In a previous Newsletter Challenging Beliefs – Not so Easy (see - 04/02/2017) we discussed the basicprinciple behind the formations of beliefs and why they are powerful. In this essay we will revisit some of these concepts and why beliefs have such a powerful hold on behaviour. Understanding the process of formation provides the processes and conditions that drive a behavioural change.
Beliefs are the internal maps of our environment we assemble from the moment we are born. These maps are the memories of the connection between actions in and from the environment and the experienced impact on our self that followed those actions.
All behaviour, when examined closely is designed to support our survival and later the ability to reproduce, this is the Selfish Gene Model proposed by Richard Dawkins. In early childhood when our internal maps are being formed, it is the drive to survive that governs our behaviours. These internal maps are memories of the best way to get our needs met in the environment in which we are raised.
For example, if we need to get the attention of a distracted, uncaring mother and after various trials we find the best, most reliable way to do this is to throw a tantrum then the memory of that behaviour will determine what we will do next time mum ignores us! We expect to get attention with anger and when we do, this belief is reinforced.
Over time we develop a whole network of memories associated with various situations and the more these are reliable, the more they ‘work’, the more they become the truth; they become our fundamental view of the world. This belief allows us to operate effectively to deal with incoming senses because they worked before. The belief becomes a ‘permanent’ part of our memory and as well as assessing incoming evidence about the environment, it also allows us to ‘know things’ without reference to the environment. As I sit here typing I ‘know’ my car is in the driveway, I know my kids are at work; I confidently know these things even though I have no real evidence. This ‘knowing’ makes my life more efficient because in most cases my beliefs will match the unseen evidence.
The key point is that the belief has been developed in a specific environment. Throughout these essays we assert the problem for children raised in abusive, neglectful environments is that when they move from that punishing environment into a different setting such as a classroom, the behaviour driven by their beliefs does not work. Logic suggests that if one behaviour fails then you try a different one after all that’s how you formed your beliefs, but they are not formed that way, evidence will never overshadow beliefs. This is especially so for memories (beliefs) formed in early childhood or when the child is feeling threatened! The evidence is that when a child has established a set of beliefs, logic alone has little chance of successfully making a change, particularly when it suggests behaviours that go against their sense of self. The difficulty when working with these children is for us to understand just how important and powerful their beliefs are and the difficulty in changing the resulting behaviours.
Every one of us needs a sense of certainty when we make-a-decision. Not making-a-decision can lead to either inactivity or procrastination or become reliant on others to tell you what to do. Extreme indecision can lead to aboulomania a mental disorder where pathological indecisiveness leads to emotional anguish; indecision, or lack of ‘knowing.’ This ‘not knowing’ is also associated with obsessive compulsory disorder. We need to sense we are right all the time.
I have an unexplained dislike for the term behaviour modification, it implies that through control you make someone act in a certain way. I also have the same disquiet in regards to operant conditioning based on Skinner’s model of stimulus response/reward punishment model. However, we are working with children who have developed behaviours through the ‘reward and punishment’ feedback from the environment in which they were raised so we can’t disregard this connection. My thesis is that if you want these children to learn to behave in a way to get their needs met in the school environment we have to structure the feedback from their actions to build the connection between their behaviour and their desired consequences. The feed-back will be either they get their needs met in the environment, a ‘reward’ or, if they do not get their needs met, they are ‘punished’. It is through their actions within a structured set of predictable consequences they are modifying their behaviour.
Feedback, whether positive or negative are only consequences of actions and are what happens when you act a certain way. Previous Newsletters (Consequences - 03/26/2018 and Consequences – Neither Punishment nor Reward - 04/02/2017) discuss consequences at depth and the case for establishing them is made in detail in these essays.
Setting consequences is not easy, especially those that are not ‘natural’. For example, if you go out in the rain without protection you will get wet, that’s a natural consequence. Some consequences can be logical, for example if you are asked to pick up papers because you are caught littering, the connection between creating trash and removing that, is rational. However, some consequences have to be imposed. If a child hits a smaller one it would hardly be natural or logical for the child to hit back so society develops a set of ‘chosen’ consequences that follow such actions. It is best if everyone agrees on the consequences but it is essential that they know what will happen!
If we are to build up the child’s sense of independence and the resulting sense of self-empowerment the consequences that are imposed as an outcome must not be influenced by what you want for the child but what the child sees as being significant, that is what they want and don’t want to have happen.
This is where structure and persistence are critical. To develop a new set of beliefs for the child that will drive functional behaviour you have to present an environment that is so structured, so predictable that the evidence, the feedback resulting from behaviour that comes from that environment, will eventually create a set of beliefs that will overwhelm their existing belief structure.
It is important to remember that the belief structure constructed during early childhood was developed by being the best way they had of surviving in their physical and social environment. It is really difficult for anyone to give up their beliefs just based on data. Our reliance on beliefs is powerful and, in some cases regarded as a more reliable test of reality. Recent events in America are testament to this phenomenon. How often do we hear leadership pundits telling us to trust our intuition, use our ‘emotional intelligence’? When we do this, we run the risk of choosing beliefs over evidence. When that best-selling book by Daniel Goleman came out I was working with children with belief systems formed in abusive and neglectful environments. I always thought that emotional stupidity was just as valid a subject!
The real secret is that the consequences are attached to the behaviour, not the child. It will not surprise you to know that this is best done when there is a very supporting relationship between the teacher and the child. This ensures that the child understands it is their behaviour within the structure that controls the consequences not whether or not the teacher likes them. This is how they develop a sense of self-empowerment because they develop the understanding that they control their behaviour and in doing that, they control the consequences good or bad that come their way.
In the current political climate there is no doubt that prejudice is driving the divide in our communities! This should not be tolerated, especially in our multicultural public schools. Teachers know that bigotry and intolerance is not a natural quality, our kids are not born with these characteristics, they learn them. This Newsletter looks at prejudice, its origins, the traps we fall into and the hidden dangers we all face especially when teaching in schools whose culture is different than our own.
The basic feature of prejudice is a judgemental attitude towards others based on their ‘group’. Usually, this is expressed as the ‘other’ belonging to a cohort we consider to be inferior. Conversely but not as frequently, there are situations where we see those ‘others’ as being better than us. The origin of this outlook, this ‘us and them’ mind-set is not inevitable, but it does have its beginnings in our evolutionary journey.
Between 50,000 to 100,000 years ago there was an explosion in the development of the human brain. This was the time our prefrontal lobes started to emerge allowing for an increased capacity for language, complex reasoning and forward planning. These skills helped keep each tribal group bonded. We became a social species, a development that required us to cultivate behaviours that kept the groups united.
The primary benefit of this group cohesion was to provide safety against animals, collecting of food, etc. continued until we were relatively secure in nature then a new threat emerged and this was the danger from other, competing tribes. During this phase of evolution groups developed the practice of ‘stealing’ food, land and sexual partners from neighbouring tribes. Now it became a matter of us finding safety in our group and those ‘others’ were a dangerous threat to us all! This enemy was now a genuine threat to our survival, so we quickly learned how identify who was ‘one of us’ and who ‘was not’, who was good and who was bad!
The emergent reliance on social cohesion resulted in neural alterations in the brain’s emerging limbic system. The subsequent functions, such as the ability to interpret emotions in others, attachment, those social skills that allowed us to identify the motives of others supported our attempts to survive and thrive. Successful cooperation led to an increase in the group’s productivity and social security. The ability to belong in our group depended on our compliance to the social norms and these needed to be learned.
This social association meant loyalty to our kinfolk which led to the rejection of other tribes. We learned to critically scrutinise others’ behaviours and reject any differences. The cognitive mechanics of this acrimony began to form between the prefrontal cortex, our considering brain and our amygdala, the part of the limbic system that initiated a fear response to any identified threat. When we detected difference in others ‘alarm bells’ sounded in our brains and we had to alleviate the resulting stress.
Research has shown that when people are thinking in a prejudicial manner the amygdala lights-up, it is activated. This associated effect was first observed in an experiment where white men in the US were shown a range of pictures of other faces. Their amygdala was more active when pictures of black, Afro-Americans appeared indicating even unconscious racism; this was an involuntary response. Further examination revealed the same anxious response has been shown when faces of other ethnic groups, aggressive women or even opposing team supporters; it is the instinctive reaction when we view someone we think as ‘other’.
The broad result is disturbing in that we view others, including everyone that is like the ‘other’ as being different from us and possessing the same menacing threat. For instance, if you as a white person see an aboriginal youth drunk in the streets, there is a tendency to think this is typical of all aboriginals. However, if you see a white man of a similar age, and condition you are less likely to conclude that was typical of all whites, after all they are ‘one of us’! We are quick to generalise about others, it is an unconscious reaction.
This prejudice has an impact on health. Whenever you feel discrimination towards another your stress levels become elevated because you see them as a threat and if it continues you can suffer all the ailments linked to excessive stress. The effect on the health of those who are the subject of this social rejection based on ‘kind’ is even more damaging. Rejection, a social assault results in the same parts of the brain ‘lighting up’ as happens when physically attacked! The clue to why prejudice is not unavoidable lies in the interaction of the frontal lobes, the emergence of which facilitated this prejudice and the amygdala, our protection against attack.
So, it would seem that prejudice is a natural phenomenon and perhaps, in the first instance it provided an evolutionary advantage but this is no longer the case.
On an individual basis the brain develops over time. The amygdala is the first to appear being active from birth. This dominates until about three when the hippocampus comes ‘on-line’ to give a reasoning to our environment. It has been shown that the amygdala and hippocampus do not instinctively respond to differences in race, gender or class. In fact, studies have shown that the most popular young children are those with a more diverse collection of friends. Any observation of young children playing in a multicultural school ground more than confirms this lack of prejudice in very young children.
However, the same study showed that these successful students, to remain popular as they matured dropped this inclination towards social diversity. This is a result of the pressure to belong to a peer group, so important to teens. It is the same drive to belong that underpins prejudice on a macro scale but also constructs the need to discriminate in a micro sense. This means, to belong to your clique at school you had to adopt their ‘virtues’ and reject the ‘imperfections’ of those in the out-group.
This is the period of the evolving teenage brain. From about age eleven the prefrontal lobes develop and part of this development is to over-ride the amygdala in all but the most dangerous situations. You don’t have time to think about what to do if a car comes hurtling towards you. The amygdala is there to initiate an almost instantaneous response and you jump out of the way. However, if you see someone different coming towards you, in a dark alley at night you do have time for the frontal lobes to assess the danger. The decision we make will depend on the memories, the things taught to us. This confirms that prejudice is a learned phenomenon, acquired from our parent, our media and our schools; it is real and it is damaging!
The good news is we can unlearn prejudice. We can ‘educate’ our frontal lobes by:
Teaching about prejudice, in our history lessons social sciences and just straight out teaching empathy
Exposing prejudicial behaviour – publicly ‘call it out’
Creating laws that outlaw prejudice that causes harm
Developing quota for positions of power.
There have been attempts to do this and with great success. France introduced laws twenty years ago that forced the membership of their parliament to be gender equal. A follow-up study revealed that the effectiveness of that parliament had significantly improved. There has been calls for such legislation in our society but this is resisted by obvious masculine prejudice!
The real driving factor for change is role models. This is seen in all endeavours, the arts, music, sport and politics. Perhaps, there has never been more powerful role models that challenge racism than Nelson Mandela and Barrack Obama, heroes of our modern political landscape. In our own nation the elevation of the football star Adam Goodes to Australian of the Year provides a similar symbol. Their rise marks a turning point for racism but they also provided a target for those who cling to their antiquated prejudices.
I agree with cultural commentator Waleed Aly who made the telling point in regards to Adam Goodes, he made the ‘mistake’ of being not only better in the sport than others, including the white players, he was strong enough to stand-up to the racism and call it out! The conclusion is we are tolerant of ‘the others’ as long as they don’t rise about their station, the homogenic prejudice to which we have assigned them!
The threat that is presented by these outstanding ‘others’ drives the racial backlash witnessed in the last days of the Trump Administration, these demonstrators such as the ‘Proud Boys’ were driven by the emotions of their brain that was responding to their ‘education’!
Why are we discussing this in our Newsletter? Remember, our focus is on students who have developed dysfunctional behaviours as a result of their childhood environment. The behaviour these children often display does not naturally encourage friendships with kids from successful families. They almost inevitably become a target for prejudice within the mainstream, they are rejected. However, these kids still have the powerful drive to belong and as a result are easily seduced into joining sinister alliances that reflect their qualities. They are driven to behave that way because of their life long rejection. The acceptance by their group means they now have the security of belonging. To complete the extension of their acceptance they naturally develop a strong prejudice against anyone who challenges the values of this new group. They become over represented in the associations that dismiss modern social values with claims of white supremacy and/or the rejection of refugees. Within their group they finally fit in, adopting the culture of the gang and rejecting that part of society that turn their backs on them.
If we want to eradicate this ugly side of modern society we should look at how or school system reflects our ‘values’. While ever we support elite private schools, religious and public selective schools which all reinforce social prejudice, we are creating an exclusive culture that must view public, comprehensive schools, that serve the lowest socio-economic areas as being inferior. We have the breeding ground of prejudice! This damaging state of affairs reflects our prejudicial parliament who encourage this difference through their financial support. Sadly, both major parties must take responsibility for this.
At the beginning of each year it is time to ‘start again’ with new or new combinations of students. It is time to establish the qualities of your classroom and I advocate these are:
Define your Pedagogy
From the outset let the student know what they will learn in your classroom. Even for those in early education there are ways to tell them what school is about and for those in their final years outline the curriculum they need to take on board and how they will be assessed.
Explain the Classroom Structure
As you should be aware I advocate a well-defined discipline and welfare plan however the use of formal rules (see Newsletter Creating Structure 8th - December 2019) occurs to address existing problems. I won’t make a rule for something that is not a problem – I won’t make a fuss over students who come with appropriate behaviour, it should be expected however, especially for those kids we focus on, those with dysfunctional behaviours rules are just a teaching aid. One part of the structure is the establishment of the rituals of the classroom (see Rituals – 12th November 2018) things like being on time for class, lining up outside the room, whatever you want! This initial structure reflects the next quality, expectations!
Spell Out Your Expectations
My basic rule for the classes I taught and the schools I supervised was to act appropriately! For most students, appropriate behaviour is understood but for some this has to be spelled out. The best way to do this is through modelling. If you want your students to be on time for class make sure you’re the first there, greet them at the door! At least reinforce those behaviours you expect and extinguish those you don’t.
Relationships
The teacher/student relationship is the most important feature of a quality classroom and that relies on how the students feel about each other and you their teacher. Of course, the opposite applies. It is important that you present yourself to the class as a caring teacher. You can’t fake this but there has always been a belief that if you start in hard with the students they will comply and when they do you can relax. If ‘starting hard’ means staying aloof and delivering consequences with gusto then you are not ‘hard’ you are lazy. I will accept the notion of ‘starting hard’ in that you have to be vigilant of all the things you have to establish simultaneously. Later, when expectations are understood and applied the ‘hard’ work will have paid off and the focus can be on the pedagogy of the classroom while you maintain the other arms of the complete learning environment.
These are the characteristics of a complete learning environment (see illustration below). At the beginning of the year you need to focus on all the features to get them established but as you succeed then the only one that requires continual attention is the pedagogy, the content of the lessons! The others continue on as a maintenance requirement – you have to continually service the total environment!
Of course, you hold the leadership role in this so you must apply the qualities of the complete learning environment. Make sure you:
Know you Lesson Content
Sometimes you will be asked to introduce material you are unsure of and that requires you to research to be prepared just as you need to understand the best way to present that material. This is well covered in so many places in the education literature and this has never been the focus of our work. That is not to imply we don’t think it is important – it is. Our work is to help teachers successfully manage the other qualities so the focus for every lesson is on content!
Understand How to Produce Structure
Be aware of the process of making rules to address disruptive behaviours. This is covered in depth in a previous Newsletter (see Creating Structure 12th August 2019). It is preferable that you have the students design the rules but if they are too young or too disengaged you need to impose the rule on them so be prepared to do this.
Establish Your Expectations
Some school leaders expect all teachers to have the same expectations of the level of behaviour required of the students. This assumes all the teachers are the same, have the same personality types. If we require everyone to be the same then no teacher will be true to their own set of values. There was a time when attention to ‘personality types’ was in vogue, principals and teachers attended workshops and were sorted into groups based on the degree of their particular qualities. You were assigned a ‘type’ and told how to deal with those ‘other types’ and those ‘other types’ are the children. The thing is, no type is ‘best’ for the individual students. What is important is that you are true to your personality. If you try to be a type of teacher that you’re not then you may succeed while things are going along smoothly however, when things go wrong and you get stressed you will revert back to your true self; this will confuse the students. Remember, consistency is the key to establishing trust and trust is at the heart of the last and final characteristic!
Build Relationships
This is covered above however there is a distinction, you are the teacher! You are the adult in the room, we should be able to assume you are fully functional. You are qualified, you’re the only one with a Degree in teaching. And, you are responsible to ensure all the above are in place. The thing is your relationship with every child in your class is critical but yours is a professional relationship and I believe this is the essential quality that every teacher should possess.
So, get ready for the next chapter in your brilliant career!
There is no doubt that prejudice exists and it should not be tolerated. This is especially true in our multicultural public schools. Teachers being more mature, educated and socially aware should not suffer from prejudice however, that process of developing those ‘refined’ characteristics can lead to an unconscious form of intolerance. This Newsletter looks at prejudice, its origins, the traps we fall into and the hidden dangers we all face especially when teaching in schools whose culture is different than our own.
The basic feature of prejudice is a judgemental attitude towards others based on their ‘group’. Usually, this is expressed as the ‘other’ belonging to a cohort we consider inferior. Conversely, there are situations where we see those ‘others’ as being better than us. The origin of this disposition, this ‘us and them’ mind-set is a result of our evolution.
Between 50,000 to 100,000 years ago there was an explosion in the development of the human brain. This was the time our prefrontal lobes started to emerge allowing for an increased capacity for language, complex reasoning and forward planning. This coincided with the time we became a social species a development that required us to cultivate behaviours that kept the groups bonded.
The primary advantage of safety against animals, collection of food, etc. continued until we were relatively secure in nature then a new threat emerged and this was the danger from other tribes. We developed the practice of taking food, land and sexual partners from neighbouring tribes. It now became a matter of us being safe in our group and those ‘others’ were dangerous. As this was now a genuine matter of survival we learned to quickly identify who was ‘one of us’ and who ‘was not’
The resulting social change caused cognitive alterations in the brain’s emerging limbic system. The resultant functions such as the ability to interpret emotions in others, attachment, those social skills allowed us to survive and thrive. This cooperation led to an increase in productivity and social security. The ability to belong in our group depended on our compliance to the social norms. This had another effect, this loyalty to the tribe resulted in the rejection of the other tribes. We learned to critically examine others’ behaviours and reject any differences. The cognitive mechanics of this animosity began to form between the prefrontal cortex, our considering brain and our amygdala, the part of the limbic system that initiated a fear response to any identified threat. When we saw the difference in others, alarm bells sounded in our brains and we had to deal with the results.
Research has shown that when people think in a prejudice manner the amygdala lights-up, that is, it is activated. This reaction was first observed when white men in the US were shown pictures of other faces. Their amygdala was more active when shown pictures of black, Afro-Americans indicating even unconscious racism; this was an involuntary response. However, the same anxious response has been shown when faces of other races, aggressive women or opposing team supporters; it is the instinctive reaction when we view someone we think is ‘other’.
The broad result is that we view others as being different from us but those ‘others’ are all the same. For instance, if you as a white person see an aboriginal youth drunk in the streets, there is a tendency to think this is typical of all aboriginals. However, if you see a white man of a similar age and condition you are less likely to conclude that was typical of all whites, after all they are ‘one of us’! We are quick to generalise about others, it is an unconscious reaction.
This prejudice has an impact on health. Whenever you feel discrimination towards another your stress levels become elevated because you see them as a threat and if it continues you can suffer all the ailments linked to excessive stress. The effect on the health of those who are the subject of this social rejection based on ‘kind’ is even more damaging. Rejection, a social assault results in the same parts of the brain ‘lighting up’ as happens when physically attacked!
So, it would seem that prejudice is a natural phenomenon and perhaps, in the first instance it was but this is not the case now. The clue to why prejudice is not unavoidable lies in the interaction of the frontal lobes, the emergence of which facilitated this prejudice and the amygdala, our protection against attack.
On an individual basis the brain develops over time. The amygdala is the first to appear being active from birth. This dominates until about three when the hippocampus comes ‘on-line’ to give a reasoning to our environment. It has been shown that the amygdala and hippocampus do not respond to differences in race, gender or class. In fact, studies have shown that the most popular young children are those with a more diverse collection of friends. Any observation of young children playing in a multicultural school ground more than confirms this lack of prejudice in very young children.
However, the same study showed that these successful students, to remain popular as they matured, dropped this inclination towards social diversity. This is a result of the pressure to belong to a peer group, so important to teens. It is the same drive to belong that underpins prejudice on a macro scale but also drives this need to discriminate in a micro sense. This meant to belong to your clique at school you had to adopt their ‘virtues’ and reject the ‘imperfections’ of the out-group.
This is the period of the evolving teenage brain. From about age eleven the prefrontal lobes develop and part of this development is to over-ride the amygdala in all but the most dangerous situations. You don’t have time to think about what to do if a car comes hurtling towards you. The amygdala is there to initiate an almost instantaneous response and you jump out of the way. However, if you see someone different coming towards you, in a dark alley, at night you do have time for the frontal lobes to assess the danger. The decision we make will depend on the memories, the things taught to us. This means prejudice is a learned phenomenon, acquired from our parent, our media and our schools; it is real and it is damaging!
The good news is we can unlearn prejudice. We can ‘educate’ our frontal lobes by:
Teaching about prejudice, in our history lessons social sciences and just straight out teaching empathy
Exposing prejudicial behaviour – publicly ‘call it out’
Creating laws that outlaw prejudice that causes harm
Developing quota for positions of power. There have been attempts to do this and with great success. France introduced laws twenty years ago that forced the membership of their parliament to be gender equal. A follow-up study revealed that the effectiveness of that parliament had significantly improved. There has been calls for such legislation in our society but this is resisted by obvious masculine prejudice!
The real driving factor for change is role models. This is seen in all endeavours, the arts, music, sport and politics. Perhaps, there has never been more powerful role models that challenge racism than Nelson Mandela and Barrack Obama, heroes of our modern political landscape. In our own nation the elevation of the football star Adam Goodes to Australian of the Year provides a similar symbol. Their rise marks a turning point for racism but they also provided a target for those who cling to their antiquated prejudices.
In his last years playing football Adam Goodes was, in every game he played booed whenever he got the ball. Some commentators said this was not racism, it was just that the crowd didn’t like the way he played and that other aboriginal players were not booed. A common reason given was that he ‘called out’ a young girl who described him as an ape. The next day Goodes explained he did not blame the girl and she needed to be supported. He called out the behaviour she had ‘learned’ from an adult. Despite this the apologists kept referring this as him attacking the girl!
I agree with cultural commentator Waleed Aly who made the telling point, Adam Goodes made the mistake of being not only better in the sport than others, including the white players, he was strong enough to stand-up to the racism and call it out! The conclusion is we are tolerant of ‘the others’ as long as they don’t rise about their station, the homogenic prejudice to which we have assigned them!
Why are we discussing this in our Newsletter? Well we focus on students who have developed dysfunctional behaviours as a result of their childhood environment. The behaviour these children often display does not naturally encourage friendships with kids from successful families. They almost inevitably become a target for prejudice within the mainstream.
However, these kids still have the powerful drive to belong and as a result are easily seduced into joining sinister alliances. Exploited on the basis of their life long rejection. They are finally convinced they now have the security of belonging. To complete the extension of their acceptance they naturally develop a strong prejudice against anyone who challenges the values of this new group. They become over represented in the associations that dismiss modern social values with claims of white supremacy and/or the rejection of refugees. They finally fit in, adopting the culture of the gang and rejecting that part of society that turn their backs on them. All too often this was their school!
If we want to really support these kids all Australians should look at how their own values are reflected in the schools they support. Elite private schools, religious and public selective schools all reinforce social prejudice. They view the public, comprehensive school that serves the lowest socio-economic areas as being inferior. This damaging state of affairs reflects our prejudicial parliament, sadly both major parties must take responsibility for this.
As teachers, we have to check our own preferences in where we want to work being sure that a desire to teach in these needed schools does not expose your own belief that some kids are ‘better than’ and it follows, others are not.
Communicating with Difficult Kids in Difficult Times
In a recent Newsletter Personal Action in the Time of Crisis (7th September 2020) I outlined actions that should be taken to navigate this difficult time. In this Newsletter I want to focus more closely on the direct communication between the teacher and the student. This is the personal point of connection and influences what happens next.
In the first instance you need to check your own emotional state. It takes a special talent to withstand the force of a child’s aggressive attack when they don’t get what they want. You need to be aware you will be vulnerable so:
Check your own emotional condition. You may already be stressed from the day to day demands of the classroom
Calm yourself down and check you have your boundaries in place
(see Newsletters Boundary Considerations - 22nd October 2018 and Respecting Other’s Boundaries - 26th November 2018 for detailed descriptions of boundaries)
You need to remember that you are the leader in the classroom, you are the only adult and you are qualified to do this work – everyone else is a child doing the best they can at this time. You need to act professionally, that is you have to control the situation to ensure everyone is safe and you can get on with teaching.
The child who is acting ‘out of control’ will not be waiting to hear what you have to say but you do need to be heard. You need to get their attention in the appropriate manner, you need to portray authority. In the first instance your posture will be important:
Hold yourself in an upright, confident position, hold your hands on a non-threatening but non-submissive manner. but contained in your space. Don’t lean towards the student, that suggests aggression or away that indicates capitulation.
Hold a steady gaze on the student. Don’t glare aggressively nor avoid eye contact which can be seen as a weakness) and be sensitive to cultural differences regarding eye contact. Be guided by how they react. When you are speaking you should maintain contact about 70% of the time. This indicates that what you are saying is for them. The same should happen if they do reply to your communication. However, a good rule of thumb is about five seconds.
Once you have regained control (see Newsletters Dealing with the Exploding Kid – 7th September 2020 and The Crisis Response – 14th September 2020) you need informthe student:
Why their behaviour is an issue, this should relate to the needs of themselves and all others.
What are the consequences, on one scale the behaviour may violate the classroom rules and consequences should be clear however, the consequence might be more individualised, it may be that you need to explain how their behaviour impacts on other’s well-being. This is a time to use:
‘When you’ … this is when you describe their behaviour
‘I feel’ … tell them how their behaviour affects you and the other student
‘Because’ … let them know why it has that affect
These steps are fitting if the student has regained some self-restraint. If the situation is still unresolved and you have to get the message to the child then use:
‘If you’ … describe the behaviour(s) that will get them into trouble
‘I will’ … indicate the consequences that will definitely follow that behaviour
These are the steps that usually take place in the classroom and they should be taken with a 100% refusal to accept the inappropriate behaviour but most importantly a 100% acceptance of the value of the child. However, you can be sure the child will find it difficult to make the same differentiation between what they did and how they think you feel about them and you don’t take their anger personally. You need to take further steps to maintain the relationship. It is a tactic to have them stay back at the end of the lesson.
It is essential you give them a chance to explain their behaviour. You need to really listen to them, let them know you’re listening in a non-aggressive manner:
Let them tell their story without interruption. Make sure you really understand the issue and that they know you do. You can do this by making a summary of their main points and repeat this back to them. If they disagree on your interpretation seek clarification of what them mean. If possible, you need to reach an agreed understanding of the dispute.
Validate their emotions, you understand they are angry but explain that the anger may have triggered the behaviour it will not avert the consequence.
Take the complaint seriously.
You will get better at communicating at these difficult times if you follow these steps however, there are many mistakes you can avoid. The following are some of the traps you can fall into:
Don’t interrupt them as they are explaining their behaviour, they will only start again
Don’t jump to conclusions, really listen to them.
Don’t make excuses for what you have done. Your actions should deal exclusively with the behaviour.
Never use sarcasm or communicate from a position of ‘authority’, that is you are both equal in examining the situation but you do have different responsibilities.
Never fail to follow up if you have committed to do that. If at the end of this conversation you agree about what will happen in the future make sure it does happen. Your integrity is always being tested particularly in these cases.
Changes in behaviour for these kids takes time but it is these moments that combine to provide the pathway to a more successful way of behaving at school.
This is the ability to understand the experiences, desires and intentions of yourself and others. With theory of mind individuals can predict and interpret the behaviour of others and act in a way that can make use of this knowledge.
The development of theory of mind is a gradual process from birth and it is complex. Prior to its emergence, in very early life there is little separation of the self. It has long been held that the child believes that everyone knows everything they are experiencing. However, there is no direct evidence of this, they don’t ‘know’ their mother shares their thoughts it’s just that they believe she does.
However, the child does experience things on a personal level, the beginning of a sense of self. Between five to seven months they experience fear and anxiety and this relates to ‘them’ being under threat. This development of separation continues and between 15 and 24 months at which stage they can pass the ‘spot test’ a process that confirms the child knows it is them in the mirror. This is achieved by putting a mark usually a dot of colour on their forehead, when they know it reflects themselves they will touch or try to remove the spot, they know it should not be theirs. Prior to that age they don’t firmly see their reflection as being of themselves and don’t comprehend that the mark should not be there. This test is extensively used to measure the same occurrence of theory of mind in animals.
The classic test is the false belief task. This involves telling a child a story about two children, say Sally and Anne who put a toy in a basket. When Sally leaves the room, Ann hides the toy in a box. The child passes the test by reasoning that Sally will look for the toy in the basket when she returns. However, a more telling confirmation of a child having a real sense of ToM is when they know they can tell a deliberate lie and/or keep a secret. This is evidence that they can keep their thoughts and desires private and others have no access to these.
It is postulated that the acquisition of theory of mind is developed in stages and I suspect this is the same as other developmental stages such as the arrangement of hearing and sight all part of building a repertoire of activities that define the individual. The particular stages dealing with theory of mind are:
The understanding that someone might want something, they perceive other’s desires. This is why a two-year old is unable to share or take turns unless directed.
Understanding people have different and diverse beliefs about the same situation. Even adults, when asked to describe a scene, say an accident will have a different perspective. It is a mature response to accept these differences but unless this ability is established people will refuse to see a different point of view.
Accepting people have a different knowledge base, they may not comprehend or understand that something is ‘true’ even though you ‘know’ it is real. The same conflicts outlined in stage 2 will also apply.
Appreciate that people can have false beliefs about the world. This. Of course, should include themselves. How many wars are fought over the failure of populations to achieve to acquire this state of understanding.
People can hide emotions or may act one way while feeling another. This is a sophisticated skill for a child. They learn to do this as a protection for themselves and accept others may well be doing the same thing.
It is a waste of time expecting infants to share, consider others or take turns until they develop theory of mind and this happens through experience, modelling and shaping behaviour.
Another concept that is an extension of theory of mind is mentalization. This is more about the application of theory of mind and how behaviour is used to realize our needs, how the implicit self and the explicit other are entangled and that this relationship will guide actions. Mentalization can be automatic, that is, actions are processed without delay, they are reflexive with little conscious effort. Contrarily, decision making can be controlled, requiring effort with full awareness of the situations.
The optimal use of decision making occurs when there is an ability to mentalize one’s own state of mind as well as that of the ‘other’. Imbalance results in a skewed assessment of the situation, that is if the individual has too much focus on self and is less consideration of the other, their actions are unbalanced and less effective. The converse is equally true, too much consideration of the other will also result in less than optimal behaviour.
The emergence of theory of mind is linked to the health of the environment in which the child is raised, specifically their attachment to their caregivers. The balance between the needs and perceptions the ‘self’ and that of the ‘other’ depends on the security of that attachment. If the child develops a healthy understanding of the gap between their internal world and the outer world they can make effective life decisions. However, if there is an insecurity in the attachment then there will be an imbalance with the child either giving too much consideration to their perception or conversely to the external situation. Children whose early experience with caregivers includes abuse and/or extreme neglect will develop a severe imbalance that results in extremely dysfunctional behaviour.
Until they achieve theory of mind infants should be directed in their behaviour. It’s appropriate to tell them to pack-up their toys, etc. and then thank them for doing so. This is a joint experience between the carer and the child, an example of the child learning through modelling and experience. Until they are unable to consider the other person’s emotional state, it is unreasonable to expect their respect. The presence of mirror neurons, a distinct type of neurons that allow an individual to copy whet they see. If you poke your tongue out at a new born child there is every chance they will return that gesture.
Not only do these neurons allow the child to copy they also interpret the intentions of what they witness. The classic study is exposure to a dinner setting. If the table is set in anticipation of the meal being served a particular set of neurons are excited. However, if the conditions on the table indicate the meal has been finished and it is time to clean-up another set of neurons fire. This underlies the importance of modelling desired behaviours. If you want the child to clean-up then teach them to do it through modelling and the shared experience.
It must be emphasised that theory of mind in the first instance and then mentalization evolve in an environment and the specifications each individual takes as the foundation of their ToM and mentalised state will reflect that environment. When a child moves from one environment to a contrasting one the familiar problems arise. Theory of mind is really the emergence of self!
Every teacher will one day be confronted with a student, or students whose behaviour is so uncontrolled it will pose a threat to themselves, others around them or the school equipment. In some cases, physical intervention becomes the only response open to the teacher. This professional obligation to keep everyone safe has always raised deep concerns for teachers. These concerns are based on the fear of being accused of assaulting the child both physically and sexually. The latter category, sexual assault is particularly problematic and is often cited as the reason for such a shortage of male teachers in the infant and primary aged schools.
Of course, this abuse does exist and is not to be tolerated on any level but the fear of a false or malicious allegation is difficult to defend and many teachers, especially males refuse to touch students for any reason. This fear should not be taken lightly but there are times when it is appropriate to touch a student. Remember it is not illegal to touch a pupil and there are occasions when physical contact, including reasonable force, with a pupil is proper and necessary. Examples of where touching a pupil might be proper or necessary:
Holding the hand of the child at the front/back of the line when going to assembly or when walking together around the school;
When comforting a distressed pupil;
When a pupil is being congratulated or praised;
To demonstrate how to use a musical instrument;
To demonstrate exercises or techniques during PE lessons or sports coaching; and
To give first aid.
Physical Restraint Physical restraint means the use of physical force to prevent, restrict or subdue movement of a student’s body or part of their body. Students are not free to move away when they are being physically restrained. Physical restraint should only be used when it is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person. In some limited circumstances, it may also be necessary to restrain a student from imminent dangerous behaviours by secluding them in an area where such action is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person.
The use of restraint should only ever used as a ‘last resort’ intervention when all other techniques have failed or the situation is immediate and dangerous and is necessary to keep everyone safe.
Situations that may require physical intervention include:
students threatening other students or staff
students putting their own safety at risk
fights between students
students attempting to leave the school premises without authorisation and in circumstances that put their safety at risk
students attempting to leave the premises in a heightened state of anxiety, where they may be unable to recognise risks to their safety.
There needs to be a ‘age appropriate’ consideration to be applied. Fights between late secondary age students may pose a very real danger for the teacher. Every attempt should be made to defuse the altercation without direct physical intervention but the only course of action is to make sure other students are safe.
Restraint should not be used as a routine behaviour management technique, to punish or discipline a student or to respond to:
a student’s refusal to comply with a direction, unless that refusal to comply creates an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
a student leaving the classroom/school without permission, unless that conduct causes an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
verbal threats of harm from a student, except where there is a reasonable belief that the threat will be immediately enacted
property destruction caused by the student unless that destruction is placing any person at immediate risk of harm
Types of physical restraint which must not be used include:
any restraint which covers the student's mouth or nose, and in any way restricts breathing
the application of pressure to a student's neck, chest, abdomen, joints or pressure points to cause pain or which involves the hyperextension of joints
holding a student's head forward, headlocks, choke holds
take-downs which allow students to free-fall to the ground whether or not in a prone or supine position or otherwise
wrestling holds (including 'full or half nelsons'), using a hog-tied position or straddling any part of a student's body
basket holds, bear hugs, 'therapeutic holding'
When applying physical restraint in the limited circumstances set out above, staff must:
use the minimum force required to avoid the dangerous behaviour or risk of harm
only restrain the student for the minimum duration required and stop restraining the student once the danger has passed
The decision about whether to use physical restraint or seclusion rests with the professional judgment of the staff member/s involved, who will need to take-into-account both their duty of care to their students, their right to protect themselves from harm and obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Staff should ensure the type of restraint used is consistent with a student’s individual needs and circumstances, including:
the age/size of the student
gender of the student
any impairment of the student e.g. physical, intellectual, neurological, behavioural, sensory (visual or hearing), or communication
any mental or psychological conditions of the student, including any experience of trauma
any other medical conditions of the student
the likely response of the student
the environment in which the restraint is taking place
At all times the staff should monitor the student for any indicators or distress. Staff should talk to the student throughout the incident, making it clear to the student why the physical restraint is being applied. Staff should also calmly explain that the physical restraint will stop once it is no longer necessary to protect the student and/or others.
The staff member(s) involved in the incident must immediately notify the principal of the incident.
A written record of the incident should be kept and should include:
the name of the student/s and staff member/s involved
date, time and location of the incident
names of witnesses (staff and other students)
what exactly happened, for example, a brief factual account
any action taken to de-escalate the situation
why physical intervention was used (if applicable)
the nature of any physical intervention used
how long the physical intervention lasted
names of witnesses (staff and other students)
the student’s response and the outcome of the incident
any injuries or damage to property
immediate post incident actions, such as first aid or contact with emergency services
details of contact with the student’s parent/carer
details of any post-incident support provided or organised.
Staff Training
Schools need to take their own decisions about staff training. The headteacher should consider whether members of staff require any additional training to enable them to carry out their responsibilities and should consider the needs of the pupils when doing so.
Some local authorities provide advice and guidance to help schools to develop an appropriate training program.
Much of the content of this Newsletter has been taken from school systems across the western world in order to provide a common-sense approach to physical touching particularly restraint. However, it is important that that all schools know the formal policies of the Departments who employ them. These guidelines define the limits of the intervention and the responsibilities all members of the organisation.
In the previous Newsletter (3rd November 2020) we discussed the need to teach in a calm environment. There are four fundamental components in our model of a Learning Environment and these are pedagogy, structure, expectations and of course, relationships. These have been discussed extensively in previous Newsletters and underpin all our work.
The critical component for the child is the expectations presumed for the lesson and the assumed behaviour the teacher expects. The expectation covers all aspects required including explicit demands of the child, the contents of the lesson, the equipment, time considerations and the like. These are the ‘learning instructions’ if you like. They also cover those implicit expectations, the social interactions in the classroom. As pointed out last week, this is where teachers can spend their time managing rather than teaching.
There are two ways to address any situation that is not meeting the expectations of the lesson and these are acknowledging when the child is meeting the objectives set or correcting their behaviour when they are not.
Imbalances
It is probably impossible to maintain a balance between expectations, acknowledging and correcting strategies all of the time; it is a moving point. However, when there is a prolonged imbalance between expectations, acknowledgement and correction and one begins to dominate your management style you lose your effectiveness. The following are three typical imbalances which increase the likelihood of teachers spending too much time managing and too little time teaching.
Unclear Expectations
This is when the teacher gives inadequate information about his or her expectations (as indicated by the broken line around the triangle). This is problematic because students will be unsure about the limits and boundaries of the classroom and what tasks they need to be doing.
Too Much Acknowledgement
This is problematic because students are not being corrected appropriately. This is often the result of teachers trying to manage through friendliness. They believe “If I am nice to the students they will like me and behave themselves”. This imbalance may also arise when the teacher lacks assertiveness.
Too Much Correction
Students become resentful and continue to act inappropriately due to a lack of acknowledgement and encouragement. In this imbalance a teacher may not intend to be negative, but has developed the habit of only attending to inappropriate behaviour. In most cases where a whole class behaves inappropriately, this is the evident imbalance.
This imbalance creates problems because the teacher provides corrective feedback when students are disrupting, but fails to acknowledge students when they are on-task. Overcorrection is typical in such cases.
This can trigger a “disruption, correction and resentment” cycle that has the potential to seriously damage working relationships between teacher and students.
This is arguably the most common and, therefore, the most problematic of the behaviour management imbalances.
In this model the amount of acknowledgement is critical. Using praise is hazardous unless it is used appropriately, that is strategically (see Newsletter ‘The Danger of Praise’ 12th August 2018).
On the other hand, the language of correction is not easy, students who have a history of abuse are hypersensitive to criticism and pointing out their faults reinforces their lack of self-worth. This occurs when:
Correction is not given at the appropriate time – the closer you provide feedback for any behaviour the more effective it becomes
Correction is given with emotional engagement – this personalises the feedback; it should always be just about the behaviour
Corrective responses are often unconsidered reflex reactions
Over correction is harsher than necessary – it personally confronts the child
It is delivered in a sarcastic manner
Final Tips
Consider the following tactics when providing feedback to the students: Less is more – even if the class is really out of control don’t try to correct everything at once. Pick out one or two problems that you need to or can correct quickly and when you have achieved this move on to the next problem.
The certainty that you follow through has more impact than the severity of the corrective response.
If possible, correct the child in private, that allows him/her to maintain their dignity.
Displays of your adult power will only be effective in the short term. Eventually they will challenge your authority and if your practice is not underpinned by an acknowledged management plan your will have nowhere to go.
Taking the moral ‘high-ground’ might make you feel good but this is not a competition, you don’t need to be ‘better than’ a child who has a history of abuse or neglect. Remember, you are their teacher and you need to create a professional relationship with the child.
Some teachers get some self-satisfaction from correcting others, this is a covert form of the previous point. The kids will soon get sick of this and disengage from the lesson resulting in disruptive behaviour.
Over time, effective classroom management that promotes cooperation will initially increase rate of acknowledgement with a corresponding decrease in the correction rate. This reflects an imbalance but under these conditions there is no need to find little things to correct to regain balance. In optimal conditions the students embrace their learning and the need to acknowledge is dissipated so balance is maintained with very little management.
Applying the Techniques of Classroom Management to Teaching
The philosophy of our work is underpinned by the understanding of the neurological processes that drive the brain’s activity and that is to maintain a condition of homeostatic equilibrium a sense of calmness where the physical, social and intellectual needs are being satisfied – they are calm. Children will prioritise their need to be physically and socially contented first as failure to do so presents a threat to their survival. This means that to access the child’s cognitive, intellectual thoughts requires the satiation of those lower-order needs leaving the non-life-threatening drive to solve the problem of what is puzzling them; classroom motivation.
In the classroom it is predominantly social threats that will distract the student and these will be in the form of some sort of attack on the child’s security, either a threat to their safety or their being excluded from the group. Social distraction is manifested in the form of overt or covert dysfunctional behaviour.
A central competence teachers must possess is the management of these social threats, that is managing the behaviour in the classroom. If this is not achieved then the effectiveness of any lesson presentation is seriously compromised. This emphasis on classroom management is of critical importance in delivering lessons but is not afforded the significance it demands in teacher training.
Appropriate Teaching Responses to Managing Behaviour in the Classroom:
Understand the importance of a predictable, stable learning environment
Understand the effects of emotions;
Understand dysfunctional behaviour and emotions learned in early childhood will emerge in stressful situations
Understand students need to operate in a state of calm to learn; and
Being able to identify and respond to dysfunctional behaviours and emotions
The contents of this Newsletter are applied to all students and provides a ‘democratic’ template for the whole class however, they are of most use for those students who have suffered abuse and/or neglect who provide the highest demand for this management. The key components for any effective learning environment are:
The curriculum and the pedagogy of the lesson – the content of the lesson and how it is delivered
Structure – this is the rules of the classroom, the establishment between actions and consequences, that is if a student does ‘X’ they will get the same consequence for their action as everyone else
Expectations – this is the definition of just what is expected, the detailed description of the action
Relationships – this is the establishment of supportive, professional boundaries between the student and the teacher. This is managed by the teacher for the benefit of the student. This paper does not directly refer to the formation of relationships but the behaviours described underpin their effectiveness.
Teachers only have a finite time with their class and the time spent dealing with students’ behaviours takes away from that available for teaching. This explains why two of the top inhibitors to effective learning (according to Hattie) is the absence of disruptive students and the classroom environment, that is there is a minimal amount of time distracted from learning! This time budget is illustrated below (This is taken from the work of Christine Richmond).
In very difficult classrooms a teacher may have to spend most of their time managing behaviour, they are minding the class while on the right most of their conversation is about teaching the lesson. It’s not difficult to see why disruptive behaviour is such a drain of student learning.
The key to developing a calm environment is illustrated in the diagram below:
It is a mistake to assume the student knows what you expect
It’s a mistake to assume students know what you expect from them either from their learning or their behaviour. You have to clearly identify what you want to see before you can correct them. The first step is to establish your expectation through direct instruction; they must know what you are after.
When you have done that you must check to see if they understand what you mean. Look about for behaviours that confirm they have got the message, they are on-task. If they have, provide feedback to them through verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement. If they are off-task focus on these students reinforcing your expectation. If they continue to fail to follow your instructions you should implement your behaviour management plan. The sequence goes like this:
If you inherit a difficult class then your first task is to get them on-task. This means as a professional teacher you must deal with the behaviour problems, this is sometimes very difficult but it must be done if you want to teach them. Remember, their dysfunctional behaviour has been learned, it is not their fault. Changing how they conduct themselves might be the best lesson they have ever received and you can be proud you made that difference.
Throughout these Newsletters the importance of being persistent and consistent is constantly reinforced but why is this so significant when our students live in a world that is full on inconsistencies? The following should provide the answer to this puzzle.
Over the many, many years I worked in schools the one thing I heard teachers and principals say to students in trouble was ‘What did you think was going to happen’? or ‘think about what will happen if you do …? To most of us these are fair questions but for very young students, and a special group of kids asking them to predict what will happen to them is a waste of time. Young children are just learning about what happens when they ‘do’ things. It takes time for them to build-up a repertoire of possible consequences for their actions. Consistency helps them create a solid foundation to make predictions from and develops a sense of self-control when the connection between their actions and what happens is reinforced.
However, there are another group of kids that have no idea that their behaviour is in anyway connected to what happens to them. These are the kids who have been raised in very unpredictable, chaotic families. This most often occurs when one or both care givers are incapable of their own consistent behaviour as a result of some significant mental illness especially if they are psychotic or the use of mind-altering drugs. I will illustrate with the story I was told when I was first intolerant about this phenomenon.
When we think about what will happen when we take an action implies we can anticipate the consequence. Now consider the following scenario; a little eight-year-old girl walks into her mother’s room – the think about action, walking into the room and contemplate the consequences that follow:
It is 7.00 AM, mum is extremely hungover after being out all night and feeling very sick. The response to the girl’s actions goes something like ‘what are you doing here’, ‘I hate you’, ‘I wish I never had you’, ‘Get out of my sight’ or ‘I wish I was dead’ and lashes out trying to hit her. These are the consequences and they would probably be delivered using more colourful language. This is ‘Mum one’!
The same action at 12.00 noon mum’s still not good but a bit better. ‘What did you get up to last night’, ‘Why can’t you clean up after yourself, you are a disgrace’, ‘I know you didn’t go to bed when I told you’ or ‘how come your brother didn’t have a shower’. Enter ‘Mum two’!
Its 2.00 PM and mum is feeling a bit better, especially after having a couple of drinks. ‘What video did you watch last night, was it good’, ‘I saw your friend’s mother and she said you had been playing at her place last week’ and so on. Now we have ‘Mum three’!
5.00 PM, mum is planning to go out for another bout of drinking. The girl enters the room and mum is desperate to ease her own conscience. ‘How’s my big girl’, ‘You’re like a sister to me’, I’m so lucky I can trust you to look after your brother, you’re so responsible’, ‘let’s go and get a video for you to watch and I’ll give you money so you can order a pizza’ followed by ‘do you don’t mind if I hop out for a little while to see my friends’. This is ‘Mum 4’ one that offers some positive affection!
10.00 PM, mum arrives home drunk with some man in tow, someone the daughter has never seen before. ‘Here’s my little princess’, ‘This is Joe he has a car and will take us out to Water World tomorrow’, ‘I have decided next year I will take you to Disney World in the US’, Why don’t I get you that bike you have always wanted’. Finally, ‘Mum 5!
The thing is, what would be the point in asking this girl what would happen if she walked into her mother’s room; she would have no idea; in the example above, I have given just five possibilities there would most certainly be more, increasing her insecurity. For children raised in such homes the idea they have any control over their life is a fantasy – life happens to them! They are left feeling powerless with an undefined sense of self. This uncertainty is carried into the rest of their life including the classroom.
All kids arrive at school and instinctively work out where they fit. Healthy kids struggle at first but soon learn the ‘rules of behaviour’ and quickly settle in. Children raised with uncertainty do not and their confusion is expressed in the following ways:
Feeling Less Than – It is inevitable that they see other kids getting on with each other and are secure in their behaviour. However, our kids have no idea what to do and it’s no wonder they feel less than everyone else!
Vulnerable – Of course, these kids feel threatened when they are uncertain. All their life things have happened to them regardless of what they have done. Why would they expect anything else? So every interaction holds the possibility of at least disappointment.
Guilty – For all of us the early years are the most significant in forming our sense of self. Those early years are also a time when we are very ego-centric, that is we are the centre of the universe and therefore everything that happens is our fault! When things go wrong it’s because they did the wrong thing and they are therefore guilty! This, of course is a faulty belief.
Dependent – Understandably, these children become very frightened to make any decision for themselves; why would they? Instead of actively living life they have to wait until things happen to them. So, it makes sense to let others decide what to do and just follow on. This becomes a real problem if they get into ‘friendships’ with anti-social groups which is likely to happen.
Out of Control – This last trait is linked to their dependence, when they are in a position where they have to make-a-decision, that decision is a wild guess acting with hope but no conviction. No wonder they have no sense of control and this results in feelings of hopelessness and despair.
A major theme of our work is underpinned by the understanding that behaviour, in fact all learning depends on the environment in which the behaviour is formed. It is obvious why these kids raised in unpredictable environments have missed out on that condition that would have developed a strong sense of self. The bad news is that it is extremely difficult to change a person’s sense of self because it is formed early in life and becomes very stable. The good news is that it can be changed. By presenting a very structured persistent and consistent set of behaviours in your classroom eventually these children will develop the courage to believe their behaviour can dictate what happens to them.
The principals of the company have had long careers in education with a combined total of eighty-one years service. After starting as mainstream teachers they both moved into careers in providing support for students with severe behaviours.
