Resources

Smiling teacher has be kind written on palms of hand

18
Feb

Lesley's remarkable story

Another trainee from the Greyhawk school sessions, Lesley, had an even more remarkable experience.

Lesley had been a keen participant in the Good Relationships training sessions.  The group had been discussing the need to safely share their feelings with pupils.  

The rationale for this is explained very well by Marshall Rosenberg in his book Nonviolent communications: a language of life. He encourages us to request for our needs to be met, and to share the feelings we have about that. 

She left session one determined to apply the approach strategically with her very difficult year nine group (14-year-olds).

She reflected for several days on her role as a teacher, her needs in the class, and the things which were preventing her from achieving the outcomes she wanted. At the next lesson she quietened the students down and began her explanation to the class, using relational communication skills.

To her shock and horror as she reached the point where she was describing her feelings of frustration and anxiety, she began to cry.

“I couldn’t stop weeping, but I knew I had to carry on and tell them what my needs were and how I was asking them to meet them Luckily this happened at the end of the lesson and I quickly dismissed them and regained my composure”.

Lesley explained how before the next lesson she was on a knife-edge of anxiety about how the class would react. She thought they might see her as an easy target and raise their disruptive efforts to new heights.

Instead, as Lesley said, “It was quite eerie - the class were all perfectly behaved!"

 

Hopefully, you will not be thinking 'Ah – if I have a difficult class all I need to do is start crying and all will be well’!!!

 

Lesley’s strategy worked because her actions were authentically ‘from the heart’. Her tears merely underlined the depth of her feelings for the children and their learning and she connected these feelings not to self-pity but to her needs.

She requested exactly what she needed them to do - she didn’t demand it.  When we become fully alive as human beings in our professional roles there is much more scope for the unexpected – in a positive way.

Freedom through control leads to a narrowing of the options because the primary value judgment is ‘can I control it’, and the more options there are the more there is to control. On the other hand, control through freedom invites the unexpected, the initiative from the other, and encourages the kind of creative thinking ‘on the fly’ which can have such a positive impact.

It's worth reading Warning! a Play in Four Acts for another excellent example of what not to do! 

Comments

five children sit on chairs one child stands with chair held over head

05
Nov

Do you want to have more co-operation or more control in class?

On my first day with Ms Lardy’s class she called me into the corridor just before the lesson.

“You’ve got to watch out for Lenny!  He’s the most attention-seeking boy in the school. You mustn’t encourage him. Don’t give in to him”.

“Yes, miss”, I said with a poker face. 

My approach was in fact completely the opposite. I reasoned that if I could meet Lenny’s need for attention then he wouldn’t need to use any of his ‘look-at-me!’ routines. These routines (which I have heard described by various professionals as strategies, scams, ploys, and rackets) were ones devised by a boy with limited intellectual capacity to help him meet this need. Surely, I could find a better way...

I tried to give every child in the class attention at some point in the lesson but for Lenny’s sake I introduced my own ‘racket’ - the greet-with-a-handshake routine.  I greeted all the children as they filed into class, shaking hands with a random selection and making a cheery comment to a further handful.

But I always shook Lenny’s hand and I always passed a comment.

“That’s a nice jumper you’re wearing, Lenny.”

“Hey Lenny, how’s mum today? Is she better?”

The fact is I never, and I mean never, had any problems at all with Lenny seeking attention during class time. And when it came to planning the school concert I could draw on the very positive relationship I had with him to channel that love of attention into a barnstorming solo performance of ‘Little Donkey’. 

All the children enjoyed the very positive start we made to each lesson, as well as not having to endure the interruptions and negativity which his previous ploys had caused.

And I enjoyed being nice and being liked and, yes...  feeling that I had solved a problem the more experienced teacher hadn’t.  I felt good – like I was doing something worthwhile, and not grinding out the day.

Economically speaking, I invested about 30 seconds per lesson ensuring I was free from any Lenny-related obstructions to lesson delivery.  I chose this over control measures.  The time wasted reprimanding and ‘dealing with problems’ (when I wanted to be relating to the pupils) would have been far greater without that initial investment.

My point is that relationally-based strategies take time, thought, and creativity. But ultimately, they yield greater benefits, more economically.  They are wholly positive in intent, seeking the voluntary participation of others - and generate positive spin-offs. And they reduce the risk posed by unintended consequences of our actions.  Control measures are horribly prone to unintended consequences.

If this makes sense to you...

This approach is based on sound psychological principles. It is an approach and not a method because it describes:

  • a different way of looking at the challenges teachers and professionals working with children (and adults with additional needs) need to resolve. 
  • a different way to communicating
  • a different way to deal with social harm

We call these approaches Relational Approaches. Because they apply to our professional perspectives and how we conduct ourselves from within, they can be used in many dfiffernt work settings.

Relational practitioners: 

  1. focus on relationships not behaviour
  2. treat all social and antisocial behaviours as communications, which convey meaning.  
  3. deal with social harm restoratively.
button says better to persuade or enforce

 

Comments

wrong way - confront me or comply. right way - let me help you make wise choices

29
Oct

To persuade or to enforce?

We can only control – make choices about – our own behaviour, and try to guide the other person to make the right choices about their behaviour. 

We are far more effective when we do this using the soft skills of persuasion and negotiation rather than trying to dominate every situation. 

 

The soft skills of persuasion and negotiation

Control, authority and discipline are maintained using a mixture of relational techniques, good communications skills, and a willingness to engage in imaginative interpersonal transactions.

Teachers with soft skills are not ideologically committed to one style of response. They may be (within context) firm or flexible, patient or assertive, forgiving or determined, compromising or uncompromising … and so on.

The message children hear is

You are in control - make a choice!

(of course we mean ‘in control of yourself’)

 

Dominance and coercion

Teachers who apply a dominance style tend to over-control through regimentation, authoritarian but not authoritative, and hold punitive attitudes to wrongdoing instead of therapeutic attitudes to wrongdoers. 

Teachers who use this approach are more likely to be pushed into handing out more sanctions, because unless children ‘obey’, there is nowhere to go except to up the ante with an additional sanction.

The message children hear is

You are bad - either confront me or comply!

 

Ideology or humanity? 

Hardliners believe that the system will collapse if they ‘weaken’, but this view is not borne out by evidence from schools where all the staff use soft skills and there are few or no exclusions.  Persuasive teachers understand that they no-one can ethically control another person, child or otherwise.

Soft skills teachers also understand that to develop motivation in a child, the child must make a voluntary choice to act.  If you force anyone to do anything, there is a very high chance they will stop as soon as the force is removed. Making a child do something is not developing motivation.

 

So we can only control - make choices about - our behaviour and try to guide the other person to make the right choices about their behaviour.

 

What does this look like in the class?

An observer in such a class would see a teacher helping children

  • experience a sense of choosing as much as possible
  • benefiting themselves from what they are asked to do
  • experience a sense of being in control
  • have reasons to trust

They will see the children

  • being given clear honest explanations and time
  • being fully valued and involved as human beings
  • being encouraged to make and value agreements            

When we use a restorative approach to deal with breaches of the school code which lead to social harm we ask the children to show a similar respect for us as fellow humans.

Of course, if they have never seen our human side, and only ever seen the teacher-face that is harder for them.

Soft skills teachers also know that showing their human face builds trust and creates opportunities for children to share their feelings in  a safe way and ask for help in the right way.

If you haven’t read this article – it follows on…

 

button says four ways to express emotions

 

 

Comments

Small boy holds broken paper cutout family

25
Oct

Understanding the four ways children express emotion

When a practitioner is presented with a child communicating whilst in a distressed state, the important aspect is the distress, rather than the way it is being expressed.

We can ‘listen to’ the feelings the child is expressing, and empathise with the needs which these feelings reflect, and sometimes overlook the content.  The content of the child’s communications may often be misleading because children who cannot express their emotions directly (“I am angry”), may often do so indirectly (“Fxxxxx cow! I hate you!”). 

We need to respect our school's conduct code, but if we only treat the content of this ‘indirect’ response as a breach of social boundaries, then we are missing the point.  We can instead recognise the statement as a poorly formed communication of feelings and try to understand the root causes. 

Four communications modes

Children communicate verbally and nonverbally, and they can use those methods to express their feelings directly or indirectly (also known as ‘refractively’[1]).  

From this we get four distinct modes of expression:

table showing direct v, indirect and verbal v/ nonverbal modes - text also on page

For VI readers, image text is below[2]

Children with social emotional and mental health often find it hard to communicate feelings verbally and directly.   Nonverbal refractive displays are particularly difficult to manage – when a child kicks over the waste bin or throws books the teacher must respond but has limited personal investment in the books or the bin. But what if the child scratches the teacher’s new car with a coin? 

Ideally, we learn to communicate our concerns including any negative feelings back to the child in a safe way. Even the kicking over of the bin will have had some personal impact on the teacher – some additional stress - irritation that the lesson is disrupted and raised anxiety about delays in whole class progress, perhaps…

How should we respond to these indirect and nonverbal communications of emotional state?  When we understand why children resort to these modes of expression the case becomes even stronger for doing something more long-lasting than applying the correct sanction for that particular breach of code.   

[1] Because the response comes back at an odd angle (as through a prism) rather than reflecting what went before.

[2]
Verbal direct (Child says, “I feel angry!”)

Verbal indirect (‘Child says, “you’re stupid and ugly!!”)

Nonverbal direct (Child shows angry face, turns away from teacher, crossed arms, hunched shoulders)

Nonverbal indirect (Child damages teacher’s personal property (to make the teacher feel what they are feeling)

How childrens' emotions undermine their communications skills

Threat and Need

As Maslow pointed out, when we feel threatened it is our ability to meet our needs that is at risk.  When we talk about ‘level’ of threat we are really referring to: -

  • different types of threat
  • different levels of immediacy

A summary of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is below if you need it.

Low threat

  • Threats to our 'self-actualization' needs are important, but these are something we aspire to and are not essential to our survival.  Self-actualization goals are often long-term (academic study, get a better job, buy a house) so the threat is not immediate. 

Medium threat

  • Threats to our need for ‘love and belonging’ are much more painfully emotional.  If our social support network is damaged there is an immediate threat to our emotional well-being and a medium-term threat to our safety.  

High threat

  • Threats to our ‘safety and security’ frequently need immediate resolution. If the threat is to our ’physiological’ needs the anxiety level is extreme.

Anxious arousal in children in need

Children often perceive a higher level of threat than the situation warrants. Actually, a teacher may not be aware how threatening they appear when they intervene forcefully to deal with a conduct issue. 

But the most likely reason that a child perceives a high threat level is that the child's basic needs are not being securely well met.  So much is uncertain, damaged or damaging in their lives that they feel unprotected and vulnerable most of the time.  Their level of ‘anxious arousal’ is already high.   Any additional stress raises anxiety to unsustainable levels. 

This insecurity is seldom 'worn on the outside' - only those seeking the inside perspective (see resource article) will realise it.

When the body feels fear it reassigns its resources to protect itself. The neocortex (the thinking social brain) becomes less active and the limbic system (the seat of our emotions) more active. As the threat level rises further the limbic system gives way to the basal ganglia (sometimes referred to as the reptilian brain).  

There is a corresponding shift in the way we respond. From being able to use our language and social skills to the full, our communications become more nonverbal, and more emotional. When the basal ganglia is in charge we are not really relating at all. We are strategically assessing whether the threat can best be reduced by fighting it, running away, or freezing – playing dead, in other words.

We've all had THAT dream

To illustrate this we can reflect on THAT dream - the one we have all had.  It involves being chased and having to open a door to get away.  Something akin to that.  In the dream, opening the door seems impossible.  Our terror prevents is from doing that simple thing.  We may also in our waking lives have been in a situation of very high anxious arousal - perhaps around a personal emergency. Even the simplest of tasks might then have seemed difficult - stopping the hands from shaking long enough to get a key in its lock, for instance. 

It is not being suggested that children are terrified in the classroom :-) 
But children with additional needs often have high levels of anxious arousal which undermines their ability to communicate effectively and respond prosocially.  They  are less able to manage high levels of stress and anxiety and operate their (emerging) high-level social and communications skills.  

 

table showing links between threat, needs, and brain activity as explained in text

Anxiety and Fear are basic responses to perceived threat. As the energetic level of these feelings increases, higher level competencies become hard to sustain.  Our mental energy shifts from intelligent activity to the need for safety and survival.  Our most pressing need slips down the ‘Maslow Hierarchy’, away from ‘self-actualization’ towards self–preservation (safety needs) and protecting ourselves from harm (physiological needs).  As it does so the source of our motivation shifts from the ‘neocortex’ or higher brain functions to the ‘sub-cortex’ which manages our primitive responses.

We can think of this as a temporary loss of social and relational skills.

As the Basal Ganglia becomes most active, social skills, thinking and dialogue skills are reduced, and basic reactions take over. Psychologically available options reduce to:

  • Freeze (a response to feelings of terror)
  • Flight (panic)
  • Fight (rage)

When we are in a ‘half-way’ state there may be a mixed response. There is a more strategic element to the child’s behaviour as they try to accommodate these uncomfortable feelings by ‘displaying’ these types of response without being as yet overwhelmed by them.

Thus:

  • ‘Mild’ Terror leads to refusal, rejection and disconnection as a precursor to freezing
  • ‘Mild’ Panic leads to avoiding, hiding, movement, and hysteria as a precursor to flight
  • ‘Mild’ Rage leads to shouting, arguing, movement, and verbal attack as a precursor to fighting

Dealing with displays driven by ‘basic fears’:

These overwhelming urges to flight, freeze or fight are often short-lived. We respond to ‘perceived’ threats, and these are often imaginary.   For children, safety and security are provided by adults whom they trust. When we see these ‘primitive’ emotions we know the child does not feel safe, and our focus needs to shift to providing, immediately, a sense of safety.  Other issues must wait, because a child cannot respond to complex social interventions in this state. 

We can recognise that the child’s communications skills at this time are weak and that includes listening and hearing correct meaning. 

What we say needs to be adjusted towards short sentences, without complicated ideas.

We can ask ourselves (and the child) these sorts of question:

  • How can I make this child feel safe, right here, right now?
  • What is the most reassuring thing I can say?
  • What is the most reassuring thing I can do?

Perceptions can change quickly once the child is reassured that they are safe and secure. This will be much easier if we have already grown a positive relationship with them. The factors which triggered the panic, terror, or rage attack will need to be addressed through follow-up casework.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wikilink

 

Maslows pyramid shows physiological, safety, social, esteem, with self-actualization needs at the top


Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation" in Psychological Review. Maslow subsequently extended the idea to include his observations of humans' innate curiosity. His theories parallel many other theories of human developmental psychology, some of which focus on describing the stages of growth in humans. He then decided to create a classification system which reflected the universal needs of society as its base and then proceeding to more acquired emotions.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is used to study how humans intrinsically partake in behavioral motivation. Maslow used the terms "physiological", "safety", "belonging and love", "social needs" or "esteem", and "self-actualization" to describe the pattern through which human motivations generally move. This means that in order for motivation to occur at the next level, each level must be satisfied within the individual themselves. Furthermore, this theory is a key foundation in understanding how drive and motivation are correlated when discussing human behavior. Each of these individual levels contains a certain amount of internal sensation that must be met in order for an individual to complete their hierarchy.The goal in Maslow's theory is to attain the fifth level or stage: self-actualization.

Maslow's theory was fully expressed in his 1954 book Motivation and Personality. The hierarchy remains a very popular framework in sociology research, management training and secondary and higher psychology instruction. Maslow's classification hierarchy has been revised over time. The original hierarchy states that a lower level must be completely satisfied and fulfilled before moving onto a higher pursuit. However, today scholars prefer to think of these levels as continuously overlapping each other.  This means that the lower levels may take precedence back over the other levels at any point in time.

Comments

eyes in mirror fragments

15
Oct

Discovering the inside perspective

Gathering and sharing our ‘inside perspectives’ can be the antidote to fragmentation.

Children with social, emotional and mental health needs seldom have a realistic understanding appropriate to their age of themselves or others as unique individuals.  As a generalisation, they do not see others as individuals with distinct personalities worth getting to know. 

They present different sides to different people - a strategy designed either to ward off imagined threats or to meet their basic needs especially for security and belonging.  These differences are nuanced and emotional.  A child may express dependence and anxiety to one teacher, and defiance and hostility to another.

Fragmentation

As these conflicting presentations become entrenched, adults around the child develop ‘fragmented’ perspectives on the child. When these perspectives are brought together, the conflict surfaces in the dialogue between adults around the child. Worse still, the emotional content of their narratives can surface, too.

The staff group can itself become fragmented, with other staff drawn into taking sides.

Inside Perspective

 An ‘inside perspective’ is an unexpressed narrative (and its emotional content). It may be: -

  • a part of the picture which is known to only one person

  • something the person finds hard to put into words.
  • thoughts and feelings which ‘cannot’ safely be expressed  (‘I feel like slapping her’, ‘His mother is hopeless’).  

Restoring a unified perspective

If we are to truly understand the situation and intervene effectively we need to bring these inside perspectives into the open in a safe way, and 'de-fragment’ them using a restorative justice approach.

Getting the inside perspective becomes easier when a relationship of trust has developed first. 

Here are two examples with their resolutions.

Let’s consider these three students: -

Student A

Teachers are repeatedly having to sanction student A because of his use of abusive language. He has got into two fights with class peers, hitting them hard enough to bruise. He also encourages friends to misbehave when he is refusing to work, shouting at the teacher that he is not teaching him properly.

Student B

Student B told his class teacher that he had no friends because he was shy and often tired because he found it hard to get to sleep. Home life is difficult and when he is upset by things that have happened he gets a funny feeling in his tummy. He would like to run away from home because he doesn’t think things will ever change.

Student C

Lives at home with his parents, four sisters, and two brothers.  His mother says he often doesn’t understand instructions and frequently gets confused. One problem is that, apart from basic words for food and domestic activities, there is no common family language. His father and mother only speak Tunisian Arabic with a smattering of English words, whereas the student was brought up in the UK and only speaks English. His eldest sister acts as a family translator, having lived in both countries.

Each of these narratives is based on a genuine case but it is not obvious (though you may have guessed it from context) that these three descriptions are of one student – Younis – a ten-year-old boy whose family came from Tunisia.

In this case, the problem was that the school only saw Student A. When someone talked to the boy, with his sister in support, student B appeared. And when mother’s version was obtained with the help of an interpreter (again, the sister) we had all three versions.  With this information, the school took a completely different approach. Instead of pushing for his assessment and transfer, they implemented a home school liaison plan via the sister, and with her support Younis was able to remain in mainstream. 

This is also a real-life case.  The two perspectives on Chico were both held by the same teacher! One is her formal account for school records. The other is her rather more frank admissions made to me confidentially.

Mandy’s  formal statement

'Chico would not settle down at the beginning of class and open his book.  I asked him again and again but he still did nothing.  He was distracting the other pupils.  When I spoke to him he started to argue and refused to go to the withdrawal room when asked to do so.  I called the Head of Year who took him to out of class’

Mandy’s confidential admissions and insights

‘He drives me mad.   I feel myself being drawn into this role of the 'bitchy teacher'.  I try to stop myself, but in the end I cannot.  It's as if he wants to force me to do this.    One time I gave him a real dressing down and he collapsed like a balloon and got on with his work.  I could see his feelings were hurt, and it made me feel so guilty. I know I can crush him, but I won’t do it. On the other hand, … he’s driving me mad!'

I had talked to all the teachers who taught Chico.  Some had much more positive perspectives to share.  They shared powerfully emotive vignettes which cast Chico in a different light, and Mum had shared her story of family poverty and deprivation, and a violent father. As Mandy shared her story with me, I shared these inside perspectives with her.

Chico’s now conduct seemed more understandable. I suggested

  • always talking to the deflated and anxious boy, regardless of the face he was showing her at the time.
  • giving him less attention (if possible) when his conduct was disruptive during class and instead...
  • talking to him before and/or after the class for a minute or two, to give reassurance and encouragement and discuss any issues 1:1.  

(Chico was the sort of boy who could never back down in front of his peers, but 1:1 would be much more approachable).  

This strategy, together with shifts in outlook by other staff, changed the social environment for Chico. Over time, he came to feel he belonged in the school. He could still be a pain but the more tolerant and empathic reponses by staff shifted the trajectory in a positive direction.

When a practitioner is presented with a child communicating  in a distressed state, the important aspect is the distress rather than the way it is being expressed.

We can ‘listen to’ the feelings the child is expressing, and empathise with the needs which these feelings reflect - and sometimes we can overlook the content.  The content of the child’s communications may often be misleading because children who cannot express their emotions directly (“I am angry”), may often do so indirectly (“Fxxxxx cow! I hate you!”). 

If we treat the content of this ‘indirect’ response as a breach of social boundaries, then we are missing the point.  We can instead recognise the statement as a poorly formed communication of feelings and try to understand the root causes. 

Four communications modes

People communicate verbally and nonverbally, and they can use those methods to express their feelings directly or indirectly (also known as ‘refractively’[1]). 

Verbal direct                     

Child says, “I feel angry!”

Verbal
refractive/indirect

Child says, “you’re stupid and ugly!!”

Nonverbal direct

Child shows angry face, turns away from teacher, sits with crossed arms and hunched shoulders

Nonverbal

refractive/ indirect         

Child damages teacher’s personal property (to make the teacher feel what they are feeling).

Children with social emotional and mental health often find it hard to communicate feelings verbally and directly.   Nonverbal refractive displays are particularly difficult to manage – when a child kicks over the waste bin or throws books the teacher must respond but has limited personal investment in the books or the bin. But what if the child scratches the teacher’s new car with a coin? 

Ideally, we learn to communicate our concerns including any negative feelings back to the child in a safe way. Even the kicking over of the bin will have had some personal impact on the teacher – some additional stress - irritation that the lesson is disrupted and raised anxiety about delays in whole class progress, perhaps…

 

[1] Because the response comes back at an 'odd angle' (as through a prism) rather than reflecting what went before.

CPD activity (download and use for free).

60-90 minute small group activity for teachers and managers with pastoral responsibilities including SEND and SEMH staff. 

INTRODUCTION - Discovering the inside perspective - participants should read this in advance of the activity

HANDOUT - The four types of emotional expression - facilitators will need to make a copy of this available to the participants during the activity

 

FACILITATOR'S GUIDE - including a full description of the activity  

Comments

My rules or the rules we all follow?

07
Oct

'My rules' or 'the rules we all follow?'

Whenever a teacher must apply ‘the rules’, the option to find a way to position themselves on the same side of the rules as the child will always provide a more beneficial outcome. The College of Policing promotes a similar ethic for their officers. 

Sharing this image with children triggers interesting responses which provide the teacher with valuable insight into their perspectives.  Younger children connect the behaviour with the sanction which it triggers. How does the punishment help them understand why something is 'naughty'?   When we explain the purpose of the rule, children are more likely to accept it as reasonable and right, but this is not always shared with them.   

This resource includes two Keystage 2 class activities.  

he said this to him:

“I have a problem you might be able to help me with.”

The boy looked up in surprise.

“Yes! You see the school rules say that if a pupil is chewing gum in class the teacher must give them a detention. I can see you are chewing but you seem like a nice young man - I don’t want to have to give you a punishment.

I’m just going to help that boy over there, and then I’ll come back to you.”

There was no further sign of the chewing gum, nor any need to mention it again. Of course, she could have just said “you’re chewing. If you don’t stop I will give you a detention.”  And perhaps that would have worked just as easily.  There again, perhaps not.

Anyone who has had to deal with an outbreak of gum-chewing in class will know how much fun children can have sticking it behind their teeth or under the tongue, or swallowing it at the last minute, or having a coughing fit to conceal it.  What a wonderful waste of time that can be!

The sub-text of this teacher’s communication conveyed humour, kindness, and the phrase ‘you seem like a nice young man’. A more positive basis for the next interaction than a straightforward challenge would have been.

This image portrays a child’s view of the world (and perhaps that of some parents) not a teachers’ view.   

Research suggests that older children are much more likely to accept rules if the purpose of the rule is seen as reasonable.  Research also suggests that younger children are more likely to see rules as things connecting proscribed behaviours with punishments.   Older children have an understanding that rules make communities safe and functional. Younger children are still forming this understanding and are in awe, and sometimes fear, of the dominant adults in the room.

So children in kindergarten will see rules as something handed down from on high. Tiffany Barnikis gives two good examples of this:

‘if you are being silly you have to go to the white chair and you have to think about what you have done’.

 ‘if you are not listening you have to go in time out … it’s where you have to go off the carpet and sit in a chair and do nothing’.

There is no understanding of what specifically constitutes silly, or why that particular silliness merited a punishment. While the threat of that punishment may discourage the behaviour, it teaches the child nothing about why it needs to be discouraged.  

Perhaps we should have an additional picture showing a kindly teacher holding a book of rules for contrast. It’s almost as if teachers of younger children are obliged to be judge and jury in this way when caring for children at the beginning of their learning journey towards citizenship, responsibility, and the harmonious exercise of personal freedom in a rules-based society.            

While some teenagers may passively and unquestioningly conform to received rules without question, many others choose to accept some rules and oppose others.  As Robert Thornberg says:

“The perception of reasonable meaning behind a rule seems to be – not surprisingly – significant to students’ acceptance of the rule.”

Speak politely, listen to others, and don’t tease are all social rules which are generally understand and supported by children.  

Ask before leaving your chair, walk on the left wide of the corridor, and put your reading book back are activity rules which may be conducive to the public good, but to the individual can seem petty and unnecessary.  

So with older children it’s increasingly important to teach them the rule’s ‘reasonable meaning’. The problem arises when that meaning is in doubt. Etiquette rules for instance. What actual harm does it do if a child picks their nose or dyes their hair purple?  

Safety rules often place a strain on the obedience of the average child because the risk to the individual is often small.  The rule is there to protect the school from the cumulative risk that sooner or later someone might be injured.

Why not try explaining cumulative risk to children in the context of your school rules? It’s an ideal focus for understanding Probability.  

From the start we should be teaching children the meaning of the rules we apply to them, and trying to help the child see rules as something which applies to adults as much as to children.

But there’s two more things we can draw from this image.  

  1. When our reasonable approach doesn’t work, we may revert to the ‘my way or the highway approach’, ‘because I said so’.  That’s OK up to a point – the child might simply not get it yet and time is precious.  But that way risks a build-up of resentment and little has been learned.   It may also sow the seeds of confrontation because there is nowhere to go if the child opts for trying the highway and things escalate.
     
  2. Some children take much longer to learn self-control and understand social rules - for developmental or family reasons.  Some children enter their teens still seeing rules as something 'handed down' by adults, and are more likely to shrug off the rules as they shrug off the adults in their search for 'independence'. Many children with special needs or emotional problems are very reactive to coercive approaches.

With these children getting on ‘the right side of the rules’, with the child and family, is essential.

Those who have most difficulty with social compliance are the ones who most need the teacher on their side, helping them understand and adapt to rules which enable harmonious collective activity.

There are several ways to categorise rules – this table provides a comprehensive framework which should be accessible to most children. From a child’s point of view there are eight categories of rule.

Relational or people rules

Prohibit behaviour which may cause harm to others and promote pro-social behaviour

‘No bullying’

‘Listen quietly when others speak’

Schoolwork rules

Maintain an efficient and effective work environment

‘Raise your hand if you want to speak’

‘Come prepared for lessons’

Free-time rules

Govern children’s conduct around the school outside of class

‘No football in the small playground’.

Changeover rules

Apply when children are moving around the school eg between lessons

‘Arrive by the second bell’

‘Walk on the left side of the corridor’

Environment rules

Are required to maintain a safe and ambient school environment

‘Don't litter’

‘Leave your desk tidy’.

Safety and health rules.

Prevent harm to the child or others

Don't run in corridors’

‘Now wash your hands’

Personal rules

Taking responsibility for what one says and does, thinking before one acts and doing one’s best.

‘Tell the truth’

‘Stand by what you have said’

Etiquette rules

Acceptable behaviour in social situations,

‘Don't swear’

‘Don’t pick your nose in public’.

Resources

Click the link to download the resource

 

Download the image (jpg)

Discussion activity (pdf) for use in a group setting. Objective: to help children understand that both adults and children need to 'keep the code'.

What do we need rules for anyway?  (pdf) Class brainstorm which draws out the different kinds of rules and why we need them.

 

 

Learn more about the method this activity is based on

The relational approach offers professionals a perspective, a philosophy, and a framework for understanding children with social emotional and mental health needs. It offers a new way to look at behaviour and understand what promotes satisfying and sustainable relationships even under adverse conditions. Whilst behaviour management approaches seek to change the behaviour of another, the relational approach seeks to enable the other to change their own behaviour.

 

Robert Thornberg (2008) School children’s reasoning about school rules, Research Papers in Education, 23:1, 37-52, DOI: 10.1080/02671520701651029

Robert Boostrom (1991) The Nature and Functions of Classroom Rules, Curriculum Inquiry, 21:2, 193-216, DOI: 10.1080/03626784.1991.11075363

Comments