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.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment