In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different.
~ Coco Chanel
Even when all the parameters to support Billy’s learning have been put into place, as described in the previous chapters, Billy may still need a more individualized program. His thinking is so vastly different from Andy’s. Two basic options parents and educators have for Billy are the Individual Education Program (IEP) and the 504 Plan.
Individual Education Program. The IEP is a written document developed to meet the individual needs of an eligible student. In simple terms, it is written on an annual basis in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is federally funded. It is developed by a committee consisting of teachers, school and district administrators, parents/guardians, and anyone else connected to the child whose knowledge of the child will benefit the planning of the IEP. Theoretically, each person on the committee has an equal opportunity to provide input and decision making power within the committee.
In an IEP meeting, the committee looks at the student’s present levels of performance, reviews his records, evaluates data and any other relevant information available, and crafts an appropriate plan. The plan will consist of measurable goals and objectives, accommodations, and modifications. The goal is to “level the playing field” for this student so that he can achieve his potential.
To be eligible for an IEP, the child’s disability must have an educational impact and the child will have had to been evaluated by a professional, either someone with the school system or an independent evaluator. Typical disabilities for a child like Billy that will qualify him for an IEP include having autism, a developmental delay, an emotional disturbance, a specific learning disability, a processing disorder, and/or a speech or language impairment.
504 Plan. In some situations, a child may not meet the more stringent requirements of an IEP but still need special accommodations due to a documented condition that adversely affects his educational progress. In such cases, a 504 plan can be an effective and supportive solution. Like the IEP, the 504 Plan is also written by a committee but the plan is much simpler. Its goal is to provide accommodations, services, and modifications the student needs in order for him to have the same advantages as his classmates. The 504 Plan originated with the compliance Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504, but unlike the IEP, the federal government does not directly fund these accommodations. Compliance and accountability are overseen by the Office of Civil Rights.
Traditionally, individualized programs for students have been exceptionally behaviorally based. These programs have worked to manage a student’s behaviors through consequences, rewards, and time-outs. The following IEP statement reflects this behavioral management framework:
“The teacher will utilize time-outs when misbehavior(s) occur and will reward student with added tokens when appropriate behaviors occur.”
Traditional approaches have also advocated for teachers to use positive reinforcement to promote good behavior. Simultaneously, teachers are encouraged to use planned ignoring responses to avoid reinforcing bad behavior, as well as use immediate consequences to extinguish bad behavior. For example, this statement from an IEP reflects this approach:
“Appropriate, constant, and direct consequences should be given for student’s choices. Good choices should be rewarded and bad choices should have an immediate consequence.”
Attempts at creating motivation have been through external incentives and “things” students can work toward to earn something. Below are two examples:
“At the end of each week, if student has earned 10 stars, he will be eligible to select a toy out of the teacher’s prize box.”
“Teacher and parent will increase rewards for work completion and for positive pro-social behavior(s).”
With these behavior management parameters, the question these programs are striving to answer is the traditional question, “How do I get Billy to change his behavior?” Additionally, these programs are implemented only after the student demonstrates negative behaviors, thus they are inherently reactive instead of proactive. They are working to change a behavior that has already been in existence.
The effectiveness of these IEPs is measured by outcomes based on the student’s behaviors. They are performance-based programs; the process holds little to no weight, and the process oftentimes goes completely unacknowledged—the sole focus is the measurable and quantifiable outcome.
Traditionally, the goals and objectives in these programs are written with an individual focus. The onus is placed almost entirely on the student to modify his behavior, without explicit parameters that the teacher needs to put into place as well.
When considering all the information presented in this book, it becomes clear that the traditional approach will not work for Billy. In fact, it will most likely increase Billy’s negative behaviors. An entirely opposite approach, based on an understanding of how trauma impacts a child’s system, needs to be used when developing individual programs for children like Billy. Table 12.1 compares behavioral thinking (traditional view) with regulatory thinking (new view).
Table 12.1. Comparison of behavioral thinking and regulatory thinking
Billy needs a program that will address the question, “What is driving this child’s behavior?” It needs to be based on addressing his regulation, not his behavior. Relational influence needs to replace rewards and incentives, which will only set him up for failure. Since Billy is living out of a negative belief system, the plan needs to help him reprogram these beliefs with ways to build his sense of self, sense of accomplishment, and self-acceptance.
Stressful factors that trigger Billy’s behavior in his environment must be identified and accommodations made accordingly. This will help to create an environment that fits Billy’s high sensitivity to stress and will work in a proactive, preventative way. When understanding how stress plays a key role in Billy’s regulation, solutions that involve time-ins, transitional support, and a decrease in stimulation should be written into Billy’s plan. Here is the true account of one mom’s experience with her Billy:
I was called into a meeting for my son, Billy, who was in the eighth grade at the time. The teachers were pointing out all the bad choices Billy was making and all the negative behaviors he was exhibiting. The behavioral logs were sitting on the table and I asked if we could take a look not at the actual behaviors but what preceded the behaviors—to look at what happened BEFORE Billy became disruptive. In every incident, Billy’s behaviors were a reaction to a feeling of being unheard, misunderstood, blamed, or powerless. There was a definite pattern taking place that needed to be addressed rather than simply identifying Billy as a disruptive child who “needed to get his act together” (as one of the teachers put it). Once the pattern was addressed and Billy was helped in learning to appropriately deal with these feelings, his negative behaviors ended.
Words Matter. Let’s take a closer look at the wording of traditional IEPs before examining how regulatory concepts can be incorporated into the language of IEPs. Linguistics goes beyond the actual words; it is about the meaning and feeling behind the communication. One’s words indicate the mindset and framework from which the communication originates.
It is clear from examples of traditional IEPs and behavioral programs that there is an unsettling judgmental stance toward children like Billy. There is a lack of acceptance that Billy’s behaviors are normal—normal based on his life experiences. These behaviors are normal due to the physiological and emotional effects of trauma. A nonacceptance attitude is both directly and indirectly present in the choice of words used in describing behaviors. The following list presents actual statements taken from IEPs along with an explanation as to why the statements are not only negative but damaging to the understanding of the student.
The term “attention-seeking behavior” has traditionally been used to define negative actions. This term misses the point: that children seek attention because they need attention ... they seek it for regulation, acceptance, and love. Therefore, any form of attention they receive is love, positive or negative. This need is not a negative behavior; it is a natural occurrence in any child. The statement could better convey the real issue by stating, “Student frequently seeks regulatory assistance through maladaptive behavioral communications.”
“Poor” is a judgmental word that leads to a misunderstanding about the student. A child with “poor” social skills is a child who missed the needed attention and appropriate early childhood experiences. To be more accurate, this statement could read, “Student’s underdeveloped social problem-solving skills result in inter-student conflicts.”
Children are emotional beings and have a limited capacity to handle their emotions. They are not little adults. The term “anger management” is an adult term being imposed onto a child, with underdeveloped coping skills with an expectation of a skill far beyond his years. He has not yet learned how to self-regulate because he has not had enough positive experiences to learn this mature skill. Thus, it is a regulatory issue, not a behavioral issue. This statement should more accurately be worded, “Student’s compromised and underdeveloped self-regulatory skills result in acting-out behaviors.”
Dictionary.com defines “escape” as “to get away,” as in “to escape from jail’” and “to avoid a threatening evil.”1 The combative tone of the IEP statement shown here describing a child’s behavior is certain to have a grossly negative impact on the teacher-student relationship. There is always a reason for a child’s behavior, and in this instance the reason is clearly stated—the “demands” of the activity are too much for the child. Stress and overwhelm are driving this child’s resistance. There is nothing criminal about that. This student’s behavior could more accurately be described as, “Student becomes overwhelmed and slips into flight mode by the demands of circle time and other structured activities.”
The word “avoid” has a negative connotation in our culture. If someone tries to avoid you, he is being rude and shallow. Besides being a negative choice of words, this statement offers no understanding as to what is happening to this student internally when he is asked to participate in demanding activities. The use of the word “avoids” offers judgment of him being a problem student. This statement would offer more understanding to this child if revised to, “Student becomes overwhelmed by demanding activities and seeks to self-soothe by resisting or withdrawing.”
When children are unable to use appropriate social manners, many times this is due to feeling insecure, scared of being rejected, and overwhelmed in group settings. This is a fear-induced behavior. The wording in this statement creates an inharmonious classroom of “us” who know how verses “him” who does not know how. A community/family approach would serve to effectively address the underlying issue of fear and foster a united classroom: “Prepare classmates by explaining that student needs the support of everyone in the class to feel safe and secure.”
The term “violations” is often associated with the phrase “to violate the law.” If someone violates the law, he is a criminal. A student in a classroom may not be following the rules, but in no uncertain terms does he deserve to be associated, even indirectly, with a person who commits a crime. Yet the wording of this statement offers this type of free association. It leaves little room for compassion and relationship from educators interacting with the student, especially during times when he is dysregulated, precisely the times he needs connection and relationship the most. Rewording this statement to the truth would be, “Student is frequently unable to adhere to classroom rules due to overwhelm, stress, and dysregulation.”
Judgmental words and phrases lead to a decrease in compassion and understanding. They put up a wall in any relationship and the teacher-student relationship is no exception. Using this type of language with Billy is exceptionally damaging, as he is precisely the student who needs an ever-present amount of understanding, acceptance, and emotional safety. Focus on the words—they need to foster compassion.
The Problem Unveils the Solution. When a student’s behaviors can be observed objectively, without judgment and without expecting him to be like Andy, the solution often piggybacks the problem. It takes observing Billy’s behaviors through the lens of trauma and asking the right question for this to become visible. The more Billy’s behaviors are viewed from the perspective of trauma instead of being judged as bad behavior, the more Billy’s behavior simply “makes sense.”
Behavior is a form of communication; it communicates what is driving the behavior. If you know what is driving the behavior, the solution becomes clear. The following list gives examples of pulling the solution directly out of the observed behavior. The italicized statements come directly from behavioral assessments of students. A discussion on how this observation unveils the solution follows.
Feelings of being powerless will ignite when Billy is “pushed to participate.” The feeling of being controlled and powerless is a trauma trigger for Billy. For Billy to participate without reacting, he will need to be encouraged, supported, and assisted—all of this with an adult with whom he has a safe and strong relationship.
When Billy faces challenging and demanding tasks, he will typically decompensate. He becomes overwhelmed and in his attempt to find stability and regulation, he will revert back to activities that are familiar. Hence, in this example, Billy’s need for what is familiar and what feels good and safe is increased. He becomes inflexible and rigid simply because he is seeking safety. The solution would be to chunk demanding tasks into smaller amounts, give Billy reassurance when he becomes noticeably distressed, and tolerate his rigidity in the short term in order for him to feel secure.
When children have an early history of neglect, they typically have an overly developed ability to dissociate, meaning they can disconnect and disengage from reality when life becomes too much. They may appear to be daydreamers, zoned out in their own worlds. In the classroom, when this Billy gets overwhelmed by the complexity of social dynamics created within a large group, his system goes into automatic pilot and the shut-off valve activates. Complex social dynamics confuse and frustrate him. The solution is for Billy to remain in only small-group settings for now, or when in large groups Billy will receive direct support from the teacher or another adult. When he can regulate off another adult during large-group activities, he will learn over time how to stay present, instead of disengaging automatically.
Teachers. The traditional individualized program has focused solely on how the student can change, what the student needs to do differently, and how the student can take a greater amount of responsibility. In the past, 100% of the responsibility and accountability was placed on Billy, without recognizing that there are two sides to the teacher-student coin. The teacher’s ability to either respond or react has a greater influence than any other variable in the student’s life. Too much energy has been wasted on designing programs that use point charts, token rewards, and privileges while the greatest influential factor has literally been right in front of the classroom the entire time.
If Billy is working to change his behavior but is still struggling and demonstrating some negative behavior, the ultimate outcome will be greatly determined by the way the teacher handles Billy. If the teacher yells and rigidly demands that Billy modify his behavior, Billy will most likely not show improvement. Fear does not help a child like Billy. However, if the teacher is regulated and shows strength through compassion and understanding, Billy has a much greater chance of improving. Unfortunately, this dynamic is rarely identified in the goal statements for Billy in an IEP, and the expectations of the teacher in helping to implement these goals is rarely identified.
In the following list, examples of actual goals written for students on their IEPs are given. While these goals are reasonable, they are based solely on Billy making a modification, without explicit directions for how the teacher needs to respond for Billy to achieve this goal. Flipping the coin to the other side, questions are then posed to consider what Billy would need from his teacher to fully accomplish the goal.
When questions such as these are addressed and Billy is given the relational responses he needs, Billy’s ability to successfully accomplish these goals will increase significantly.
Parents. Billy functions best in environments that are consistent and predictable. When parents and teachers work together to support Billy both at school and at home in a coherent fashion, Billy feels safer, is more regulated, and has more space for academic achievement. Congruency between home and school environments provides an external structure that helps him work to his highest potential.
Billy’s individualized programs should always include parameters for developing this consistency between Billy’s parent(s) and his teacher(s). The following list presents strategies for teachers and parents to coordinate their efforts:
Implementation. As the saying goes, “It’s all in the delivery.” This holds true for delivering an individualized program to a student. When a student has an IEP, he may automatically feel different and “less than” his classmates. He may also feel the IEP is a punishment for being “bad,” since it most likely came about after he was in trouble numerous times.
The program needs to be reviewed and discussed with the student. The delivery to the student needs to be in the framework that the “adults met to find a way to help you and support you” and that the “adults met to figure out how to help you feel safe and secure at school.” Too often, the delivery is quite the opposite—that the “adults had to meet to find a way to get you to behave.”
SURVEY SAYS:
“Smaller groups in each class.”
“Less distractions.”
“More breaks throughout the class.”
“One on one with teachers.”
“Having fun projects.”
“Art, I love art and you can express yourself with art.”
“Resting in between.”
When Billy can see that the plan is in place for his benefit, the threat is removed and the fear of being a bad student is minimized. It needs to be presented as a plan that is being done for him, not to him.
Examples. There really cannot be a formula or prototype used when creating an individualized program for a student (hence, the word “individualized” is a misnomer). However, to write a program that incorporates the ideas contained in this book, it will be important to train your mind and alter your thinking out of the traditional mindset. The following list provides example statements that could be included in an IEP. Think about how the wording and approach in each statement reflects the ideas presented in this book. Also take note of how the students’ responses in the survey give the exact same solutions.
SURVEY SAYS:
“Give kids enough time. I never have enough time and I get frustrated.”
ACCOMODATIONS
SURVEY SAYS:
“More time with tests.”
TESTING
INTERPRETATIONS
ASSISTANCE
SURVEY SAYS:
“What would make me want to get up and go to school is that I know that the teachers are willing to help you with something if you don’t understand the assignment.”
SURVEY SAYS:
“Teachers who are more hands on with their students. Don’t just hand out assignments and lecture; they get more involved with the students.”
RELATIONSHIP
BEHAVIOR/REGULATION
SURVEY SAYS:
“School would be better not having warning charts.”
Teacher: “Who’s safe?”
Child: “I am safe.”
Teacher: “All of the time or some of the time?”
Child: “All the time!”
Teacher: “Who is in charge to keep you safe?”
Child: “You [the teacher] are in charge to keep me safe.”
Teacher: “All of the time or some of the time?”
Child: “All of the time!”
SURVEY SAYS:
“Don’t be really controlling (we need flexibility with assignments and encouragement with successes).”
SURVEY SAYS:
“If you have something that reminds you of hope such as a rock (small), pen or key chain ... take it along for a reminder.”
SURVEY SAYS:
“For 5th grade my best friend helped me through school, so if you have a bud stick close to em.”
SURVEY SAYS:
“I should be able to eat a snack when I need it.”
SURVEY SAYS:
“I didn’t like when the teacher yelled at kids, it made me scared.”
TEACHERS
PARENTS