In Practice

This session (the last I’ll mention here before posting a conference summary) was presented by Quinn Stanley from the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, and was based on his unpublished dissertation. Although I teach in a regular ed setting, at least half of my students in any given year are suffering from diagnosed or undiagnosed emotional impairments, and many have a history of violent outbursts, so this session was highly relevant to me (and, I suspect, its content will useful for many of you, as well). The session description reads:

This session will focus on relationship strategies for maintaining teacher efficacy during student outbursts and power struggles. Participants will discuss the following strategies developed by veteran teachers for use with emotionally and behaviorally disturbed students: developing resilient responses to violent situations, succeeding when other teachers give up, and creating unorthodox mentoring styles.

Here are my notes from the session:

Successful teachers of the emotionally disturbed have strong efficacy and are professionally adaptable.

Resilience to violence developed through:
-restraint training-standardized protocols-support from other school staff
-successful handling of past violent situations (willingness to try, learn from mistakes)
-rational detachment (look past negatives)

They succeed in jobs others are afraid to hold. They have an honest appraisal of school/non-school environments. They are willing to use unorthodox methods to have success with unorthodox students.

Determining whether to remove a student form the classroom is stressful in itself. This was true especially because nonviolent students could physically lash out. Teachers did not want to create more violence by physically removing the kids. You worry that someone will get hurt.

Many participants are asking why such violent students are allowed back in the classroom even as often as the next day. The presenter gave multiple reasons why this may happen, from a legal perspective, but agreed none were true validations of that practice. It’s just a reality.

Talking about the importance of rebounding after a violent event, getting right back in the classroom, and communicating to kids that the event is no big deal. I agree, and do that myself in the classroom, but it also makes me wonder if that’s the wrong message to send to kids. Violent behavior in the classroom IS a big deal, and should not be emulated.

Some of the happiness results from a sense of purpose, that “this is where I am supposed to be”. The sense of purpose was strong despite uncooperative and unsupportive aides and parents.

Successful ED teachers use un-traditional methods that are not limited violent situations, and are extended to students’ non-school situations. They also extend beyond mere punishment and improving students with non-punitive means. (Did you take a shower last night? Brush your teeth?) They give positive rewards at school to show that all behaviors were a concern of the teacher.

The teachers in the study used techniques that were not “by the book”, but they were all honest with parents about the unconventional behavior alteration techniques. They explain to parents that doing everything by the book doesn’t work with their children.

Professional rational detachment: ability to stay in control of their emotions in crisis moments.

Preserving objectivity allows teachers to mentally distance themselves so they could view the situation objectively, avoid becoming stressed, keep from getting emotionally hurt, and continue to treat their students objectively.

Quote from a teacher who manages to keep professional rational detachment:

Realizing that there are some kids you just cannot reach, despite what the legislature tells you [is important]…You have to keep the outlook that these are the kids that no one else wants. So whatever social and academic games you make with the kids, those are gains that someone else wasn’t even willing to try and work on. So I mean, if you make some improvements with one, it is important, but if you don’t make improvements, you made an effort. Others didn’t even want to try. So stay optimistic, but keep it real at the same time. You win some, you lose some, and you’re not dealing with a winning hand to start with. Whatever you can scratch out, you are doing all right.”

Rational detachment being the result of teachers’ connections with students may seem like a contradictory phenomenon, but it allowed participants to remain involved in students’ lives.

A teacher in the study heard this from an instructor in police basic training: “Don’t spend your time trying to dwell on why our clients do what they do, and say what they say, because you as a rational person trying to understand irrationality will drive yourself crazy. Just accept what the behavior is, and don’t rationalize everything and try to fix it. You are not going to be able to fix everything.”

Resilience to violence can be developed through: thinking about potentially violent situations and then mentally working through them beforehand, and making colleagues aware of how you plan to handle potential situations. Make plans to support each other, be willing to learn from mistakes, and develop professional rational detachment to look past the negative.

Presenter says there are no ‘aha moments’, that this is stuff you basically know. But it is that professional rational detachment that will allow you to remain mentally uninvolved during violent times.