Now that we've used the ALSUP to identify a student's lagging skills, we've answered the question why. Good that we're viewing the student's behavioral challenges through progressive lenses. And now that we've used the ALSUP to identify the student's unsolved problems, we've answered the question when. Good that we're quite clear about the task at hand. And now that we've used the Problem Solving Plan to prioritize, we know which unsolved problems we'll be trying to solve first and the ones we're setting aside for now. Good that we know what we're working on. We're now ready to start thinking about our options. There are basically three options for dealing with unsolved problems, and they're called Plan A, Plan B, and Plan C.
Plan A refers to solving a problem unilaterally, typically through the imposition of adult will. Plan A is far and away the most popular way that adults handle problems or unmet expectations with kids, and not only in schools. Its popularity notwithstanding, Plan A can actually be counterproductive in many ways and, for a variety of reasons, isn't the ideal approach to solving problems. More on that in a few paragraphs.
Plan C involves setting aside a particular unsolved problem, at least temporarily. Don't worry, Plan C is not the equivalent of giving in or capitulating. There's no such thing as giving in or capitulating in the CPS model. There is, however, such a thing as prioritizing in the CPS model, and, as you've read, prioritizing is actually a crucial aspect of organizing our efforts to help behaviorally challenging students.
Plan B involves solving a problem collaboratively. It's Plan B that helps you create a partnership with the student. It has the greatest potential for durably solving problems, helps you engage the student in solving the problems that affect his life, and simultaneously (but indirectly) teaches the student the skills he's lacking.
The Plans are purely for the expectations a student is having difficulty meeting.
By the way, if a student is meeting a given expectation, you don't need a Plan. It's not an unsolved problem. The Plans are purely for the expectations a student is having difficulty meeting.
The Plans provide a nice framework—a shorthand—for considering how we're approaching unsolved problems. If you're trying to solve a problem, you're using either Plan A, Plan B, or Plan C. Let's take a closer look at each option.
Plan A
If a kid isn't meeting a given expectation, one way to solve the problem is by imposing a solution. The words “I've decided that …” tell you that's exactly what you're doing, as in, “Because you're having difficulty keeping your hands to yourself in line when we're walking to recess, I've decided that you'll be walking next to me in the back of the line from now on.” Or “Because you're having difficulty completing your math when you're seated next to Alberto, I've decided that you'll be sitting next to my desk for math.”
Notice, having an expectation and imposing a solution aren't the same thing. In the first example, keeping hands to self when in line walking to recess is the expectation the student is having difficulty meeting; the imposed solution is walking next to the teacher. In the second example, completing the math work is the expectation the student is having difficulty meeting; sitting next to the teacher is the imposed solution. So don't get confused: using Plan A to solve a problem is not the same thing as having an expectation. Put a different way, just because you have an expectation doesn't mean you're using Plan A.
That's important, because one of the common reactions to the CPS model—especially the part of the model that discourages the use of Plan A—is that it involves abandoning all expectations. It doesn't involve anything of the sort. You still have expectations, lots of 'em. How you go about handling unmet expectations—unilaterally or collaboratively—is a completely different matter.
There are a few drawbacks with using Plan A to solve problems. The first is that Plan A greatly heightens the likelihood of challenging behavior in challenging kids. The vast majority of incompatibility episodes that occur in schools (and everywhere else) are precipitated by an adult responding to a problem (often emergently) using Plan A. Using Plan A might make a great deal of sense if it were your only option for solving problems, but it's not.
The second drawback is that solutions arrived at through Plan A are uninformed. Such solutions are based on adult theories about the cause of the problem, but not on any information from the intended beneficiary of the solution: the kid. With Plan A, you're not seeking that information. And that's why solutions arrived at through use of Plan A tend not to work very well or for very long.
The third drawback is that Plan A does not involve the student in solving the problems that affect his life. Why would we want to exclude students from participating in solving the problems that affect their lives? Isn't the ability to solve problems going to be a crucial skill for doing well in The Real World?
Fourth, Plan A does not lend itself to an adult-child problem-solving partnership. In fact, Plan A typically has the effect of pushing kids away. Why would we want to push kids away when we could be working in partnership with them?
Why do the problems that affect kids' lives so often cause conflict between them and their caregivers? Plan A is a big part of the answer. But those problems don't need to cause conflict, especially if there's a non-adversarial way to solve them. And there is.
Can you get away with Plan A with “ordinary” kids? Perhaps. But why would you want to? The drawbacks involved in using Plan A with behaviorally challenging kids are equally applicable to “ordinary” kids, except that ordinary kids are less prone to exhibit severe challenging behavior in response to Plan A. Don't we want to be partnering with well-behaved kids too? We'll consider those questions more thoroughly in chapter 9.
Plan A has historically been a very popular way of solving problems with kids. Perhaps that explains why we're still losing so many of our most vulnerable kids. Why is Plan A still so popular in so many schools? Because we didn't know how to solve problems any other way. But we know now.
Plan B
Any problem that can be solved using Plan A can also be solved using Plan B. The primary difference between the two Plans is that with Plan A, problems are being solved unilaterally, and with Plan B, problems are being solved collaboratively. But that's a massive difference.
Any problem that can be solved using Plan A can also be solved using Plan B.
Plan B helps adults clarify and understand a child's concern, perspective, or point of view on a particular unsolved problem. Plan B also helps the kid understand the adult's concerns about the problem. And Plan B helps adults and kids work together, as partners, toward mutually satisfactory solutions so that both parties' concerns are addressed, the student is involved in solving the problems that affect his life, the problem gets solved durably, and lagging skills get taught.
There are two ways to use Plan B: emergently and proactively. On first hearing about Plan B, adults often come to the erroneous conclusion that the best time to use Plan B is at the precise moment when a kid is beginning to show signs of challenging behavior. But that's Emergency Plan B, and the timing is actually not ideal because the kid may already be upset or heated up and because, if you're a teacher, you've got a lot of other things going on in your classroom at that moment. Few of us do our clearest thinking or resolve difficult problems when we're already upset, so crisis management is not your best long-term strategy; crisis prevention is far preferable. Because incompatibility episodes are highly predictable, you don't have to wait until a problem has popped up yet again to start solving it. As you've read, problems don't just pop up. The goal is to solve them before they occur. That's Proactive Plan B. You'll learn about the three steps of Plan B in the next chapter.
Plan C
Plan C involves setting aside a given unsolved problem, at least temporarily. As you've read, Plan C is crucial to the process of prioritizing. Recall that behaviorally challenging students usually have quite a few unsolved problems, and that it won't be possible to solve them all at once. Some unsolved problems will need to be set aside for now so that both the student and his caregivers are more “available” to work on higher-priority problems. Expectations that have been removed won't cause incompatibility episodes because they've been eliminated for now.
There are also emergent and proactive forms of Plan C. The latter form is again preferable. If you've already used the ALSUP to identify the wide array of unsolved problems that are causing incompatibility episodes, and if you've already decided on high and low priorities, then you're well positioned to use Proactive Plan C.
Here's what that might sound like: “Max, you know how we're working on helping you get caught up on that English project you fell behind on? And we're also trying to work on the difficulties you're having getting to school on time. And we've also been trying to find a way to get you caught up on your science lab reports. We're working on a lot of things right now. Should we hold off on working on the geography report that was due a few weeks ago until we get some of these other problems solved?”
And here's what Emergency Plan C sounds like:
TEACHER, WITH AN EXPECTATION: Class, it's time to get to work on your social studies projects.
STUDENT: I'm not doing my social studies project.
TEACHER, USING PLAN C: OK.
OK forever? No, OK for now. The classroom teacher can get the rest of the class started on the social studies project and then check in with this student to gather information about his (apparently) sudden refusal to work on the project. Then the teacher can decide whether this problem is a high priority right now; if it is, the teacher would handle the problem (proactively) with Plan B. If it's not, the teacher would set the problem aside for now, perhaps by proactively discussing with the student how best to do that. But because this probably isn't the first sign of trouble on the social studies project, a more proactive approach was probably possible in the first place.
Does this mean you're supposed to drop all your expectations so a kid won't have incompatibility episodes? No, it doesn't mean that at all. But, again, it is very productive to set aside lower-priority expectations so that you and the student aren't overwhelmed trying to solve too many problems at once.
Q & A
Question: I'm a classroom teacher, and I really do feel that Plan B is best left to the psychologists.
Answer: You may be selling yourself short. If you work in a school, you solve problems with students all the time. Now we're just formalizing the process a little and making it collaborative and proactive. So helping kids solve the problems that affect their lives isn't, and shouldn't be, solely the responsibility of mental health professionals. Because it's collaborative, you're going to be an essential participant in the process anyway.
Question: Aren't there some things a student just has to do?
Answer: There certainly are expectations you feel very strongly that a student should meet. And many caregivers believe that Plan A is the clear choice if they feel really strongly about a student meeting a particular expectation. But it's not. The importance of an expectation is not the determining factor in using Plan A or Plan B. The decisive factor is whether the problem will be best and most durably solved unilaterally or collaboratively. Consideration of whether prior applications of Plan A have solved the problem will help point you in the right direction.
Question: Are there some challenging kids who are so volatile and unstable that academics need to be de-emphasized until things are calmer?
Answer: Absolutely. Some kids simply aren't “available” for academic learning until headway has been made on the nonacademic challenges that may be impeding learning. In such instances, academics may have to take a backseat until progress occurs on these challenges. Plunging forward with academics when a kid is bogged down with other challenges is usually an exercise in futility.
Question: So, just making sure I'm clear here: simply having and voicing an expectation is not the same thing as Plan A, right?
Answer: Right. This is a common point of confusion. Simply voicing an expectation—for example, “Class, it's time to come in from recess”—is not Plan A. If you impose a solution to an expectation a student is having difficulty meeting—for example, “Matt, because you're having difficulty coming back into the classroom for recess, I've decided you're not going out for recess anymore”—that's Plan A.
Question: So if my expectation is being met, I don't need a Plan?
Answer: Right. You only need the Plans for unmet expectations.
Question: Does Plan B hold kids accountable for their actions?
Answer: For many caregivers, holding a kid accountable for his actions simply means making sure he pays the price for his challenging behavior. That's an extremely narrow definition. If a kid is participating in Plan B, identifying and articulating his concerns, taking yours into account, and working toward a realistic and mutually satisfactory solution, he's most assuredly being held accountable. The belief that Plan A is the only way to hold a kid accountable is completely misguided.
The belief that Plan A is the only way to hold a kid accountable is completely misguided.
Question: Should I still be using consequences for challenging behavior—even if I don't think they're working—so that the other kids know I'm taking the challenging behavior seriously?
Answer: The other kids don't need you to use consequences to know you're taking the problem seriously. They need to see that you've got a handle on the challenging kid's lagging skills and unsolved problems and that, slowly but surely, his incompatibility episodes are decreasing in frequency, intensity, and duration. You don't improve your credibility by continuing to intervene in a way that isn't working or is making things worse. Remember, consequences are useful for two things: (1) teaching basic lessons about right and wrong, and (2) giving kids the incentive to do well. You'll want to use consequences if you think one or both of these things are coming into play. But kids with behavioral challenges already know the basic lessons about right and wrong, and—because kids do well if they can—they already have the incentive to do well.
Question: Should I reward a kid for successfully participating in Plan B?
Answer: I generally recommend against it. The effects of Plan B—finally having one's concerns heard and identified, making headway on getting problems solved, learning new skills, resolving difficulties without conflict or challenging behavior—are far more rewarding (and far more important for you and the kid to focus on) than any extrinsic reward you might offer.
Question: So I guess I don't need my sticker chart anymore.
