Behaviour and motivation, good vs bad definitions are not useful
From this first paragraph, I wonder if I am going to anger a certain type of person who makes it their life to define the world in binary terms, because like other concepts, behaviour needs to stop being defined as good or bad.
Behaviour is a function, it is actions designed to achieve a purpose.
Over time it has become normalised and a habit to define behaviour on a spectrum of good or bad, which understandably is an easy way to manage our reactions to behaviour we encounter. The problem in only viewing behaviour by our reactions is that we might forget to consider what the person was trying to achieve in doing the behaviour.
When we consider the use of politeness and manners, the use of good vs bad does not address the function that using manners performs. From very early, children are often conditioned to use manners to get something that they want.
When we respond to a request where ‘please’ has not been used with silence or a gentle reminder, we are conditioning the use of politeness to achieve a positive outcome, something we want.
Sometimes the manners we use may be considered ‘good’ because of the words and tone we use, but in actuality the function they serve is simply to keep the peace and be civil. Perhaps this is someone that you do not particularly like but being actively hostile does not serve a purpose.
The purpose and function of using good manners and politeness is to build relationships and also as a way to express ourselves.
Similarly, behaviour works in the same way. I may behave in a way that is seen to be ‘good’, polite and appropriate, but I act this way to achieve a purpose, most often connected to interpersonal needs; making friends, building networks, employment, navigating society generally.
When a second hand car I purchased completely broke down within a month and the car yard initially refused to take any responsibility, the behaviour that followed from me would not be described as good behaviour. I went down to that car yard and my tone was angry, I argued, probably used a few profanities and I screamed ‘buyer beware’ at the top of my lungs across the car yard. Not good behaviour, but it achieved my purpose of having the problem rectified.
Many of us are excused from being labelled negatively based on incidents of ‘bad’ behaviour because it is clear it is a reaction to something or we are able to explain and justify why we might have done something. While, it does not always excuse the behaviour, it does allows us to make sense and meaning.
This ability, or lack of for some, is where the challenges lie in how we interact and respond to people with cognitive disabilities that may not have yet developed a way to verbalise or express clearly what they want to achieve.
Particularly in special development schools, where the general belief is that students are supported by knowledgeable people and appropriate strategies, we are not appropriately supporting student behaviour.
There are a number of reasons for this, with the first being that the outcome of clustering the majority of students with more challenging behaviours in one setting is, there is not enough staff. Classrooms of at least eight to ten students, particularly at younger age levels, you will find around 50-75% of the group need one-on-one support. You may get lucky and a 1:3 or 1:4 staff to student ratio is available, but that is well below the 1:2 needed.
While I do not agree with segregated education settings as a general rule, if we insist on upholding this system, then we should also be aware of the many students that are in these settings that would benefit immensely, particularly in the area of behaviour, in a mainstream setting. The issue of clustering students with challenging behaviours together is that many students imitate or copy inappropriate behaviour from other students. We let students languish in settings and take away their opportunity for social learning and to have positive behaviours modelled and demonstrated to them. By emulating their peers’ inappropriate behaviours, in the classroom this has the impact of splitting your focus and attention even further.
Another reason is, too often in classrooms and settings, when working with people with sensory, processing and communication challenges, we respond to the behaviour, rather than try to understand it. We place our expectations and understanding of situations and societal rules onto people that do not have that same understanding or perspective, for various reasons.
When they will not stay seated, they get up and down and walk around
When they tip out boxes of items or pull posters off the wall, rip books apart
When they abscond and constantly run from the room or will not come inside
When they hit or kick or scream or scratch
We say ‘no’ and ‘stop’ and get annoyed when they do not do as we say. We do not look past the behaviour to understand what is driving
We should consider if they can understand the mode in which we have communicated with them. Are we using too many words? Do they have a connection to the words we are using? How do they process information, do they need images, schedules, do they need to be shown?
If a request or direction is not understood, why would it be followed? The behaviour should not simply be dismissed as ‘bad’, but rather looked at as the function of not understanding, and we now need to investigate methods and strategies to develop understanding and connection.
We need to observe the environment, what has happened or is happening. Are they reacting to something? Do they want something and if so what and why?
A baby crying is not a nice sound and parents and carers work to find out what the reason is. When babies cry, they are not trying to annoy the adults, they are getting your attention and communicating their needs; performing a behaviour to achieve a purpose. It makes sense that as we grow and develop, that this connection we have made to certain behaviours and the outcomes they produce, remains.
We need to look past the behaviour sometimes and try to understand what the student is trying to achieve. If a student is avoiding a work task, or they are getting up, cannot sit still, who knows, try asking the student if they can express what they are feeling or experiencing. Where you can step back and observe what is happening for that student, which is what you need to do when a student does not communicate conventionally.
Verbalisation should not be the hallmark of communication and we are more willing to accommodate when people have visual or hearing barriers, but there is a hesitation when it is a cognitive or processing barrier. A lack of clear communication system to express your wants and needs must be incredibly frustrating and yet we often do not seem to make the connection between how that person may be feeling as a result and the impacts on behaviour.
A function of a negative behaviour can be to get attention, that is a reality. Sometimes behaviours have negative impacts on others particularly if aggressive such as hitting, or disruptive such as screaming, and need to be immediately addressed. Where we can however, ignoring negative behaviours in favour of acknowledging and praising, giving attention to positive behaviours should be encouraged. The aim is that these positive behaviours will be repeated in order to get attention.
When a strategy or method is trialled, we also need to give it time. We need time to acquire language and connect objects or words to concepts and ideas. We need consistency so that we can trust that understanding of outcomes and connections we have drawn.
This idea that a strategy was tried once but did not work, so has been abandoned is very common in classrooms. Possibly because staff simply do not have the time with their efforts split and you just do what you can to get through the day sometimes when in an environment with conflicting wants and needs. Also, going back to expectations we place on others to understand the world as we do, clouds people’s ability to think outside the box. Once again, binary thinking, it is ‘yes’ it worked or ‘no’ it did not, rather than allowing time for the concept to settle and connect. Maybe it will not work, but that decision should not be reached after one attempt.
This kind of approach, however, needs a structured and consistent implementation through established behaviour support strategies and individual learning plans and goals, that outline clearly the circumstances and responses. This is not happening in the majority of special education settings classrooms.
Once again, a system that clusters students with these needs, places a huge workload burden on a small percentage of staff, having two major impacts. The first impact is burnout which is seen through people leaving ‘specialised’ education or the education sector completely, taking experience and knowledge. The second impact is lack of skill and experience across the sector because you keep it contained to ‘specialised’ settings, a term that can only be used loosely because it largely not made up of specialised staff. The specialising comes about because of the clustering, not the actual services and support that students and families have access to.