Article about collaborative problem solving and discipline

[kbutton]

I thought you all might find this interesting. I am part of a local parenting support group that is getting off the ground, and many of the parents do not homeschool. In addition to school considerations, we all have to figure out what to do in our church setting (it's a group at church, though it's open to those outside of our church).

 

Contemporary psychological studies suggest that, far from resolving children's behavior problems, these standard disciplinary methods often exacerbate them. They sacrifice long-term goals (student behavior improving for good) for short-term gain—momentary peace in the classroom.

 

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/schools-behavior-discipline-collaborative-proactive-solutions-ross-greene

 

 

[PeterPan]

Interestingly, The Explosive Child is in my bag to read right now.  I guess I'm confused though.  You're wanting to give discipline advice to the parents or create some kind of class time policy or ??  Seems to me that could be really dangerous, especially if you know the mix is SN.  I would assume parents would be called for anything that couldn't be handled with redirection.  I would never want someone of casual acquaintance or a non-professional to be correcting my dc.

[Innisfree]

Great article. Green's book has been very useful to us over the years, though I've always had a hard time with the part about identifying which skills are lagging.

 

The fundamental idea that "kids do well when they can" (hope I'm correct in connecting this to this author) has been transformative for me.

[PeterPan]

Did that originate with Green?  I remember first hearing it from Pudewa in a convention talk, but I don't remember whom he attributed it to.

[Innisfree]

I think/thought I encountered it in Green's book, but I'm not sure if it's originally his or someone else's idea. Anyway, the concept has been profoundly useful to me, in behavior around schoolwork as well as more generally.

[kbutton]

Interestingly, The Explosive Child is in my bag to read right now.  I guess I'm confused though.  You're wanting to give discipline advice to the parents or create some kind of class time policy or ??  Seems to me that could be really dangerous, especially if you know the mix is SN.  I would assume parents would be called for anything that couldn't be handled with redirection.  I would never want someone of casual acquaintance or a non-professional to be correcting my dc.

 

The article made me think of two things in the context of our group...1, this article could be something that parents can think through and talk about with school personnel since many do not homeschool, and 2. at some point, it might help in talking to children's workers. Redirection can work with younger kids, but starting in third grade in most extracurricular activities (church or otherwise), kids are expected to follow rules, go with the flow, not make waves, and negotiate with peers (at least in activities where the adults are volunteers, and the class is not specifically a special ed sort of thing). Often there are many kids to deal with and lots of activity going on, and it's just easier to just dole out commands or consequences (time outs) rather than to teach kids to get along or solve interpersonal problems. And a lot of adults really don't think they are personal problems--anything where they are not obeyed or where kids fight is a behavior problem to them. It's worse at church because adults are, of course, spiritually mature and allowed to expect random obedience (I'm being snarky, but it can be that way sometimes). I don't wish to paint a picture that our children's workers are not nice people, but there is a generational thing at play as well as a "kids are always to obey, and mine obviously do" thing at play. They also think the kids have to learn to work this stuff out too before youth group and such--it never seems to occur to them that they might be part of that learning to work it out process. Being different is seen by some people as having a deserved target on your back. If you are different because of learning or developmental issues, then that's okay, but there is only so much room for differences in a group setting.

[PeterPan]

I think/thought I encountered it in Green's book, but I'm not sure if it's originally his or someone else's idea. Anyway, the concept has been profoundly useful to me, in behavior around schoolwork as well as more generally.

I started reading tonight, and it turns out it's the title of one of the chapters!   :)  It's a good read so far, so I'm going to need time to get through it.  But yes, I heard that statement from Pudewa at a convention years ago, and it has radically affected how dh and I parent ds.  He has been the eyebrow raiser, and everything that happens (wetting, meltdowns, etc.), we go back to the idea that if he COULD, he WOULD.  

 

Well now I'm looking forward to plowing through the book!  I got hung up in the introduction, where he talks about juvenile detention and the courts, and I'm thinking DUDE, is that where this is going if we fail??   :scared:     :svengo:

 

[Lecka]

I totally like him.  I have read several of his books.  I liked The Explosive Child.

 

I also really like PBIS (positive behavior interventions and supports).  We have it in our school system, and my younger son used to have a section of positive behavior supports in his IEP.  It worked really well for him.  I was surprised when, last year, it was removed from his IEP -- I thought it had been so good for him.  But then it turns out it is only for kids who have fairly serious behavior issues that he was not having anymore.  

 

I feel like, though, there are times when they can get like "no, we are different from that other very similar program" for reasons that seem very small to me.  

 

For example -- like, as you may know here (wink) my son benefited from FBA (functional behavior analysis/assessment).  But there are people who like the Green style, and say "oh, and it is so different from FBA, which we don't like."  And then they give an example.  And the example they give of an FBA is ------ well, it should never have been an FBA, somebody has implemented it in a really wrong way.  Like -- someone has used it as a tool to do what they want to do anyway -- which is to keep their punishment mindset -- they are just doing it in an FBA format/structure.  But it will be incorrect, it will be violating what I have read are principles for properly/effectively conducting an FBA.  So my conclusion is not:  FBA is bad.  My conclusion is:  that was not even FBA because they were not doing right.  

 

But honestly I feel like I like all the positive, problem-solving kinds of approaches.  

 

I think they would be great to try in a group.

 

Just try to make sure that people agree with them, I think, b/c I think with anything -- people may go through some motions but still keep doing what is familiar to them or what makes sense to them, which may be a punishment-based or shame-based approach.  If people are not on board with the new and different mindset ---- then I think that is a problem.  I think you would need to have someone like the pastor and/or youth group leader speaking up for it, if it would mean a shift in thinking and attitude from a lot of people who are going to be part of it.  If it is something where everyone part of it is naturally likely to be on board, then this is not going to be an issue, I think.  Education and information are nice, but there are so many people who are not going to agree with collaborative problem-solving, b/c it is new and different, and it is not their problem, and they will continue to think what they have thought all along.  But if some key people addressed it, maybe that would help.  My church right now is very inclusive in a lot of ways, but it is not perfect.  But I think people have willing hearts for sure.  But it is a more open-minded church than others I have attended.  My sister's church is very inclusive and I believe it is mainly because of the role model and leadership of the youth minister.  I have seen him (when I have visited) really come out and make statements that make it clear how he thinks and what he expects.  I have never seen anyone else in a religious show as much leadership in this way as this youth minister.  He is very well-liked by the youth, too.  

 

Separately ---- do not get hung up on the introduction.  Of course that is not where you are heading!   

 

Separately -- Green is someone who is mentioned by the author of Zones of Regulation on her information page, too, which I think is cool. 

 

 

[PeterPan]

Kbutton, I started to type this out and I deleted because I couldn't figure out if it was actually on-topic.  I'll lob it out anyway, just to see.  I think creating informational sessions with your co-op is fabulous, because people are at all different stages of learning.  We're all always learning.  As far as handling discipline in that group setting, at least with my ds, I would only want correction that could occur through positive means.  I'm RADICALLY opposed to timeouts (for all children, not just SN) as they are not relational and do not allow for the correction of the relationship.  I would remove my child from any class where they attempted to use a timeout, ESPECIALLY a Sunday School or church setting.  I know there are some people who attempt to use timeouts in church to discipline children, and I think this needs to be instructed out. 

 

Now I want to get back to something we had talked about here briefly on the boards ages ago, which is Ted Tripp.  I'm going to make some leaps here, but I think it's not hard to get philosophically from Ted Tripp to Greene, but it might be hard to get from more (not sure of the right descriptor here) methodologies to Greene.  If you eliminate the spanking (which of course is never on the table in a public setting anyway), TT in essence gets you to where they cede that instruction, connection, relationship are important.  Think about this.  You can go through an avenue they already are inclined to cede, because it's in their camp, to get to the next step of realizing that to get instruction that connects and builds relationships you're going to have to work EXTRA HARD with kids who have SN.  So then there's no connection, just this flow.  

 

To me, the challenge is getting people to cede the need for instruction, connection, and relationship and to move past their superficial, pragmatic methodologies.  Once you get them to UNDERSTAND the instruction, connection, and relationship components of TT, you can move the people working with SN into Greene, no problem.  There is no contradiction in that sense.

 

In other words, don't get so overwhelmed by the forest that you miss the trees you can chop down and make work for you.

[kbutton]

Kbutton, I started to type this out and I deleted because I couldn't figure out if it was actually on-topic.  I'll lob it out anyway, just to see.  I think creating informational sessions with your co-op is fabulous, because people are at all different stages of learning.  We're all always learning.  As far as handling discipline in that group setting, at least with my ds, I would only want correction that could occur through positive means.  I'm RADICALLY opposed to timeouts (for all children, not just SN) as they are not relational and do not allow for the correction of the relationship.  I would remove my child from any class where they attempted to use a timeout, ESPECIALLY a Sunday School or church setting.  I know there are some people who attempt to use timeouts in church to discipline children, and I think this needs to be instructed out.  This isn't for our co-op. It's for a SN parenting support group conversation. We don't really do timeouts in church, but sometimes they do sit out an activity. I am trying to be less than specific here, and that's making me sound a bit incoherent. A child might have to sit out if they are not following safety rules during a game. We can work on the relationship as much as possible, but if they can't follow safety rules, they will have to watch for a bit until they can do this. With the older kids, sometimes they are asked to sit out of games for other reasons--I don't like this in most cases. Many times though, things are just smoothed over or everyone is herded along to the next thing, and nothing is addressed, or it's addressed in a way that says, "You don't fit--we don't have time for your _____ (meltdown, miscommunication, cognitive rigidity, etc.), so we're going to settled this by _____ (arbitrary means)." If the children's worker is older or very authoritarian, this just increases exponentially. If they are authoritarian and Ted Tripp-like, then the child is a spiritual problem (thankfully, I don't see this a lot, but I know who thinks this way, and I KNOW that has to come across in how they speak to children).  What I most hate about this is that there is never room for the neurotypical child to be wrong if they are being obedient or even semi-obedient. If it's obvious that the child has a likely IQ difference, not some other disability, then they do get a pass, but not necessarily any sort of accommodation. Again, we have loving, caring children's workers, but it's a parenting free for all in this world, including at church. There is a finite amount of time for instruction. I struggle myself when I know that a child just needs some relating (even when not misbehaving), but the format of the program doesn't support this. But no one wants to go to a format where these kids are taken out and in something separate. It's hard.

 

Now I want to get back to something we had talked about here briefly on the boards ages ago, which is Ted Tripp.  I'm going to make some leaps here, but I think it's not hard to get philosophically from Ted Tripp to Greene, but it might be hard to get from more (not sure of the right descriptor here) methodologies to Greene.  If you eliminate the spanking (which of course is never on the table in a public setting anyway), TT in essence gets you to where they cede that instruction, connection, relationship are important.  Think about this.  You can go through an avenue they already are inclined to cede, because it's in their camp, to get to the next step of realizing that to get instruction that connects and builds relationships you're going to have to work EXTRA HARD with kids who have SN.  So then there's no connection, just this flow.  I am fairly certain I still can't talk nicely about Ted Tripp. Yes, he gave the idea that it's about relationship, but then he shattered all of that with his methodology. I mean, he gives "biblical" justification for NOT working with these kids at all and just beating them. It really becomes beating when they don't respond the way the book says they should, if you keep going. If the child responds, then it is "just spanking." It creates more cognitive dissonance than I can handle on a spiritual level (I've been in some spiritually abusive places in the past).  TT doesn't leave room for someone else to be right or to trust another system--he teaches as though his solution is the one and only biblical answer.

 

To me, the challenge is getting people to cede the need for instruction, connection, and relationship and to move past their superficial, pragmatic methodologies.  Once you get them to UNDERSTAND the instruction, connection, and relationship components of TT, you can move the people working with SN into Greene, no problem.  There is no contradiction in that sense. I agree with the essence of this. If TT comes up in a parenting session I'm in at my church (where it's not advertised ahead), I will have to speak up and then leave.  Most likely crying and snotting on everyone and shaking like a leaf. Yeah, TT is not my thing.

 

In other words, don't get so overwhelmed by the forest that you miss the trees you can chop down and make work for you.