Kids Will Do Well if They Can! Cognitive Pathways to Problem Behavior Greene and Ablon

Risk Factors (potentially damaging conditions that put children at-risk) Versus Protective Factors (supportive conditions which promote resiliency in children)

Risk Factors Parental criminality Parental criminality Parental mental illness, substance abuse and/or social isolation Parental mental illness, substance abuse and/or social isolation Marital discord Marital discord Inadequate parental supervision Inadequate parental supervision Inept parental discipline Inept parental discipline Parental lack of involvement or rejection Parental lack of involvement or rejection

More Risk Factors Academic difficulty Academic difficulty Poor bonding with school Poor bonding with school Rejection by peers Rejection by peers Inadequate development of social skills Inadequate development of social skills Association with deviant peers Association with deviant peers Combination of poverty and social disorganization Combination of poverty and social disorganization

Protective Factors Feelings of competency and control (e.g., mastering academic and problem-solving skills)Feelings of competency and control (e.g., mastering academic and problem-solving skills) Ability to cope with stress and adversity (i.e., resiliency) Ability to cope with stress and adversity (i.e., resiliency) Caring positive role model in youth’s life Caring positive role model in youth’s life Pro-social behavior Pro-social behavior Feeling safe and secure Feeling safe and secure Effective parenting Effective parenting Healthy lifestyle practices Healthy lifestyle practices

Crisis Management to Crisis Prevention

Our disciplinary philosophy drives our disciplinary responses… “Kids will do well if they wanna!” a matter of choice puts primary responsibility on child adults’ role – “make him wanna” “go to” intervention – rewards and punishments “Kids will do well if they wanna!” a matter of choice puts primary responsibility on child adults’ role – “make him wanna” “go to” intervention – rewards and punishments “Kids will do well if they can!” an obstacle or obstacles to doing well puts larger responsibility on adult to assist and support “go to” intervention must remove/limit the obstacles

What is our basic assumption about the cause and purpose of child’s behavior if we subscribe to the “if they wanna” philosophy? “ The child has learned to be explosive, aggressive and/or non-compliant as a means of seeking attention and coercing adults to do what he/she wants. As a consequence, the student is not motivated to behave appropriately because he/she gets his/her needs met by behaving inappropriately.”

Logical Analytic Thinking Sequence Basis: lack of motivation Remedial response: attempt to motivate Intervention model: rewards and/or punishments program (consistently and contingently)

Typical R and P Intervention Identify and define target behavior(s) Design and implement rewarding and/or punishing strategies Select and use an appropriate currency system

R and P programs do two things very well: 1.They teach kids what not to do, (e.g., don’t hit, don’t swear, don’t blurt out, don’t melt- down, etc.), but they don’t teach kids what they don’t know. 2.In many instances they do motivate kids to increase or reduce existing behaviors, but they cannot increase a behavior the child does not have in his/her repertoire.

Frustration versus motivation? …frustration when environmental demands exceed child’s capacity to respond …frustration emotional response problem behavior (There’s nobody home!) How do we motivate a child whose environment routinely demands more than he/she is able to provide? TEACH … TEACH … TEACH … TEACH There’s nobody home…..!

Another perspective on these kids … Unhappy and miserable vs. coercive manipulators Frustrated by environment vs. innately unmotivated Delayed in the development of skills related to flexibility, adaptability and frustration tolerance Disabled learner vs. mentally disturbed Require teaching response vs. a motivational plan

The Cognitive Pathways Limitations in executive functioning skills Language processing skill deficits Delay in emotional regulation skills Cognitive inflexibility Social imperception Limitation in academic learning skills**

Some examples of cognitive skill deficits… Shifting mental set (executive function) Language processing (expressing feelings, describing what’s the matter, using language to problem-solve, etc.) Mood issues (thinking in the midst of high anxiety) “Black and white” thinking (NLD, Asperger’s)

With an...”if they can!” philosophy we see… …problem behavior as a failure to develop and a response to environmental demand rather than purposeful, goal-oriented behavior …kids that need to be taught important skills rather than kids whose primary problem is not being motivated …parenting as a response to challenging behavior rather than inept parenting causing problem behavior

Challenge to parent… Being responsive to the hand you have been dealt!

Challenge to teacher… Being responsive to the hand you have been dealt!

Being appropriately responsive starts with asking two important questions What’s up with this kid? Why? Comprehensive Assessment

Five guidelines drive the response… Focus on antecedents rather than consequences Emphasis on situational specificity (what, when, where, who) Emphasis on cognition (rather than behavior) Focus on gradual training of cognitive skills (shaping) Emphasis on neuro-biochemical underpinnings

Goals of the response To reduce unproductive, socially un- useful behavior (non-compliance, meltdowns, aggressive acts, etc.) To pursue adult expectations To teach lacking thinking skills particularly in the areas of flexibility, adaptability and frustration tolerance

The Response What’s this kid’s deal? >comprehensive assessment to identify pathways involved >includes situational analysis >“it takes two to tango” – adult-child incompatibilities – transactional model Decide which behaviors/issues are part of which Plan… A, B or C Successfully executive Plan B

Plans and Goals Achieved Plan A – imposition of adult will (“No”, “You must…” or “You can’t…”) Plan C – issue dropped (at least, for now) Plan B – working it out with collaborative problem- solving Pursue Adult Expectations Reduce Un- useful behavior Teach skills A√XX CX√X B√√√

Adult Role in Plan B – Child’s Surrogate Thinker Empathy is the access code to the child’s thinking…to his brain. Invitation is the doorway to collaborative problem- solving. “Let’s…” Invitation is the doorway to collaborative problem- solving. “Let’s…”

Inside and Outside the Normal Plan B Emergency Plan B Pro-active Plan B Emergency Plan B Pro-active Plan B

Adults need Plan B skills Fact: Adults under stress tend to go directly to Plan A or Plan C Fact: 95% of non- compliant, defiant and antagonistic behavior is caused by an adult using Plan A Skills of the surrogate: 1.ability to stay calm 2.ability to define the problem 3.anticipation of problems 4.generation of solutions 5.anticipating solution outcomes 6.perspective taking 7.to see the “big picture” 8.to delay gratification 9.linguistic skills 10.accurate interpretation

“” Kids do respect adults who have reasonable expectations, listen to their concerns, treat them with mutual respect, and work toward finding mutually satisfactory solutions.” - - Greene and Ablon, 2006

“It Takes Two to Tango!” “…children’s emotional regulation, frustration tolerance and problem- solving skills do not develop independently of the manner by which important adults teach and model these skills.”

Another “Two to Tango” Thought “…children’s capacities for complying with adult directives (do not) develop independently of the manner by which caregivers impose expectations for compliance and respond to deviations from these expectations.”