Acting Out, Part Eleven: Gang Culture

The phenomenon of youth gangs is not new, of course, but the behavior of youth in gangs has become appreciably more violent over the years. Gone are the days of switchblades and zip guns. Weapons of choice now include Smith & Wesson .38 revolvers, machetes, and assault weapons, including AK-47's. Gangs such as the Crips, Bloods, Latin Kings, MS-13, and others are responsible for much violence, some of which has found its way out of urban centers and into suburban -- and even rural -- environments.

Especially in urban areas, schools have had to take steps to contain youth gangs. Although it is slightly dated, a report from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention (2000) draws a clear connection between the presence of gangs in schools and students' violent behavior, possession of deadly weapons, and involvement with drugs. Alarmingly, over one third of youth age 12 and over describe the presence of at least one gang in their school. Security measures taken by schools including such things as guards and use of metal detectors correlate positively with gang activity.

Despite the obvious connection between gang culture and violence, gang membership remains the stuff of romance, though not in the way West Side Story portrayed the antagonism between the Sharks and the Jets. Today, gang culture is romanticized through popular music, particularly gangsta rap. Of course, the culture of gangs includes norms for dress, demeanor, and behavior that hold appeal for many youth. The appeal cuts across lines of race and sex, and to a great extent, socio-economic status. The clear association between gang culture and drugs means that youth who are attracted to gangs are also susceptible to drug abuse.

Although youth gangs pose clear danger to peers and adults in authority, only a small percentage of students are bonafide members of gangs, and it is probably the influence of gang culture that is of greatest concern. Gang culture attracts youth for reasons that reflect basic human needs, and so are readily understandable. These include:

• A need to be wanted and accepted . . . to belong
• Support, structure, and values
• The desire to be acknowledged and respected; to have status
• Excitement and "fun"
• A need for power and influence

White and Mason (2006) state that gang culture provides youth with a social identity. They state:

Groups of young people band together for social, cultural and familial reasons. They also do so for protection. Youth group formation, which in some cases may include the evolution of the group into a gang, is thus often intertwined with violence or the threat of violence in the lives of young people. Over time, group identification becomes central to individual social identity, and the fate of the collective is inseparable from the security and social belonging of the individual.

It is easy for whites to blame the appeal of gangs on Black society, but although the trappings of gang culture find their origins there, the appeal has little to do with color. Kids attracted to the gangsta lifestyle are typically alienated from traditional institutions (including school), are depressed and unmotivated, and have parents who have failed to forge meaningful relationships with them. Some of the kids are significantly impaired in their capacity to form meaningful bonds with others (see Acting Out, Part Nine: Empty Kids), but most are simply followers looking for a home.

Only this afternoon I was talking with a 17 year old youth who has adopted the behavior, dress and mannerisms of gang culture. He told me he and his friends get together to write and record hip-hop lyrics. He told me that the songs he writes authentically depict his personal history, which includes paternal abandonment and a mother addicted to crack. He also told me one of his buddies cries when his music is sung or recorded. When that happens, he said, both he and his friends comfort the boy. Their group is a family, albeit a fragile one.

The way schools are set up now, the number of children and youth needing genuine, caring relationships far outstrips our capacity to deliver the goods: the financial resources and trained personnel just aren't there. And no, special education does not help: Sorry, but no services are provided kids who are socially maladjusted! Only a few lucky kids will find teachers and counselors who have time and energy to meet their needs for affection and adult guidance. If we are to avoid a future society like that in Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange,* change must come, and schools are the logical place to start.

Comprehensive approaches have been shown to be effective when cities or communities are faced with significant gang violence. Operation Ceasefire in its various manifestations has reduced homicides among youth. The Department of Health & Human Services in its evaluation of school-based programs notes that several are effective, including the PATHs Program (see www.psychoed.net for discussion).

-------------

* Warning: This link takes you to an extremely graphic and troubling scene of home invasion by a youth gang set sometime in the future. As I write this, similar home invasions by youth, and particularly Asian youth, are happening with greater frequency.

Acting Out, Part Ten: Needs & Attention

Attention

A ten year old boy is in the school cafeteria, stuffing down French fries as if he hasn’t eaten in a week. Ketchup dribbles down his chin and onto the table. “Ben, stop that!” chides the aide assigned to his table. Mrs. McGovern, Ben’s teacher, looks up from her lunch. “Oh, that’s typical . . . He’s just looking for attention.” The aide – thinking that he should ignore this behavior – turns away. Ben looks perplexed. He grabs four more fries and crams them in his mouth.

In a residential treatment facility across the state, a group of counselors is discussing Erikka, an adolescent girl. The previous night she took a paper clip to her arm until the blood came. In the morning she was taken to the hospital for a tetanus shot. “The nurse said she did it for attention,” one of the counselors reports. The other counselors nod knowingly.

Each day -- in schools, on playgrounds, in homes and in residential care – many behaviors that troubled children and youth show are described as attention-seeking. Oftentimes, labeling of behavior as attention-seeking serves as an “explanation” for the behavior. Books and articles discuss attention as if it is an end in itself. Sometimes it seems that nearly all social behavior may be regarded as attention-seeking!

Are people -- even children -- truly that simple? I think not.

The failure to understand the complexity of children’s behavior causes some adults to ignore what they perceive as youthful efforts to gain attention. Although certain literature indicates that ignoring inappropriate behavior is one of the best ways to deal with it (Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Madsen, Becker & Thomas, 1968; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991), this is an appropriate management technique only some of the time (Redl & Wineman, 1952). Many times, ignoring inappropriate behavior is counter-therapeutic, even dangerous. Ignoring behavior may cause it to increase in frequency, severity or duration. We need sophisticated ways of understanding the behavior of children if we are to intervene in a ways that are helpful and meaningful.

The Relationship of Human Needs to Behavior

Approaches to child behavior involving understanding of motivation are more useful than simplistic explanations invoking attention-seeking. Assuming children understand what is expected of their behavior, caregivers must also strive to help children and youth understand the forces that drive their maladaptive actions. It is only through development of such self-understanding that troubled children and youth may make real progress in school and other treatment settings. Helping children and youth understand the basic needs that drive behavior enables them to identify those needs and ultimately, to meet them appropriately. Of course, helping kids understand their behavior takes time and some psychological sophistication on the part of the adult.

Several writers have attributed human behavior to basic needs that are universal. Some time ago White (1959), for example, posited that human beings “naturally” strive to attain competence. Needs for achievement, influence, and social affiliation have also been held to underlie human behavior (Atkinson, 1981; McClelland, 1961). The Circle of Courage popularized by Brendtro, Brokenleg and VanBokern (1990) suggests common needs for belonging, mastery, independence and generosity. Maslow (1968) described five needs that are common to all people: (1) physiological, (2) safety and security, (3) love and belongingness, (4) self-esteem, (5) self-actualization. He furthermore linked deprivation of needs to maladaptive behaviors such as those characteristic of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

All of these perspectives hold that human needs are primary determinants of behavior. A hungry person seeks food. The frightened toddler seeks the security provided by a parent. The adolescent strives to belong to a clique, to achieve in school or in sports. The adult attempts to develop expertise, to make a contribution to society. A need once gratified generally loses its motivating force. If the need goes unmet, however, it may have an adverse affect upon behavior, and perhaps become a point of fixation for the individual.

When one takes the position that human needs drive behavior, the inappropriate actions of troubled children and youth described as attention-seeking may be re-conceptualized as need-seeking. This perspective has several advantages for children and their caregivers, for it supports an positive stance towards education and treatment. Chief among the advantages are the following:

• Need-seeking implies that children and youth have been deprived of the basic material for building productive relationships. Attention-seeking implies that behavior is intentional, purposive, and possibly malicious.
• Need-seeking invites empathy, for behavior is regarded as reflecting unmet biological, social, or individual predispositions. Attention-seeking invites neglect or punishment, for inappropriate behavior is seen as volitional.
• Need-seeking suggest that human behavior is complex, and that if appropriate measures are taken it may be changed in a predictable manner. Attention-seeking implies that if behavior is simply ignored it will “go away.”

Drawing connections between specific child behaviors and the needs they reflect is challenging. The caregiver must take a sincere interest in the child, and establish and test hypotheses about his or her behavior through observation and experience. Assessment of behavior through techniques such as the conflict cycle or Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI; see Long, Wood & Fecser, 2001) may prove helpful. At least some knowledge of one or more theories of motivation (see above) is essential.

I believe it is because we have reduced many child behaviors to "attention-getting" that we see more children with significantly troubling behavior. When we really try to understand the motivations for maladaptive behavior we will see change for the better.

References

Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th ed.). New Jersey: Merrill.

Atkinson, J. W. (1981). Thematic apperceptive measurement of motivation in 1950 and 1980. In G. d'Ydewalle & W. Lens (Eds.), Cognition in human motivation and learning (pp.159-198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brendtro, L. K., Brokenleg, M., & Van Bockern, S. (1990). Reclaiming youth at risk: Our hope for the future. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.
Long, N. J., Wood, M. M., & Fecser, F. A. (2001). Life space crisis intervention, 2^nd ed. Austin: Pro-Ed.

Madsen, C. H., Becker, W. C., & Thomas, D. R. (1968). Rules, praise, and ignoring: Elements of elementary classroom control. Journal of Applied behavior Analysis, 1, 139-150.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a Psychology of Being, D. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

McClelland, D. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton: Van Nostrand.

Redl, F., & Wineman, D. (1952). Controls from within: Techniques for the treatment of the aggressive child. New York: Free Press.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

Acting Out, Part Nine: Freddy

When I was in my early twenties I took a job teaching secondary students with learning, emotional and behavioral disorders. I was told mine would be a "new" classroom, and in fact it was: a tiny, converted storage room with no closet space, and with a minuscule window in one corner. It would take me until Christmas -- and after many promises -- to get a chalk board. The fact that the room had absolutely no sound proofing led me to dub it the "echo chamber," and explained why at the end of each day I had a headache. Imagine how it helped my students!

I didn't know it at the time, but my students were some of the most difficult kids in the high school. Most were with me all day, still others were assigned to my room when another teacher had prep periods or lunch. My supervisor was a school psychologist whose office was located in the administration building across town, and who never left her office except to eat, which apparently she did in quantity. The high school principal was a glad-hand who was all style, no substance. He was at his best hitting on young, female teachers.

Freddy was one of the tenth graders in my 6:1:1 class. A good-looking boy with wavy hair and glasses, for reasons initially unclear to me he was classified with emotional disturbance. He was also one of my stronger students academically, capable of doing work at the 5th or 6th grade level. I learned that his mother died when Freddy was quite young, and that his father was an alcoholic who was verbally (and probably physically) abusive of his only child. I felt sorry for this boy who was less than ten years younger than I.

All went fairly well during the first few weeks of school. Freddy and the other students performed according to expectations, complaining at most any work they were expected to complete, but doing it anyhow. The kids assigned to my classroom were soon reluctant to enter it, however, and would wait until the corridors cleared before doing so. They grumbled about being assigned to the "retard room." They also started calling themselves Sweathogs, after a popular television show, Welcome Back , Kotter. Having the romantic fantasy that I might also be a "Kotter," I attempted to persuade my students it was "okay" to be in a special education class. My idealism was met with skepticism. Freddy led the charge.

Freddy had friends who were not special education students, and as the school year progressed his unhappiness about being a sweathog became more and more obvious. He insulted his classmates with disabilities, nearly all of whom lacked the skills to counter his verbal abuse; he actively avoided coming to class, and when he did attend refused to complete his work and disrupted it. He was noncompliant with my reasonable requests probably half the time, and the other students were taking notice, and following suit. There was no possibility of segregating Freddy, for the room was too small. Lack of administrative support meant that sending him out of the room proved nothing. He always came bouncing back. I was on my own.

Remembering a minor work of classic fiction I had read, The Blackboard Jungle (1954), and studying the tenets of psychoeducation, I decided I would forge a relationship with Freddy. So, I found ways for him to gain prestige through "acceptable" channels, and used planned ignoring of Freddy's maladaptive classroom behavior when that was feasible. Those strategies would have worked in the majority of cases, I now believe; but what I didn't understand then -- and comprehended only years later -- is that Freddy's relationship with his father was so dysfunctional that he could not extend trust to me. His personality development had been severely compromised through poor parenting, and as classroom authority I was caught up in Freddy's negative transference reaction. The closer I tried to get to Freddy, the more he would push me away, and the nastier he became.

I soon became defensive, caught up in the conflict cycle Drs. Nick Long and Frank Fecser describe so well. At times I took the initiative to "out tough" Freddy. Other times, I tried to appease him. Basically . . . It wasn't pretty.

Winter break gave me brief respite from the anxiety I was now suffering, but when school came back into session things were worse than they had been before. Freddy and his father had come to blows on Christmas day, and Freddy had run away from home. He was living with friends, drinking, smoking marijuana and had some run-ins with police. I was beginning to understand just how troubled Freddy really was.

I had little control over Freddy in school. He became verbally abusive of me, calling me "Chrystal Balls," babbling nonsense, refusing to do his work and continuously challenging my authority. He seemed to have singled me out, and I felt utterly helpless dealing with him. The school administrators gave me little support and my two special education colleagues were living their own hell. My previous desire to develop a relationship with the boy gave way to despair. I prayed Freddy would be absent from school, and celebrated when he failed to report. I really wondered if I was cut out for special education, or for teaching. I tried not to bring my troubles home, but that proved increasingly difficult. I was really stressed out.

My involvement with Freddy did not end well. Towards the end of the school year he was transferred to an older -- and more experienced -- female teacher's class. His behavior stabilized in the new environment and I was left to ponder what I did "wrong." My ego had taken a severe beating, and scars remain.

I have thought about Freddy over the years and now think I was overly zealous in trying to "relate" to him. I believe that due to my age, he saw me as an equal but also -- given his troubled relationship with his father -- as an authority figure who was not to be trusted. I also think I assumed that because I wanted to develop a positive relationship with Freddy, he would want to do likewise. My naivete, or perhaps narcissism, got in the way. In some ways, I empowered Freddy, and he readily took advantage of that. Maybe I forgot that Richard Dadier's attempt to win over a troubled student in The Blackboard Jungle fell flat.

I learned early on that working with troubled and troubling kids is not easy. It is analogous to piloting a submarine through a minefield or perhaps, flying an airplane into the eye of a hurricane. You might survive a few false moves, but more than that and you are lost. Relationship remains critical, far more so than any prescribed procedure for behavior management, but relationship cannot be rushed. Support from colleagues is essential. An empathic stance combined with patient understanding that trust cannot be manufactured generally brings durable results.

It would be nice if teaching ED/BD kids was like Welcome Back, Kotter. Sometimes it is, but more often it is not.

Acting Out, Part Nine: Empty Kids

When I was in graduate school in the late 1970's, I had the great fortune to serve an internship at Hawthorn Center in Northville, Michigan, a psychiatric facility for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. I was assigned children for psychological assessment and engaged in psychotherapy with kids and their parents. I learned a great deal from my supervisor, a psychologist and all around great guy named Dr. Ira Glovinsky, who has a practice in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

I was also assigned to work with the Founding Director of Hawthorn Center, the renown child psychiatrist Dr. Ralph Rabinovitch, who (I had been told) would size up interns in a nanosecond, detecting any overt or latent psychopathology that might compromise their ability to deal successfully with troubled children. Needless to say, this assignment caused me no little anxiety: for not only was Dr. Rabinovitch an astute clinician and scholar, but he also cut a most imposing figure.

My job was to administer psychological tests to children and youth, and to relate my findings to Dr. Rabinovitch, who would then use them in treatment . . . or not. I don't recall too many specifics, but I do remember one question he asked me: "Is this an empty kid?" I also remember grappling with that question, for I had no idea what the good doctor was talking about. But really, the term "empty kid" is self-explanatory.

Empty kids are children and youth whose consciences are weak, and who are lacking in that stuff that makes us human: empathy. Their emptiness often shows in their eyes, which seem to be devoid of life. Their emptiness is also manifest in their relationships, which are self-serving or based upon quid pro quo agreements and deals: "I don't have friends, I have associates," some empty kids will say.

Empty kids cannot trust, and cannot be trusted. Most have suffered badly in early childhood, and have simply turned off their affective sensibilities. Empty kids typically have diagnoses of Reactive Attachment Disorder, Disruptive Behavior Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, and Conduct Disorder, although it is also true that many kids with those diagnoses are not "empty." Many empty kids are classified with emotional disturbance in school, and receive special education, although some are found to socially maladjusted and so receive no special education services.

One of the most important things a clinician can do is to assess the degree to which an acting-out child possesses a viable conscience, and relatedly, the capacity for empathy. Moral approaches and appeals to the values of such children usually don't work, for they are value-deficient. Enlightenment approaches may be needed if "logical consequences" for behavior -- rather than punishments -- are invoked. Compensatory approaches to helping should be used cautiously with empty kids, who may try to exploit efforts made by well-meaning adults. Medical approaches may find some application when the child is perceived as being unable to gain control over behavior.

It is true that empty kids may behave with malice and forethought, and most teachers of such kids quickly pick up on their lack of empathy and connectedness. "You'll be reading about him in the paper," some teachers will say, "He's going to wind up in the slammer." Unfortunately, the teachers are often right. Some caring teachers take on such kids as "projects," usually to their regret. Teachers must walk the tightrope very carefully with empty kids, for those kids will quickly take advantage if they see any chink in the armor. Fritz Redl, the master clinician, termed this perceptiveness "diagnostic acuity in battle relevant areas," meaning that some kids are experts when it comes to ferreting out human vulnerabilities.

When I was in my early twenties, green and in my third year of teaching, an kid running nearly on empty put me through the paces . . . . Read on.

Acting Out, Part Eight: More Perspectives on Helping

In Acting Out, Part One, I described the Moral and Enlightenment approaches to helping Philip Brickman and his colleagues described some years ago. The Moral approach holds the child responsible for his behavior, and for correcting inappropriate behaviors when they occur. The Moral approach is frequently seen in schools, and often appears under the guise of Character Education or something similar to it. The Enlightenment approach holds the child responsible for behavior, but it is the adult who steps in to correct misbehavior. Imposition of discipline, or punishment, is the method. The Enlightenment approach is all too common to schools, of course.

Taken together, the Moral and Enlightenment approaches deliver this message to most kids: Sink or swim.

Of course, most kids with significant emotional and behavioral difficulties sink. Some sink slowly, over months and years, but some drown within a few days. Holding troubled kids responsible for behavior -- and punishing them when they are unable to assume that responsibility -- simply does not work. If we are serious about helping kids with problems, and are not just giving it lip service, child-supportive and non-punitive approaches to helping are needed.

The CPS model developed by Greene and his colleagues (above) provides what Brickman would call a Compensatory approach to helping. Compensatory interventions view the problematic behavior children manifest as maladaptive efforts to cope with challenging situations. They also place ultimate responsibility upon children for finding appropriate ways of addressing those situations, albeit with adult support and guidance. The adult using a compensatory approach recognizes that "children do well if they can," and that often, blaming a child for maladaptive behavior is really blaming the victim of life circumstance. The adult using a compensatory approach helps children develop skills that address challenging situations effectively and appropriately. Compensatory interventions lie at the heart of psychoeducation, in my opinion. Compensatory interventions are those that teach a child to swim, or at least to tread water.


Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI) is also an example of the compensatory approach. While LSCI actually consists of a number of tools for helping troubled and troubling kids, the adult guides the process . . . and the child. The adult views maladaptive behavior as the child's best effort to solve a problem, and offers the child a better way. The child is not seen as "responsible" for his or her inappropriate actions, but with assistance is viewed as responsible for making changes to behavior.


Of course, there are times when children simply cannot control their behavior, and lack the resources needed to help themselves with adult support. Kids with ADHD, Tourette's syndrome, brain damage, moderate and severe mental retardation, and some forms of autism/spectrum disorders provide examples. Compensatory approaches fall short under such circumstances, or may be used as back-up interventions. Brickman's Medical approach recognizes that at times, adults must step in when a child lacks the basic resources needed for self-control. Medical interventions include administration of psychopharmacological drugs, institutionalization, and custodial care.

Acting Out, Part Seven: Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS)

Collaborative Problem Solving, or CPS, is an approach to acting-out that may be employed by teachers and child care workers as well as mental health professionals. Dr. Ross Greene of Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital is the chief proponent of CPS, and has popularized the approach through his best-selling The Explosive Child. He and a Dr. J. Stuart Ablon have also written a book about CPS for clinicians.

I devote one page to CPS on my website, but think I have given it rather short shrift, for CPS seems less a "method" than a philosophy of treatment, one which is respectful of children without being permissive and is optimistic in tenor when it comes to troubled and troubling kids. Greene's mantra, Children Do Well If They Can, is one that is fully in keeping with my own perspective. Children's resilience in the face of trying circumstances is implicit in the message.

CPS is based upon the premise that "explosive" kids have deficits in one or more areas of cognition, and that this makes it difficult for them to communicate their wants and needs effectively. Greene and his colleagues have developed a questionnaire to tease out those deficits, which enable one to think in broad but meaningful terms about behaviors of concern.

Although he does not use the terms Kurt Lewin and his colleagues once used to describe adults' behavior towards children, Greene differentiates the CPS approach from autocratic and laissez-faire styles of discipline. Autocratic adults demand too much of the child's cognitive capacity, Greene asserts, and adults who are laissez-faire fail to challenge the child to change. Greene notes that at times, backing off is essential to child management, echoing Fritz Redl's occasional use of "planned ignoring" working with youth some 60 years ago.

CPS cannot be described easily because as an approach, it incorporates both a philosophy and a process of involvement between an adult, child, and (in clinical settings) the child's parents. It entails "working out a solution [to a conflictual situation] that is realistic, doable, and mutually satisfactory." Adult empathy and problem definition are key to the process, and the child is "invited" to join the adult in collaborating to find a solution. CPS is inherently democratic, respecting the rights, wants and needs of all parties involved.

I cannot say there is anything about CPS that is truly new, but Greene's genius is apparent in the way he delivers his message. He describes the essential elements of productive adult-child communication most ably, and demonstrates how CPS may be used in different situations. He studiously avoids the terms "child management" and "anger management," and I am appreciative of that fact. CPS shows great promise for use in clinical, child care, and educational environments. Now, if only we adults will be sensible, and adopt Greene's approach . . . !

Acting Out, Part Six: Anger Management?

In my private practice I am often approached by parents who want me to help their child with anger management. I tell them I don't help children "manage" their anger. I do help kids understand where their angry feelings come from, however, and to find productive ways of expressing anger. I also help parents deal intelligently with young children (and some with disabilities) who lack the cognitive skills or maturity to get a handle on their emotions. "Anger management" sounds like something akin to managing a dangerous animal, and I deal with human beings.

In my experience, most anger originates in psychological pain or trauma. Depression, shame and guilt typically accompany it. It is ludicrous, therefore, to try to separate anger from its handmaidens. The therapist must deal with whole, and messy, ball of wax.

The psychodynamic psychotherapy I do starts with an understanding of anger as the behavioral manifestation of deeper feelings. I ask how anger is expressed, under what conditions, and to whom. I keep in mind the fact that anger is often displaced: an innocent bystander may receive the treatment the angry person would really like to visit on someone else! I usually mention that acting angry feels pretty darn good, momentarily at least, and that anger is as helpful as physical pain, because it tells us we need close attention.

Since most kids find it more comfortable to act out their anger than to experience the psychological pain that underlies it, it takes time to locate the point of trauma. Once the origin of anger has been identified, feelings of guilt, shame, and self-blame typically materialize and must be addressed. Conscious recognition that psychological injuries sustained may not be undone -- and that scars remain -- leads first to feelings of depression, but ultimately to acceptance. This approach usually makes "anger management" unnecessary.

Educators and child care workers to not have the training, luxury of time, or place to conduct psychotherapy, however. They may engage in management of surface behavior, or use more sophisticated approaches such as Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) or Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI). These are discussed elsewhere in this blog.

Acting Out, Part Five: Residential School

For three years I was principal of a grades 7-12 "state approved private school" for children and youth in residential treatment. The students lived in dormitories on campus, and were under the aegis of a private agency. Nearly all of the ninety students had been placed in residential care by the courts, and approximately half were from the City of Buffalo, meaning they were minorities. Those that had not been found to have emotional disturbance by their school districts were typically found to be by the school's Committee on Special Education (CSE), over which I presided. These kids were "nobody's children." Their parents couldn't deal with them, many had committed crimes, they could be verbally and physically aggressive, and the school districts from whence they came wanted nothing to do with them.

As the building principal, I had responsibility for developing an educational program that would work for students of different ages, grades, educational and socio-economic backgrounds, who had different levels of ability and who were in residential treatment for varying lengths of time. It was extremely challenging, for many of the teachers I supervised had been at the school for several years, and all were paid significantly less than their public school counterparts. Despite the fact most found gratification working with their students, they were expected to do too much for too little. Some new teachers I hired left as soon as they could to find jobs that paid better. It is still shamefully true that the dedicated teachers who work in agencies for troubled kids earn less than those in public school districts. It seems kids with emotional and behavioral disorders don't deserve the best education we can provide.

Nearly all of the students in the school arrived with a history of academic failure. Many had learning disabilities, and all lacked motivation. The typical student was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, but we had some with diagnoses of Conduct Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Antisocial Personality Disorder. Various depressive disorders were also commonly diagnosed. Anxiety disorders were less common. Although the agency did not have a psychiatric component, many of the kids were on medication.

The school day was punctuated by sporadic verbal outbursts and often, by physical altercations between students. In more than a few cases, physical restraints were employed by staff to help a child regain self-control. Time-out rooms were used for helping students relax or to de-escalate from challenging situations with peers. We occasionally used Life Space Crisis Intervention (LSCI) techniques to help a child understand the forces that had caused him to become upset or to lose control. It is unfortunate that due primarily to financial constraints, my Assistant Principal and I were the only members of the staff who truly had expertise with LSCI.

Although I was only in my position for a few years, I did manage to make some changes in the school that reduced the number and severity of acting-out behaviors among the students. These involved instructional practices and to a certain extent, staff attitudes in keeping with the psychoeducational perspective. I will describe each in turn.

When I first came to the school, it operated as a collection of 6:1:1 classrooms, meaning that one teacher and an aide was assigned to six students. For better or for worse, the teacher and aide worked with the same group most of the day. Students assigned to good teachers made fair progress, and those assigned to poor teachers made no headway. Teachers and students became enmeshed, and some teachers became embroiled in conflict with kids, tossing them out of class for the smallest infraction of the rules. Most of the older students resented classrooms that functioned on an elementary school model. Little meaningful education was taking place, and in some classrooms teachers played cards with students just to pass the time!

Rather than try to maintain this flawed organizational scheme, I identified areas of interest and expertise held by teachers and for those students in grades 9-12 developed a schedule whereby each student would see no fewer than four core subject matter teachers over the course of each day. The situation was somewhat similar for students in grades 7-8, who saw two subject matter teachers (math/science and English/social studies) each day. Supervision of all teachers was ramped up.

Importantly, I was able to hire some excitingly dynamic teachers, and to bring constructivist teaching strategies into some classrooms. These strategies, which encourage students to solve problems through active investigation and cooperative learning, held great appeal for some of the most troubled and troubling students. The strategies permitted the students to use their innate intelligence and creativity to master difficult subject matter, and at the same time deemphasized skills the students had previously failed to master. Through diligent application of constructivist teaching methods, scores on standardized tests in key subjects rose to levels never before seen in the agency. Most significant, however, was the fact that some students -- who had never before attained scholastic success -- discovered they had abilities they never knew they had. Positive changes in self-perception coincided with diminished acting-out behaviors inside and outside of the classroom.

Introduction of a psychoeducational perspective towards students was met with active resistance on the part of some teachers and staff, most of whom were "old timers" who lacked interest in the therapeutic underpinnings of the psychoeducational model (see http://www.psychoed.net/ for explanation). They saw the school as fulfilling a custodial role, not as an opportunity to develop student potential. I counteracted their negativism by hiring and training of new personnel who were enthusiastic about psychoeducation, and who approached even the most troubled kids as unique human beings whose thoughts and ideas were valuable. Even in the brief time I was Principal I witnessed important changes in students, some of whom had never met an adult who showed them care and respect. It was the new attitude of staff members driving the changes I observed.

As Principal, I learned how thoughtful instruction -- coupled with concern for development of therapeutic relationships -- can be for even the most difficult, acting-out students. It is not just what we do with kids that is important, it is how we do it, and the sincerity of effort we bring to the task. For students with emotional and behavioral disorders, constructivist teaching methods that side-step academic weaknesses, together with a psychoeducational approach to relationships, can be powerful medicine.

Acting-Out, Part Four: Attachment

I wish I could say all kids who act out are easy to get along with on a one-to-one basis, but that would be a lie. Some kids are nearly impossible to deal with, I'm afraid, and try to make life difficult for anyone who tries to cozy up to them. Teachers and therapists -- well meaning souls that they are -- are fair game, and may unwittingly end up in power struggles with very tough customers. Fortunately, these children and youth are in the minority of those who act out. What they have in common is impaired capacity to form and maintain viable human relationships: To Trust.

Damage to a child's psyche is most significant when it occurs early in the process of development. John Bowlby (1907-1990), Mary Ainsworth (1913-1999), and others have documented the importance of early relationships on the capacity of children to develop viable attachments to others in later life. Although some (e.g., Sir Michael Rutter (1933- )), have disputed the central importance of parent-child relationships, nevertheless it is generally agreed that neglect and abuse in the first months of life can have a deleterious impact on a child's ability to value others' needs and perspectives, to demonstrate empathy, to trust and to love. Insecure attachment and Reactive Attachment Disorder are possible outcomes for children who have not received close and consistent care during infancy and early childhood.

The difficulty some kids have developing meaningful attachments has obvious implications for their capacity to control their emotions and impulses to act upon them. Such children and youth do not consider the impact of their behavior upon others, and feel free to behave in any manner permitted by their caretakers. They often say they "don't care" what others think about them, and when they say it they mean it. So-called "structured" school programs may be necessary to provide external controls where inner controls are lacking, and parents may struggle to design home situations built around logical consequences for inappropriate behavior.

The capacity for attachment should not be construed as a black or white matter, however. More than a few kids who act out have at least some ability to relate meaningfully to others, and so may be salvageable. Fritz Redl (1902-1988) stated that many children with attachment disorders have "islands" of value that may be therapeutically reached and developed by the astute adult. The educator, therapist, or parents who deals empathically with such a kid may be rewarded with a working connection that helps the child to extend trust to others.

Acting Out, Part Three: Chad

Kids who act out almost always seem like "good kids" on a one-to-one basis, and many interact well with therapists, school administrators and teachers. Although a handful are manipulative of adults, and curry favor only so they may be forgiven their sins, in fact most are looking for some connection to someone upon whom they can rely. It is when they are away from such an adult -- and under the influence of a psychologically powerful peer or the peer group -- trouble starts. The many teachers I have known will describe such a student starting with the words, "He's really a great kid, but . . . ."

I have only recently started working with a young man who -- together with two friends -- has been charged with felonies for theft of city property. I will call him Chad. Anticipating a difficult legal battle, Chad's attorney has collected statements from his teachers, all of whom speak to his gentle nature and good motivation in school. They are uniformly positive and supportive. Yet, it is also true Chad has two prior arrests for possession of alcohol, and that he is well known to the local police. You see, Chad was abandoned as an infant, for his parents were drug addicts who were involved in prostitution, fraud, and other criminal activities. His parents were arrested on serial occasions. Chad was raised by his aunt and uncle.

I have met with Chad on five occasions, and have been impressed by his friendly and accepting approach to nearly everything: his crimes, the charges he is facing, his parents' behavior, the fact that he was abandoned. He is polite and soft-spoken. He has interests in the arts. He doesn't get easily rattled, and doesn't rock the boat by being verbally aggressive or physically abusive. He is a "really a great kid."

Although Sigmund Freud might be a good therapist to such an acting-out young man, it certainly wouldn't take Freud to figure out why Chad might be harboring anger under that placid exterior.

Another kid in pain.

Acting-Out, Part Two: Definition

There are numerous definitions of acting-out behavior. Here, it refers to actions taken by a child that are physically, socially, and/or verbally aggressive in nature. A good description of acting-out behavior is this one from the Child Development Reference, Volume 1, for it identifies the pain that lies just beneath the surface, and that the child is seeking to relieve:

Acting out originally referred to the psychodynamic concept of expressing repressed impulses, but now it more generally refers to maladaptive behavior exhibited by children and adolescents. Rather than coping with the resurfacing of negative emotions (i.e., anxiety, fear) associated with past traumatic experiences or a dysfunctional family environment, the child or adolescent acts out these emotions by engaging in externalizing behaviors. These behaviors range from the less serious (i.e., disobedience, moodiness) to the more severe (i.e., suicidal tendencies, violence).

When a kid is engaged in explosive behavior most adults have difficulty empathizing with the child and understanding the pain, anxiety and fear the child may be experiencing. The tendency is to stifle the kid's behavior with Moral appeals to conscience, or failing at that, to adopt a punitive Enlightenment stance. Lecturing and moralizing is easy . . . as is sending a child to a corner, doling out two detentions, or simply whacking the kid.

The pretzel logic of many adults dictates that it takes too much time to understand why a child might act out . . . it's conceptually messy, too, and indeed the motives may never be found. So what if the offending behavior returns the next day, escalates, or transforms itself into passive-aggressive behavior that is nearly impossible to confront. Adults will prevail!

This morning I read in the Yahoo News that a group of third grade students in Waycross, Georgia, collected materials they were going to use to "hurt" their teacher. The items included a broken steak knife, duct tape, and hand cuffs. The nine children, ages eight and nine and all classified for special education, planned somehow to attack the teacher. Some students were assigned the tasks of covering up windows and cleaning up after the attack. A spokesperson for the school district said the students involved were generally "good kids." The response of the school system was to "discipline" the children, and at least one was given long-term suspension.

One wonders what would motivate a group of children to plan an attack against their teacher. The News article stated that the kids were angry with the teacher because she had punished a student for standing on a chair. In my opinion, the News article has only identified the tip of a very large iceberg. But, since adult pretzel logic dictates that the students simply be disciplined for their scheme, it is unlikely we will ever know.

Acting-Out, Part One: Perspectives on Helping

There are many people, and more than a few educators and psychologists, who would say kids who act out in school, at home or in the community are not in pain. They would say kids who act out are making poor choices about behavior, or want attention, or are simply flaunting the rules. Viewed from those perspectives, it gets easy to punish kids for their actions and to consider the problem solved. That is what we have been doing for several decades. Yet, we still have kids who act out. Just who are we trying to fool? Or maybe the question should be, "Just who is the fool?"

Over 25 years ago, social psychologist Philip Brickman and his colleagues at the University of Michigan described four approaches helpers characteristically take towards people with problems. The approaches are based upon the assumptions helpers make about people's responsibility for having caused their problems, as well as for solving those problems. I have fallen back on Brickman's (1982) model of "helping and coping" many times, using it to think about what we do as helpers, and how we do it. It certainly finds good application here.

Schools and some less-than-effective child care centers often tackle children's emotional and behavioral problems from one of two of Brickman's four approaches.

The Moral model is often applied, and assumes that the child is (1) responsible for his or her "problem" behavior, and (2) for finding some way to correct it. In schools, the Moral model is probably best exemplified by Character Education. The purpose Character Education is to help children understand and live by basic human values such as honesty, generosity, etc. Otherwise, the Moral model finds informal application through exhortation to children to "do the right thing," "play by the rules," and so forth. Under the Reagan administration, adolescents were instructed to "just say 'no'" to sex, drugs, and other temptations prevalent in modern society.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the Moral model, for it reinforces the instruction many children have received at home, in church, and in organizations such as the scouts. It does place the responsibility for "moral" behavior squarely on the child's shoulders, however, and the weight may simply be too much for some children. For example, children and youth raised in emotionally or physically abusive situations may find it difficult to restrain themselves and to "do the right thing" when provoked. Making morally correct decisions proves impossible for certain children who have not had the advantage of seeing adults do so. Although certain approaches to intervention are based upon the Moral model (Dr. William Glasser's Choice Theory comes to mind), they may not be very useful with the troubled and troubling children we are discussing here.

When the Moral model fails to work in schools and elsewhere, as it does with increasing frequency, would-be "helpers" often turn to the Enlightenment model. The Enlightenment model assumes that (1) the child is responsible for his or her maladaptive behavior, but (2) leaves adults responsible for finding the "solution" for that behavior. Enlightenment solutions are often punitive. So, the child who has failed to master his own demons becomes subject to whatever consequences superiors deem necessary. Detention, suspension and expulsion are the stock in trade of schools; in child care institutions, deprivation of privileges, confinement and/or restrictions are commonplace.

It is understandable that even well-meaning adults turn to punishment when appeals to a child's sense of right and wrong fail; after all, that is the way our society works. Unfortunately, in schools and child care institutions as in society, the Moral and Enlightenment models of helping and coping Brickman describes help only those who know the difference between socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and who can contain their emotions and impulses to act before matters get out of hand. Not all children and youth are capable of such self-control.

In a forthcoming section of this blog I will describe the remaining models of helping and coping Brickman and his colleagues named: the Medical model and Compensatory model. Now, however, I will turn my attention to children and youth who act out their pain in obvious, and often self-defeating, ways.