[Abigail Miller]

in reply to: Class 5 Post Due 1/4/2023 #2495

One of the biggest benefits of Braindrops is also one of its biggest challenge: By allowing children to explore regulation and dysregulation, we know that there will be dysregulation and discomfort. Dysregulation is a necessary part of this learning process, and young children that are just developing this skill will make mistakes. The adults must be prepared for this dysregulation to occur and see it as a learning opportunity.

One of the biggest challenges of Learning Tools and somatosensory regulation is that if the learning tools are just handed to children there is a high likelihood that they will not use them appropriately (and it will become a distraction and the teacher will feel that they are not effective). As a result, it is very important for the educator to provide explicit instruction in the use of the tools.

Another benefit and challenge of Learning Tools is differentiation (different tools will work better for different individuals)- the benefit is that this stimulates connection to self and self knowledge (children can experiment with what works for them); the challenge is finding the right tool (which is a process, which will require time to practice, the availability of different tools, and a friendly attitude toward mistakes).

[Abigail Miller]

in reply to: Class 4 Post Due 11/30/2022 #2494

As you reflect upon your current or previous work with educators, now through the lens of a developmental perspective, what thoughts or new perspectives come to mind? Does using this lens impact your thinking and/or behavior?

Reflecting upon my current and previous experience with educators, the developmental mindsets paradigm makes a lot of sense. It is certainly the case that not all educators are in the same place in terms of their curiosity, interest, and readiness for this information, and the questions (“What do they see and not see? What information do they have? What relationships are they aware of?”) are useful for helping to determine the teacher’s viewpoint and perspective, and to identify starting points. This paradigm seems very helpful to me in several respects: It helps me to “meet them where they are” and facilitate acceptance and a growth mindset toward the teacher, which helps to create a neuroception of safety; it recognizes that the educator’s behavior also “makes sense” and avoids increasing their dysregulation with judgments and ‘shoulds;’ it helps to develop the relationship; and it helps to orient the relationship and the interactions toward the information, content, and pacing that will be most useful to the individual. Additionally, I think that the initial focus on a felt experience (creating a moment of self reflection and reflective awareness) and serving as the external regulator in this paradigm is very important; addressing a lack of ‘buy in,’ in particular, by giving them a felt experience of having to do a cognitive activity under stress is going to be significantly more effective than merely presenting them with information and suggestions. This paradigm impacts my thinking by reminding me that creating relationships, opportunities for self reflection, and serving as an external regulator are likely to be the most important aspects of our work (and the most unique aspect of this approach).

[Abigail Miller]

in reply to: Class 3 Post Due 11/9/2022 #1451

The greatest benefit to the timeline approach seems to me to be that the intervention is more effective and it helps to prevent an escalation because it meets the child “where they are at” in the escalation cycle. It teaches skills and develops executive functioning (the ability to self reflect, consider consequences of behavior, inhibit behavior using cognitive control) when this is possible, but does not assume that a child is capable of this when they are not (when they are agitated, accelerating, or highly aroused), and provides a more effective intervention at that time (connection or co-regulation), which helps to prevent an escalation. As a result, it is therapeutic (it allows the child to experience an alternative to continuing to escalate and helps to re-wire the brain and present the child with alternatives).

One challenge of this approach is correctly identifying the state that a child is in. As we discussed in my consultation group, classrooms are complex places with a lot going on (fire drills, transition times where children are moving room to room, lunch, assemblies, and outside play times when different groupings occur and there may be less supervision). As a result, it can be hard for a teacher to track what is going on for all of the students (in addition to other tasks and responsibilities) and notice the more subtle signs (frequent talking, restlessness) that occur at the beginning of the cycle. As a result sometimes it can feel like the escalation came “out of nowhere.” Another challenge is maintaining “one foot in and one foot out,” remaining regulated and able to think clearly, not being overwhelmed/triggered by the feelings that arise and reacting rather than pro-actively choosing a strategy (when the adult is feeling helpless, inadequate, directly challenged, angry, overwhelmed, etc) it can be hard to respond empathetically. Three differences between classroom and playroom environments are that the adult is responsible for the group (not just the individual child), the child isn’t enacting the setup on toys, often they are enacting it on other children (and seeing a child hurt another can be triggering), and behaviors can be socially reinforced. Other challenges are capacity (frequently in classrooms the person helping a child regulate is the least trained person in the classroom- so the teacher can continue teaching), the frequency of an individual child’s challenges, the classroom composition, and the experience (new teacher vs experienced teacher) and disposition of the teacher.

In terms of working with the challenges that I identified, I think the most important piece is to keep the teacher regulated (teach them regulation skills). This is what I perceive to be the biggest challenge in classrooms and what I would focus on. Although we want discipline to be pro-active, and teachers focus a lot on trying to predict or observe the signals that indicate an escalation will occur (and I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t), classrooms are very complex, and in many cases this just won’t be possible. But, a regulated teacher stands the best chance of intervening effectively and experiencing less burnout than a dysregulated one. The teacher is the most important lesson in the room, an working with them on regulation (offering the teacher co-regulation, connection, and some instruction when they are able to hear it) is the intervention.

[Abigail Miller]

in reply to: Class 2 Post Due 10/4/2022 #1325

I would explain the concept that “behaviors make sense” as meaning that behaviors can be understood as a kind of communication that gives us a lot of information about what someone is feeling and the way in which their personality has developed so far (their characteristic ways of dealing with life’s problems).

• One sense in which this is true is that behaviors are an attempted solution to a conflict.
• Another sense in which this is true is that people often enact their unconscious emotional experiences. The SPT concept of “the setup” is that the child will unconsciously induce in others what they are feeling (through right to right brain attunement and the mirror neuron system). Paying attention to this “setup,” and the feelings and sensations that arise in us helps us to give us a felt sense of how the other is feeling. In this way, behavior makes sense as a kind of communication.
• Another sense in which this is true is that behavior also makes sense in that they are reactions to a person’s perception of their environment (and as such, they give us information about the person’s perception). Maladaptive behaviors are defenses against a real or imagined danger. Neurobiologically, the task of the brain is largely threat-detection and protection. Stress and dysregulation (hyper and hypo arousal) are protective states. The child who is highly activated, in hyper-arousal, has perceived a threat that it feels it can mobilize against. When we understand this, it may be easier to identify the perception (the “threat”) that the nervous system is trying to defend against, and the behavior makes more sense.
• Another sense in which this is true is that severe unmet emotional needs and disturbances create a narrow window of tolerance with few options and choices, inability to respond adaptively, reduced problem solving ability, and a rigidity in the personality and stereotyped reactions that are often independent of the objective situation and not easily modified by objective circumstances.
• Additionally, Ross Greene’s point that children “do well if they can,” points to another sense in which this is true- children may have lagging social emotional skills that prevent them from meeting the demands of their situation.
• Finally, behaviors often make sense when the relational context is considered. Humans are neurobiologically wired for connection and our nervous system has not evolved solely to survive in life threatening situations, but also to promote social interactions and bonds in safe environments (Porges). The caregiver/teacher’s facial expression, vocal prosody, and face- heart connection helps the child to modulate arousal and regulate. Similarly, whether a child or adult is in a state of security, anxiety, or distress is determined in large part by the accessibility and responsiveness of his principle attachment figure (Bowlby).

Interpreting “behaviors make sense” as “all behaviors are ‘acceptable’ at school or in the classroom” is a “straw man” fallacy, which distorts/misrepresents the therapist’s position. Educators might perceive/represent the statement this way because it is easier to argue against (it is a weaker position- reductio ad absurdum).

In the past, many of the Guidance/Discipline theories and systems taught to educators have been based upon behaviorism. One feature of behaviorism is that it is not necessary to understand the meaning of a behavior (or the feelings of an individual) to extinguish or shape the behavior. In a classroom where behaviorism predominates (a coercive system- rewards, punishments), an educator may not find it very necessary to try to understand the meaning of a behavior, may feel that this is outside the scope of their position, and/or may not have an interest, or feel that they have the time to do so. Hearing that “behaviors make sense,” and the implied consequent that the educator should try to make sense of them, may result in feelings of defensiveness by being asked to consider their role in the emotional climate of the classroom and the child’s behavior, inadequacy and feeling a perceived lack of competence in examining the emotional development of students (educators do not get similar training to therapists), generalized discomfort (anxiety) with the uncomfortable feelings being brought up in the educator (often behaviorism helps the educator to feel powerful and “in control,’ by enforcing compliance and obedience, in situations that might arouse the educator’s feelings of anxiety and helplessness, and the focus on behaviors instead of feelings is an attempt to avoid the messy and uncomfortable feelings being stirred up, and to ignore the presence of feelings in the classroom or work environment), or feelings of overwhelm (that the “case load”- understanding the social emotional development of their students, in combination with their other duties, is overwhelming).

The ”setup,” when an educator is misrepresenting the therapist’s position as “all behaviors are acceptable” is that the therapist is made to seem inadequate, overly permissive and naïve, unknowledgeable about the classroom environment, and unable to help children develop their intelligence by bringing their impulses under the control of the higher mental processes and an integrated value system.

[Abigail Miller]

in reply to: Class 1 Post Due 9/14/2022 #1278

Oop! I know the assignment said it was a “post,” but I didn’t see the “Class Forum” on the site and just uploaded this to my Google Drive folder as a reflection. Judith’s email today drew my attention to the class forum. Sorry 🙁

Anyhow….Reflecting upon my work with educators through the lens of SPT, I can see that the educator will communicate how they are feeling through the setup. The way that they behave will be based upon their perceptions, and internal working models of relationships, and is not about me. As a result, instead of taking it personally, I can attune to how they are feeling, model a regulatory response, and name the feelings (“I feel nervous,” “I feel overwhelmed,” “It’s so frustrating,” “I’m worried about what you will think of me,” “I’m doing my best, but I feel exhausted,” “This feels really hard”). Since nervous systems impact one another, modeling a regulatory response, will assist the educator in regulating. This is one aspect that is unique to SPT.

In most modalities, one important mechanism of therapeutic action is the therapeutic alliance. Having someone observe the educator’s work (their classroom, their teaching) and provide feedback/support, in many cases at the request of an administrator and not because the individual requested assistance, possibly at times that are not convenient for the educator, and often with little expectation of confidentiality, may cause an individual to feel vulnerable, fearful, resentful, or defensive and may not be conducive to creating a strong therapeutic alliance.

My experience is that educators are often natural caregivers who come to the field because of idealistic beliefs (wanting to make a difference, anticipating easy positive relationships with all students, believing that one year of student teaching experience will be adequate to feeling competent in all situations, sometimes underestimating the impact of trauma and developmental challenges) and often hold many (sometimes unconscious, and often unrealistic) expectations and beliefs about their work (“I should like all of my students,” “I should never feel frustrated, angry, or upset with a student,” “I should be able to manage all types of challenging behavior and developmental challenges,” “I should have ‘good’ classroom management,” “The children should be making x rate of progress,” “The classroom should be calm, quiet, peaceful,” “My relationship with each student should be transformative and have a protective, buffering, effect on their development,” etc. Educators are often like parents, seeing their students and classroom as a reflection of them personally. I can be aware that may feel discouraged and experience enormous shame, guilt, helplessness, and inadequacy (or resentment, anger, and blame) when they do not feel that they are meeting these expectations. Often, because of these expectations, there is a culture of shame and silence (or blame) surrounding these feelings (some educators do not feel comfortable acknowledging them or discussing them with colleagues, therapists, or support staff). Sometimes these beliefs are socialized through teacher education programs and laws/regulations which suggest that all types of developmental challenges and challenging behavior ought to be able to be successfully addressed in a typical, inclusive, classroom environment, and in school systems with many competing priorities, extremely limited differentiation of students (students of all backgrounds are supposed to be performing at the same level and meeting the same standards), prioritization of narrow academic outcomes (teachers are often evaluated primarily on the basis of test scores), with little emphasis on relationships (teachers work with many children, often seeing the child only a few hours a day, for 9 months, and then the children are moved on to a different teacher in different peer groupings), access to minimal biographical and developmental information about an individual child (educators are often not privy to “the story” of a child’s life, have minimal parental interactions, and lack a complete history which might allow them to contextualize student behaviors), and an American culture which primarily sees education alone as the key to reducing rampant inequality and social injustice (a tall order for a teacher). Finally, every teacher approaches teaching and comes to the relationship with the supporting therapist with a different history (different beliefs and expectations, levels of education and experience, relational histories, life stressors, sensory systems, interest in social emotional development, and understanding or “buy in” of the ways in which this affects cognitive development) and finds themselves working with different populations of students, with different needs (a novice Teach for America graduates in a Title 1 school, a veteran with no training put in charge of an Arizona classroom during COVID) and different levels of “goodness or fit.” Instead of feeling helped or supported, an educator may feel like an outside expert has been called in to evaluate, criticize, judge, fix, or improve their classroom or job performance. Since “shoulds” (judgment) are perceived as a threat by the brain, and dysregulating, this is not helpful. Without establishing a credible belief that they are “safe” in the interaction (a neuroception of safety), a therapeutic alliance is unlikely to be established and the educator is unlikely to engage authentically and honestly with the process, or experience integration, transformation, or personal or professional growth. In some cases, especially if there are many competing priorities and initiatives or the educator does not see the intrinsic value in the therapist’s support, it may also be necessary to make a compelling “case” to the educator that this will make their job easier, their classroom better, or result in other tangible benefits (improved academic and cognitive outcomes), although SPT theory would suggest that the (bottom up) “felt sense” of relational attunement, the neuroception of safety, and the therapeutic alliance might be more important than a compelling intellectual argument on the merits of the program/intervention. Having said that, investments in social emotional programming are often “justified” along the lines of these types of arguments (not for its own sake).

The SPT lens impacts my thinking and behavior by prioritizing (especially initially) relational attunement over evaluating/passing judgment on the social emotional climate of the classroom or imparting specific information and interventions. Creating a neuroception of safety (which includes maintaining confidentiality as appropriate) and acting as an external regulator (co-regulating the educator, allowing them to ‘borrow’ a more regulated nervous system) creates a supportive environment and allows the educator to “check in” with themselves, to become curious about how they are feeling (facilitating interoception), expand their own window of tolerance, improve their own regulatory capacity (since ‘neurons that fire together, wire together,’ with repetition this literally ‘rewires,’ or creates new pathways, in their brain) and increases their receptivity to support. As a result, the intervention is largely enacted (not didactically explained) and ‘The therapist is the intervention’ (in the same way that the therapist is the most important toy in the playroom). This is another aspect that is very unique to the SPT approach.

For a therapist, or an educator, the idea of being responsible for simultaneously co-regulating 20-30 nervous systems, and cultivating supportive relationships and a holding environment for 20-30 individuals from widely varied backgrounds with developmental capabilities (not including parents and colleagues), amidst the need to perform pedagogical and other classroom maintenance/caregiving/record keeping/custodial tasks, may seem daunting, if not impossible. As a result, validation of the educator’s feelings and the SPT understanding of the mirror neuron system, that modeling a regulatory response, allows one individual to serve as an external regulatory support for others (the idea that in remaining regulated myself, and attuned to my own feelings, I can remain available, within my own window of tolerance, and assist others in doing the same and allow them to “borrow” my nervous system; ultimately, the only person I am responsible for regulating is myself- staying connected to myself, irrespective of what is going on, and modeling regulation), and that SPT’s mode of action does not require a complete history or knowledge of the child’s “story, may be quite a relief to educators and also a significant change from the way they are used to thinking of interactions with students (many educators focus is on cognitive development, “behavioral modification plans,” or top-down regulation strategies, their attention is often directed outwards, toward serving others, and toward their students reactions, behaviors, and emotional states). Honestly considering their own feelings and emotional states (interoception) during classroom interactions may be a new, difficult, and underdeveloped skill. Being willing and able to honestly share and reflect upon these feelings with another person may feel especially vulnerable. Additionally, many educators have been taught to manage student behavior with classroom management “systems” and models (behaviorism, functional behavioral analysis, token economies, PBIS and Pyramid SEL models) that focus on granular, transactional, classroom interactions/routines, focus almost exclusively on the child’s behavior and gaining compliance, reinforcing the idea that if the teacher just avoids the antecedent/trigger for problem behaviors or responds in the correct way, with the correct consequent, the challenging behavior should reduce in frequency or extinguish entirely (a somewhat coercive model), or more relational models that vaguely suggest that if the teacher just succeeded in creating a positive relationship with the student, the challenges and conflicts would vanish and dysregulation would not occur. The SPT model differs significantly and may be a bit of a paradigm shift, or even incompatible with these other approaches.

Finally, tracking starting points and shared goal setting (that is related to the educator’s values and motivations) is important in providing a sense of perspective. Documenting starting points is also important in understanding where the work is headed, tracking progress, and celebrating successes.

[Author]

Posts