Chapter 8: Identifying and Unpacking Patterns of Behavior
A misbehaving child is a discouraged child.
—Rudolf Dreikurs
Opening Vignette: Different Profiles
Mrs. Edmonson has her eye on two students in her third-grade class this year. They are presenting with very different behaviors; however, after the training on trauma responses in children, Mrs. Edmonson is recognizing that both patterns are problematic. One child, Shawn, is shy and often withdrawn from his peers. On the playground, he often wanders alone and does not appear to interact directly with others. He rarely seems to be paying attention in class and often is a few steps behind when engaging in learning activities even with supportive reminders. Shawn startles easily when called on by an adult and is often jumpy when other students are close to him in line. He can get frustrated and irritated if peers touch him or get too close to his belongings, but he often avoids eye contact when reprimanding his peers. Mrs. Edmonson is concerned about Shawn’s academic performance, but she is equally concerned about his difficulty making friends and interacting socially.The second child, Margo, is the opposite of Shawn. She is boisterous, loud, and often very active. Margo requires attention from Mrs. Edmonson on a consistent basis. She often argues with her peers and gets very upset numerous times a day. She seeks out peer interaction but is often unsuccessful at engaging productively. The other students in the classroom have started to get annoyed with Margo and try to avoid working or playing with her because there always seems to be a problem. Even with Mrs. Edmonson’s guidance, Margo is still disrupting the class with her outbursts, which are affecting her ability to develop friendships in the classroom and slowing down the pace of her learning. Mrs. Edmonson realizes it is time to take a deeper look at both children’s patterns of engagement in the classroom.
Introduction
We know that children such as Shawn and Margo are communicating important information through their behavior, but children (and adults) engage in different behaviors for many different reasons. Identifying and unpacking what these behaviors are communicating can feel like a daunting task. In subsequent chapters, we will examine how early childhood educators can support students with ongoing, challenging behaviors. We will rely heavily on the foundational thinking addressed in Chapters 1–7 and suggest reviewing those chapters before diving into the last five chapters. Unpacking patterns of behavior will look different depending on the perspectives of the adult doing the work. Delahooke (2019) summarizes this distinction saying, “When we view behaviors comprehensively and in a holistic brain/body paradigm, we will come to understand the difference between emphasizing behavioral compliance and building the capacity for emotional regulation that underlies behavioral control” (p. 25).
In Chapter 1, we introduced the community model for classroom management (see Figure 8.1) to guide our discussions. You might remember that hands surround a visual and that these hands represent the members of the community working together. The adult examining the behaviors needs to recognize and value the importance of the classroom community. Because we know how important belonging is for children, we know that both Shawn’s and Margo’s behaviors are providing important indications that they need support. If we did not start with this basic premise for classroom management (i.e., the critical importance of belonging to the classroom community), it could be easy to overlook Shawn’s behaviors because he is not continually disruptive. Shawn’s behavior, however, is as concerning as Margo’s because neither child is developing peer relationships or demonstrating the ability to manage their emotional responses with peers.
Additionally, you might recall that three icons appeared in the “hands circle” in the community model for classroom management: eyeglasses, a magnifying glass, and a mirror. These icons remind us to check our philosophical lenses, analyze the strategies we are using for management, and self-reflect to ensure alignment between our philosophy and our strategies. Greene (2008) reminds us that “kids do well if they can” (p. 161). A child engaging in problematic behavior is most likely doing the best that they can, and they have become discouraged by their repeated failures to meet the expectations of the classroom community. Once we have done the work of seeing challenging children in this light, we are ready to start unpacking behavioral patterns.
In this chapter, we will:
discuss how the iceberg analogy for behavior can help us think about behavioral patterns (8.1),- explore the important contextual role of children’s response to stress (8.2), and
consider how we can address persistent challenging behavior (8.3).
8.1 The Iceberg Analogy for Behavior
Using the iceberg analogy is a helpful starting point to begin unpacking student behavior. Virginia Satir is often credited with developing the iceberg model in her family counseling work (Banmen, 2002). Many iterations of the iceberg analogy have been developed to explain the complexities of behavior. In most models, the top of the iceberg, the part that is visible above the water, represents the exhibited behaviors. Delahooke (2019) defines these behaviors as “the observable response to our internal and external experiences” (p. 15). These observable behaviors contain valuable information, and it is important to take time to clearly identify and define what the challenging behaviors are for the child. For instance, if we return to the opening vignette, we can identify the behavioral challenges for both children (see Table 8.1).
| Shawn | Margo |
|---|---|
|
|
Although these behaviors are important to identify, they are not sufficient to understand what supports a child will need. We need to take a look at the part of the iceberg that is underwater. If we focus exclusively on the behaviors (what is visible), we are missing all of the context surrounding the behaviors (often invisible drivers). As illustrated in Figure 8.2, many factors may have an impact on children’s behavior, including both internal and external stressors or triggers. If we do not identify and attend to these factors, it is unlikely that we will be able to support the child to solve the behavioral challenges. Deciding what to do about a behavior before thoroughly understanding what is affecting the behavior is a key mistake that well-intentioned educators can make (Delahooke, 2019). Incorporating information from the entire iceberg (above and below the waterline) is necessary to support children exhibiting challenging behavior.
Long Description for Figure 8.2
An iceberg. The part above the waterline represents the child’s observable behaviors. The part below the waterline represents the internal and external factors influencing the child, including sensory input, physiological state such as being hungry, tired or sick, feelings and emotions, past experiences, stress, developmental level, neurodivergent processing patterns, coping strategies, and regulatory skills.
Another potential trap to avoid when considering challenging behaviors is assuming “willful disobedience” or the belief that the child can do something correctly, so if he is not doing it, he is choosing to make a bad decision. This viewpoint brings us back to a motivation problem (e.g., He completed the math activity yesterday, so he is capable of doing it today) instead of a competence problem (e.g., Something is getting in the way of his ability to complete the math activity today). The motivation research, including attribution theory, helps us understand that our perceptions about the cause of an event has an impact on our attributions about why things happened as they did (Wang & Hall, 2018). Research studies connected to attribution theory have found that when educators are faced with behavioral challenges, their tendency is to identify causal explanations related to the student (e.g., lack of effort, laziness, low interest, and ability) and parental factors (e.g., attitude and interests, engagement) (Wang & Hall, 2018). These attributions do not encourage the teacher to focus on problem-solving approaches grounded in a belief that the child wants to be meaningfully engaged. Instead, such assumptions negate educators’ responsibility to seek strategies that will effectively support children’s positive engagement.
Investigating what factors are beneath the waterline, requires us to push our assumptions, or causal explanations, aside. This work is most productive when adults assume the child is motivated. Most often, children are motivated, but they do not have the skills to meet the classroom expectations under the current conditions (Greene, 2008). Delahooke (2023) explains:
We have a preference, indeed a bias, towards “top-down” causes of behaviors. When we have a top-down perspective, we believe that children are doing things on purpose, seeking “negative attention”, or are otherwise willful. This top-down perspective is agnostic of the critical role the body plays in children’s behaviors, which is a bottom-up or “body-up” perspective. Until we understand the difference, we will be prone to mistakenly engaging with the end-product of a child’s needs (behaviors) while ignoring the root causes, all those things beneath the tip of the iceberg. (n.p.)
The iceberg metaphor reminds us that many behaviors are not intentional but instinctual. Instinctual responses that manifest as challenging behaviors are an indicator of the child’s response to stress. Therefore, focusing on the body’s response to stress (underneath the iceberg) is what needs more attention to solve behavioral challenges, not the behaviors above the iceberg. Embracing this perspective draws us away from a focus on compliance and toward a practice focused on coregulation to support a child’s ability to calm their nervous system.
8.2 Understanding Children’s Response to Stress
Viewing behavior through the lens of a safety vs. threat experience helps us recognize that challenging behaviors are a reflexive and subconscious process. Many factors under the waterline often affect children’s response to stress. The child’s stage of development, relationships with adults and peers, and physical health (including nutrition and sleep) all play an important role. In addition, exposure to traumatic events and chronic stress, changes to the environment or schedule, and daily demands can have an impact on stress levels.
The Polyvagal Theory
The bottom-up perspective, which recognizes the important role of various contextual factors, is informed by the polyvagal theory. Polyvagal theory is a way of understanding the role that the autonomic nervous system plays in our behavior and our responses to the environment (in this case the classroom community). This theory takes a step back from the witnessed behaviors and looks at what is happening within the body. Porges (2022) explains:
There is now an abundance of research documenting that the regulation of behavioural and emotional state is mediated by the autonomic nervous system through neural pathways originating in the brainstem that communicate with organs in our body forming a bi-directional brain-body neural highway. When this system is functioning optimally, we can self-regulate and welcome others to co-regulate through social behaviour. (p. 1)
One of the key drivers of the nervous system’s response to the environment is how safe we feel. Because of the important role that the nervous system plays in regulating our behavior, Delahooke (2019) argues that before we address any behavioral challenges we must ask: “Are the child’s brain and body experiencing safety?” (p. 2). Neuroscientific studies indicate that many challenging behaviors are a result of how the child is perceiving and responding to stress (Delahooke, 2019; Porges, 2022). According to the polyvagal theory, the autonomic nervous system has three main pathways (see Figure 8.3). The green pathway is associated with the parasympathetic nervous system and ventral vagal pathway. Children on this pathway are calm, alert, and ready for learning. The red pathway (associated with the sympathetic nervous system) is commonly referred to as the fight-or-flight response. Children on this pathway are agitated and their stress response has been triggered. The blue pathway (associated with the parasympathetic nervous system and dorsal vagal pathway) is a survival state in which the body perceives extreme danger and begins to conserve energy. Children on this pathway are withdrawn and disconnected.
Long Description for Figure 8.3
The autonomic nervous system has three states: relaxed, immobilized, and mobilized. The relaxed state, managed by the parasympathetic nervous system through the ventral vagal pathway, is marked by normal heart rate and muscle tone, with emotions such as relaxed, engaged, curious, creative, and hopeful. The immobilized state, regulated by the dorsal vagal pathway of the parasympathetic system, involves low heart rate, low muscle tone, and low energy. Emotions include blissful, dreamy, and tranquil when safe, and depressed, unhappy, or lonely when unsafe. The mobilized state, governed by the sympathetic nervous system, features increased heart rate, blood pressure, hormone flow, and muscle tone. Emotions include energetic, active, and motivated when safe, and stressed, anxious, or fearful when unsafe. Hybrid states exist between relaxed and immobilized, including quiet moments and intimacy. The hybrid state between relaxed and mobilized includes play, dance, sports, and performance. The hybrid state between immobilized and mobilized includes the freeze state of defense.
Remember that everyone (children and adults) may move in and out of these pathways depending on life circumstances. These three pathways overlap, and individuals adaptively navigate among them in both safe and threatening contexts. As we navigate these pathways, behaviors are expressed along a continuum from inactive to highly mobilized. When we are focused on understanding children’s challenging behaviors, it is important to notice when children are regularly moving into the red and blue pathways. This behavior may show they are not feeling safe and is a good indication that their bodies are experiencing a great deal of stress in the environment.
Let’s return to Shawn and Margo. We do not know all of the factors under the waterline for these children, but we can clearly see that they are both exhibiting signs that their nervous systems are under stress. This stress, however, is triggering different neural pathways. Shawn is regularly moving into the blue pathway, where he appears to shut down, disconnect, and withdraw, whereas Margo is frequently moving into the red pathway, where she is agitated, frustrated, and angry. It is very likely that these children’s bodies and brains are not regularly experiencing a sense of safety. This does not mean that Mrs. Edmonson is intentionally causing this problem. She may be doing amazing work establishing a positive classroom climate, and the majority of the students in the class do feel very safe and loved; however, because of Shawn and Margo’s individual differences, social and emotional development, and prior experiences, they are perceiving a threat in the environment.
Pause and Consider: A Polyvagal Perspective
Video 8.1: Trauma and the nervous system: A polyvagal perspective.
Source: Polyvagal Institute.
Video reflection: Why is it important that educators understand the autonomic nervous system and how it functions? How do you see children’s perceptions of stress or safety affecting their behavior in classroom settings? How is trauma connected to our nervous system responses?
Window of Tolerance
Content in this section is adapted from Trauma Informed Behaviour Support: A Practical Guide to Developing Resilient Learners by Kay Ayre and Govind Krishnamoorthy (2020).
Another way to think about how the polyvagal theory affects behavior is using Siegel’s (2020) window of tolerance model. All humans have what is referred to as a window of tolerance (Siegel, 2020). This refers to a state of physical and emotional arousal that is tolerable and bearable. When children are within their window of tolerance, they can think, learn, and engage with others (see Figure 8.4). Their physiological systems are not stretched and they do not feel signs of fight, flight, freeze, or collapse because their systems sense that they are safe. Clearly, Siegel’s description of the window of tolerance closely aligns with Porges’s polyvagal theory. When children are within their window of tolerance or on the “green” ventral vagal pathway, they are better equipped to listen to others around them, interact cooperatively, and learn. Ayre and Krishnamoorthy (2020) suggest that the following cues show children are in their window of tolerance:
- Body feels calm, settled, neutral
- Able to be socially orientated with those around them
- Able to be reflective
- Able think clearly
- Able to set boundaries
- Able to self-regulate
- Able to be mindful
Pause and Consider: Window of Tolerance
Video 8.2: Window of tolerance.
Source: Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, Our Mental Health Space.
Video reflection: How does the concept of a “window of tolerance” inform how a teacher might respond to a child who is upset? What causes children’s window of tolerance to change? What can educators do to widen students’ windows of tolerance?
Most people can identify times when they have been outside the boundaries of their window of tolerance. At these times, our thinking has become disrupted by intensified emotional and physiological arousal. Behaviors during these times are not normally chosen and a lack of flexibility is common. Either excessive rigidity or chaos are typical during these dysregulated episodes. Siegel (2010) refers to this experience outside the window of tolerance as “flipping your lid” (p. 22). When we are outside of our window of tolerance, we are unable to access the frontal lobes or our “thinking brain” and rely on the reptilian part of our brain, which tries to keep us safe by triggering us to fight, flight, faint, or freeze. Hyper- and hypoarousal are survival mechanisms present in all animal species (Siegel, 2010). In cases of both over and under arousal, heart rate is elevated or decreased (respectively), appetite is reduced, and it can be difficult to process information. As with all humans, when this primal system has been activated, children are hypervigilant to every little detail in their environment to maximize survival.
Pause and Consider: Hand Model of the Brain
Video 8.3: Dr. Dan Siegel’s hand model of the brain.
Video reflection: How can the hand model of the brain help us to understand students’ behavior? How can we use this model to teach children about their brain and what happens when we get upset or have a strong emotion?
For some children, small everyday things (like a parental request to brush their teeth, or a teacher’s direction to change from one classroom to the next) spirals them out of their window of tolerance. Often, children can get stuck in one state or can swing between hyperarousal (overly aroused) or hypoarousal (under aroused). This can often be the result of trauma (Corrigan, Fisher, & Nutt, 2011), but neurodiverse children can also have difficulty even without a trauma history. When they are outside their window of tolerance, these children are in automatic survival mode, and they cannot think, reason, or rationalize. It is often easier to recognize children in the classroom who are hyperaroused, but hypoaroused children need similar levels of support, as explored in the opening vignette (see Figure 8.5).
Long Description for Figure 8.5
Arousal is divided into three zones. The optimal arousal zone lies in the center, where emotional and physiological responses are balanced. Above the optimal arousal zone is the hyperarousal zone, characterized by fight or flight activation with impaired judgment, rigid thinking and racing thoughts, feeling too much, emotional reactivity and distress, hypervigilance, panic, anger, or agitation. A hint that someone is entering this state is when they can’t calm down. Soothing skills and grounding in the present moment are needed to return to the optimal arousal zone from this state. Below the optimal arousal zone is the hypoarousal zone, characterized by feeling too little or the absence of sensations, numbness leading to isolation and withdrawal, depression and hopelessness, and shutdown and freeze leading to dissociation. A hint that someone is entering this state is when they shut down or detach. Gentle stimulation and orientation to time and place are needed to return to the optimal arousal zone from this state. Both hyperarousal and hypoarousal can lead to a threshold of dissociation when regulation breaks down.
Many children who have experienced trauma have difficulty finding stillness. You might notice their darting eyes and a tendency to fiddle with something in their hands or how easily they startle. You might even feel a little agitated or uneasy when around them. You notice this because their internal system, that is primed to act to protect itself, is communicating with your nervous system. These children are likely to engage in actions such as fight (i.e., engaging in aggressive behavior) or flight (i.e., running out of the classroom) in the face of threat. We can expect them to move toward or away from others when they feel unsafe. These protective actions are deeply ingrained in the most primitive part of their brains and they have likely used the behavior successfully in the past to help keep them safe.
Signs of Hyperarousal
Children who are hyperaroused, or on the red pathway, are in fight-or-flight mode. They run, hit, scream, shout, bite, spit, say hurtful words, avoid, squirm, and disrupt. The brain says, “I’m in danger,” and their body responds. Ayre and Krishnamoorthy (2020) note that the following physical cues suggest the child is experiencing too much arousal and overshooting their window of tolerance:
- Dilated pupils (to let light in to see better)
- Lack of saliva making the mouth dry
- Shallow breathing
- Butterflies in the stomach
- Faster heartbeat
- Excessive sweating
- Tensed muscles (readied for action)
- Agitated movement
- Difficulty finding stillness
Signs of Hypoarousal
Hypoaroused children experience “system shutdown.” They go numb. When this happens, they may not feel anything and appear to be zoned out. They cannot connect with others and are not able to think and process information. They might lack a sense of themselves at these times and describe not feeling anything in their body. During hypoarousal, children are moving into a state of protection that involves shutting down their system to protect themselves. It is common to see children retreat and withdraw from the classroom community. Ayre and Krishnamoorthy (2020) note that the following physical cues suggest the child is experiencing too little arousal and undershooting their window of tolerance:
- Slumped posture, collapsed body
- Endless stare with pin-like pupils
- Loose muscles
- Slowed heart rate
- Blank face
Increasing the Window of Tolerance
In this section and subsequent chapters, we will discuss how to support children who exhibit challenging behaviors. The good news is that adults can have a big impact on children’s safety and threat response. The key factor to overriding the reflexive stress response is to develop nurturing relationships. Although an accumulation of stress can narrow the window of tolerance, caring relationships can widen it (see Figure 8.6). In Chapter 6, we discussed the critical importance of relationships to developing classroom communities. We know that these relationships are also critical to reducing stress and addressing behavioral challenges. It can be hard for educators to consistently attend to relationship-building with children who engage in challenging behavioral patterns, but it is exactly what these children need us to do. Doubling down on developing caring relationships with these students also creates a cascading effect as it models inclusivity for others in the classroom community. Students pick up on adult’s verbal and nonverbal signals and often respond in kind, which can lead to shaming, excluding, and talking down to students who engage in challenging behaviors. Continuing to engage in a positive manner with challenging children benefits everyone within the classroom community while also teaching them that they are valued and supported and that we need to respect everyone regardless of their challenges.
Long Description for Figure 8.6
In a narrow optimal zone, the mood fluctuates quickly above and below limits, representing limited capacity to handle stress. In a wide optimal zone, the mood is maintained in a broader range, indicating resilience and resourcefulness under stress. The narrow zone results in quicker shifts into hyperarousal or hypoarousal, while the wide zone allows for more stable responses despite fluctuations.
8.3 Addressing Challenging Behavior
Now that we are familiar with identifying the behaviors the child is exhibiting and what they may be signaling, we can start the work of addressing the challenging behaviors. When a child shows signs they are outside of their window of tolerance, teachers can help them find their way back to the green zone by embracing coregulation strategies. Coregulation intentionally provides “signals of safety” for children when they have become dysregulated. We can provide signals of safety by using a calm voice, maintaining open body language, getting down on the child’s level, using eye contact, and actually saying to the child, “you are safe.”
Siegel and Bryson (2011) further explain that focusing first on being calm and connecting is pivotal to maintaining the relationship and moving the child into a receptive space. These signals communicate safety to children’s nervous systems. The state of feeling safe is important, and it accomplishes the goal of stopping the challenging behavior by bringing the autonomic nervous system back online (no need for rewards or consequences). Once the child is calm and connected, then we can redirect and teach. It is counterproductive to try to address the behavior when the child is outside of their window of tolerance or in the red or blue pathways. The important role of coregulation cannot be overstated. It is an early educator’s primary means of supporting children with challenging behaviors.
To engage in coregulation, teachers need to be mindfully present and calm. Engaging in coregulation is an intentional act, and teachers must be in a calm state to support children through the process. Inadvertently, adults can escalate children’s behavior by becoming stressed and agitated when children misbehave. These reactive responses are natural, but the more we can learn to stay calm and see our role as an intentional coregulator, the more effective we will be at mitigating problematic behavior. To this end, it is important for educators to identify and develop their own strategies for self-regulation, which they should implement before attempting to coregulate with a dysregulated child.
Coregulation, however, is not the end goal. We ultimately want the child to be able to self-regulate during times of stress. Therefore, coregulation serves as a necessary scaffold for children experiencing moments of dysregulation. In this section, we look at two approaches that use coregulation strategies with children to address challenging behavior: the Shanker self-regulation process and Greene’s collaborative proactive solutions. In Chapter 9, we will discuss many individual strategies that teachers can use to intentionally respond to off-task and inappropriate behaviors. The approaches we discuss in this section, however, help us frame our understanding and orientation to children who are struggling to engage productively in our classroom communities. Understanding the steps to self-regulation and how to collaboratively solve problems is essential for developing long-term solutions to challenging behaviors.
The Five Rs of Self-Regulation
The Shanker self-regulation model addresses self-regulation issues in children. Shanker (2021) defines self-regulation and its impact in the following way:
Self-regulation refers to the manner in which a child recovers from spending the energy required to deal with stressors. Prolonged and excessive stress (allostatic overload) can put a child into fight or flight, or freeze, which greatly affects “higher” functions such as language, social cognition, executive functions and, indeed, self-control. (para. 4)
This model looks at the way excessive stress affects children across the following domains: biological, emotional, cognitive, social, and prosocial (see Figure 8.7). These domains are nested inside of the model.
Long Description for Figure 8.7
Two children hold hands, surrounded by the five steps of self-regulation written in a circle shape around them. First, reframe the behavior by shifting focus from reaction to understanding. Next, recognize the stressors across five domains: biological, emotional, cognitive, social, and prosocial. Then, reduce the stress affecting the individual. Afterward, reflect and enhance stress awareness to build insight. Finally, restore energy to return to a regulated state. Biological support involves an adult socially involved with a prosocial child. The adult support helps in the child’s cognitive and emotional regulation.
The statements surrounding the individuals in the model articulate the five Rs—or five accessible practices teachers use to increase children’s ability to engage productively. Teachers help children self-regulate using the five Rs:
- Reframe: Read the child’s signs of dysregulation. Then reframe the behavior as a stress response, rather than misbehavior or disobedience. Often this means not responding to a child’s behavior immediately. Instead of ignoring the behaviors, teachers are advised to “watch, wait and wonder.” Pausing gives the teacher’s stress response system a chance to settle down so that the teacher can proceed to the other four Rs.
- Recognize: Look for stressors that are affecting the child. Observe carefully. Do not assume that your first answer will be the right answer.
- Reduce: Remove superfluous stressors (e.g., loud noises, strong smells, bright lights). One of the challenges of education is that a certain amount of stress is normal and positive. The question is reducing the stressors that are not helping the child.
- Reflect: Become aware of what it feels like to be calm, anxious, or alert or to be in fight-or-flight mode. Help children become aware of these feelings, too. Being aware helps children notice their stress response.
- Respond: Figure out what brings the child back to being calm and alert, focusing on adaptive rather than maladaptive coping strategies that restore energy. (Hoffman, 2015, para. 12)
Helping children reduce stress is a key component of any classroom management approach. The Shanker self-regulation model is “about the critical role that an adult plays as an ‘external regulator’ of a child’s arousal states until such time as the child is able to manage this on his or her own” (Shanker, 2016, p. 47). Observation within the classroom setting and knowledge about stress across the five domains is important for educators, but educators often gain the most insightful information about what is causing children stress by talking to them when problems have occurred. Combining the five Rs of self-regulation with a problem-solving approach opens an important window into the child’s experience within the classroom.
A Problem-Solving Approach
If educators can stay present with students during challenging behavioral episodes and help them move through their strong emotions, this is a “win” in and of itself. When educators notice that students are regularly needing this level of support, however, such as with Shawn and Margo, they need to engage in reflective problem-solving. As the opening vignette discussed, Mrs. Edmonson was noticing specific patterns of behavior with both of these students. Recognizing some of the factors under the iceberg waterline provides context for a child’s behavior, but typically it is necessary to engage in collaborative problem-solving to fully understand the child’s experience. Greene (2018) utilizes an evidence-based model called collaborative proactive solutions (CPS) to do this work. The first step in the CPS approach is “checking our lens” by being mindful of our beliefs about why children engage in challenging behaviors (the work we introduced in Chapter 1). The second step is to identify the child’s lagging skills and unsolved problems. Greene uses the Assessment of Lagging Skills and Unsolved Problems (ALSUP) tool to help educators contemplate what skills the child is having difficulty with and when these challenges are presenting themselves. For instance, Shawn and Margo are clearly exhibiting some lagging skills (see Table 8.2).
| Shawn | Margo |
|---|---|
|
|
Recognizing the lagging skills that children are exhibiting is an important step in understanding how they are presenting. Greene (2018) explains that difficulty with any of these skills affects students’ ability to meet the expectations in classroom communities. Like Shawn and Margo, students who consistently have difficulty with classroom expectations are most likely lagging in a number of areas. Identifying the lagging skills and then thinking about when the problem behavior is occurring helps frame the conversations teachers will have with students in the third step, which focuses on solving problems collaboratively and proactively.
Pause and Consider: Solving Problems Collaboratively
Video 8.4: Problems, not behaviors.
Watch this video by scanning the QR code or visiting https://youtu.be/gquOrXpyHrk.
Video 8.5: Collaborative, not unilateral.
Source: Lives in the Balance (Dr. Ross Greene).
Watch this video by scanning the QR code or visiting https://youtu.be/HWl_3tAF698.
Video reflection: How is the CPS model different from other approaches you are familiar with and have used in the past? How can we involve children in the problem-solving process to address challenging behavior concerns?
The traditional model for managing children’s behavior in classroom settings focuses on the teacher as the decision-maker. The teacher decides what will happen if children misbehave in an attempt to extinguish the behavior (referred to in the CPS model as Plan A). Plan A decisions often backfire, however, and are ineffective at solving chronic behavior issues. Instead, in the CPS model, we partner with the child to shift from a compliance to a problem-solving approach, otherwise referred to as having a Plan B conversation. Even very young children can participate in collaborative discussions about what is getting in the way of meeting classroom expectations. This work is critical because we cannot understand the problem from the child’s perspective if we don’t ask them. Adults often make assumptions about what is motivating a child’s behavior, but these assumptions are often superficial and incorrect.
In the CPS model, educators engage the child in a discussion about why they are having difficulty in certain situations and then present solutions that are mutually satisfying for both the adult and the child. This process supports students’ social and emotional development, builds higher-level cognitive-thinking skills, and identifies the supports individual children need to shift their behavioral responses. Bringing intentional awareness to these challenging situations helps children recognize early signs that they are having difficulty and encourages them to utilize strategies to engage more adaptively. Following is a summary of the steps an educator would take when having a problem-solving, or Plan B, conversation with a child using the CPS model:
- Initiate the conversation by stating the lagging skill and the context of the problem. Invite the child’s input. Say something like, “It seems like you are having difficulty with [fill in the blank expectation] during [fill in the blank context]. What’s up with that?”
Note: This conversation does not start by discussing the behavior (e.g., “You are throwing blocks at friends during centers and that is not how we use our materials.”). It is also important to discuss only one problem at a time, instead of stacking all the problems together. - Engage in reflective listening by restating what the child shares. Say something like, “I see … so you don’t like sharing blocks with others when you are in the block center.”
- Thank the child for sharing. Say something like, “Thank you for telling me this information. It is helpful for me to know that sharing blocks is hard for you. Why don’t you like sharing blocks?”
- Continue to ask follow-up questions to deepen responses until the child confirms that you have uncovered all the important information. Say things like, “Is there anything else you think I should know about why sharing blocks is hard for you?”
- Summarize the key points that the child shared about the problem and ask for confirmation that you have it right. Say something like, “So sharing blocks is hard for you because you like to build tall buildings and when other people use the blocks too, you are worried that you won’t have enough to complete your design. You also have a lot of ideas about exactly what you want your block structures to look like and it is hard to change your plan when you are in the middle of building. Do I have that right?
- State your adult concern and invite the child to help come up with potential solutions that address their concerns and the adult concerns. Say something like, “My concern is that our classroom friends can get hurt if you throw blocks when you are upset. How could we address your concerns about having enough blocks to complete your design and make sure that everyone is safe and has a turn to use the blocks too?”
- Invite the child to think of solutions. If they need help, share some ideas of your own, being careful not to imply that you have already decided what will be done. Say something like, “Do you have any ideas about how we could solve this problem? Let’s brainstorm together!”
- Restate the ideas that were generated and ask the child if one or more seem like the best options. Say something like, “It seemed like you were excited about creating a sign for the block area that says ‘Construction in Progress’ when you or any other friends are planning a big structure. Then everyone would know that if they want to play at blocks they need to ask if they can help with the structure. Then there would be enough blocks to complete the project. Do you think this solution would address both of our concerns?”
- Firm up the plan and check to see how we will know if it is working. Say something like, “Would you like to make the sign and I can explain how it will work to the class before center time tomorrow? Should we check back in after center time each day this week and see how our plan is working?
- High five, share a hug, or provide verbal feedback thanking the child for working to solve the problem. Say something like, “You are getting so good at solving problems. I’m really proud of you. Thank you for helping to fix this problem.”
Learning to have Plan B problem-solving conversations takes time for the adult and the students, especially if this is a new approach to addressing problematic behavior in the classroom. Taking this extra time is extremely valuable to children’s social and emotional learning and to the community climate and culture. Collaborative problem-solving not only shifts the way children see themselves but also affects the way children see and value each other. The more practice we give students solving problems with a knowledgeable adult, the better they will become at problem-solving with peers. The goal shifts away from eliminating any bad behavior to supporting students’ awareness. Helping children recognize when they are engaging in unproductive or ineffective behavioral strategies creates a space to firm up lagging skills and remain within their window of tolerance on the green pathway. As students become more confident in their problem-solving skills, they begin to learn how to make adjustments when situations become stressful without resorting to problematic behaviors.
Key Points
- Identifying both the observable behaviors “above the water” and the contextual factors “below the waterline” of the iceberg are critical for understanding behavioral patterns.
- Much of what we perceive as chronic misbehavior is really children’s response to stress and more closely aligned with their ability to meet the classroom expectations under the current conditions.
- The polyvagal theory and the window of tolerance model help us understand how the autonomic nervous system’s sense of safety or threat affect behavioral responses.
- Educators can support children by developing caring relationships and modeling calming, coregulation strategies when children have moved out of the green pathway, thereby increasing children’s window of tolerance.
- Teaching children to reduce stress and use problem-solving strategies, such as CPS, is an important step in addressing challenging behavior.
Figures
Figure 8.1: Community model for classroom management. Created by Sara Miller with Canva.
Section 8.2: Developmental Iceberg. Created by Leslie La Croix with PowerPoint using “Iceberg illustration with sun and clouds” by freepik.
Figure 8.3: Autonomic nervous system states. “Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) States” by the Polyvagal Institute (2023). Used with permission.
Figure 8.4: Window of tolerance. “Understanding Your Window of Tolerance” by Andreas Comninos. Used with permission.
Figure 8.5: Hyper- and hypoarousal. “Extremes: Hyper- and Hypo-Arousal” by Andreas Comninos. Used with permission.
Figure 8.6: Increasing your window of tolerance. “Increasing Your Window of Tolerance” by Andreas Comninos. Used with permission.
Figure 8.7: Five steps to self-regulation. “Self-Reg Practices and Domains” by The MEHRIT Centre, in “Paradigm Revolution: Self-Reg in Schools and Communities” (Sep 22, 2015) by John Hoffman. Used with permission.
Image
Teacher high-fives a student. “Cheerful black teacher with diverse schoolkids” [photograph] by Katerina Holmes, Pexels.
Table
Table 8.2: Shawn and Margo’s Lagging Skills Identified Using the ALSUP. Adapted from Lives in the Balance (2020).
References
Ayre, K., & Krishnamoorthy, G. (2020). Trauma informed behaviour support: A practical guide to developing resilient learners. University of Southern Queensland. https://usq.pressbooks.pub/traumainformedpractice
Banmen, J. (2002). The Satir model: Yesterday and today. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24(1), 7–22.
Corrigan, F., Fisher, J., & Nutt, D. (2011). Autonomic dysregulation and the window of tolerance model of the effects of complex emotional trauma. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 25(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881109354930
Delahooke, M. (2019). Beyond behaviors: Using brain science and compassion to understand and solve children’s behavioral challenges. PESI Publishing & Media.
Delahooke, M. (2023, April). The developmental iceberg: Looking below the surface of challenging behaviors. https://monadelahooke.com/the-developmental-iceberg-looking-below-the-surface-of-challenging-behaviors
Greene, R. (2008). Kids do well if they can. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(03), 160–167.
Greene, R. (2018). Transforming school discipline: Shifting from power and control to collaboration and problem solving. Childhood Education, 94(4), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2018.1494430
Hoffman, J. (2015, September 22). Paradigm revolution: Self-reg in schools and communities. The Mehrit Centre. https://self-reg.ca/paradigm-revolution-self-reg-in-schools-and-communities
Lives in the Balance. (2020). Assessment of lagging skills and unsolved problems. https://livesinthebalance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ALSUP-2020.pdf
Porges, S. (2022). Autonomic state: A neurophysiological platform for feelings, emotions, and social engagement. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. https://www.chil-encyclopedia.com/emotions/according-experts/autonomic-state-neurophysiological-platform-feelings-emotions-and-social
Siegel, D. (2010). Mindsight: The new science of personal transformation. Bantam.
Siegel, D. (2020). The developing mind. Guilford.
Siegel, D., & Bryson, T. P. (2011). The whole-brain child: 12 revolutionary strategies to nurture your child’s developing mind. Random House.
Shanker, S. (2016). Self-reg: How to help your child (and you) break the stress cycle and successfully engage with life. Penguin.
Shanker, S. (2021, March 14). Self-reg in the early years. The Mehrit Centre. https://self-reg.ca/self-reg-in-the-early-years
Wang, H., & Hall, N. C. (2018). A systematic review of teachers’ causal attributions: Prevalence, correlates, and consequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–22. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02305/full
