|
Post by Arch on Aug 5, 2008 0:31:49 GMT -5
Most importantly, I hope the child can get the assistance he needs to help him assimilate himself into a school setting without violent behavior. It's hard to comment on this further without knowing more information. That's what unfortunately can start to happen when the two sides go at each other. The kid in the middle loses out big time. They all need to work together to find a solution for the child and every other child around even if that means trying something new.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 5, 2008 8:10:46 GMT -5
Have you considered whether the "consequences" are enough of a deterrent? I, as most parents of young kids, are forced with trying to come up with a consequence that is not too penal but hopefully stops the bad behavior. If I threaten to send my kid to his room, he may actually like that outcome. Conversely, I could escalate the potential punishment up to cruel levels. And one child's threshold is likely different than even his or her siblings. My wife and her sister are completely different as far as their personalities and maturity levels. Do I chalk it up to some physical, chemical, or hormonal difference? Perhaps I allow that to be a partial explanation...but I also don't dismiss the possibility that her parents parented the two kids differently. We often hear that the older kid gets more attention, love, etc. Or that the middle kid gets forgotten. I see it with my kids. There is a natural tendency to not spend as much time reading to each successive child, and I need to always be extra careful to try to split my time with each kid fairly. Then there are issues of daycare vs. traditional home parenting, single-parent households, etc. This requires the child to be able to do the IF/THEN correlation. Some kids can not do that or it takes a Rubik's Cube attempt to create the connection in their mind which takes time and trial and error. Without the connection, each negative reinforcement can be a silent clueless question they ask themselves like "Why does mommy hit me?" which does wonders for their self-esteem. After a while, they answer for themselves "I'm just bad" (in general) which again, does wonders for their self-esteem. I have to disagree here...if a child (or adult) cannot make the connection between bad behavior and the negative reinforcement or punishment, that person has a severe mental illness that is preventing simple comprehension. (This assumes the person is not a baby and therefore not at the stage of being able to discern.) My opinion is that the vast majority of the problem children ARE aware that they have behaved badly but either just don't care or have some other compulsion that prevents them from acting in a way that would avoid the punishment. If a child truly is mentally incapable of making the connection between right and wrong (isn't that one of the criteria used in the insanity defense?), he needs to be removed from school.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 5, 2008 12:55:25 GMT -5
This requires the child to be able to do the IF/THEN correlation. Some kids can not do that or it takes a Rubik's Cube attempt to create the connection in their mind which takes time and trial and error. Without the connection, each negative reinforcement can be a silent clueless question they ask themselves like "Why does mommy hit me?" which does wonders for their self-esteem. After a while, they answer for themselves "I'm just bad" (in general) which again, does wonders for their self-esteem. I have to disagree here...if a child (or adult) cannot make the connection between bad behavior and the negative reinforcement or punishment, that person has a severe mental illness that is preventing simple comprehension. (This assumes the person is not a baby and therefore not at the stage of being able to discern.) My opinion is that the vast majority of the problem children ARE aware that they have behaved badly but either just don't care or have some other compulsion that prevents them from acting in a way that would avoid the punishment. If a child truly is mentally incapable of making the connection between right and wrong (isn't that one of the criteria used in the insanity defense?), he needs to be removed from school. There are plenty of kids who can not make the connection yet are completely benign due to their timid nature. I believe the consequences thing was specifically about someone's own child on this thread and not the child in the classroom since we really don't know that individual. Many neuro-typicals adopt the belief that if a child appears to not make the connection that they are purposely being defiant. Nothing can be further from the truth in a lot of cases. It's unfortunately an easy assumption to make because to the neuro-typical it's hard to see how the connection can't be there in the first place. This assumptions tend to lead to improper ways to bring about conformity and unfortunately it tends to involve a lot of anger and frustration (on both sides, adult and child) as well as physical contact in not respectful or nice ways which only makes the problem worse; not better. Good behavior can be learned and it can be taught without these things but it requires the adults in the picture to understand the variables that might be in play so they can adopt a more nurturing angle to approach it because it gets far better results than the other ways. Too many times at Hill when I was shadowing my son this past year I would witness a couple of aides get very confrontational and disrespectful to some of the students and things would start to escalate as a result... a purposeful distracting engagement in conversation on my part with the child (who I've known since kindergarten) would derail the escalation process before it got too far out of hand and bring thing child back into a better frame of mind and he was able to refocus and do what was needed. Most of the time the problem was simply the demeaning 'hounding' by the aide who lost their patience and kept trying to 'escalate the consequences' in the frame of mind I mentioned before regarding tunnel vision and the "HOW DARE YOU DEFY ME?!?!?!?!" attitude many adults unfortunately take. As a result, a shutdown in the student usually takes place which further looks to the neuro-typical adult that they are OBVIOUSLY being purposefully defiant without even understanding the coping mechanism that is 'shutting down' or how beneficial it can be to take that time to calm themselves down. This is specifically why I requested for specific individuals to have 0 contact with my son and we are striving and working towards complete independence in school because he himself doesn't want to be around people like that or be treated like that. I've brought this up over and over and I think that while many in D204 are well intentioned to help the kids they are completely clueless on how to actually go about it and their training is severely lacking in the better ways that work, IMO. They focus on what to do AFTER a problem happens and tend to ignore or are simply ignorant (due to lack of good training) on how to PREVENT them in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 5, 2008 15:25:01 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining that. One question -- let's say the teacher or aide is trained on and implements the non-engagement method. Do other kids pick up on the fact that this one student is "getting away" with misbehaving (for better long-term results) and does that present a problem of its own in trying to enforce discipline with the rest of the students?
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 5, 2008 15:38:11 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining that. One question -- let's say the teacher or aide is trained on and implements the non-engagement method. Do other kids pick up on the fact that this one student is "getting away" with misbehaving (for better long-term results) and does that present a problem of its own in trying to enforce discipline with the rest of the students? One can invite the kid out of the classroom to go somewhere away from everyone else (where it's also quieter and without the peer embarrassment) to talk about it or have a sensory break... If it's time to put the book away, have them bring it with and work on the separation out and away where it can go at its own pace. Most of the time you don't even need to do that if the original approaches involve pre-indicators when a transition is going to happen "Bobby.. in 5 minutes we are going to have to start putting things away because we're going to be getting out our science books... I'll let you know when there's 2 minutes left too" (as an example) and then stay engaged in an encouraging manner to prompt them along to do it themselves as much as they can.. instead of just: "ok, stop what you're doing and put this away now and get out your science books" which can lead to the abrupt change/anxiety outbursts of "NO!" etc.. because the change was abrupt and their coping skills might not be where it would be desirable to have them yet. How is that 'getting away with it'? You can get the same results easier and with less trouble by changing HOW it's done. I'm curious why a lot of your posts (from my perception) on this topic have a 'punitive' undertone to them which indicates to me what I've been speaking about and that is the focus AFTER things go out of control. My focus is on preventing that from the onset by strategic and sincere engagement to loop in the child so they know what's coming up and to listen to the child for feedback and when they verbalize about things to take the time to listen instead of railroading over them which almost always just makes things worse.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 5, 2008 20:41:48 GMT -5
Great explanations, Arch. This is what we try to do and try to communicate with our son's teachers as well. It's often difficult to explain it to others, but you did a nice job of it.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 5, 2008 21:41:11 GMT -5
Thanks for explaining that. One question -- let's say the teacher or aide is trained on and implements the non-engagement method. Do other kids pick up on the fact that this one student is "getting away" with misbehaving (for better long-term results) and does that present a problem of its own in trying to enforce discipline with the rest of the students? One can invite the kid out of the classroom to go somewhere away from everyone else (where it's also quieter and without the peer embarrassment) to talk about it or have a sensory break... If it's time to put the book away, have them bring it with and work on the separation out and away where it can go at its own pace. Most of the time you don't even need to do that if the original approaches involve pre-indicators when a transition is going to happen "Bobby.. in 5 minutes we are going to have to start putting things away because we're going to be getting out our science books... I'll let you know when there's 2 minutes left too" (as an example) and then stay engaged in an encouraging manner to prompt them along to do it themselves as much as they can.. instead of just: "ok, stop what you're doing and put this away now and get out your science books" which can lead to the abrupt change/anxiety outbursts of "NO!" etc.. because the change was abrupt and their coping skills might not be where it would be desirable to have them yet. How is that 'getting away with it'? You can get the same results easier and with less trouble by changing HOW it's done. I'm curious why a lot of your posts (from my perception) on this topic have a 'punitive' undertone to them which indicates to me what I've been speaking about and that is the focus AFTER things go out of control. My focus is on preventing that from the onset by strategic and sincere engagement to loop in the child so they know what's coming up and to listen to the child for feedback and when they verbalize about things to take the time to listen instead of railroading over them which almost always just makes things worse. Let me make sure I am straight on your example. In a classroom of 20 kids, the teacher says to all, "Okay, stop what you're doing and take out your science books." One kid, Bobby, can't accept this directive and shouts NO! A confrontation ensues, and both parties become agitated and frustrated...or worse. Alternatively, the teacher mentions to Bobby (in front of the others) that science is starting in 5 minutes, so "let's start to get ready." That advance warning prepares him for the change and he doesn't lash out. Assuming I've got it right, here are some questions: 1. What exactly is it about the teacher's request that would cause Bobby to shout "NO!"? It seems like such a simple thing...and if I'm a teacher, I would have a hard time continually wondering whether such requests were going to set someone off. I am just trying to get my head around the concept that this event would require "coping." 2. At some point Bobby is going to know that he is being treated differently than the others. Wouldn't that add to his anxieties? 3. Won't other kids, picking up on the different treatment, begin mocking Bobby, adding to his troubles? 4. Is part of the plan to not always give the verbal "advance notice" to Bobby but to other kids at random (so Bobby doesn't feel singled out)? If so, does Bobby respond well to these "indirect" warnings or does he ignore them?
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 5, 2008 22:14:58 GMT -5
Assuming I've got it right, here are some questions: 1. What exactly is it about the teacher's request that would cause Bobby to shout "NO!"? It seems like such a simple thing...and if I'm a teacher, I would have a hard time continually wondering whether such requests were going to set someone off. I am just trying to get my head around the concept that this event would require "coping." 2. At some point Bobby is going to know that he is being treated differently than the others. Wouldn't that add to his anxieties? 3. Won't other kids, picking up on the different treatment, begin mocking Bobby, adding to his troubles? 4. Is part of the plan to not always give the verbal "advance notice" to Bobby but to other kids at random (so Bobby doesn't feel singled out)? If so, does Bobby respond well to these "indirect" warnings or does he ignore them? I should probably let Arch explain this as he has been doing a much better job of it, but here's my take: 1. We often don't know what sets Bobby off, but for this particular example , it's the transitioning. You and I usually have no trouble transitioning from one activity to the next and that is what makes it so difficult to understand. 2. This is always a possibility, but if the teacher said "Class, in 5 min. we will be doing xxx", then she wouldn't be singling anyone out. It's actually a good thing for all the kids. 3. Again, certainly a possiblity. But they will mock him even more if he has a tantrum in the middle of the classroom for what they perceive as "no reason". Many of the schools try to educate the other kids in the classroom on the different ways people think/react. If they focus on a "different" style of learning as opposed to "good/bad" way of learning, most kids can be accepting of those differences. But there will always be kids who are cruel and will mock. 4. the answer to #2 applies here as well. Also, it usually is "part of the plan" ( literally in the child's Individual Education Plan) to get him to conform to the teacher requests. For example, Bobby's IEP might read "complete a task with no verbal prompts 4 out of 5 times". Before that, it might read "complete a task with verbal reminders 4/5 times" or something in between. This goal will be written in the IEP in such a way that there is improvement by year's end. Hope that helps somewhat. It's a balancing act for the kids, teachers and parents. It's probably the most difficult part for us.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Aug 5, 2008 23:53:55 GMT -5
EB204, Good explanations for 1-4, IMO.
Let me specifically expand on #1 because it sounds like there's a bit of a gap in what I said and how it was spit back out and I'll take full responsibility for that gap... Usually at the root of 'transitioning problems' is 'lack of predictability' to the child. If the child has the 'heads up' they can then 'predict' that there will be a change before it actually happens. I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding of this part of the mental process and many assume that 'predictability' means that things have to remain constant; ie: no change. I can tell you from personal experience that if you make the child feel PART OF THE CHANGE INITIATION it goes much much better than you might imagine. This is why I said: "Bobby.. in 5 minutes we are going to have to start putting things away because we're going to be getting out our science books... I'll let you know when there's 2 minutes left too" (as an example) and then stay engaged in an encouraging manner to prompt them along to do it themselves as much as they can.. This way they feel it is THEM bringing about the change (with some strategic prompting in the right directions and encouragement that it's a 'good thing' to do and will be 'worthwhile' for the child to be a part of). When the child feels that they had a part in the movement from one thing to the next they are often EAGER for it instead of RESISTANT to it. Does it take extra effort and is it the 'longer road'? Hell yes it is, but the results are miraculously different. And the beauty of it is this works great for neuro-typical kids too so there really doesn't have to be any singling out by name... a teacher can just as easily say 'Class....' instead of 'Bobby....' and it's worth taking the couple of extra minutes to ensure that everyone makes the transition when necessary without having to make a scene w/ negative reinforcement which will often happen with the abrupt clinical cold methodologies that I've seen used.
As for the mocking; I'm not sure what goes on in other schools but there were some excellent people at Watts when we were there that really did an incredible job in the early years helping the other kids understand that sometimes classmates need positive encouragement and some patience because some things might take them longer than everyone else and that everyone regardless of abilities were worthy of respect. That was something that was reinforced each year and there was a great 'big brother / big sister' atmosphere that developed with the kids and classmates to be positive encouragers and they even would 'look out for' the kids if some peers started to approach the lines of disrespect. Even now in middle school, those classmates hold those lessons close and practice them when situations arise with other students who did not go to the same school. During one shadow day I recall a boy who I've known since K who's been in many classes with my son throughout the years and who's sisters also are in girl scouts with my daughters pop another kid on the shoulder with a "Hey, don't say that.. it's disrespectful" when another kid wanted to start some razzing. I was so proud of that kid because it didn't matter who he was sticking up for; he was DOING THE RIGHT THING and I attribute that to the work at the elementary school level that the staff took the time to encourage and reinforce early on.
I know I've been a bit harsh with some opinions on some of the staff at both Watts and Hill with regards to how they treat kids but I'll also point out there are some incredibly wonderful people on staff in both locations that 'get it' and 'get it' VERY WELL. I have nothing but he utmost respect for them and wish that the higher ups in the district would use them as models for others to follow because the progress they make and the results they get are simply awesome and amazing.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Aug 6, 2008 7:00:41 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/opinions/openline/1092945,2_4_AU06_OPENLINE_S1.article Openline/Beacon NewsAugust 6, 2008 Complaints Stand up for students It's about time someone sues the Indian Prairie School District for dereliction of duty ("Teacher sues school over attack by student," News, Aug. 1). The only problem is that the suit does not include the parents of the underage fourth-grader. When are school districts going to get the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what is right for the majority of students? I, for one, am tired of school districts sacrificing learning environments and fear that a minority group might have their feelings hurt. Brian Jones, Oswego
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Aug 6, 2008 7:15:09 GMT -5
Here goes the pendulum, swinging too far in the wrong direction. There is a reason there are privacy laws related to these issues. By making this a public issue, which it is now as the result of this lawsuit (no judgement there, just stating a fact), we will get the unending stream of comments that we should return to the good old days. Yeah right.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Aug 6, 2008 10:30:14 GMT -5
Here goes the pendulum, swinging too far in the wrong direction. There is a reason there are privacy laws related to these issues. By making this a public issue, which it is now as the result of this lawsuit (no judgement there, just stating a fact), we will get the unending stream of comments that we should return to the good old days. Yeah right. Agreed. Again, I feel badly for this family. I'm sure they get enough comments and ugly looks from unwanted sources (grocery stores, movies, etc.) and then to have to deal with comments such as this. Thank goodness for those privacy laws, or this family would be overwhelmed with this kind of judgemental crap from people who think they know their child better than the parents.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 6, 2008 11:04:20 GMT -5
OK I've been mulling this a bit, and am probably not even close...but is it at all possible that the SD actually encouraged the suit, due to some of the restrictive things placed on them. It could be a way for the SD to effect needed change that has not been able to be done thru the normal channels. ie get the child into a different setting (reassignment).
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Aug 6, 2008 11:43:02 GMT -5
Assuming I've got it right, here are some questions: 1. What exactly is it about the teacher's request that would cause Bobby to shout "NO!"? It seems like such a simple thing...and if I'm a teacher, I would have a hard time continually wondering whether such requests were going to set someone off. I am just trying to get my head around the concept that this event would require "coping." 2. At some point Bobby is going to know that he is being treated differently than the others. Wouldn't that add to his anxieties? 3. Won't other kids, picking up on the different treatment, begin mocking Bobby, adding to his troubles? 4. Is part of the plan to not always give the verbal "advance notice" to Bobby but to other kids at random (so Bobby doesn't feel singled out)? If so, does Bobby respond well to these "indirect" warnings or does he ignore them? I should probably let Arch explain this as he has been doing a much better job of it, but here's my take: 1. We often don't know what sets Bobby off, but for this particular example , it's the transitioning. You and I usually have no trouble transitioning from one activity to the next and that is what makes it so difficult to understand. 2. This is always a possibility, but if the teacher said "Class, in 5 min. we will be doing xxx", then she wouldn't be singling anyone out. It's actually a good thing for all the kids. 3. Again, certainly a possiblity. But they will mock him even more if he has a tantrum in the middle of the classroom for what they perceive as "no reason". Many of the schools try to educate the other kids in the classroom on the different ways people think/react. If they focus on a "different" style of learning as opposed to "good/bad" way of learning, most kids can be accepting of those differences. But there will always be kids who are cruel and will mock. 4. the answer to #2 applies here as well. Also, it usually is "part of the plan" ( literally in the child's Individual Education Plan) to get him to conform to the teacher requests. For example, Bobby's IEP might read "complete a task with no verbal prompts 4 out of 5 times". Before that, it might read "complete a task with verbal reminders 4/5 times" or something in between. This goal will be written in the IEP in such a way that there is improvement by year's end. Hope that helps somewhat. It's a balancing act for the kids, teachers and parents. It's probably the most difficult part for us. Thanks to all for the explanations -- I am clearly not aware of these types of issues and had no idea that some kids don't deal well with transitions. As for the SD inviting the lawsuit, I doubt it but it would be nice to have clearer rules regarding the SD's ability to expel a student.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Aug 6, 2008 11:47:37 GMT -5
OK I've been mulling this a bit, and am probably not even close...but is it at all possible that the SD actually encouraged the suit, due to some of the restrictive things placed on them. It could be a way for the SD to effect needed change that has not been able to be done thru the normal channels. ie get the child into a different setting (reassignment). I understand where you are coming from. If the child is prone to violance and working with the parents has not resolved the issue, at what point is the safety of the other children in the classroom taken into account. It sounds like under current laws, unless the parents agree to remove the child from the classroom, the district has no way to remove a child who could easily hurt others in the school. I certainly understand the laws that have been created provide children with special needs a right to the same classroom education all children get in this country. I also understand the need for laws such as these and the law does protect these children. I just wonder what sort of rights or protection are provided to the other 24 kids in the classroom. Tough situation.
|
|