually exacerbate the kids’ difficulties.

But the task is the same. You’ll need a completed ALSUP for each kid so the who, what, where, when, and why of challenging behavior are well identified and understood. You’ll need to get your priorities squared away so you and each kid know what you’re working on together. You’ll need Plan B to help teach lagging skills and solve problems. And you’ll want to create a classroom culture in which kids are helping each other. If all that sounds like a lot of work, think about how hard you’re probably working right now
without
those ingredients.

Oh, about that reward-and-punishment program. There’s an excellent chance it’s unnecessary. In many of the settings in which the CPS model has been implemented—general and special education schools, inpatient psychiatric units, and residential and juvenile detention facilities—adults came to the awareness that it was the application of the contingency management program that was setting kids off most often and causing many serious challenging behaviors. They recognized
that both adults and kids were far more focused on rewards and punishments than on the skills the kids were supposed to be learning. They learned that providing structure and maintaining order in a classroom has a lot more to do with teaching skills and solving problems than rewards and punishments.

Q & A

Question:
Our school system has been implementing Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS). It seems like there are some similarities between PBS and CPS. Is that true?

Answer:
First, we’d better figure out what you mean by “positive behavior supports.” Because PBS isn’t well-defined in special education law, it can mean different things to different people. For some, PBS means you’re “just trying really hard not to punish kids.” But PBS can also refer to an approach to intervention put forth by George Sugai, Bob Horner, and their colleagues,
²
and yes, there are some similarities, along with some fundamental points of divergence.

The two models are certainly similar in their emphasis on proactive, preventive intervention and in the belief that children with challenging behavior should be treated with the same level of interest and importance as children with academic challenges. However, in assessing the function of a kid’s challenging behavior, PBS is still largely oriented toward the “first pass” definition of function: namely, that the behavior is “working” for a kid by helping him avoid or escape something or by helping the kid get something he wants, such as attention or peer approval. As you know, the CPS model focuses on the “second pass” definition of function in positing that the primary function of challenging behavior is to communicate that a kid is lacking the skills to respond adaptively to specific problems. Thus, while PBS allows for the possibility of lagging skills as an explanation for challenging behavior, it places a strong emphasis on using environmental reinforcers to train replacement behaviors. The CPS model places a strong emphasis on adult-child problem-solving as the primary mechanism for teaching lagging thinking skills and helping kids solve problems.

But perhaps the most striking difference between the two models is that PBS doesn’t involve collaboration between adult and kid; it is an adult-driven model. There is no major emphasis on collaborating with kids to identify their concerns (only a major emphasis on identifying
adult
concerns) and no emphasis on enlisting the kid in coming up with a mutually satisfactory action plan, rather, the
adults
come up with the action plan.

Question:
Response to Intervention and PBS are very strongly oriented toward the use of empirically supported treatments. Do you share this orientation?

Answer:
Studying treatments to ensure their effectiveness and favoring those treatments that are supported by research is very important. But people aren’t robots; even treatments that are empirically supported have high rates of nonresponders. So we can’t take adult intuition and wisdom out of the mix in selecting interventions that are best matched to the needs of individual kids and to those individuals responsible for implementation. Scot Danforth and Terry Jo Smith nicely articulated this perspective in their book,
Engaging Troubling Students
(2005): “Social science (research) provides an important source of knowledge for practitioners … yet (such) research does not stand above other kinds of available knowledge…. It is only one of many useful sources of guidance for teachers attempting to take ethical and practical action.”