For some reason when people talk about behaviors and behavior programming at school, there is an automatic default to exceptional and alternative education. It is as if the word behavior is a pejorative that means “anywhere but the classroom”. But what is really interesting is that, while behavior solutions, behavior programming and behavior modification are getting relegated to the specialties within the educational array, we are seeing a mainstreaming of social and emotional learning (SEL).
SEL is becoming much more common, and in fact, with the advent of RTI (Response to Intervention) and MTSS (Multi-Tiered Systems of Support), SEL is becoming more and more common in vernacular, planning, and the implementation of core educational tenets. This is a great thing.
But here is the conundrum:
Social education is fantastic and is necessary. If we cannot help our students understand social responsibility and social inclusion and social normalization, then how are they going to function in our high socialized world? The same is true for emotional education. How are we going to help our kids work within the stress and structure of school and someday a job and family if they do not understand and have an ability to identify, control, and maintain their emotions? It makes all the sense in the world to teach social and emotional education!
But guess what? When there is a social deficit, we call it a behavior! When there is an emotional deficit we call it a be
havior! We teach social and emotional learning because we realize that kids do not come pre-equipped with a mastery of all necessary social and emotional skills. In other words, they have behaviors.
There are folks reading this right now ready to argue, but let me illustrate my point. We have diagnostics for mild emotional involvement all the way to extreme mental illness. Let’s go straight to an extreme for the first example. Have you ever met or been around someone with a diagnosis of schizophrenia? How was that diagnosis confirmed? Schizophrenia is after all the presence of hallucinations and/or delusions. Since we cannot see what that person is seeing or hear what that person is hearing, how do we know they are hallucinating? How do we know they have delusions? We know because we can hear them and see them and rate them contextually with our scale of normalcy (see Axis V DSM). In other words, they act different, and those actions allow us to classify them based upon what they are saying and doing. In other words, their behaviors bely their diagnosis.
Now let’s go a little less extreme. Little Suzy is a light bulb she is so bright. She is smart and sassy and self-centered. She does great academically but she can’t get along with her classmates because everything has to be her way. She has some social learning to do and some emotional education that needs to take place. But guess what? The manifestation of her social and emotional deficits are realized in her behaviors. Are her behaviors as extreme as the schizophrenic? No. But the social liability can be just as damaging if not corrected. So why would we cast behavior programming aside when the behaviors must be dealt with in order to help little Suzy fully achieve social and emotional learning capability?
Think about this a moment. How do you teach kids math when you can’t get them to sit down and be quiet? How do you teach them to diagram a sentence when they are throwing their books around class? Now, on another level: How do you teach them social and emotional learning when you can’t get them to pay attention and participate and cooperate?
We need to apply some common sense to the conundrum.
The advent of social and emotional learning is a wonderful and necessary thing. But we still have to deal with behaviors in order to get the students in a place where they are prepared to learn. Teaching an SEL lesson to kids who aren’t prepared to learn is no different than teaching algebra to kids who can’t yet count.
So what is the solution? It is difficultly simple. Go back to the roots of behavior change and take good old Skinner’s “cattle prod and M&M” approach and roll it together with Piaget’s concept of staged cognitive learning, and you end up with a cognitive-behavioral plan that teaches social and emotional learning while realizing the very deficits you are ameliorating can block actual learning– so they need to be dealt out programmatically through education and reinforcement. How do you do this? You assess need areas based on the student’s social, emotional, daily living, communications, and clinical skills capacity and create a plan to address needs in a hierarchy. Then, you provide teachers with a lesson plan that both teaches the social aspect of the skill as well as the emotional aspect of the skill and then couples both with the accountability and responsibility of the skill. Then, you measure as you teach to make sure that acclimation and assimilation are occurring. Then, you can compare the increase in social and emotional development, represented numerically, against the frequency, type, intensity, and duration of recorded behaviors. Then you can see that something interesting is occurring.Behaviors go down as SEL goes up.
Jason is a sophomore and has been known to get into trouble. He has been in In-School Suspension more than once. He has a smart mouth, and his latest adventure involved a fire extinguisher and a school bus. This little episode got him 3 days at the alternative school. No one really expects any changes in Jason any time soon.
Does this sound familiar?
Kids who get in trouble do so again and again. Why is it that the same kids seem to always be in trouble no matter what is tried? Schools have ISS, alternative schools, codes of conduct contracts, and so on. When I went to school we had Coach Velasquez and his paddle. That didn’t work either.
The reason why is actually simple in theory. One of the basic rules for changing behaviors is that behaviors must be reinforced. A positive reinforcement will help to increase a positive behavior while a negative reinforcement should help to eliminate a behavior. This is the basic tenant of classical conditioning. However, operant conditioning teaches us that this simplistic approach to punishing bad behaviors isn’t enough to change them.
In order to change behaviors, you do need the consequence– or negative reinforcement. There should be consequences for inappropriate behaviors. However, if you take two kids who are fist fighting in the hallway and give them In School Suspension, what have you taught them? You have taught them not to fight in the hallway where they will get caught… and that instead, they should go to the back of the school and fight where no one will see them.
The problem with simply punishing inappropriate behaviors is that you are making an assumption that the students know a better way to behave.
Given the environment many of our students are growing up in, this is a bad assumption. Many of our students are coming from broken homes and many of those students are coming from homes with multiple breaks. With the cost of living soaring, many of our students’ parents are working multiple jobs trying to make ends meet and leaving their kids to be raised by television and video games. The real problem is that so many of our kids are not being taught the basic tenets of social acceptance at home and that makes the educator’s job immeasurably more difficult. Just punishing these kids will not affect change.
In order for discipline to work, there needs to be a partnering force with the consequence process:
The consequence phase of behavior change is known as the DRI, the Differential Reinforcement of Inappropriate behaviors. This states that for every aberrant behavior there should be a clear and consistent consequence. However, for the DRI to really work you need the DRO, which is the Differential Reinforcement of Other behaviors. This states that for every targeted and punished behavior, you will teach the student a replacement behavior.
Simply put, punishing a child for acting inappropriately is not the way to change their actions if they do not know a better way to act. You must teach them why their action was wrong and how they should have acted. You have to help them understand which behavior is receiving a consequence and then teach them a better way of behaving. Simply punishing without teaching is like applying a band-aid to a broken heart. It just won’t work. You must give a knowledge base from which to act before your expectations for appropriateness are met.
There is a lot of focus on social and emotional learning.
In the world of mental health care, this is known as psychosocial education. This means that you are going to teach or train a person to deal with their environment in an appropriate manner. This means interacting with others, personal responsibility, communication, respect, and the many other requisite skills for societal acceptance.
We must take the same approach in schools. Yes, it is important to teach reading writing and arithmetic. But, if you create a mathematics whiz with no personal or social skills, have you really educated the child? Look at it another way: if you have a child struggling to read, you do not put them in the corner or send them to ISS. So why is that our reaction to a student who is struggling socially? That struggling student needs to be taught and needs to be given the opportunity to know how to better engage and behave.
Punishment can sometimes become a respite for our teachers. When students are sent to In-School Suspension or alternative campuses, they are out of the teachers hair for a while– but they will be back. Will they be any different? Unless someone taught them something while they were gone, you are going to get back the same kid you sent out of your room for misbehaving. What’s changed? In order to change student behaviors and have a discipline system that works, schools must have consequences. But handing out punishment to kids who do not know any better is not compassionate nor is it educational. Teach your kids how to act and then have expectations for their behaviors. Teach them right from wrong, and then hold them accountable. Punishment is effective when a child has made a bad choice and he is receiving consequences for that choice.
When a child doesn’t know any better and then is punished for his actions, you are just picking on them, at least in their mind.
So, for school discipline to work, you must teach replacement behaviors for the inappropriate behaviors that are occurring. This will allow you to begin to see the types of behaviors that need to be taught– and then you can become proactive. Think about how cool it would be if you were teaching the appropriate behaviors before the inappropriate behaviors actually occurred. Your teaching could actually prevent the occurrence of behaviors and make your classroom a truer learning environment. After all, in order to educate a young mind, you must prepare them for life.
There are a lot of literate outcasts.
Our prisons are full of people who can read and add and subtract.
Our prisons are also full of people who were never taught to behave any differently when they were children.
Think about Jason. Would it have made a difference if he had known a better way to gain attention? Would it have made a difference if he had understood the consequences of his actions? As an educator, you could at least take solace in the thought that sometimes the Jasons of the world will make bad decisions. But you will have given them the opportunity to make a decision based on knowledge… And then the discipline makes sense.
One of the real issues facing schools today is the readiness of kids to begin. Are little ones ready for Kindergarten? If not, is Pre-K the answer? What should the focus of Pre-K be? Is it academic readiness or is it social preparation? Can you mix the two? How do you know which is the more pressing need?
There are lots of questions about readiness and not a lot of canned, ready to implement answers. In February 2015, Mark Howard published a very interesting article titled, “Kids and Catch-Up”. In this article he gives the statistics in Florida involving the impact of poor reading in the 1st grade and how 88% of these kids are still poor readers in the 5th grade. He then follows the trend lines of kids who entered school unprepared to learn and continued learning behind the curve and many who ended up dropping out and an alarming number that ended up incarcerated.
What makes all of this so difficult is that it isn’t as simple as dropping in good reading program and everything will be fine. These are little kids. Even if you have the best reading program in the world, how are you going to teach it to them when you can’t get them to sit down and pay attention. Again, the question is about preparedness.
Many schools are wrestling with testing and assessments for Pre-K-aged kids to determine their learning readiness.
Some are even going so far as to try and put together behavior scales and assessments to determine social and emotional preparedness. This is a very difficult task, because little ones can assimilate knowledge very quickly and can learn at an accelerated level well beyond an adult– but they do often do not possess the ability of discernment, decision making, and social and emotional maturity for educational and social integration.
Jean Piaget’s cognitive stages of development posit that kids in the age range of 4-7 typically have a similar cognitive functionality. This stage of development is known as the “Intuitive Phase” and during this phase, kids tend to be myopic in both learning and problem solving. Everything is seen and experienced and therefore dealt with through the prism of “Me”. This makes the integration into a structured social platform, ie classroom, a very difficult transition for many kids. It also means that we have Pre-K, Kindergarten, and 1st graders who will struggle with this, and that is actually normal. It is not abnormal, aberrant, nor unusual for a Pre-K student to fit right in and and grasp the structure of a school day with no problem. It is also not abnormal, aberrant, nor unusual for a 1st grader to struggle with the structure of a school day and the social and emotional expectations and demands.
So what do you do?
To answer these questions you have to look at the platform itself. Even though kids develop in phases, they are placed academically on age. There is not an acceleration or deceleration platform for kids based on maturity. I wish we could keep kids at their maturity level until they are socially and emotionally ready to progress, but we don’t. The main reason we don’t is because that process is expensive and it is counter to our linear educational systems that moves kids to higher level of accountability based upon their age, not their maturity.
This means we have to work within the platform. How do you do this? You define the expectations of the platformed ages and then you teach to those social and emotional expectations just like you would to the reading and writing level. We expect our kids to be able to read and write and add and subtract at advancing levels for each year of school.
What are your social and emotional expectations for Kindergarteners vs 3rd graders vs their Freshman year?
These aren’t usually defined. And the problem with little ones, those in that intuitive phase, is that it isn’t something you can simply assess and address. Instead, you have to make the maturing of your students’ social and emotional aptitude part of your instructional and teaching day. You have to teach them how to sit down and pay attention. You have to teach them how to stand in a line. You have to teach them how to get along with the kid sitting next to them. You have to teach them how to talk appropriately. You have to teach them how to be a member of the class, and then you must have a strategy that both reinforces and provides consequences based upon this teaching.
In other words, if you want kids that are mature enough to read and write and add and subtract, you have to teach them how to be a student. You have to teach them how to work and think and develop within the structured day of a classroom. You can’t simply assess and address. You have to make the development of your students’ social capacity an equal to their ability to read and write. If you don’t, a lot of our kids will continue to be poor readers and writers and learners. They can’t afford that, and neither can we as a society.
Over the last several weeks we have spent a lot of time describing and defining behaviors. After all, our words and appearance and behaviors define us. People cannot see our intent nor can they hear what we are thinking. They can only see the things we do, hear the things we say, and observe the way we act.
Our behaviors are who we are to other people. And some people’s behaviors need to change! Psychology 101 tells us that changing behaviors is as simple as A-B-C. An Antecedent leads to a Behavior and the Consequence of the behavior will determine if that behavior continues or ceases. If the behavior is inappropriate and is therefore negatively reinforced then it will cease. If the behavior is appropriate and reinforced then it will enhance.
It’s simple right? It’s the old cattle prod and M&Ms behavioral philosophy? Give ‘em M&M’s when they are good and the cattle prod when they are bad. That’s about as basic Skinnerian as you can get. But we all know there is more to the change process than punishments and rewards. In fact, it can be a little complicated. Let’s lay it out in this 2 minute video:
Stack of old paper files isolated on white
Follow your students around with notebooks and log every behavior, where and when it occurred, who was around, how long it lasted, what was happening around the behavior, the people involved, the reaction it received, the duration and intensity of the behavior…
Thenuse all of that information to determine the function the behavior serves…
Once you know the function all you have to do is determine a multi-variable reinforcement schedule that correlates to both cause and function and…
Then also set up a consequence schedule for inappropriate behaviors and…
Then teach replacement behaviors for each targeted inappropriate behavior that correlates to the function.
(gasp for air…)
Good old simple straight-forward operant conditioning! And this process can work. I have seen it work in institutions where people are under constant surveillance and a whole gaggle of orderlies is charged with documenting everything at all times.
But is your classroom set up like that? Of course it isn’t.
That doesn’t mean behavior change cannot occur. There are some basic components to the behavioral schemata that are influential enough to sway and change behaviors, even without every little piece of information. In fact, you can determine the functions of behaviors without having to chart every aspect of the individual’s life and you can effectively change behaviors without turning into a data junkie. The key is focusing on the elements that will make a difference and the elements that build the foundation for the functions of the behaviors. In the weeks to come we are going to begin breaking down these components into changeable, doable, and measurable processes.
And the best part – it won’t feel clinical or academic.
It doesn’t have to be tedious or laborious. In fact, one of the best kept secrets in the clinical world of behavioral care is that teachers are some of the best behavior changers out there. Why? Because behaviors are learned! So if you want to change a behavior you have to teach a new one to take its place and then teach why it is important to change. You know who is good at teaching? That’s right, teachers! Changing behaviors can happen and it can be affirming for both the person making the changes and the person helping the change to occur. Teaching someone how to be prepared for and participate in life is not only necessary, it is very doable.