chapter3

A CHILD’S emotions, behaviors, and ability to get along with others are difficult to measure, but easy to perceive. There is no well-defined standard for “normal” behavior; therefore, adult perceptions of a child’s challenging behavior become a major factor in how a school team and parents work together to solve behavior problems. The lenses though which we perceive behavior affects how the child’s social, emotional, and behavioral skills will be assessed, perceived, and addressed. This chapter explores these important questions, whose answers form the foundation of the journey to school success:

• How do adult perceptions affect how student behaviors are defined, assessed, and addressed?

• How do adult perceptions of student behavior and school culture affect the parentschool partnerships needed for success?

• How do perceptions about economic status, race, gender, and giftedness affect how schools intervene?

• How do parent and student relationships with staff contribute to the overall school culture?

• Why are there so many children from diverse backgrounds in programs for children with challenging behaviors?

The perceptions of parents and professionals affect how children with challenging behaviors are perceived, defined, assessed, and addressed in school. This process is more subjective than any other disability determination process. How an adult perceives and intervenes with a challenging behavior often is a function of her own belief system, formed by her training and personal and professional experiences. It is for this reason that a positive school culture, emphasis on making datadriven decisions, and use of scientifically based methods are important for the school success of children with challenging behavior. Any time a child’s team is planning to support the child, the team members must examine their own personal and professional biases or perspectives to fully embrace a data-driven problem-solving model in an open way.

The program culture is hard to measure. Walk into any school and you can “feel” the atmosphere, the climate. School climate may be the single most important programmatic factor that contributes to school success, because the school culture is formed by staff perceptions. In order to make emotional, behavioral, and academic progress, the school must be looking through the lens that allows for collaborative problem solving, understanding of behavior in a way that focuses on skill development, intervention through data-driven decision making, and the belief that children with challenging behavior are capable and worthy.

School culture, and therefore, success for children with emotional and behavioral challenges, is directly related to positive relationships with school staff. The difference maker for a child who is emotionally vulnerable often is the building atmosphere or program. When asked about their school day, elementary and middle school children will rarely talk about what they learned; instead, they like to talk about who was nice and who was mean to them. How much they like or feel welcomed and embraced by a particular teacher is more important to them than their ability to write an essay.

The collection of these good or bad times very often can be the difference from the perspective of the student between school success or failure. School culture is the foundation by which all good things in school may be built. The perception of children, families, the local school, and the community are critical to the development of a positive school culture, and ultimately, critical to a meaningful education for a child (Erickson, 1987).

As seen in Figure 2, differences in perspective can be formed by an educator’s training and background, but there also are important perspective differences between educational issues and mental health issues that have been solidified based on the history of policy and legislative action, as we discussed in the last chapter. Although school systems are realizing the need for effective interventions for social, emotional, and behavioral functioning of students, most school districts are not set up to fund or effectively implement services and interventions that traditionally have been seen as irrelevant in the schoolhouse. This perspective difference affects the way that the overall state, local school districts, local schools, and individual educators perceive how to address a child’s challenging behavior.

Perspective in question	As applied to an educational issue	As applied to a mental health issue
Eligibility for services	IDEA	DSM-IV-TR
Theories	Behaviorism, social learning theory	Psychoanalysis, developmental psychology, biological and genetic perspectives, psychopharmacology, cognitive-behavior theories
Focus	Behavior management, behavior control, academic skills	Insight awareness, teaching for skill deficiency, therapy, instruction
Emphasis on prevention	Reactive, less proactive	Prevention and treatment
Systems	Individual factors, child makes behavior choices	Family, school, community, other system factors interacting

Figure 2. How different perspectives play out in educational issues and mental health issues.

Researchers have recommended the complete transformation of the school system in order to accomplish the integration of needed services and methods to address challenging behavior in a full continuum of school, community, and the other multiple systems surrounding a child, called an Interconnected Systems Approach or Transactional View (Campbell, 2002). Other views framed by Duchnowski and Kutash (2009) include a view that emphasizes mental health or medical orientations or one that incorporates schoolwide positive behavior intervention supports (PBIS), which we explore in detail in the next chapter.

Even though many children with challenging behavior are bright and have sound academic skills, it is a common belief among teachers and administrators that children with challenging behaviors have low skill levels. This, of course, affects the way that instruction and assessment is delivered, which affects the child’s behavior, and the cycle continues to produce less than rigorous instructional practices in the general and special education classroom. There can be resistance to providing interventions if educators perceive that the child is misbehaving due to home-based or internal factors alone. One of the first things a parent can do to help his child with challenging behaviors is to educate as many people as possible that the underlying causes of these invisible disabilities is not just willfulness or bad parenting, but biological and environmental causes.

Perceptions About Socioeconomic
Status, Race, Gender, and Giftedness
and School Intervention

When adults say things like, “Well, what do you expect, he’s from the Township neighborhood?” or “What do you expect, he’s from the lower income apartments across the railroad tracks?” they are really articulating a bias about the child based on his socioeconomic status (SES). This often is confused with race factors because there is a correlation between race and SES. Adults who think like this or make these statements are really expressing low expectations and blame the child or his parents for his behavior. If the local school system, building administrators, and school staff believe that children with challenging behaviors are bad, poorly parented, and from lower classes, then it is from that perspective that programs will be developed. There is an incorrect assumption that children from poorer neighborhoods are more violent, less motivated, and overall ill-prepared for school, and that assumption can lead to controloriented staff behaviors, which are not effective. Instead, an ecological approach, one that takes into account the child’s environment, family, and community systems, will allow the team to consider the individual factors that contribute to a child’s behaviors, which sets the stage for school success.

Research has suggested a relationship between socioeconomic factors and identification as a student with emotional and behavioral disorders (Coutinho & Oswald, 1996). However, there is little empirical evidence to explain why this relationship exists.

Schools in affluent communities have more and better instructional materials than schools in impoverished neighborhoods. Walk through any school in an affluent neighborhood and there will be an amazing collection of the newest classroom technology. Schools in impoverished neighborhood do not have as many community partnerships that offer technology, fundraising opportunities, and student mentors. They are fortunate to have a PTA, let alone a parent organization that is capable of raising money for technology or additional staffing. The difference between schools in terms of instructional materials and equipment affects the school culture and ultimately affects the school’s ability to effectively engage all children in learning. There is a relationship between resource allocation and student behavior. The better able a school is to engage their students in learning, the fewer behavior problems will exist.

Overrepresentation of African American, Hispanic, and other minority students in special education has negatively affected school efforts to provide a comparable educational experience for all students. The data on overrepresentation illustrates the problem. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Education (2000), in the 1998–1999 school year, African American students were found to be:

• 2.9 times as likely as White students to be labeled with an intellectual disability,

These data have remained static over time (Sullivan et al., 2009) and continue to plague school systems nationally. A recent study found that there were five factors common to all schools identified with disproportionate numbers of minority students receiving special education services:

• Identification Practices: Eligibility processes were not the same between schools. Many school IEP teams acknowledged “compassionate coding,” or the belief that a student was not learning related to emotional problems and that special education services was the answer, as an influence on identification.

• Inequitable Resource Allocation: Instructional materials and interventions were not universally available from school to school.

• Community Partnerships: Some schools were better able to develop partnerships with local businesses and other community groups than others.

• Professional Development: Inconsistent training opportunities related to cultural diversity were available to staff. Appreciation for cultural differences in language and behavior management (e.g., a discussion on whether the behavior was disturbed or disturbing) needed to be discussed.

• Awareness: A number of schools had very low populations of students who were African American. School teams, many who had been intact for many years, did not have experience working with a culturally diverse school population. The “What is normal?” question became a factor in special education eligibility determination processes. School teams routinely have to determine if the differences being observed in learning and behavior are the result of a disability or the result of a child whose learning and behavior does not fit with the type of child the school team is used to seeing on a daily basis.

School staff tends to have lower expectations of their students who are perceived to have or who do have racial, cultural, and socioeconomic differences. If administrators and teachers expect poor behavior and poor academic performance, then that is what they will get. For example, if the unspoken message is that “African American boys have behavior problems” then teachers will unconsciously create the conditions by which students misbehave, believing that the African American boys in their classes really do have behavior problems.

The clashing of cultural communication traditions and values contributes to misunderstandings between the predominantly White school personnel and an increasingly diverse student population. These cultural differences combined with pressure to perform academically may be to blame for the increased number of disciplinary issues and subsequent interruptions to instruction being experienced by students. Regardless, the climate is disrupted and the culture of the school becomes defined by the antagonistic relationships between school staff, students, and families.

School leadership and cultural perception. System-level leadership, while very focused on outcomes and the disparities in performance among minority groups, are leery of the systemic politics connected with such a hot-button issue. The problem of overrepresentation of children who are African American in segregated programs is a complex issue. Leadership at the school and district level is a critical factor of any systemic solution to this problem. The level of commitment that school staff and decision makers have in addressing the problem will lead to a longterm and sustainable solution. The issue of overrepresentation of minority youth in special education is often a strategic goal of school systems nationwide. School districts are taking the issue of overrepresentation seriously. Despite that expectation, building principals are sometimes unwelcoming, uninvolved, and disinterested in the process. Their participation in system change efforts may feel coerced and unauthentic. This attitude is not always consistent with the attitudes of their staff, but given the lack of administrative support, staff may feel powerless to make change. Schools that lack administrative support do not report change over time. Conversely, one inner city middle school in a suburb of Washington, DC, that had the highest ratio of overrepresentation in the county sought to aggressively address the problem. The building principal and special education coordinator worked with their School Improvement Team (SIT) to develop an action plan with interim checks along the way to measure progress; they reduced their numbers of overrepresented minority students by two thirds between year 1 and year 2 of the project. This school system is no longer considered disproportionate by the Maryland State Department of Education.

Harmful effects of disproportionate identification. The overrepresentation in special education of children who are diverse is a barrier to successful school performance. The disproportionate identification of diverse children has had an effect on their respective community’s willingness to trust and maintain a meaningful dialogue with local schools (Harry, 1992). Some of the effects of overrepresentation are listed below:

1. Diverse students in special education are likely to spend more than 60% of their school day outside of general education.

2. Minority students receiving special education spend less time with their typical peers than do their White counterparts (Kearns, Ford, & Linney, 2005).

4. Inappropriate identification leads families to mistrust the school and the school system.

5. Once students are identified to receive special education services, they tend to remain in special education classes longer than is necessary.

6. Once in special education, students are likely to experience a limited, less rigorous curriculum.

7. Students receiving special education services typically are expected not to achieve at the same level as their nondisabled peers. Lower expectations can lead to limited academic and post-high-school opportunities.

8. Students in special education programs are not included in the social fabric of the school community.

Public schools have been studying and trying to address the issue of overrepresentation for more than 40 years; the problem of overrepresentation continues to be an incendiary topic. School teams often are nervous about directly addressing the issue for fear of being labeled as racist. School systems’ attitudes tend to mirror larger societal trends and attitudes. Efforts to address the issue are happening throughout the nation, and while the problem persists, a national dialogue has shined a light on the problem and the movement to reduce overrepresentation of diverse students in special education is underway. There is still a lot of work to be done to solve this important problem.

There are many more boys receiving special education services than girls in the U.S. Girls in need of special education services remain underidentified because their behaviors tend to be more difficult to identify and understand. Behaviors such as social or relational aggression, depression, or withdrawal are less overt and more difficult to perceive (Callahan, 1994; Kann & Hanna, 2000). Although national data compiled in the Annual Report to Congress on special education is not classified by gender, state data suggest that a large variation in the numbers of girls identified with emotional and behavioral disorders exists (Callahan, 1994; Kann & Hanna, 2000). It should be noted however that the rate of identification for girls begins to increase and reflect that of boys during adolescence (Callahan, 1994; Oswald, Best, Coutinho, & Nagle, 2003).

Approximately 32% of the overall special education population is female (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). There are several possible explanations. Girls mature emotionally and physically more quickly than boys, and boys behave differently in school than girls, thereby making them more likely to be identified with a disability than girls (Harmon, 1992). Other factors contributing to underrepresentation of girls may be the staff’s reaction to boys’ vs. girls’ behavior, biased assessment practices, and gender bias. This idea is supported by the finding that psychiatric hospitals and mental health programs often identify girls’ problems before the school system does (Caseau, Luckasson, & Kroth, 1994).

Throughout the special education referral and assessment process, gender role assumptions also have been found to contribute to underidentification (Oswald et al., 2003). Gender role assumptions may be used to protect girls from the special education label, as they will be a minority, and sometimes the only girl in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Gender role assumptions also may be a consideration given that teachers may be more willing to tolerate girls’ initial symptoms, such as depression or withdrawal, because of the assumption that “girls will be girls” or that these symptoms are just natural experiences for girls (Rice, Merves, & Srsic, 2009; Salk, 2004). The underidentification of girls for services may be an underlying reason why there is little conceptual or empirical data on school-based interventions for girls with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Needless to say, this underrepresentation and the subsequent lack of appropriate programming for girls is a growing problem in the U.S. Girls typically internalize, act in, and get notice later than their externalizing, acting out male counterparts. For example, many girls develop eating disorders that are more difficult to identify than other problem behaviors.

Aleisha spent a lot of time in the restroom. No one seemed to think it was unusual that she would spend 15 minutes, three times each day in there. It was only after a teacher went into the bathroom, heard strange noises coming from one of the stalls and investigated did school officials realize that Aleisha was making herself sick. Aleisha was a quiet, studious young lady with good grades. She was a bit of a loner and not a member of any particular clique. She had no history of school-related problems, and she seemed to come from a good home. She was essentially invisible. A subsequent in-patient stay at an eating disorder clinic revealed that she was not only bingeing and purging, but also was cutting herself with paper clips during class. It turned out that there was a lot going on with this young lady. After 45 days of in-patient treatment, Aleisha was able to return to school. Challenging behavior is not always easy to spot.

The child who is gifted and has challenging behaviors presents a unique set of issues for parents and professionals. The common perception about children who are gifted is that they are acting out because they are bored and that if they were properly challenged, they would stop misbehaving and live up to their academic potential. The child who is gifted often has a powerful desire to understand the world. He has an emotionally intense personality and tends toward being perfectionist and egocentric. He may ask many questions and often is misunderstood by his peers and the adults around him. In many circumstances, teachers underestimate gifted students’ abilities, not fully understanding their talents.

Over time, the gifted student’s self-esteem will be affected; he will become isolated, depressed, irritable, and difficult to get along with. He may begin to act out and predictably, the adults will respond to the behavior that they can see. For students who are highly gifted, the acting out behavior may be the result of built-up frustration of not being understood for their exceptional skills. The “snowball” begins to roll downhill; all of sudden, teachers and parents are dealing with challenging behaviors. School success for all children with challenging behaviors is directly connected to our collective ability to appreciate and understand our students’ abilities and disabilities and provide educational programming that is capable of meeting the diverse academic and emotional needs of all students. Gifted students must be given the challenging curriculum, advanced pacing, and differentiated instruction they need to be successful in school, along with counseling for their unique social and emotional needs.

The individual student’s ecology is a strong factor in his or her cultural considerations. By ecology, we refer to the interaction between the many different environments in a family, including:

1. Family: The family performs roles for its members that are important for healthy development and serves as an arbiter between the child and the rest of the world. Some families resist talking about behaviors. How families perceive behaviors will vary from family to family.

2. Social Connections: A family’s social connections develop as family members make contact with people in different settings—extended family, social groups, recreation, work, and so on. This network of important relationships reinforces feelings of self-worth and helps children develop their sense of identity and belonging within their family and community.

3. Community Connections: A community’s formal support networks provide resources for families.

4. Society: The society defines the “rules of the road” related to individuals and provides the informal structure, role definition, and cultural expectations for its members.

The next section will discuss how the family, particularly student and parent relationships with staff members, can contribute to the overall school culture.

A critically important, yet impossible factor to measure in schools that work with kids with challenging behavior is the ability of the staff to form healthy, trusting relationships with the students. Pulling together the right mix of personalities is tough to do. School success for children with challenging behavior depends upon the positive, healthy, and trusting relationships and their opportunity to be formed, shaped, and reinforced through excellent role models.

The world of services for children with challenging behaviors attracts a variety of interesting, committed, and unique players. The mix of personality, program philosophy, and setting work together to create a programmatic culture that is unique to each building or school corridor. As Rita Ives, a retired professor of special education at The George Washington University liked to say, “programs are people committed to constructive change.” Although there is little empirical research that identifies a particular type of personality or personality traits common to staff who work with children with challenging behaviors, there is a general perception that direct care staff who choose to work with children with challenging behaviors bring to the building a belief system grounded in a desire to give back to the community or that they bring to the classroom or program a unique understanding of children borne from their own troubled background.

Starting in the next chapter, and continuing through each of the following chapters, evidence-based and scientifically based methods are explored in depth. These involve the use of methods that have either evidence or scientific research to demonstrate efficacy of interventions and methods for children with challenging behavior. Schools that employ the use of evidence-based methods are more likely to emphasize overall schoolwide interventions, and more likely to implement effective classroom interventions. A school that implements schoolwide and classwide interventions effectively will have the best chance of creating and implementing individual student plans. This follows the structure of the upcoming chapters—schoolwide, classwide, and individual interventions are the heart of positive behavior supports.

Although there is a collection of evidence-based practices that have been shown to be effective with children with mental illness, these practices have rarely found their way into school programs. The research-to-best-practice gap needs to be closed in order to uncover the potential and tap into the talents of children with challenging behavior.

The next chapter will connect this concept to the implementation of schoolwide and classwide interventions. It will explore 10 critical components each school must employ to effectively provide kids with challenging behavior a foundation of positive behavior supports.

Myth	Truth
Challenging behaviors are the result of poor parenting and poorly disciplined, unaccountable children.	Challenging behavior in school is the result of a complex set of factors (e.g., ecological, medical, neurological, and psychosocial).
School culture is unrelated to school performance, teacher attitudes, and student performance. School culture is just a “feel-good” term that has nothing to do with individual student performance.	School culture is a powerful reinforcer of positive or negative behavior. School culture is the synergy of building leadership, attitudes about children and their ability or inability to learn and be a contributing member of a community.
African Americans and other minority groups receive special education services more than other ethnic groups because they come to school poorly prepared for learning.	Overrepresentation of African Americans and other minority groups in special education is a national issue. Inconsistent special education identification practices, culturally insensitive assessments, inequitable resource allocations, and poor school/home connections contribute to the issue.
Girls do not have as many challenging behaviors as boys.	Girls are underrepresented in special education. Girls are not identified at the same rates as boys because girls will typically “act in” versus “act out” and therefore take longer to be noticed by school officials.
Aggressive, acting out children go to alternative programs for students.	All schools serve children with challenging behaviors. Most children with challenging behaviors can be served successfully with their typical peers in general education classes.
Parents are the primary reason why children with challenging behaviors do not meet with success in school. Parents should leave the decision making to school professionals.	Parents are the true experts when it comes to understanding challenging behavior in their children and play a vital role in their education. The greater the partnership between home and school, the better the outcomes will be for children.