Clearly, some dramatic changes are needed to better help students with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. The lenses and practices provided by the CPS model are encompassed by six key themes. In chapter 1, you were introduced to two of them.
Here are the remaining themes:
The reality is that a student's challenging behavior isn't especially informative, especially as it relates to why the student is exhibiting that behavior. As the field of developmental psychopathology tells us, the same challenging behavior can be caused by a wide variety of different risk factors (a concept known as equifinality), and the same risk factor can set in motion a wide range of different challenging behaviors (a concept known as multifinality). Yet, in school meetings—the ones in which we're discussing behaviorally challenging students—much time is devoted to detailed descriptions of a student's challenging behavior and caregivers' explanations for that behavior. If challenging behavior is all we focus on in our discussions and meetings, then we will be led only to interventions that focus on modifying that behavior. And if we rely only on caregivers' theories and explanations for the cause of that behavior, then we'll never gather the information that truly helps us understand what's making it hard for the student to meet certain expectations.
One of the reasons the problems of behaviorally challenging students often remain unsolved is that we haven't been focused on identifying those problems; we've instead been focused on the by-products of those problems (the behaviors).
One of the reasons the problems of behaviorally challenging students often remain unsolved is that we haven't been focused on identifying those problems; we've instead been focused on the by-products of those problems (the behaviors). And one thing is fairly certain: if you're focused on the behaviors, you won't know what problems you're trying to solve … and they won't get solved.
Of course, much meeting time is also devoted to discussing the psychiatric diagnoses that summarize a student's challenging behaviors, especially if those challenging behaviors cluster together into one of the categories that can be found in the most current diagnostic manual. But, as you've read, diagnoses aren't especially informative either, especially when it comes to the two most important questions that need to be answered for us to better help behaviorally challenging students: why (as in, Why is this student exhibiting challenging behavior?) and when (as in, When is this student exhibiting challenging behavior?). Fortunately, as you've read, we know the answer to both questions. Why are challenging kids challenging? Because they're lacking skills. When are challenging kids challenging? When the expectations being placed on them exceed their skills. Those questions—why and when—must be answered for each behaviorally challenging student we're trying to help.
Indeed, while the categorical approach to summarizing maladaptive behaviors can be useful in some ways, I often find that it often does more harm than good. That being the case, it's often far more productive to move away from the obsession with categories and view challenging behavior as occurring on a spectrum. At the easy end of the spectrum are relatively mild behaviors like crying, sulking, pouting, whining, and withdrawing. More severe behaviors would include screaming, swearing, spitting, hitting, kicking, destroying property, lying, and truancy. And at the extreme end of the spectrum are such behaviors as self-induced vomiting, cutting, substance abuse, stabbing, and shooting. But all of these behaviors occur under the same conditions: when the demands being placed on a kid exceed the kid's capacity to respond adaptively. Why do some kids more easily and adaptively handle the myriad social, academic, and behavioral demands being placed on them at school? You already know the answer to that question, too: because they can. They have the skills to do it.
Fifty years ago, a psychiatrist named Thomas Szasz understood that mental health diagnoses were very restrictive in helping us understand people with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. He advocated for reconceptualizing these challenges as “problems in living.” He hit the nail right on the head.
This shift in focus has significant implications for assessment. Most of the assessment tools employed in schools—behavior observations, behavior checklists, functional behavior assessments (FBAs)—are focused on a student's behaviors. In the CPS model, assessment focuses on identifying the lagging skills and unsolved problems that are making it difficult for the student to meet our behavioral expectations.
Solving problems is something you're doing with the student, not to him.
The CPS model operates on a very important assumption: if you want to solve a problem with a kid—any kid, but especially the behaviorally challenging variety—you're a lot better off if you have a partner … a teammate. Who's your teammate? The student, your new problem-solving partner. In other words, solving problems is something you're doing with the student, not to him. Solving the problems that are causing challenging behavior doesn't need to be adversarial. Kids—and everyone else—are a whole lot more receptive to participating in solving the problems that are affecting their lives when you're solving problems with them rather than doing something to them.
This theme, of course, often prompts a very important question: How can we solve problems proactively when we never know when the kid is going to exhibit challenging behavior … when he's so unpredictable? The answer: we do know when he's going to exhibit challenging behavior, and he's not unpredictable … if we put the hard work into figuring it out on the front end. Figuring it out involves answering those two questions (why and when) and—as you shall see in the next chapter—one single-sided sheet of paper.
First, there's a huge difference between viewing a child's behavioral challenges as a sign of lacking motivation versus understanding that he's lacking skills. Once this conceptual hurdle has been cleared, caregivers become more compassionate, their explanations become more accurate, and their interventions become more effective. And there are many things they stop saying:
“He just wants attention.”
We all want attention, so this explanation isn't very useful for helping us understand why a kid is seeking attention in a maladaptive manner. If a kid is seeking attention in a maladaptive way, that simply suggests that he lacks the skills to seek attention in an adaptive way. Again, kids do well if they can, and doing well is preferable.
“He just wants his own way.”
We all want our own way, too, so this statement doesn't help us understand why this student is trying to get his own way in ways that are so maladaptive. Adaptively getting one's own way requires skills often found lacking in challenging kids. And it takes two to tango: in every power struggle between a child and an adult, there's an adult who wants his or her own way, too.
“He's manipulating us.”
This is a very popular, and misguided, characterization of kids with behavioral challenges. Competent manipulation requires various skills—forethought, planning, impulse control, and organization, among others—typically found lacking in behaviorally challenging kids. In other words, the kids who are most often described as being manipulative are those least capable of doing it well.
“He's not motivated.”
This is something we should never say about any kid. Once we figure out what's really getting in the way for kids being referred to as unmotivated, we find that “unmotivated” didn't even come close to capturing the factors making it difficult for the child to meet our expectations. Moreover, why would any kid not want to do well? Why would he choose not to do well if he has the skills to do well? Skills are the engine pulling the train; motivation is the caboose.
“He's making bad choices.”
He's probably lacking the skills needed for consistently making good choices.
Skills are the engine pulling the train; motivation is the caboose.
Helping
What are the two most important roles a helper can play in the life of a behaviorally challenging student?
Figure out what skills the student is lacking and the expectations he's having difficulty meeting. As you've read, we'll be referring to those unmet expectations as unsolved problems.
Start solving those problems; but do it in a way—collaboratively and proactively—that engages the child in solving the problems that affect his life, creates a problem-solving partnership, and simultaneously teaches the child the skills he's lacking.
Those are two things adult-imposed consequences won't accomplish. A sticker chart won't, nor will depriving a child of recess. Sending the child to the office won't, nor would a detention or suspension. And, let there be no doubt, paddling the child won't help caregivers accomplish those two things.
When we identify the skills a student is lacking and the expectations he is having difficulty meeting, the student's challenging episodes become highly predictable. Intervention becomes proactive.
Q & A
Question: But we've always used incentive programs in my building. Should we stop?
Answer: Most schools have been using incentive programs for a very long time. But when I ask school staff why they're still using incentive-based programs, the most common response they give—while simultaneously telling me that those programs aren't working for many of the kids they're trying to help—is “because it's the way we've always done it.” Of course, if the way we've always done it isn't working for the kids we've always done it to, we probably ought to stop doing it and think of something better to do.
Question: Does this mean that consequences should no longer be applied to challenging behavior?
Answer: It's important to distinguish between the two types of consequences: natural and adult-imposed. Natural consequences—being liked or disliked, being included or excluded, feeling happy or ashamed by one's behavior, doing well or poorly on an exam—are very powerful and persuasive. They're also inevitable. Of course, natural consequences don't solve the problems that are causing a kid's challenging behavior. So when the challenging behavior persists, or worsens, adults typically add even more consequences, those of the adult-imposed, “logical,” “unnatural,” or “artificial” variety. These include punishments, such as staying in from recess, detention, suspension, and paddling; and rewards, such as stickers, happy faces, points, and special privileges. Adult-imposed consequences are also very powerful and persuasive. But adult-imposed consequences don't solve the problems that are causing a kid's challenging behavior either. So in instances where the very powerful and persuasive natural consequences don't get the job done—and now we're talking about most behaviorally challenging kids—it's not exactly clear why adding more consequences would accomplish the mission. Moreover, adult-imposed consequences cause a child to look outside of himself rather than inside of himself for guidance on how to behave. We want kids looking inside, not outside, for that guidance. The students who are on the receiving end of endless natural and adult-imposed consequences clearly need something else from us.
Question: Does the alternative definition of function mean that we should stop doing functional behavior assessments (FBAs)?
Answer: No, FBAs are a wonderful thing, but only when we stop coming to the automatic belief that a student's behavior is working, and that the behavior is effective at helping the student get, escape, and avoid. FBAs are a lot more meaningful and informative when we view challenging behavior as the means by which the student is communicating that he's lacking the skills to meet certain demands and expectations, and then document which skills the student is lacking and which expectations the student is having difficulty meeting. I've had way too many classroom teachers tell me that there's really no point in reading a student's FBA because all FBAs say the exact same thing. If all FBAs say the exact same thing, then those are perfunctory, boilerplate FBAs, not useful, informative, meaningful FBAs.
Adult-imposed consequences cause a child to look outside of himself rather than inside of himself for guidance on how to behave. We want kids looking inside, not outside, for that guidance.
Question: So we can't just do nothing in response to challenging behavior! Consequences at least help us feel like we're doing something. What should we do instead?
Answer: Not relying on adult-imposed consequences doesn't mean you're doing nothing. It means you've come to recognize the limitations of that form of intervention. There's no reason to continue doing something if that something isn't getting the job done. As for what you'll be doing instead, that's what the rest of the book is about.
Question: What do we say to the well-behaved kids when they observe that they're behaviorally challenging classmates are being treated differently or aren't receiving the consequences that are usually applied to misbehavior?
Answer: We point out the realities. The consequences weren't working very well anyway. You're working hard on the problem and intend to keep everyone safe. Fair doesn't mean equal. In every classroom, different kids are being treated differently, according to their needs, and that approach benefits everyone, including the well-behaved students. Behavioral differences should be handled no differently than academic differences.
