The previous article in this series focused on five basic thinking skills that might explain the explosive tendencies of some explosive kids. Determining which of the skills may be lacking with the explosive child you’re thinking of is a huge first step toward formulating an explanation for the child’s behavior. An accurate explanation based on lagging thinking skills sets us up nicely for the next step.
So what do we do once we think we’ve reached a good explanation for the child’s behavior? An explanation isn’t worth much without a plan for addressing those lagging skills. How do we do that? We teach! It’s just as easy (and as complex) as that. We have a good idea of the thinking skills the child finds most difficult to master. Just like we teach the child who isn’t reading on grade level the skills required to read better, we teach the explosive child the skills required for flexible thinking and frustration tolerance.
Before we go into more detail about how we teach these lagging thinking skills, it’s first important to understand what our goals are. In other words, for what are we striving when we begin this specialized instruction? Knowing our goals in advance will help keep us focused on our task and give us the chance to see progress. Essentially, we have three goals for teaching these lagging skills:
- Reduce explosions – This one’s a no-brainer, right? These behavior meltdowns are seriously unpleasant and point out the child’s struggle. Fewer of them make life easier and demonstrate progress.
- Maintain the adult’s authority – Detractors of this approach believe that it involves giving in to or “enabling” the explosive child. Actually, the adult remains the authority figure…it’s just that they are doing so in a different, less traditional way.
- Teach lagging thinking skills – This goal is actually the “master” goal because it actually makes it possible to achieve the other two. When the child is better able to think clearly, even in the midst of frustration, explosions become fewer and the adult remains the authority figure.
We now have our goals established. Like any goals we set for ourselves and others, whether or not we reach those goals is entirely dependent upon the actions we do (or don’t) take. Each either moves us closer to our goals, or further away. The same is true when working to teach lagging thinking skills to an explosive child. Let’s examine this a bit further. Anytime a child does not meet your expectations (go to bed, turn off the TV, finish your homework, etc.), you have three general ways in which to respond:
- Tell the child that they will do as you say. Perhaps count backwards from five. Remove a privilege. Resort to spanking. Basically, you’re letting the child know that your expectations will be met no matter what. Perhaps not surprisingly, this approach usually precipitates a meltdown. Let’s call this approach, as labeled by Dr. Ross Greene (more on him soon), “Plan A.”
- Drop the expectation, at least for the time being. This isn’t the same as “picking your battles.” You would select this option, which we’ll refer to as “Plan C,” when you realize that it’s no surprise the child isn’t complying with your expectation. Because you know what thinking skills are a struggle for the child, you drop the expectations related to the lagging skills that haven’t yet been taught.
- “Plan B” is the middle-ground alternative to “A” and “C.” With Plan B, it’s all about teaching the currently poorly developed thinking skills in that child. How do we do this? We use the approach known as “Collaborative Problem Solving.”
Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) is the method used by the adult who selects Plan B from the list of three choices we just reviewed above. This caring adult understands the impact that poorly developed thinking skills have had on the child, and how they continue to manifest themselves in their behavior. The lagging skills must be taught in order for life to become easier for everyone involved. Collaborative Problem Solving will get you there.
The next article will focus more on CPS and how it works. In the meantime, take an opportunity to think about which of the three approaches (Plan A, B, or C) tend to be your natural response to children who do not meet your expectations. Any ideas why you tend to select that Plan more often than the other two?
Comments