Lost at School (27 page)

“DIFFERENTIATED DISCIPLINE”

Educators spend a lot of time talking and thinking about differentiating instruction for individual learners. Perhaps what you’ve read in this and preceding chapters has you thinking that reducing challenging behavior is no different, although the term
differentiated discipline
might be closer to the mark. When you’re differentiating instruction,

your expectations are pretty much the same for all students, but how you’re helping them meet those expectations differs, especially for those who run into difficulty. The exact same principles apply when you’re differentiating discipline.

In her excellent book,
The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Learners,
Dr. Carol Ann Tomlinson describes the characteristics of teachers who are differentiating instruction. While Dr. Tomlinson’s wisdom is primarily applied to academic challenges, let’s look at how some of these principles extend to challenging behavior. I’ve added the parenthetical references to facilitate links.

Dr. Tomlinson writes that, in differentiated classrooms, teachers accept and build upon the premise that learners differ in important ways (both academically and behaviorally). These teachers do not force-fit students into a standard mold (or set of disciplinary procedures). They do not reach for standardized, mass-produced instruction (or disciplinary procedures) assumed to be a good fit for all students because they recognize that students (including the behaviorally challenging ones) are individuals. They accept, embrace, and plan for the fact that learners bring many commonalities to school, but that learners (and behavers) also bring the essential differences that make them individuals. They allow for this reality in many ways to make classrooms a good fit for each individual. They call upon a range of instructional strategies (including those that would be applied to the lagging skills and unsolved problems of challenging kids). They use time flexibly and become partners (collaborators, helpers) with their students to ensure that what is learned and the learning environment are shaped to the learner.

Why, so often, do we not extend these precepts to social, emotional, and behavioral challenges? Probably because many adults don’t yet realize that such challenges occur because of lagging skills and unsolved problems and should be approached with precisely the same mentality, and in the same manner, as academic challenges.

Let’s go back to the goals we wanted to accomplish through use of Plan B, summarized at the beginning of
Chapter 5
, and see if, by differentiating discipline, we’re at least off to a good start:

• Ensure that your unmet expectations are pursued and that your concerns about a given kid’s challenges are addressed.
Check.

• Solve the problems precipitating a kid’s challenging episodes durably and collaboratively.
Check.

• Teach lacking thinking skills.
Check.

• Reduce challenging behavior.
Check.

• Create a helping relationship.
Check.

Well done. So long as you understand that you’re not quite done yet.

Q & A

Question:
I understand the necessity of making sure that a challenging kid has the skills to participate in Plan B. But there are some kids who just won’t talk to me, even though I think they have the skills to do it.

Answer:
While Plan B can run aground for any of the reasons described in this and the preceding chapter, adults often comment that they “never got past the Empathy step,” frequently because “the kid didn’t have a concern” or because “he denied there was a problem” or because “the kid wouldn’t talk.”

As you now know, there are a variety of factors that can interfere with a kid talking. But hopefully you’re reasonably certain that you didn’t use Plan A (in many kids, Plan A is a very effective conversation stopper), that your Empathy step wasn’t perfunctory (some kids clam up instantaneously when adults dismiss or come to erroneous conclusions about their concerns), that your timing was good (Emergency B is generally not the ideal way to help reluctant talkers talk), that you used the steps in the proper order (are you sure you didn’t start Plan B with
your
concern?), and that the kid has the skills to participate in Plan B.

What else would make it hard for a kid to talk? While many kids will begin talking simply because you’re
not
using Plan A, some won’t. Many start talking again because someone is finally trying to understand their concerns, but some don’t. Some kids lost faith and trust in adults a long time ago. Some don’t know what it’s like to have an adult try to help in ways that aren’t punitive. Some are so accustomed to
having their concerns dismissed that they’ve just stopped talking. Some come to view adults as “the enemy.” So you have your work cut out for you.

Some adults have an easier time forging relationships with challenging kids and drawing them out. They have a natural feel for how to approach these kids, are good at connecting with them about things that aren’t related to school, and often use humor to help them feel more comfortable. But that doesn’t mean that those who are less “natural” can’t grow better at it.

It’s important to remember that Plan B is not a robotic exercise and that the three steps of Plan B represent three
ingredients
necessary for the collaborative resolution of problems. So far, the official goal of the Empathy step has been to achieve the clearest possible understanding of the kid’s concern or perspective related to a particular issue. But for kids who are reluctant participants in Plan B, there’s a different goal—
just get the kid talking
—and this goal often requires a less direct approach, one in which, at least for the time being, you give thought to what the kid
will
talk about rather than what you
want
him to talk about.

Let’s go back to two of the kids you met in
Chapter 2
(and have been reintroduced to at a few points along the way), starting with six-year-old Cody. Recall that Cody was hitting his classmates a lot and that his teacher had tried talking with Cody about the hitting, but that Cody’s response was to deny that there was a problem, shrug, or walk away. The teacher’s attempts at Proactive Plan B on this issue usually began with “I’ve noticed that you’ve been hitting a lot lately. What’s up?” But when that opening wasn’t successful, she hypothesized that this was too direct and not conducive to drawing Cody out. She tried a more indirect approach, recalling that, on one of the few occasions on which Cody had said anything about the hitting, he had stated that the other kids had been teasing him. His teacher thought that Cody might be more likely to talk about being teased than about hitting. She began her next attempt at Proactive Plan B with teasing as the focus of her entry statement:

      T
EACHER
:
Cody, I’ve noticed that you feel the other kids tease you a lot.

      
C
ODY
:
Huh?

      T
EACHER
:
I’ve noticed that you feel the other kids tease you a lot, and I’d like to hear more about that.

      C
ODY
:
Why? Am I in trouble?

      T
EACHER
:
No, no, you’re not in trouble. I was thinking maybe I can do something so they tease you less.

      C
ODY
:
You can’t.

      T
EACHER
:
Hmm. Sounds like you don’t feel anyone’s helped you with it before.

      C
ODY
(shrugs)

      T
EACHER
:
Has anyone ever tried?

      C
ODY
:
Tried what?

      T
EACHER
:
To get the other kids to tease you less.

      C
ODY
:
I don’t know.

      T
EACHER
:
Would it be good if we could get you teased less?

      C
ODY
:
Whatever.

      T
EACHER
:
I’d like to try, but I’m going to need you to help me know what’s going on.

      C
ODY
:
There’s nothing you can do. I don’t want to talk about this anymore.

      T
EACHER
:
OK. But if you think of something I can do to help, I’d like to try. I’m pretty good at helping kids not get teased, but I’m going to need your help.

What a disaster, yes? Actually, no. Believe it or not, the teacher left this attempt at Plan B more optimistic that Cody would eventually talk about this problem, and she turned out to be right. Plan B eventually focused not only on Cody being teased by the other kids but also on ways he could deal with it more effectively—without hitting. What were the key ingredients? Convincing Cody that she wasn’t his enemy, that it wasn’t horrible to need someone’s help, and that she truly cared about his well-being. It took awhile, but in the process she found that Cody did have concerns, knew there was a problem, and would talk.

Elena is the thirteen-year-old seventh grader who can be defiant in response to even simple requests, refuses to do any work when she’s partnered with a classmate she doesn’t like, skips class, and refuses to remove her iPod when asked. But you may recall that she doesn’t
exhibit these behaviors in every class. In fact, she’s a totally different kid depending on what class she’s in. One of the teachers with whom she has the most difficulty attempted to do Plan B with Elena, but Elena responded, “I’m not talking to
you
about anything!” Upon hearing of this in a meeting, one of the teachers who had a half-decent relationship with Elena volunteered to attempt Plan B. Rather than start the Empathy step with “I’ve noticed you won’t do any work unless you’re partnered with someone you like,” or “I’ve noticed you don’t like to switch seats when I ask you to,” it went like this:

      T
EACHER
:
How are you getting along with Mrs. Oliver these days?

      E
LENA
:
Why, what’d she say?

      T
EACHER
:
Nothing, really. I just get the feeling she’s not your favorite.

      E
LENA
:
No, seriously, what did she say? I know she said something. She hates me.

      T
EACHER
:
How come she hates you?

      E
LENA
:
I don’t know, she just does. What did she say?

      T
EACHER
:
She just told me she tried to talk with you about something and you wouldn’t talk to her.

      E
LENA
:
Why would I talk to her? All she does is get on my case.

      T
EACHER
:
So her getting on your case makes you not want to talk with her.

      E
LENA
:
Why would I want to talk with her? She doesn’t listen.

      T
EACHER
:
What was she trying to talk to you about?

      E
LENA
:
I don’t know … something about how come I don’t do work in her class.

      T
EACHER
:
So maybe it’s better if you talk about that with someone who you feel is better at listening and isn’t on your case so much.

      E
LENA
:
Yeah, probably.

Elena was talking. It turned out that Elena had a lot to say and had legitimate concerns. But it took someone who had a decent relationship with her and a less direct approach to discover it. Once Elena started talking and her concerns were clarified, and once all her teachers
learned how to do Plan B, Elena also started talking with the teacher she said she’d never talk to.

Question:
I was doing Plan B with a kid in my class and things seemed to be going well for a few weeks but then deteriorated again. What happened?

Answer:
It could be that the solution you and the kid agreed on wasn’t as realistic and mutually satisfactory as it originally seemed. That’s a fairly common occurrence, and it means that there is some additional problem-solving to do. It could also be that your initial success was due more to the quick burst of relationship-enhancing that occurs with Plan B. Durably solving problems takes longer, and teaching skills longer still. Unfortunately, it’s when initial Plan B solutions fail to stand the test of time that adults are most prone to discard their improved relationship with a challenging kid and head back to the Plan A hills. Don’t forget, Plan A wasn’t working very well for a long time. The ingredients Plan B brings to interacting with and helping kids are reliable but not magical.