The title of this first Newsletter for 2023 has been chosen for two reasons, it is the start of a new school year and the beginning of the next sequence of essays. In the last Newsletter, I asked for feedback and if readers found them useful. I was pleased with the response and motivated to improve the quality of up-coming additions.
One theme that came through in the replies was that some schools distribute each essay to their staff and one respondent used them as the basis of a professional conversation for the week. With this in mind I am attempting to present the content of each essay in a sequence that builds on the previous one. There will be times when I might address a specific issue that is topical at the time but by building the information in a rational way should make these more useful as a staff development resource. This progression will generally follow the thread that goes through my last book ‘ Neuroscience and Teaching Very Difficult Kids’ details of which are on the resources page of our web page Frew Consultants Group (https://www.frewconsultantsgroup.com.au). Here can also find a blog section that holds all the previous 223 Newsletters. An up-dated list of these Newsletters is posted in the resources section of our web page.
The series of upcoming Newsletters will be organised roughly following the sequence outlined below.
Description of the brain
Development and the impact of the environment on the function of the brain
Abuse, types of abuse and the consequences of early childhood trauma
Shame- the underlying dynamic of shame is fear of rejection
Dysfunctional Behaviour – identifying how these manifest in the classroom
Homeostasis how the need to maintain this in equilibrium drives our behaviour
The ‘Protecting’ and ‘Seeking’ responses
Boundaries
Providing strategies for teachers to manage dysfunctional behaviours
The use of time-out and levels to modify behaviour
Providing structure, expectations and relationships
Changing school culture
Within each subtitle there will most often be more than one Newsletter.
The release of this Newsletter coincides with the start of what I believe will be a most challenging year. Regardless of the political discourse that occupies the media it is undeniable that teachers are working in atrocious conditions. The two factors that are always cited are the current teacher shortages and the crushing administrative demands. These are real and very significant. Those of you who have followed my journey know that I believe there is a third issue, student behaviour which is a significant challenge for teachers and an increasing one for teachers who work in low socio-economic communities and comprehensive secondary schools. Until recently, almost every staff survey conducted placed student behaviour as the school’s biggest challenge.
John Hattie, who was worshiped in the early part of this century pointed out the significance of the absence of disruptive student as the second most impactful characteristic of successful student learning, the first being the student’s ability to self-evaluate. The third was the classroom environment and it is obvious that the second and third category were interdependent. Hattie is no longer held in such high regard and has ironically become a scapegoat for the current condition of public schools.
Why I say ironic scapegoat is because Hattie capitulated and supported the politicians, bureaucrats and academics who latched onto the forth characteristic of successful learning and that was the quality of the teacher. By ignoring the problem of student behaviour and focusing on the teacher those in power had someone to blame for the failure of the education department; teachers became the scapegoats! You only have to listen to any news report, any proposed T&D, and comments from the academics or politicians and they will say we are going to increase the quality of the teaching service. This is an appalling insult to the thousands of quality teachers who are already in the system.
When we talk to teachers and executives of our schools they freely acknowledge that student behaviour is still an issue but gets no attention from the contemporary authorities. These Newsletter may help address these problems without required paper work nor cost that is associated with programs like Positive Behavioural Interventions and Supports (PBIS). Also, we are always available to help supplement the information we present.
If you have colleagues, either teachers or schools you know who struggle with student behaviour it would be a good time to get them on-board as we are about to begin a fresh start on the examination of this most difficult field.
This is the last Newsletter for the year. This marks the end of five years of producing what I hope has been helpful advice. The first was in March 2017 ‘There is more to Bullying Than Meets the Eye’ and last week’s, Number 223 ‘Suspensions and Equity’ and so much in between.
I’m not sure whether to continue on next year, it does take an effort and I’m never sure if these have been helpful or in fact if they are ever read. If you would like them to continue please let us know, if not that is fine as well.
In any case, I have loved my time as an educator, I have a special place in my heart for those kids who, through no fault of their own have behaviours that challenge every member of a school community. Too often they are vilified, rejected and abandoned and I understand they are a challenge but more importantly they should not damage school for the other students nor the teachers. It is the Government that abandons them, never providing the resources that would allow mental health professionals in schools to help them resolve their mental health issues. This is never the job of the teacher.
Be assured that, if there is no demand for new and updated Newsletters I will find other ways to keep agitating for these kids and public education.
Finally, thanks to all for your continued work in the best, but now one of the most difficult professions.
Over the years much has been written about the ineffectiveness of suspensions. This is a particularly favourite topic for academics who spotlight the negative impact withdrawal from school has on the individual student. Bureaucrats latch on to this ‘disadvantage’ and with the pretence of caring about the student they make the process of suspensions so difficult that they can claim some success in dealing with behavioural problems. I previously used the term ‘spotlight’ deliberately as both the academics and the bureaucrats focus on the child as if they exist in isolation.
Some years ago I wrote an essay that illustrated the dilemma all schools face when dealing with severe behaviours and I will repeat that essay here.
The Twins
Aspects of Ethical and Practical Challenges Facing
NSW Comprehensive Schools.
The Circumstances
I have had in my school identical twin boys. They would be in Year 8 at this time. These boys were excellent students with very supportive parents.
These twins are not only physically identical their academic results in primary school were also indistinguishable. From the very start of their time in my school the parents requested the boys be in different classes to help them establish a level of autonomy.
One of the boys was by chance placed in a class with a student whose behaviour is extremely disruptive. This unruly student has extreme difficulties with anger control and outbursts of menacing behaviours. He has a current ‘risk assessment’ and has been placed on a series of suspensions for his more extreme actions. He has also been the focus of a lot of support to address this behaviour.
This student has a diagnosed mental health issue and his parents use this in support of his right to be in the class under conditions of equity. They resist every attempt by the school to find a more suitable alternate placement.
Despite their refusal I have put the student up for alternate placement but have been unable to get one. Not only does the alternate setting declare his behaviours do not suit their program their setting require parent support.
The situation with the dysfunctional student has reached a state where the student is continually being either withdrawn from class or on suspension. Now these parents are threatening me with legal action over the treatment of their son, citing the new equity legislation. They insist I have to cater for his disability.
I have no evidence of physical violence so the use of Work Health and Safety argument for his ‘removal’ would be hard to argue. I certainly believe there is a level of psychological damage being done but I am not supported in my attempts to prosecute this case for his removal. However, the reality of his behaviours disturbing the teaching/learning environment in the classroom is quite easy to demonstrate.
The parents of the twins began to complain about the results for their son who was in the disrupted class. He had fallen well behind his brother. The difference in their achievement levels became quite obvious. Supporting evidence, that the delay was directly linked to the persistent outbursts in disruptive behaviour in his class could be demonstrated by the results he achieved in the Year 7 elective stream. In the elective class, where two classes become three the twins happen to be together and the uncontrollable, was in another. In the elective class the twin’s results were compatible but there was a slight ‘delay’ in the child from the disrupted class. I believe this deterioration in learning reflects a range of personal changes that had taken place over the year. I suspect there has been a decline in the child’s confidence, expectations and educational development.
The parents of the twins demanded their son, who they could see was ‘failing’ be removed from the disrupted class. They insist that their boys were not receiving an equal education.
I have a policy of not moving students just on the request of a parent. I will, if I believe there is an education reason that benefits all students but when it is an issue of moving one student because of a problem child all parents will legitimately insist on the same authority. If I move a child because the parents are articulate and/or aggressive and leave other children in that situation I am not acting in an ethical manner.
In the Christmas holidays the parents have taken the twins out of our school and enrolled them in a local private school. Our public school has lost two excellent students to the private sector.
The real issue I am now facing is that:
The parents of the twins are now suing me, personally for the fees of one of the students on the ground of my inability to provide equitable learning conditions for both their children.
The parents of the difficult student have made a complaint about my management of the student to the Disability authorities.
More students are leaving my school putting me below the magic number of 700.
Fortunately, this is not a real, it is a thought experiment designed to illustrate the dilemma we face every day. Nothing in the scenario is unreasonable or that unusual but it highlights the moral and ethical predicament principals find themselves in ever more frequently.
Here are some issues I believe confront us all:
What is our responsibility to the twins regarding the class we placed them in? That is what is our responsibility placing any student in a class with an identified disruptive student?
What is our responsibility to the student with the mental illness whose behaviour is a result of his disability? By our nature I believe teachers feel a responsibility to help this child.
What is our responsibility to provide learning conditions equal to the private sector? Is this not an equity issue?
What is our responsibility to the teachers we assign to those difficult classes when we know their ‘quality’ may well be judged on results?
How are we providing a ‘safe’ teaching and learning environment?
What are the system responsibilities?
I have no answer for this dilemma’. I can find none in the current student welfare legislation, procedures or practices. We can address every one of these problems in isolation but not all together. Some of the problems are:
We are forced to readmit these difficult students who are in real need despite the certainty that the problem will continue despite our best efforts.
There is no provision for the numbers of these students who really need specialist interventions.
There is a real drift away from comprehensive schools to the private or ‘selective’ public schools. This is resulting in a reduction of numbers of students prompting a reduction in school resources such as a second deputy and Head Teacher Administration. It also creates a concentration of students who come from families who are not socially equipped to flee their local school or students whose needs are so demanding no school other than their local public school will have them.
Principals face this moral dilemma every day, some in schools that are losing competent students, selecting out of their community and others who enrol these out of community students in the knowledge they are actively creating a class divide in our public schools.
I wrote that essay in 2013, almost ten years ago and if anything the situation has deteriorated. Schools, the principals and the staff do whatever they can to address this complex problem in isolation. The academics never investigate these issues, complexity makes for difficult research but the more soul-destroying is the complete lack of meaningful resources available to deal with students with severe behaviours.
Is it any wonder that resourceful parents placing their children in private schools that are heavily funded from our taxes and is it any wonder teachers are leaving in droves! It is obvious that local comprehensive schools are left to deal with the issues outlined above, alone and under resourced, held in place by dedicated teachers who are mistreated by the bureaucrats, academics, the media and of course our masters.
The theory underpinning our approach to behaviour management is that we behave to survive and when we are successful at fulfilling all of our needs we are in a state of homeostatic equilibrium, that is we are calm and secure. This feeling of comfort is felt at a physical, social and an intellectual level. Our brain has evolved to deal with the demands of these three levels with the emergence of three distinct parts:
The Brain stem/Mid Brain – this deals with our physical needs
The limbic System – this is the part of the brain that controls our social and emotional care
The Cerebral Cortex – this is where our intellectual needs are supported
When we experience either a threat to our safety or a deficit to our needs our brain triggers a sense of stress which in turn will activate a behaviour that is designed to either protect our self or seek to acquire something from our environment to return us to equilibrium. This stress is a physical expression of our drive to survive (see Newsletter 105 – Drives and Needs - 11 November 2019).
Our opening line, that behaviour is driven to survive is predominantly true. It is the foundation of most models of behaviour and the common reply if you ask what is the fundamental purpose of behaviour. However, this is not true; people commit suicide, they deliberately end their survival and, apart from some forms of euthanasia it is invariably the result of rejection, either from an intimate partner or a group! The thing is belonging to our immediate group of people is directly linked to survival.
So, to survive we have to have our physical needs as well as our social needs satisfied because they are directly related to survival and a threat will result in stress but more importantly a failure to protect will result in pain. The link between an injury and the experience of pain is straightforward and accepted. If I put my hand on a hot stove-top I will experience pain. In a recent New Scientist (19 November 2022) the process of pain is discussed in the feature article and the process of that experience in the brain.
In the example mentioned above, when the hand hits the hot stove-top three particular parts of the brain are activated. These are:
The thalamus – this is the relay station where all the information from our senses (except smell) pass through to be distributed across the brain.
The anterior cingulate cortex – this is the core component of the pain network and is activated when the subject receives a painful stimulus.
The insula – the cortical region linked to the detection of a situation that will impact on our ‘self’. This allows us to actually perceive the pain.
Of course, these descriptions are necessarily simplified for what these areas of the brain are responsible for but their activities are relevant for discussing pain.
The thing is the same mechanism is activated when we are subjected to the sting of rejection, it leads to the same experience of pain. There is no physical cause but being left-out can produce that same fear response.
In 2015 Choong Wan Woo of the University of Colorado coupled the level of pain experienced with the mental state of the individual. In an experiment he controlled an application of heat on the arms of volunteers during a brain scan. As the temperature increased so did the pain. However, if the subjects were told to think about blistering heat their experience of a level of pain was elevated compared to others who were directed to think about a warm blanket.
This is an important characteristic when you are considering those children who have experienced a history of abuse and neglect. They have an expectation to be rejected because of what they believe that is what they deserve (see Newsletter 14 – Toxic Shame - 3 July 2017 and Newsletter 135 – Toxic Shame 31 August 2020). These kids are conditioned to expect rejection just as those participants in the experiment who imagined blistering heat expected high levels of pain.
What is the significance of this information? It is critical when a teacher is managing behaviour in a classroom using time out, the removal of a student and it validates the critical importance of developing a healthy relationship with all students.
In the first instance, if time out is used as a punishment of the child, not the behaviour then this is personal rejection and will have the same painful consequences as capital punishment did, when applying the cane, physically hitting a child was allowed. It is critical that the child understands it is their behaviour that is being rejected never the student (see Newsletter 16 – Time Out 17 July 2017). Teachers who just throw the child out might as well cane them. Physical punishment never works and neither does psychological punishment!
There are laws that protect children form being physically attacked; there are no specific laws that shelter them from psychological assault. Is this because we can’t see the damage? I think that is the case but I also believe that this type of information is absent from teacher training at any level. Too many teachers are unaware of the damage they could potentially do!
In almost every school and every classroom you visit you will see a certain type of behaviour management. For example a student, let’s say Craig starts to talk out of turn; his name is written on the board. A short time later he throws something at another student and the teacher puts a tick beside his name. Craig gets angry and pushes his chair over, another tick and then he swears at the teacher, a final tick and he is removed! Now he is out of the room and no longer that teacher’s responsibility. This non-verbal system of control is potentially an effective intervention but there is much more that needs to be considered before it is just introduced!
In 1976 Marlene and Lee Canter published a book called ‘Assertive Discipline: A Take Charge Approach for Today’s Educator’. Like other programmes of that era such as Rogers’ ‘Decisive Discipline’ and Glasser’s ‘Reality Therapy’ this program was a response to the disruptive environments in the modern classroom. The feature that made Canter’s approach was the promise to put the teacher in charge again. A close examination of the program would reveal this has the potential to be an appropriate approach to classroom management. However, there is one feature of the program that has been embraced without reference to all the necessary groundwork that has to be done prior to its use and that is the ‘three strikes and you’re out’ procedures.
It must be accepted that the approach was promoted as ‘putting the teacher back in charge’ and I hope those who have followed our essays would be wondering why this would be a problem. There is a subtle difference in that many of the fans of Assertive Discipline interpreted this as being in charge of the students. One of the most liberating truths you can have is that you can’t make anyone do anything. All you can do is offer them choices of consequences and they will choose. In our work we know that the teacher must be in charge of the choices, which is the behavioural expectations and the structured consequences!
The Canters understood what needed to be put in place before the non-verbal cues were used and their advice is well worth reiterating. They have identified four competencies teachers need to possess in order to successfully manage classroom behaviour.
Identifying appropriate behaviours that form the basis for classroom rules
Systematically setting limits for inappropriate behaviour
Consistently reinforcing appropriate behaviour
Working cooperatively with parents and principals
In our model these points would be:
Establishing expectations
Designing structure, that is consequences for various behaviours
Applying the reinforcement consistently and persistently
As for their Point 4, this would be part of the structure.
We would not be so controlling to state the following steps Canter prescribes for the first day in class. He recommends the following be asserted:
“None of you will stop me from teaching”
“None of you will engage in any behaviour that stops someone from learning”
“None of you will engage in any behaviour that is not in your interest or the best interest of others”
It is this insistent approach that appeals to teachers who struggle with control of their class. Canter’s warning to the students is a promise to the teacher that can’t be achieved in every case.
There are two issues here that I would disagree with granted that they are not critical. The first is I know you can’t make anyone do anything. This is extremely liberating for the teacher as eventually you can’t be responsible for their choices, nor should you want to be. The second problem is, for the extreme kids that we focus on, this threat is also a challenge.
Canter strongly focuses on classroom rules which the teacher dictates. In a broad sense this is the only difference between his approach and ours which, where ever possible the rules are made by the class (see Newsletter 96 - Creating Structure - 12 August 2019 for a full description of how we generate rules). Our preference on the class designing the rules is that this develops their self-reliance rather than the expectation that they must comply. To develop unquestioned obedience is a direct threat to democracy and it is possible for rules to be developed with a sense of representative ownership by the students.
To finalise this short examination of Canter’s Assertive Discipline the concept is dependent on the teacher taking charge of the classroom, this is at the heart of its popularity. Some scholars have likened the teacher to the alpha male in a wolf pack. Someone who controls behaviour, directs activities and ensures the well-being of the pack. As far as a wolf pack is concerned this alpha position is always envied and up and coming challengers are constantly emerging and the right to have the power is fought over. Control is power over others and this is inappropriate for the development of our society.
Further, for every alpha there is an omega wolf, one who lacks the qualities that would allow them to challenge and really has no power. In a democratic society this is not such a problem, we are all of equal value we just have different abilities.
Canter puts a great deal of emphasis on the use of I-messaging, that is when he is correcting student’s behaviour he is directing the student on what to do. This can be at the level we describe in boundary setting:
When you … - describe the students behaviour
I feel … - let them know the impact their behaviour is having on you
In our model:
Because … - explain the impact the behaviour is having on their environment, that is the effect on others and their own learning.
In Canter’s model this last step is:
I would like … tell the student what to do.
When students are not complying, maybe they are angry or distressed or just defiant then Canter will use statements like ‘I understand’ or ‘that’s not the point’ to get some movement towards compliance. What he advocates is that you should take control. So when a student doesn’t want to do an assignment you would say something like ‘I understand you do not like this subject but it will be examined in the test’ or ‘that’s not the point, you need to understand this’. However, this verbal intervention has a limit and non-compliance soon attracts a behaviour check. We discuss these issues in Newsletter 144. Communicating with Difficult Kids in Difficult times (30 November 2020).
There is much to admire about Canter’s model however, the teacher needs to be of a certain personality type to make it work most of the time. To do this you must be an assertive teacher by nature. There are a range of personality types in teaching and all need to introduce into the classroom what both Canter and us insist on and that is expectations and structure and these are to be administered consistently and persistently. Unlike Canter we hold that the most important characteristic is a relationship between the student and the child that is equal in importance. The difference is in their responsibilities.
I guess there is an accepted assumption we all make when we consider introducing programs that are designed to modify children’s behaviour because how they are acting is not working for them. And that’s fair enough, the purpose of these essays is to help teachers deal with those kids who are failing at school because of their dysfunctional behaviour. We know what we want them not to do but if we want this to become a decision that comes from them, from their beliefs then this is a more profound undertaking and this should only be done in a way that empowers the child.
Of course, we want them to function in the world, teach them how to behave in certain situations but at a deeper level what do we want their basic ‘skill set’ to be? When you think about this you realise modifying behaviour is really modifying their sense of self. Remembering that behaviour is just a method of getting our needs met and those kids who are acting in a dysfunctional manner are satisfying their needs.
Take for instance a scenario where a student helps another complete a task. That student may be motivated to improve the other’s learning for ethical reasons, they want them to succeed. On the other hand that ‘other student’ may have access to something the students wants and so the help is more trans-actual, the drive is for an overt, selfish reason. It is the motivation to act that exposes the core make-up of the student.
For the children on which we focus, those who have experienced neglect and/or abuse we understand they have a ‘damaged’ sense of self. This is best described as having a sense of self that exposes a core of toxic shame (see Newsletter 14 – Toxic Shame – 03 July 2017). I see no ethical impediment in helping that child change such an unhealthy sense of self. But the ethical question I have to ask myself is what do I want the child’s sense of self to be?
This forces us to face a couple of issues before we make such a decision. The first is to consider the environment in which they live. Most of these kids live in dysfunctional environments and those behaviours we want to eradicate are really functional in their homes. By imposing what we consider functional may jeopardise their security at home. So we have a conundrum. Taking away their existing behaviours might be good for the classroom but might be very risky for them ‘at home’ where they are getting the best they can with the behaviours they have.
However, teaching them to act other ways to suit different contexts, a type of ‘code switching’ allows them to succeed in both settings. This choice of behaviour to suit the setting is used by successful people. Teaching the kids can behave one way at school and another at home can later be applied throughout their life, it empowers them to behave to get their needs met.
The goal of intervention should never be to change the child but to empower them and then let the child understand they have the power to change if they want to. To teach them additional behaviours that will let them meet their needs in this new environment gives them choice. This is a difference between this approach and what has been the conventional method of dealing with students who have severe behaviours.
I have thought long and hard about this problem and investigated all the popular psychology movements such as the positive psychology movement with their list of character strengths and virtues and American psychologist Ken Sheldon’s personalities and traits. There has been a rationalisation of these works and there has been a movement to distil personality characteristics into 'The Big Five' Personality Traits’ (for a detailed description of my investigation into this issue I have down-loaded Chapter 4 of my book ‘Neuroscience and Teaching Very Difficult Kids’ in the resource section of our webpage). However, this work is focused on what exists now, I want to describe what I would want any changes to these kid’s sense of self to lead to and I arrived at the following:
Sense of Self
A strong independent sense of self allows the students to approach work with confidence and purpose. This is achieved by learning how to act when confronted with new problems in life. This requires strong boundaries which allows us to apply the following approach to problem solving. When you feel the stress of being ‘out of control’ you should do the following:
Stay calm
Ask yourself the following questions:
What is really happening? This is not always obvious.
Who is responsible?
If it’s me then I have to change my behaviour
If it someone else I have to decide what I want and act in a way to get those needs met in the long term. It is critical that you understand you can’t make anyone change unless they want to!
Then act to address the stressful situation
The Reality of Self
The reality is that you are:
Special - You have unique abilities that can improve your life and/or the life of others
Precious - You are alive, this will not always be the case so don’t waste a moment.
Unique - There is no one alive that is like you so do not compare your ‘worth’ with others
This is critical that you accept this and also understand everyone else is special, precious and unique, we have this in common and this fact should be celebrated!
Relatedness
We are social beings and get our needs met more effectively when we behave within a community. Successful integration depends on us developing appropriate social skills for the community in which we operate. Rejection from the community is life threatening so knowing how to get on with others is imperative.
Self-Responsibility
We have to realize that we make our choices about how to act to get our needs met and in the end it is our responsibility to do just that. However, we need others but understand that no one exists just to serve us so understanding that our actions can harm others and we must be accountable for that!
Autonomy
Autonomy differs from sense of self in that healthy adults conduct themselves in their community in a manner that respects the needs of others while defending their own authentic self. Autonomy is a fundamental trait that allows you to be the author of your own life. You can take an internal attitude towards where you want to go and what you want to do.
Aspiration
A healthy life is one that has a purpose, a direction. Successful people have aligned their life’s purpose with their distinct sense of who they are. They have long term goals that has been reduced to manageable short-term goals. Of course, it is usual and appropriate for aspirations to change over time but for each day to be moving toward a successful future.
Developing such a set of core beliefs is not easy especially for the kids whose life has acted against them ever achieving such a healthy sense of self. The way we can help them move towards such a state is using those techniques we come back to all the time. Have high expectation of how they should behave in your class, provide a meticulous structure that reinforces those expectations and deliver this with a genuine acceptance of the child which will allow the development of those strong relationship that underpins all our work!
Just what is the purpose of the work we do in our classrooms? This is a critical question for all teachers; what do we want our students to achieve? The answer to this question is really complex when you apply it to well-adjusted students but becomes much more difficult when applied to those who have been subjected to abuse and/or neglect; those students who are the focus of our work.
If you search for definitions of ‘the purpose of education’ you will find comments like ‘being there to give us knowledge of our place in the world, and the skills to work in it’ or ‘for acquiring knowledge and skills that will enable people to develop their full potential, and become successful members of society’. Even the NSW Department declares that educations prepares “our learners for rewarding lives as engaged citizens in a complex and dynamic society”.
These views represent a rationalist’s goals for education, that is they consider the purpose of education to be a tool to equip children to become successful members of society. We consider this to be the secondary purpose, it won’t surprise anyone who has followed our work that we believe the primary purpose is to develop a functioning adult, a characteristic that all children have to develop but one that is extremely challenging for those on which our work focuses.
We understand that children are not little adults, in fact of all the animal kingdom our infants are the most dependent. Our task is to develop the maturity that a functioning adult requires. Of all the species humans have the most complex brain, where learning how to behave takes place. But unlike our cousins our brain takes so much longer to develop to maturity. The illustration below shows the stages of the brain’s development. The process can be described as the development occurs from bottom-up and from back to front.
The bottom-up refers to the development of the different stages of our three-part or triune brain. That is we have evolved to have three levels starting with the brain stem and mid brain which is in control of our physical needs. This is often referred to as the reptilian brain as it regulates the functions that all animals need but are the only ones reptiles use.
The second stage of development is the limbic system where behaviours are learned that will facilitate the satisfaction of our social needs. The evolution of this social brain is shared with other animal species that have exploited the benefits of working in groups. The final part of the brain and the part that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our cerebral cortex, our thinking brain. The behaviours we need to thrive in our physical, social and intellectual environments are controlled in these areas and are learned in a sequential pattern, from the bottom-up!
The brain also develops from the back to the front. The second illustration shows the periods of development. The quantity of blue indicates the completed development of each area. This back to front development is not so much about survival but the development of the tools the brain uses to examine and interpret the environment.
These represent the lobes of the brain illustrated below:
These have the following basic functions:
Occipital Lobe – this is where our vision is controlled, it allows us to interpret the stimulus coming from our eyes
Parietal Lobes – the main function of this part of the brain is to interpret our sense of touch
Temporal Lobes – This area of the brain allows us to process and understand sounds
Frontal Lobes – this is the last to be developed and manages the skills know as executive functions. Unlike the other lobes this is the area where we plan and solve
problems. Significantly, this may be the most important part of the brain when it comes to school but it is the last to be developed.
The descriptions above are very crude in the sense that the brain is the most complex object in the universe but it does illustrate its progressive development. Because the tools for behaving are mastered gradually over a period of time. This is critical for teachers to understand.
The next illustration shows the stages of the development of the behaviours:
Depending on the stage in which you teach there will be an overriding drive in your students to develop certain skills. For the school years peer relations and social development are the main ‘learning tasks’ for the child’s brain.
We began this essay discussing the purpose of education and the ‘motherhood’ statements like the purpose of education is for “our learners for rewarding lives as engaged citizens in a complex and dynamic society”. This, like most vision statements underpinned by the rationalists approach to all organisational pursuits results in a ‘truism’ that is so broad it is almost meaningless.
The unfortunate reality in our modern schools is that the focus from early childhood until matriculation is about learning the ‘measurables’, the ‘outcomes’. The system demands improvement in those areas that are facilitated by the functions in the frontal lobes and the cerebral cortex the last part of the brain to mature.
I understand all the brain is developing all the time it is just at a different rate and there are specific ‘windows of opportunity’ when the brain’s own environment is altered to provide an excess of myaline, the material that supports new neural pathways, that protect new memories and behaviours. If we want to capitalize on this process then we have to provide the conditions that cultivate that specific learning.
However, when we are dealing with those students who missed out on these conditions at the time they were required, those whose primary care-givers failed to provide, they will be in a state of need in these areas. If the students are unable to satisfy the needs in their physical or social environment then the resulting stress will necessitate the brain to focus on addressing these deficits. This comes at the expense of the high-order demands schools place on their students. Teachers who understand this provide the social, or physical conditions where this is not a problem.
Therefore two considerations must be taken into account when structuring learning tasks:
The need to understand abstract ideas is not a human priority. Physical and social survival are much more powerful drives and must be satisfied before cognitive learning can take place.
Learning in modern curriculum is cognitive and requires the use of specific neural networks. These networks are only available when physical and social needs are satisfied.
Even for the well-adjusted children, teaching all students cognitive tasks is a challenge because that area of the brain remains incomplete until the mid-twenties. However, because of their strong sense of self these kids cope. Unfortunately, those kids who do not have that same confidence or more tragically the kids who have suffered significant brain damage (see Newsletters 28 Physical Damage from Early Childhood Abuse - 06 November 2017and Newsletter 59 – The Impact from Neglect - 12 September 2017) find this cognitive immaturity an added burden. Their disability is not easily recognised by any other than those teachers who understand the complexity of engaging the underdeveloped, damaged brain!
Back in the mid 90’s I was working as principal of a school for students with severe behaviours, in fact they had to have the diagnosis of conduct disorder or oppositional defiance to be enrolled. It was in this time Daniel Goleman’s best-selling book ‘Emotional Intelligence – Why it Matters More than IQ’ came out. Unless you read the book you would get the superficial message of the book was something like ‘trust your instincts when in a difficult situation’. I will give a brief formal description of emotional intelligence below but I really think the underpinning message is trust your emotions!
Almost every day I witnessed the emotional turmoil students in my care have them make the types of behaviour decisions that ruined their time in mainstream school. At that time I felt someone needed to write another book with a title like “Emotional Stupidity – Why IQ is not a Consideration’. I still think there is a call for such a book.
So, what is emotional intelligence? The most common definitions can be summed up by Wikipedia as being ‘the ability to perceive, use, understand, manage, and handle emotions’. This ability is referring to the management of both your own emotions and those of others. The elements that define emotional intelligence are:
Self-awareness – understanding how your behaviour impacts on others
Self-regulation – having strong boundaries that allow you to stay relatively calm
Motivation – having the drive to solve conflicts
Empathy – understanding and having compassion for the other(s) circumstances
Social skills – being able to engage with others in a positive way
My problem with the concept of emotional intelligence is that it makes the unrealistic assumption that we all have a strong positive sense of self. The evidence for the existence of emotional intelligence is the correlation between characteristics of successful people and the elements outlined above. I would argue that the characteristics of successful people depend on the environmental conditions of early childhood. This is no form of intelligence it is just the luck of the draw.
Children who have been abused and/or neglected in early childhood develop a sense of self that reflects their environment. The emotional elements of these kids is the mirror opposite of those that define emotional intelligence:
Lack of any self-awareness – Any self-awareness these children have is that they are worthless. They experience what I describe as toxic shame (see Newsletter 114 - ‘Toxic Shame’ - 03 July 2017); they don’t think they make mistakes they believe they are a mistake!
Inability to self-regulate – In functioning families, when a small child hurts themselves, physically or emotionally they are soothed, held and reassured. This external regulation is learned and these kids learn to regulate themselves. On the other hand in an abusive family, when the child is hurt they are at best ignored but all to often told to ‘grow up’ or ‘stop that crying’ or ‘I’ll give you something to cry about’! When you see these kids in your classroom you will notice how they take so much more time to settle after they have been provoked!
Un-motivated – Because of their toxic sense of self they have learned not to try; why would they? Since early childhood they have had the belief of being unworthy and this has been reinforced by their significant adults so why try. Further, the behaviours they do seek to do are those that will protect them from further pain. They believe they do not deserve nor do they think they have the ability to succeed.
No ability to empathise – The fifteen criteria that define Conduct Disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) almost all describe the behaviour of someone who has no empathy. These characteristics are:
Aggressive behaviour toward others and animals
Frequent physical altercations with others
Use of a weapon to harm others
Deliberately physically cruel to other people
Deliberately physically cruel to animals
Involvement in confrontational economic order crime- e.g., mugging
Has perpetrated a forcible sex act on another
Property destruction by arson
Property destruction by other means
Has engaged in non-confrontational economic order crime- e.g., breaking and entering
Has engaged in non-confrontational retail theft, e.g., shoplifting
Disregarded parent's curfew prior to age 13
Has run away from home at least two times
Has been truant before age 13
In summary the DSM – 5 concludes with the following qualifier ‘Limited prosocial emotions, lack of remorse or guilt, lack of empathy, callousness, unconcerned about performance, shallow or deficient affect’
Teaching those students who have missed out on a nurturing childhood is difficult. We have to understand that the significance of the emotional content of any decision-making increases proportionately to the level of stress experienced. The following diagram shown below illustrates this phenomena. This was first published by Bruce Perry well known expert on the effect of early childhood trauma. This shows that as the student becomes more aroused their mental state moves from being able to consider abstract choices for their behaviour on to being completely overwhelmed and being unable to do anything other than behave in the manner they acquired in early childhood.
Their emotional state overpowers any cognitive consideration which is only really available when the child is in a state of calm; a condition rarely experienced for these children.
This inability to control the emotional side of their ‘intelligence’ is the reason the myriad of cognitive interventions that have been introduced in our schools to deal with dysfunctional behaviour fail. This is not emotional ‘stupidity’ on their part it is more like an emotional disability.
By understanding this you will appreciate the approach we advocate when supporting these kids in our classrooms. We need to provide a calm, inclusive learning environment that has well defined structure, understood expectations and carried out with strong positive relationships at least between the teacher and the student!
There is so much evidence that explains why it is so hard to change people’s beliefs. We have discussed this in Newsletter 149 (Beliefs 01 February, 2021) where we examined how our drive to survive in our environment created banks of both emotional and cognitive memories which form our sense of self or our beliefs. The conditions that fashioned our beliefs will be the conditions we seek out when our self is threatened. This is critical for teachers to understand when they are dealing with students dysfunctional behaviour. This is because the behaviours they are using are ones they learned to get their needs met in the environment in which they were raised. The conflict is the result of the child learning to behave in a dysfunctional environment and applying those behaviours in a functional one.
In this essay we will look at the interaction between the power of these memories and the neurological structure created in their formation. The combination of these features will influence the child’s analysis of the external environment restricting the level of access to all available information that could inform alternate decision making.
This limitation is understandable, Timothy Wilson of the University of Virginia has made the following broad observations:
The cognitive mind can process 40 pieces of information per minute
The unconscious mind sorts through 12 million sensory inputs per minute
The unconscious mind checks for threat and/or opportunity
Of course these numbers are estimates but they make the point. We are exposed to an extreme amount of stimulus all the time we are awake and it is impossible to focus on it all. I suspect the idea that we can process 40 pieces per minute is a guestimate however those 40 would be characteristics on the environment that have the potential to either threaten our survival or provide nourishment to maintain us, this is the unconscious checking that Wilson identifies (the brain will instantly observe unexpected threats that are beyond our expectation; for example if you are crossing the road and a runaway truck is heading for you will take immediate action to avoid the collision).
As stated in the opening paragraph, the conditions that fashioned our beliefs are those that gave us the best chance to maintain homeostatic equilibrium, to survive. Not only will these be the conditions we seek out the neurological process will involve the same circuits and these are the ones that are the most dominant. The brain is wired to attend to those things that have supported them in the past. In a sense the neural networks originally are to optimise our survival and these are the ones we focus on; the brain chooses what to attend to.
There are at least two functions of the brain that increase the efficiency of our perception. The first is held in a neural network that is located in the brain stem and projects onto the hypothalamus which by releasing targeted hormones keeps the body in a stable state or homeostatic equilibrium. The second is the cerebellum which continually monitors the relationship between our homeostatic state, the external environment which includes our body and the behaviours that maintain equilibrium.
One of the principal functions of the cerebellum is to make instant adjustments to our behaviour to maintain equilibrium. The first investigations into the cerebellum was in its importance to balance. Most early research into the brain was carried out by observing changes to behaviour when part of the brain was damaged. The most obvious impact of a damaged cerebellum is a lack of balance and motor skills. For years it was believed that this was its primary, almost exclusive function. Later research has revealed a much more complex array of behaviour regulations are controlled by the cerebellum.
For the purpose of this essay it is how the cerebellum handles the interface of the external world and our memories, our beliefs that is pertinent to how the brain’s structure helps reinforce existing beliefs. If you take the example of balance it is easy to see how this happens. Those of you who have observed a child learning to walk will have watched that child, through trial and error mastering that skill. Once they become skilled at walking they don’t have to think about it, it is an intrinsic, subconscious memory and if they trip they immediately adjust their body to regain their balance. The immediacy of the reaction is because the cerebellum bi-passes any reference to the memory bank, it ‘knows’ what to do and sends out instant instructions. This is known as the ‘feed forward’ feature of the cerebellum.
This feed forward feature makes for an efficiency when there is no clash between the environment and the individual’s beliefs however, when there is a clash and the environment threatens the individual’s beliefs thereby increasing their stress levels, they will invariably act according to those beliefs rather than the evidence presented by the environment. As I stated in a previous Newsletter (No. 214. Changing Students' Beliefs – 27 September, 2022); “the issue is that our beliefs are formed in one reality and when we are faced with another it is challenged. When you consider that our beliefs are about actions that help us survive and if we are threatened in the contemporary situation the anxiety that is generated will have us apply those beliefs on which we have relied”.
Much has been written about confirmation bias and what has been discussed above explains this phenomena. In the majority of cases this relance on beliefs makes life much easier. If I ask you to tell me where your car is right now you could with a high degree of certainty and in the vast majority of cases you would be right but unless you can see your car, you have evidence that it is there!
Obviously, for the students we are concerned with their belief systems, although functional in the environment in which they were raised is likely to be dysfunctional in a well-run classroom. Our goal for these kids is to help them become functional in the classroom which means we have to change their beliefs and that is extremely difficult to achieve. You have to build a new set of memories and that can only happen if you over-ride the existing ones and this can only happen over time, in a supportive relationship and in a consistent and persistent environment!
The Problem of Dealing with Autistic and Neuro-Diverse Students
Our focus has always been on helping teachers deal with students with severe dysfunctional behaviours. It is our strong belief that all these students with such behaviours act in such ways because of no fault of their own. The vast majority are the victims of:
Parenting that has been abusive, or neglectful which results in profound damage to the brain
Inappropriate modelling, where children learn to behave in a fashion that works in a dysfunctional household however, when they use those behaviours in a school, presumably functional classroom that behaviour is unacceptable.
Atypical neural construction of the brain. These are the psychotic, schizophrenic, autistic, etc. children who do not interpret the environment as the rest of us.
In all cases it has not been the child’s fault, their behaviours have been put on them either by a fault in nature or the intent of their early childhood carers. However, most of our work is based on the parenting, either the abuse and/or neglect or the inappropriate modelling. In these cases there can be a notion that the students have a rough recognition of the external environment similar to what we would interpret. Of course the attention to detail and the responses will be shaped by their belief systems which are at odds with our own (assuming we are ‘functional’).
Dealing with the last group of children is not so straightforward, for instance psychosis is a term used to describe when people lose some contact with reality. Common symptoms of psychosis are hearing voices or having strong beliefs that are not shared by people within your community. Autism, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), refers to a broad range of conditions characterized by challenges with social skills, repetitive behaviours, speech and non-verbal communication. The problem for the non-specialist teachers who have to deal with these children in a mainstream classroom is they have no way of anticipating the reactions to given situations. I fully accept there are many excellent specialist teachers and programs that can make a significant difference but I have yet to see any evidence where these programs are successfully used for integration for students at the severe end of their disorder.
I recently came across an article by Alexandria Robers from the University of Minnesota who addresses this problem for the autistic student. In the article ‘Radical Behaviourism’ often referred to as applied behaviour analysis (ABA) which is a popular but controversial approach for working with autistic children. In general, the principles behind ABA are:
Behaviours are affected by their environment.
Behaviours can be strengthened or weakened by its consequences.
Behaviour changes are more effective with positive instead of negative consequences.
The controversy comes because many see this approach as a form of classical and/or operant conditioning where the stimulus-response is used to modify behaviour through reward or punishment or as we prefer to refer to as consequences.
I have no real issue with the use of consequences but there is a point of difference between what the critics of ABA, Robers and ourselves.
The critics see consequences through the eyes of B. F. Skinner and his colleagues where behaviours are forced onto students without any consideration to emotions and beliefs. This implies that the students are powerless, they have no choice. I would contend that none of us have a ‘choice’ in our early childhood when we are unable to make a choice and our suite of feelings and beliefs are being formulated; this is the construction of our sense of self! In fact, in later years those feelings and beliefs dictate our behaviour when confronted with situations that are the same or similar to those when our sense of self is formed. Our behaviour is determined, there is no choice at the moment. I will expand this concept later in the essay.
Robers takes an interesting view on the point of consideration of the consequences. She argues that the conventional view about the effectiveness of consequences on shaping behaviour is that it is an action based on the antecedent conditions, that when we are faced with a set of circumstances, we will act to protect ourselves from the consequence or to seek /obtain that consequence. Her view, I suspect influenced by her work with autistic students is that all behaviours are chosen specifically to get the consequence the student wants.
She presents a model she refers to as SEAT:
S – the student is seeking sensory input and for the autistic child this may be a repetitive movement
E – this is to escape, to avoid different situations they do not enjoy
A – This attention seeking behaviour, these are efforts to engage with others.
T – This is the seeking of tangibles, access to activities in which they want to participate.
I really have a problem seeing any point to this approach, the thesis is that the behaviour is designed to get a consequence but surely that consequence is to satisfy a need which is the antecedent condition!
I indicated above I would revisit the notion of determinism the contrary view of free-will. I suspect that those critics of ABA who lament the child’s lack of choice assumes they have free will. I would contend that they don’t and nor does any other child at the time they are confronted with a situation; but determinism is not inevitability.
Those who have followed us know our model, the establishment of a positive relationship and the construction of clear expectation and a structured environment. Our view is that our sense of self, our feelings and beliefs that drive our behaviour have been formed in a specific environment. If these behaviours are dysfunctional for anyone then we need to change the environment, have alternate clear expectations and persistent and consistent consequences for behaviours that are driven by needs so the children can learn other ways to behave.
Our model is straight forward, we understand that all behaviour is driven by deficits in our security, our homeostasis. We all learn how to satisfy those needs in the environment in which we live. If the environment is dysfunctional the behaviour will mirror that dysfunctionality. To change a child’s dysfunctionality we must change the environment. This sounds simple but it is not so easy for the following reasons:
The children described at the beginning of this essay participate in our schools at a huge disadvantage through no fault of their own.
Teachers are ill-equipped to deal with these kids in a classroom where 29 other students are entitled to the teacher’s attention.
There is an absence of mental health professionals to assist these kids at school.
There is little recognition and even less attention paid to the issue of dysfunctional behaviour in schools by governments and their bureaucratic staff.
However, despite the difficulty, you the teacher may be the only chance these kids have, and you will make a difference. Robers refers to her 4C’s control, consequences, consistency and compassion and I can’t disagree with these!
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.
