1

EPSE 514 Learning Journal Week One For much of my career, I have worked in the field of special education. I began as a special needs educator but have also worked a behavior interventionist one-on-one with students. Currently, I am a program supervisor, working directly with a behavior consultant with I develop programs and goals for individual children. This weeks readings really resonated with my own experience. In particular I found the idea of how improving a childs overall quality of life will minimize behavioural difficulties to be compelling. In their study, Martens and Witt (1998) make a fundamental distinction between behavior in controlled settings and behaviour in natural settings. I think this is a very true observation and one that anyone who works with children on a daily basis can appreciate. As someone who designs programs for individual students, I feel that PBS, insofar as it is a person centered practice and embraces a variety of perspectives, could offer a very important professional tool for me. The fact that PBS implicitly acknowledges the complexity of behaviour as a continuous phenomenon is also a crucial insight that I feel is supported by my actual experience. Much of the work that I currently do involves bridging the communication gap between the childs family, which interacts with the child in a domestic setting, and educators who operate in highly structured educational settings. Bridging the gap, as I see it, is very much about being able to understand what Sprague and Horner (1999) conceptualize as behavioural ecology. To bridge the gap I focus on designing an individual program for a student that is able to create a coherent connection between the two separate domains of school and work. This involves ensuring that everyone who is responsible for the childs well-being within those domains (i.e. parents and teachers) is on the same page and subscribes to the same goals for the child, which also ensures that expectations are the same across the board.

Of course it would be ideal if PBS was fully actualized as a preventive system of behaviour intervention. Current models of support are often based on pathologizing and diagnosing behaviours in specific terms, which, to me, is intrinsically reactive. For example, government and organizational funding is tied to providing support to children who display characteristics of oppositional disorder or antisocial tendencies. It would be much better to provide a supportive ecology in the first place, one that could, for example, respond to the socio-economic difficulties faced by many children, difficulties which are so often linked to destructive and negative behaviours, thus preventing them in the first place.

Week Two This week what I found most useful, in terms of both the in-class problem solving exercises and the readings, was their applicability to real-life school settings. The exercises emphasized the importance of working collaboratively with caregivers in different settings to not only identify the topography of a students behaviour, that is how it presents itself objectively to those who observe it, but also the context in which that behaviour is likely to occur and the consequences which follow from it. We were asked to consider such questions as what time a day a certain behaviour is most likely to occur in? Does it occur as a response to a particular routine? How do we respond to it? Such questions may be very useful for the behavioural analyst to pose to those outside of our field (e.g. teachers) who are working with a child who exhibits behavoural issues. In order to understand problem behaviour at a deeper and more complex level, Horner et al. (2006) stress the importance of the environmental and situational contexts in which problem behaviour may occur. Their approach mirrors that taught in the problem solving exercises which emphasized going beyond considering the superficial aspects of the behaviour in order to understand the underlying cause of a particular behaviour and the dynamic in which it typically unfolds. For example, Mary, an eighth grade student reads at a fourth grade level. She is often difficult and disruptive during reading

activities and recently has taken to throwing her more basic reading text into the garbage declaring that it is stupid. A PBS plan would acknowledge that Mary may feel embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that she is a poor reader. It would find ways of helping her to overcome and minimize those feelings, and then emphasize the positive aspects of her working with the assigned materials. It would teach her that focusing her energy constructively can bring her reading up to a grade standard, thus eliminating the cause of her embarrassment. While the work of behavioural interventionists is often focused on behaviours in a specific school settings, the goal is to improve behaviour more generally by helping students deal the underlying issues that precipitate it. As a specialist in behaviour interventions, one of the things that I try to do is build bridges between the different environments and settings students inhabit. The importance of this endeavour was emphasized in Dunlop et al. (2010) who focus on transitions and provide advice for how they can be negotiated successfully. They note that when a student moves from one school to the next, formal transition plans, including meetings and follow-ups, can provide support and a transfer of a knowledge between one grade and the next and one school and the next. Another significant aspect of Dunlop et al.s work was the emphasis on the general relevance of the PBS approach and its applicability to the entire school setting. With this in mind, the behavioural consultant can approach their work with teachers by emphasizing to them that the tools they are learning to deal with a specific student can be applied across the board and so will enable them to feel more empowered in their interactions with students and operate a more well-run classroom.

Week Three This week, considerable emphasis continued to be placed on real-world strategies and the importance of PBS in family and community settings. Luchyshyn et al. (2009) noted that the value of behavioural intervention is based on its survivability in natural settings. They also emphasize the

importance of creating a PBS that is responsive to the particularities of individual families and the beliefs of parents. Since each setting that a child moves through has its own character and dynamic and each child exists in their own individual context that is shaped by the values, beliefs, skills and resources of those around them. Given this, the work of Koegel et al. (2005) discusses the importance of contextual fit in intervention planning. They then outline a very useful breakdown of the variables that need to be taken into in order to build a contextually appropriate PBS plan. Key variables include knowing whether parents and teachers understand the procedures that they will be required to implement, the requirements, including time requirements, that will be needed to actualize a PBS, as well as the pressures faced by teaching staff who may be at risk of abandonment or censure from their superiors. Considering the above variables takes into account the needs of teachers and parents and the pressures facing them. Their support and enthusiasm for a plan is crucial to its success. Durand et al. (2012) insist that the level of optimism that parents and teachers feel towards a plan is crucial to its success. In my own experience, I have found this to be true. A large part of my job, as I see it, is to generate support and optimism for behavioural interventions. To generate support and ensure that a plan is successful, it is essential that everyone involved with the child have the opportunity to contribute to the plan and that it is undertaken in a spirit of collaboration and open communication. Encouraging the active involvement of parents and teachers is key since they are the ones who really know what is feasible and, ultimately, they will be actualizing it. Creating an active collaboration of partners across different settings will ensure that a plan is technically sound and contextually appropriate in a broad sense. It will further create a more positive, hopeful, and supportive environment for the child.

Week Four One of the concepts that really resonated with me from this week's readings was the idea of parity in among team members as an effective strategy in team building. Working as a behavioural interventionist I have a first-hand understanding of how important it is for there to be a consistent commitment to the childs well-being and how that can best be achieved. Bambara and Kern (2005) emphasize how important the relationships of those involved in the childs care are. They note that feeling as though they are equally valued members within a team will ensue that all those involved have a greater investment in the PBS process. Moreover, they also emphasize that parity among team members will encourage active collaboration and discussion, and the feelings of shared responsibility for the outcome of the plan. In my own experience, I have found that collaboration is not only important in generating positive momentum and support for change in a childs life, but that it also encourages the sharing of different points of view. The issues a child may be dealing with are, more often than not, multifaceted and complex. Team building and collaboration offers both multiple perspectives and a holistic point of view in which the child and their behaviour can be understand from a global perspective. Reflecting on these observations, I feel that they emphasize not just the work that the child has to do but those around them as well. At the same time, they point to strength through unity and mutual support. As those who work in special education know, the overall commitment and level of optimism that parents and teachers feel towards a plan is very much crucial to its success. These issues are further underscored by Blue-Banning et al. (2004). To undertake a career in special education it is necessary to feel a level of passion and commitment for what one does. One must feel a calling to the profession and ones personality and behaviour must demonstrate compassion and understanding, as well as resolve. It should not be surprising to anyone that kindness, civility and respect go a very long way in achieving success with all kinds of children with all manner of behavioural issues not to mention their parents, but obviously the Blue-Banning et al. article highlights

this fact. As a behavioural interventionist, it is clear to me that I cannot hope to achieve successful results with the children I work with if my own behaviour is unprofessional, rude, or demonstrates a lack of compassion. While were all human beings with our faults and weaknesses, part of what special educators must do is inculcating appropriate behaviour through our actions and words. In this respect, one of the most useful pieces of practical training from this week was: When faced with disagreement or resistance, do not argue; rather reframe in a manner that advances therapeutic aims. This is so crucial because it is too easy, especially when you feel passionately about a child and their case, to argue or put too much pressure on a parent, particularly when you feel they are just not advocating strongly enough for their child. This training reminds us to keep our eyes on the end goal and do what we need to for the therapeutic aim, because that ultimately is what will provide the most benefit for the child. Such an attitude is also essential for working as part of a collaborative team, in which you must treat other peoples points of view with respect and respond appropriately and encouragingly to their points of view. Ultimately, reframing resistance can work to build bridges and create connections between different points of view. Another salient point encountered this week, was Blue-Banning et al.s emphasis on the need to increase accountability within the system overall. The fact that stress and exhaustion are routine outcomes for parents needing to fight for services is nothing less than shameful. The level of frustration that parents may have faced in wanting to get appropriate support for their child is something that must be kept in mind. It is also true that sheer burnout is a common factor for special education providers and behaviour specialists with insufficient training. In that respect, oversight and accountability can only help everyone and lead to more positive outcomes for the child.

Week Five I think one of the most significant issues from this week's readings was expressed in Holburns (1997) discussion of what real person-centered planning meeting looks like. The concept of building a program around the needs of the individual is significant, but Holburn also emphasizes the need to consider the client as a unique individual, one who is not defined by specific behaviours or issues. In this respect, one should talk about the person as a whole person, rather than a client with deficits and behavior problems (Holburn, 1997, 77). It is a simple idea but an inspiring one, that has broad significance to society as a whole. Although the ethics of our profession is grounded in a philosophy of inclusion, tolerance and diversity, in actually interacting with special needs children we must be careful to always maintain an awareness of these children as whole individuals and not simply as behaviours to be managed. Similarly, it is important to not focus on behaviour analysis to the exclusion of all else when there is a flesh and blood person before us. I think the idea of meeting in a real community place, particularly in a clients home is a very good one. Not only would interacting with the child in a domestic setting put everyone at ease, but it would de-institutionalize the therapeutic relationship and humanize the educator as well. I think working in a domestic setting might also be important from the perspective of avoiding system responses (Holburn, 1997, 77). I also agree that it's much more difficult than we realize, especially in professional settings to listen more than we talk. We are taught for all our professional careers that in order to succeed we must stand up, be heard, innovate, be first, and generally be noticed and to speak up. However, in these situations it is so important to do just the opposite. Working with children, we have to be attentive and responsive listeners who are able to grasp a great deal from small clues. These skills can also be adapted for in our professional actions. So many people need a silence cushion in order to come forward and contribute to a conversation, particularly when the subject matter is intellectually or emotionally difficult for them.

The Kincaid piece was challenging for me. Because most of my work has been has been as a special needs educator, a one-on-one behaviour interventionist with students and a program supervisor working directly with a behavior consultant developing programs and goals for individual children, I am not as accustomed to this kind of group session. Certainly I do a great deal of gap-bridging between children and their families, educators and other caretakers, and I definitely see PBS and similar approaches as very important tools I can use in my work. I only mean that this very assertive group exercise with someone like me as facilitator is a definite growing experience. The PFP process is a professional challenge that I welcome since it involves building communication tools, which will be useful to me in my current and future roles. I see getting an accurate history of critical life experiences, Frame 4, as potentially one of the most difficult parts of the process (Kincaid, 1996, pp. 445-448). It seems to me that it is difficult for anyone to be critical of their own life experiences, particularly as they relate to others. When those life experiences have negatively impacted a child with disabilities or other problems I think it is a natural tendency for relatives and other closely connected people to minimize their mistakes, especially for the eyes of outsiders. This would be even more true when those outsiders were perceived to be critical and to have authority. Therefore, as a critical observer, I think it would be very difficult getting this kind of assessment from people, even those who truly wanted to help. I really liked the focus on hopes and fears of everyone involved. I think that if all participants can openly express their hopes and fears for the process they have a much greater chance of moving forward successfully. Perhaps if this part of the process came first enough trust would be built to ensure more success in the critical life experiences stage.

Week Six This was an interesting week of reading for me. The Albin et al. (1996) study resonated very much with my own experiences. I was especially interested in the third critical person-related

variable Albin et al. (1996) discussed with regard to key stakeholders in the implementation of behavioural support plans: Unfortunately, in developing behavioral support plans, it is not unusual to encounter situations in which the explicit goals identified in, and presumably driving, the plan are not shared by all of the plan's implementors, (p. 87). I can see this being a major issue in the implementation process as it truly is in any special education process. Albin et al. gives the example of a plan being developed to keep a certain child with severe behavioural issues in a classroom when key staff would prefer the child be moved (p. 87). I myself have been involved in that exact situation, which is both highly frustrating and difficult to negotiate. If not handled appropriately, the plan can be doomed from the outset. Albin et al. recommends negotiating these kinds of conflict until they are resolved and not moving on without consensus, and I agree with this approach. When faced with negative opposition, I think that skill of re-framing resistance could be of particular value. In a situation similar to that discussed by Albin et al., one could approach the staffs resistance by first of all acknowledging their concerns and their fears and by acknowledging that it is legitimate to have these feelings. One could also strive to bring them on board by soliciting their opinion and asking their advice about what would be the best option for the child. At this point, the special education consultant could then open up a discussion about what was really in the best interest of the child, shifting the focus away from the staffs fears to the childs needs. They could then express their viewpoint about what solution they thought would achieve the best outcome. From there, they might ask the staff to make suggestions about how this solution might be achieved. Using this sort of approach in which the staff were made part of a team responsible for the childs well being, their initial resistance might be overcome. Hopefully, they would end up seeing the child as a whole person with legitimate needs instead of a set of problem behaviours to overcome or avoid. They might also understand that their input and involvement could provide valuable support that could achieve a successful outcome. In this way, an attitude of fear and apprehension could be changed into one of both acceptance and empowerment.

10

The Gallimore piece (2005) presented a very interesting discussion of the experimenting family and the ability to break away from the powerful influences of ecology and culture. Gallimore discusses the way that certain families from generation to generation will try deliberately to stray from certain norms to instill values that are important to them (Gallimore, 2005, p. 219). An example of this would be cultural isolation for inculcation of religious norms or a certain degree of cultural isolation for the purposes of imposing gender-neutral standards in the home. Gallimore explains that while some families do achieve some success with these kinds of changes, the ecological/cultural surround mitigates against many innovations and changes no matter how hard individuals and groups try, (Gallimore, 2005, p. 219). All of this simply means that behavioural changes are very resistant to change, and that institutional settings add to this resistance. Thus when designing and implementing behavioural plans, realistic goals and benchmarks are crucial. Finally, the behavioural therapist needs to be sensitive to and aware of the fact that they themselves represent a very powerful culture, that of the institution they work in. The culture of many institutions including law, government, education and social welfare, has changed dramatically in the last 100 years. For Aboriginal Canadians, for example, the educational and social welfare institutions are associated with very negative and traumatic collective memories of residential schools.

References Albin, R. W., Lucyshyn, J. M., Horner, R. H., & Flannery, K. B. (1996). Contextual fit or behaviour support plans: A model for goodness of fit. In L. Kern Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavior support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community (pp. 81-98). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized positive behavior support : Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 161-176.

11

Blue-Banning, M., Summers, J. A., Frankland, H. C., Nelson, L. L., & Beegle, G. (2004). Dimensions of family and professional partnerships: Constructive guidelines for collaboration. Exceptional Children, 70(2), 167-184.
Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Wilson, K. J., Kincaid, D. K., & Strain, P. (2010). Prevent-Teach-Reinforce: A standardized model of school-based behavioral intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 9-22.

Gallimore, R., (2005). Behavior change in the natural environment: Everyday activity settings as a workshop of change. In C. R. ODonnell & L. A. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Culture & context in human behavior change (pp. 207-232). New York: Peter Lang. Holburn, S. (1997). A renaissance in residential behavior analysis? A historical perspective and a better way to help people with challenging behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 20, 61-85.
Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Todd, A. W., & Sprague, J. R. (2006). Positive behavior support for individuals with severe disabilities. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th edition), (pp. 206-250). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support. Series: Issues in child clinical psychology (pp.73-109). New York: Springer.

Kincaid, D. (1996). Person-centered planning. In L. Kern Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavior support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community (pp. 439-465). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Boettcher, M., & Brookman-Frazee, L. (2005). Extending behavior support in home and community settings. In L. M. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behavior: Designing positive behavior plans (pp. 334-358). New York: Guilford Press. Lucyshyn, J. M., Binnendyk, L., Fossett, B., Cheremshynski, C., Lohrmann, S., Elkinson, L., & Miller, L. (2009). Toward an ecological unit of analysis in behavioral assessment and intervention with families of children with developmental disabilities. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R.

12 Martens, B. K., & Witt, J. C. (1988). Ecological behavior analysis. In M. Hersen, R. M.Eisler, & P. M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 22) (pp. 115-140). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H., (1999). Low-frequency high-intensity problem behavior: Toward an applied technology of functional assessment and intervention. In A. C. Repp & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 98116). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.