|
Discipline for Home and School, Book One (Third Edition)
Chapter 25R
The authors of this chapter have had great success with RTP techniques under extraordinarily difficult conditions. I am tremendously impressed by their pioneering work in adapting the RTP questioning technique with these youngsters. I remember back to the first time Carmen invited me to her class to observe and offer suggestions as to how she could use RTP. I had no previous experience with children with disabilities. Carmen was working with four children playing with clay. I was behind her, watching. A t one point, Jamie, a three-year-old with Down’s Syndrome, began to choke another student. I whispered to Carmen, "Just ask him, ‘What are you doing?’” Carmen did so, and Jamie turned, looked at Carmen, and slowly withdrew his hands from his classmate’s throat. Then Jamie began to gently stroke the back of the student’s head, as if to say, "I’m sorry." Carmen looked in disbelief and then said, "Wow! He understands more than I gave him credit for." From then on, Carmen and I worked closely together. Now I have the chance to say "Wow!" about how far she and Erin have taken RTP, and about what they have learned and accomplished since that modest beginning.-Ed Ford The children discussed in this chapter are from two self-contained special education classrooms. One of the classrooms serves three- to four-year-old children. Their dis- abilities include moderate cognitive delays, expressive and receptive language delays, physical impairments, and mod-erate to severe behavioral disorders. The other classroom serves five- to nine-year-old children. Their disabilities in-clude mild to severe mental retardation, autism, emotional impairments, visual impairments, other physical impair- ments, and combinations of these disabilities. Both classrooms are language- and sensory-based. We believe that the teacher must nurture the child’s intent to interact with his world and create an understanding of it. Providing an environment conducive for exploration and ample opportunities for children to make decisions cannot be complete without the children learning about how to deal with the consequences of their actions. A child’s natu-ral desire to interact with the world and make his own choices often brings him into conflict with both other children and adults. How does the child learn that some of what he does will interfere with other people’s rights? This is the heart of the matter. Some would say it is the responsibility of parents and schools to make the rules and enforce them. It is their responsibility to tell the child what is “right” and what is “wrong.” Yet, time and again, we meet children who do not appear to “know the rules” of appropriate social behavior, despite repeated reprimands and shaming by parents, schools, and others. How can we educate a child within the classroom if he hasn’t learned to respect the rights of others? If he hasn’t learned to obey the rules of wherever he is, his successes in life very likely will be limited. Thus, we believe that children must learn to become aware of others around them, especially when their own goals are in conflict with what others are trying to accomplish. They must be taught to be aware of the consequences of their actions as they try to control their perceptions, especially when others have what they want or are in the way of what they are trying to accomplish. The child must be able to think about the consequences of his actions if he is to get along, whether in the classroom, at home, or in the larger community in which he lives. When we first heard Ed speak about RTP, we were both skeptical. Could some of these children with disabilities really understand right from wrong? As we began to look at the research, we found that cognitive understanding of right and wrong could be seen as early as 18 months. This, however, was in the normally developing child. Our youngest child was three years old, but all of them had disabilities. In the current literature, as well as at conferences and in university classes, we never found an effective way for teaching our specific children the necessary skills for following rules and respecting others. If the goal is to help the child learn to respect the rights of others, then parents and teachers must find a way to teach children to think about how they might control their perceptions while not interfering with other children’s rights to do the same thing. The child must learn to think about the effects of his actions on others if he is to get along, whether in the classroom, at home, or in the larger community. RTP provides a method that lays the foundation for the child to learn "why" certain ways of controlling perceptions are appropriate and "why" others are not. Interestingly, the method never uses the word "why" in any of its questions. Here is an example to illustrate this. Matthew wanted a toy, and he punched Frank, who had the toy. Frank cried, while Matthew looked on. The teacher entered the scene, and in a calm, curious voice, she asked Matthew, "What are you doing?" Frank answered, "He kicked me!" Another teacher took Frank aside.Teacher (to Matthew): What are you doing?Matthew: I wanted the toy. He wouldn’t give it to me.Teacher: What did you do to Frank?Matthew: I wanted the toy. Teacher: Is it OK to kick Frank? Matthew (speaking slowly): No. Teacher: What happens when you kick him? Matthew: I can’t play with the toy.Teacher: Is that what you want?Matthew: No. Teacher: What do you want? Matthew: I want to play with the toy. Teacher (continuing to probe): Is punching Frank going to allow you to play with the toy? Matthew: No. Teacher: Who was playing with the toy? Matthew: Frank. Teacher: What could you play with while Frank’s playing with the toy?Matthew: The other one.Teacher: Can you play with the other toy until it’s your turn?Matthew: Yes.In this example, the teacher helped Matthew make a simple plan, according to his ability to learn how to control his perception without creating any disruptive consequences. The next example shows how Anthony, a child with severe behavioral problems, created a plan. Anthony could not be near another child without punching, spitting, pulling hair, and biting. He showed a great deal of anger toward adults. When he became angry, he would bite and kick teachers. Anthony generally stayed on the fringes of the classroom. He rarely played or interacted with peers. Teachers’ invitations to play or interact were ignored, and if they touched him as a way of including him into the activity, Anthony would scream, moving farther away. In this example, Anthony and the teacher were in the classroom’s manipulative area. This is the area that contains equipment such as pegs, beads, and puzzles for developing fine motor skills involving the manipulation of objects with fingers. Anthony wanted a red bead that another child was holding. He started to take the bead from the child. Teacher: What are you doing?Anthony: Taking red bead. Teacher: Is that OK? Anthony (on the verge of a tantrum): Me take red bead. Teacher: Is that OK to take away the bead? Anthony: Me want red bead. Teacher: What happens when you take things from others? Anthony: I don’t know.Teacher: What would happen if someone took a bead from you?Anthony: I don’t know.Teacher: Would you like for me to take what you’re playing with?Anthony: No ... me want bead.Teacher: Is it OK to take away the bead from Preston? Anthony: No. Teacher: Could you play with this yellow bead while Pres-ton plays with the red bead? Anthony: Yes. Teacher: Could you ask Preston if you could have the red bead when he is done playing with it? Anthony: Yes. Teacher: So what are you going to ask Preston? Anthony: Can I have bead when you done? Teacher: So when do you get the bead? Anthony: When he done. Anthony went on to play with another bead. He experienced success. He took the teacher’s advice, and the other child gave the bead to him. Anthony’s willingness to deal with the teacher without a tantrum was quite remarkable, given the fact that he normally would have behaved in a very angry and emotionally distraught way. The one-on- one quality time with the teacher (see Chapter 6) made it easier for the teacher to interact with Anthony. The development of his plan enabled him to think through what he wanted and how to get it appropriately.To gauge our success in providing quality time for every child, we use a chart with the names of the children on the left and dates going across the top. For each date, there is a box next to the child’s column. When a teacher spends at least two to three minutes of continuous one-on-one time alone with a child, she marks the time on the chart and initials it. The chart shows, at a glance, the amount of quality time being spent with each child. We have discovered that as quality time increases, defiant behavior decreases.Another example: Three children were playing with the class bunny. They were very interested in holding the bunny’s leash, which was around his neck. One of the teachers heard the children yelling and saw that Sam and Ellen were tugging at the leash in opposite directions. Teacher: What are you doing?Ellen: He won’t give me the leash!Sam: It’s my turn to hold the leash!Teacher: What is the rule?Ellen: We supposed to take turns. It’s my turn.Teacher: Is pulling on the leash going to hurt the bunny?Sam: I don’t know.Teacher: If you had a rope around your neck, and I pulled it, would it hurt? (This technique of connecting a personal experience that the child would understand to an unintended consequence of what the child is doing helps the child make the connection between his own actions and what others might be experiencing.)Ellen: Yes. Teacher: Is it OK to hurt the bunny? Sam: No. Teacher: What happens when you don’t follow the rules?Sam: You put bunny in his cage.Teacher: Is that what you want? Sam and Ellen: No! Teacher: What do you want? Sam: We want to play with bunny. Teacher: Is fighting over the bunny going to get you what you want? Ellen: No. Teacher: What can you do to get what you want? Sam: I can go first, then you can look at your watch when it’s Ellen’s turn. (When a child comes up with a plan, wheth-er it has been used before or not, this is an indication of the growing maturity of the child.)Teacher: Ellen, what do you think about what Sam said?Ellen: OK. But you’ll watch the time.Teacher: That’s a deal!The teacher gently but firmly assisted the children in remembering the rule by asking about it. At the same time, she communicated to them that they were making the decisions. Ultimately, they had to think about the choice of whether they were to play with the bunny or not. Always, the role of the teacher is one of a facilitator. Before RTP, we attempted a variety of approaches for handling disruptions. We tried a myriad of techniques, including “time out,” token systems, and “if-then” reasoning. None of these techniques had a long-lasting impact. Usually, the children resumed their disruptions immediately after or at some later point. In addition, it appeared as if the children perceived the teacher as “the bad guy”; they would direct their anger toward the teacher. The more we used RTP, the more students and teachers developed a mutually caring, nurturing, and loving relationship. We began to see that through the questioning process, we were showing these youngsters respect through our acceptance of their answers as their answers. Under the old method of telling and yelling, they would sense that we were trying to control them. The situation invariably got worse. By our using a calm, respectful, and curious approach, the students became less threatened, tended to calm down, and were more willing to interact with us. Mutual respect was created, and, at the same time, goals were achieved.Another problem with the techniques we had been using was that the children did not connect their behavior with the intended or unintended consequences of their actions. They became more manipulative and did not think about the consequences of their actions. Invariably, the disruptions continued: A teacher observed Jacob punching Tim-my in the arm, unaware that Timmy had taken Jacob’s book. The teacher would have said to Jacob, “No, you may not hit, go to time out.” Jacob might have felt frustrated. He did not have the verbal skills to express himself. He might have lost faith in his teacher. No thinking was involved on his part. And most importantly, mutual respect was absent. The application of RTP methods created quite different results.Teacher to Timmy and Jacob: What are you two doing? Jacob: He took the book I was reading. Teacher: What did you do? Jacob: I punched him. Teacher: Is it OK to punch? Jacob: No. Teacher: What happens when you hit? Jacob: I have to leave the group. Teacher: Will you be able to look at books if you hit someone? Jacob: No. Teacher: What could you do the next time someone takes away the book you are reading? Jacob: I don’t know.Teacher: Could you get another book?Jacob: Yes. Teacher: Now, what are you going to do the next time someone takes your book? (Since the plan was suggested by the teacher, it was best to ask a second time, to make sure the plan was understood and was part of what the student intended to do in the future.) Jacob: I’ll get another book.In this example, the teacher did a number of things. First, she listened to Jacob. She did not jump to conclusions. Second, she asked Jacob questions that helped him think. She also assisted him in making a plan for handling similar situ-ations in the future. The teacher did not alienate Jacob but rather maintained mutual respect. The teacher also asked Timmy similar questions: Teacher: What are you doing? Timmy: He punched me. Teacher: What were you doing? Timmy: I want to read this book. Teacher: What did you do to get that book? Timmy: I took it. Teacher: Is that OK? Timmy: No. Teacher: What are the rules? Timmy: We’re not supposed to grab. We’re supposed to ask.Teacher: What happens when you break the rules?Timmy: I can’t look at the book.Teacher: Is that what you want?Timmy: No. Teacher: Is taking away the book going to allow you to be in the group and look at the book? Timmy: No. Teacher: Next time you want a book that someone is looking at, what will you do? Timmy: I will tell him, "I want the book next."Teacher: If the child says, "No," what else could you do?Timmy: Go to the teacher.Teacher: Is there anything else you could do? Timmy: I guess I could get another book. (Notice that the teacher did not praise the child for coming up with a correct answer. The real reward for the child was the building of his own self-confidence, something he created within himself.) Here, the teacher helped the child think about what he could do next time. He was not shamed or made to feel embarrassed. It is unfortunate that adults use rewards and punishments to control children’s behavior. “Doing something” to a child takes away his dignity by not respecting his own ability to resolve his problems. What’s worse, the teacher then becomes the problem. Instead, violating others’ rights should be perceived by the child as his problem.Through its questioning format, RTP reveals what is happening within the child-what he is experiencing. RTP is not concerned with what the teacher thought she saw the child do, or what she heard, or what other children thought or heard about what the child did or did not do. Each individual has his own way of thinking. RTP respects the child’s viewpoint, while at the same time helping each child to respect others and follow the rules. Interestingly, children eventually learn the purpose of rules: to serve as useful guides to help them live in harmony with others. We know this is happening when we see them treat other children with respect. Frankie ran over to a teacher, complaining that John was taking the blocks he was using for building. Frankie was quite upset, and the teacher calmly walked over to the block area: Teacher (to John): What are you doing? John: They are my blocks. Teacher: I saw you take blocks from other children. Is that OK? John: Yes. Teacher: What are the rules for building with blocks? John: Blocks stay on the floor, and I have to share the blocks. Teacher: What are you doing? John: I don’t want to give Frankie my blocks.Teacher: Is that OK?John: No. Teacher: What happens when you don’t share?John: I can’t play.Teacher: Is that what you want?John: No. Teacher: What do you want, now? John: To build with the blocks. Teacher: If you do not give blocks to Frankie, will you be allowed to play? John: No. Teacher: What do you have to do if you want to play with the blocks? John: Give Frankie some of my blocks. Teacher: How will that help? John: I’ll get along with Frankie.It is very important that the teacher never indicate disapproval. Shaming is not a part of RTP. As we mentioned earlier, RTP allows for mutual respect to build between the students and teachers. Ultimately, we’ve watched the children slowly develop the same respect for each other. The following example demonstrates how the process respects the child. Robert, who has a low frustration tolerance, threw a pegboard across the room. Teacher (in a calm voice): What are you doing? Robert (angry): Nothing! Teacher: Did you throw the pegboard across the room? Robert (crying): My fingers are too big. I can’t fit the little pegs into the holes!Teacher (touching Robert and speaking to him in a caring voice): Is that OK to throw the pegboard across the room?Robert: No. Teacher: Could other children get hurt when you throw the pegboard? Robert: Yes. Teacher: What do you want now? Robert: I want to get the little pegs into the holes! Teacher: Is throwing the pegboard going to get the little pegs into the holes? Robert: No. Teacher: Do you want to learn how to put the little pegs into the holes? Robert: Yes. Teacher: Who could help you? Robert (pausing and looking around): A teacher. Teacher: The next time you need help, who will you ask to help you? Robert (smiling): A teacher. In using the RTP questions, the teacher was able to help Robert explore what was on his mind. She respected Robert by being patient and helping him to work through his frustration by using the questioning process. In the end, Robert had a plan for what he could do the next time. RTP is especially powerful for children who perceive themselves as powerless, as having no control over their lives. It provides teachers with a framework from which they can help children express what is on their minds. Then, children can experience the power within them to make choices that will get them what they want. During clean-up time, Freddie was climbing up and down a triangle. A teacher approached him. Teacher: Freddie, what are you doing? Freddie (before the teacher could ask “Is that OK?”): Climbing the triangle, and it’s not OK.With RTP, children increasingly think for themselves. No other process that we know fosters this. In the above case, the teacher did not need to pose any more questions. Freddie participated in clean-up and then washed for snack time. One hectic morning, four children were wrestling on the other side of the classroom. It so happened that two of our four teachers were absent. At that moment, the two remaining teachers were occupied on the other side of the room. One of them called out, “What are you doing?” The children who were wrestling stopped, looked over at the teacher, and one by one went to another area of the room and became engaged in other activities. In time, children understand the process quite well-so well that they begin cueing each other. For instance, a teacher was working with Chris. Amelia, who was nearby, began tossing pieces of playdough. Teacher: What are you doing? Chris (looking at Amelia, who was staring speechless at the teacher): Throwing the playdough. Amelia: Throw playdough. We are frequently asked by parents, directly or indirectly, how their child is getting along with other children. Is he following the rules and respecting teachers? RTP is a great resource for communicating with parents. We discuss each of the RTP questions and their child’s responses to them. Initially, in their struggle to deal with the rules, some children become annoyed and angered by the questions. But as they experience the questions and thus learn that there is consistency, fairness, and a calmness, we have found that the children become more and more open to participating. Over time, with rare exceptions, our children learn that each one of them is responsible for his own behavior. When children antagonize an adult with the consequences of their actions, this usually results in critic ism or punishment. RTP’s direct approach eliminates the crying and tantrums. With RTP, when children exhibit tantrums (hitting, screaming, or crying), an adult waits for the child to calm down before asking the RTP questions. Once the child is ready to talk, RTP can be used systematically and effectively.Some people are skeptical about using RTP questions for children with special needs. After all, many of them have language and cognitive delays. RTP requires children to answer what for them are complex questions that challenge them to think. RTP provides a format for learning how to answer questions; the questions relate to what the child is experiencing, thus the questions are meaningful to him. However, there are some children who do need extra teacher support to follow the questioning process. Augmentative devices, pictures, modeling, hand-over-hand as-sistance, and modifying the questions are important tools, especially for children with severe language and cognitive disabilities. Overlays can be custom-made to fit a variety of situations. The simplest overlay is the "Yes/No." Overlays can become more complicated by adding classroom rules and vocabulary related to RTP.Shantel, a non-verbal child with autism, uses a 36-grid overlay on a communication device to answer the RTP questions. (See diagram below.) The first row allows Shan-tel to answer the question “What are you doing?” This row has pictures and phrases that depict her most common disruptions. The second row allows Shantel to answer the question “What are the rules?” The third row allows Shan-tel to answer the question “What happens when you break the rules?” The fourth row allows Shantel to answer the question "What do you want to happen now?" The fifth row allows Shantel to answer the question "What do you need to get what you want?" Finally, the sixth row allows Shantel to choose to work or not to work. We can also ask other important questions related to a disruption, phrasing them as questions with Yes/No answers. This overlay is a fairly complicated example; with it, Shantel can participate successfully in the responsible thinking process. Jason, a nonverbal child with severe cognitive and physical impairments, hit a classmate to get her attention. Although Jason was beginning to follow one-step directions related to the daily routine, he did not understand the questioning process. He needed a two-grid overlay with Yes/No on it to help him through the questioning process. Teacher (showing augmentative device with Yes/No overlay to Jason): What are you doing? Jason: (No response.) Teacher (with a hitting motion as a visual cue): Were you hitting Kim? Jason: (Points to "No" on overlay.)Teacher (pointing to “Yes” on overlay): Yes, you hit Kim.Jason: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: What are the rules?Jason: (Points to rule chart displayed on wall at child’s eye level. The chart is a poster with words and pictures of classroom rules.)Teacher (pointing to picture on rule chart of child holding his hands on his lap): We keep our hands to ourselves.Jason: (Points to picture on rule chart.) Teacher: What happens when you break the rules? Jason: (No response.) Teacher: Do you go to the RTC? Jason: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: Is that what you want to happen?Jason: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher (pointing to door leading to RTC): Do you want to go visit the RTC room? (Pointing to "No" on overlay.) No, you want to be with the group.Jason: (Also points to "No" on overlay.)Teacher: What do you need to do to stay in the group?Jason: (No response.) Teacher (cueing for an alternative behavior): Do you want to wave at Kim? Jason: (Waves at Kim.) Teacher: What happens if you hit Kim again? Jason: (No response.) Teacher: Do you go to the RTC? Jason: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: OK, you’re on caution.The teacher then sends Jason to the caution chart to change the color of his name card from green to yellow. The caution chart is a poster on which each child has a name card (one side green, the other side yellow). The cards provide a reminder that they have been acting responsibly (green) or that they are on caution (yellow), so that the next disruption will result in visiting the RTC. It is important to provide children with significant developmental delays many opportunities to follow through with their plans. For instance, Jason’s plan was to wave to Kim to get her attention. The next time Jason hit Kim, the teacher would ask, while modeling the waving, “Are you following the plan?” Jason would then wave. Thus, he would get practice in following his plan. If he did not follow the plan and chose to hit Kim, the teacher would go through the questioning process again, and he would the n visit the RTC.Angela is a five-year-old with mild cognitive delays and severe language impairments. She expresses her wants by using one-word sentences. Angela answers questions with yes or no answers appropriately, but she has great difficulty answering “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” questions. Her goal was to answer the RTP questions using one word. The RTP method gave her the opportunity to learn how to respond to “who,” “what,” “when,” and “where” questions within the context of the meaningful experiences tha t RTP provides. When the child breaks a rule, she be-comes aware of her actions and works with her teacher to resolve the problem. Angela constantly grabbed objects that belonged to children and teachers. The art supplies were on a table, out of reach of all of the children. The teacher asked the children to sit at the art table and keep their hands on their laps. Angela reached over to grab the glue.Teacher: What are you doing? Angela: (No response.) Teacher: Are you touching the glue? Angela: Yes. Teacher (modeling the answer): Tell me: "Touching."Angela: Touching.Teacher: What are you doing? Angela: Touching. Teacher: What is the rule? Angela: (No response.) Teacher: Is it to keep our hands to ourselves? Angela: Yes. Teacher: Tell me: "Hands."Angela: Hands.Teacher: What is the rule? Angela (putting her hands on her lap): Hands, hands. Teacher: What happens when you break the rules? Angela: (No response.) Teacher: Do you go to the RTC? Angela: Yes. Teacher: Tell me: "RTC."Angela: RTC.Teacher: What happens when you break the rules? Angela: RTC. Teacher: Is this what you want to happen? Angela: No. Teacher: What do you need to do to stay with the group? Angela: (Pats her hands in her lap.) Teacher: What happens when you disrupt again? Angela: (No response.) Teacher: Tell me: "RTC."Angela: RTC.Teacher: What happens when you disrupt again? Angela: RTC. Teacher: OK, you are on caution. Angela: (Changes her name card on the caution chart to yellow.) Jason and Angela initially needed teacher support, vis-ual cues, and augmentative devices to answer the RTP questions. By the end of the school year, Angela was answer- ing “what” questions appropriately and independently, using three- and four-word sentences. Jason was verbally answering questions with yes or no answers appropriately. Not only were they answering the questions appropriately, but Jason and Angela also displayed a greater respect for other students’ rights as they followed their plans .Classroom staff and eight-year-old Lee’s mother were skeptical about her ability to understand and follow RTP. Lee is a very low-functioning nonverbal child with autism. On one occasion, Lee’s mother was volunteering in the classroom. She observed the teacher employing RTP with Lee for the first time. The children were going through a simple obstacle course; Lee did not want to participate. She preferred to be left alone at all times. The teacher told her it was time to go through the obstacle course. Teacher: What are you doing?Lee: (Looks past the teacher, a common response for her.) Teacher: Are you playing? Lee: (Points to "No" on overlay.)Teacher: What is the rule?Lee: (Looks past the teacher.) Teacher: Is it to follow directions? Lee: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: What happens when you break the rules?Lee: (Looks past the teacher.) Teacher: Do you go to the RTC? Lee: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: Is this what you want to happen?Lee: (Points to "No" on overlay.)Teacher: What do you need to do to stay with the group?Lee: (Looks past the teacher.) Teacher: Do you need to play? Lee: (Points to "Yes" on overlay.)Teacher: What happens when you disrupt again?Lee: (Looks past the teacher.) Teacher: Do you go to the RTC? Lee: (Points to "Yes" on the overlay.)Without another word from the teacher, Lee completed the obstacle course. Her mother and the classroom staff were shocked. There will be times when a child refuses to respond to RTP. One approach is to calmly ask him to leave the group and sit in a quiet area in the classroom until he is ready to talk. Phillip was one of those children. He would not participate in RTP. He was asked to leave the group. Phillip left angrily. Ten minutes later, he returned, ready to speak. Phillip was “in control.” He decided when he was ready. Another approach is to ask a child to leave the group and go to the RTC until he is ready to work. Nine-year-old Amy, a child with multiple handicaps, learned RTP in a short time. Her DynaVox (an augmentative device) was programmed with RTP vocabulary. Amy insisted on accomplishing tasks in her own time. She could wait a long time when following simple directions or completing simple tasks. Many times, Amy refused to perform a task even when it was made desirable. Amy needed to push her wheelchair to the classroom next door. (She loved this class.) Teacher: What are you doing? Amy: (Turns head away from the teacher.) Teacher: You need to go into your RTP page on your DynaVox. Amy: (Takes teacher’s hand and pushes the RTP button on her DynaVox.)Teacher: What are you doing?Amy: (Turns head away again.) Teacher: Are you going to work with me? Remember, if you choose not to work with me, you choose to go to the RTC. Amy: (Pushes the button for "I don’t want to work now.")Teacher: You’ve chosen to go to the RTC.(Amy was taken to the RTC to make a plan for following directions. When the plan was completed and negotiated, she returned to the classroom.) Teacher: Amy, push yourself to the classroom next door. (Amy immediately pushed herself next door.) If a child chooses not to work, he is given time in the RTC or away from the group, in the classroom, until he is ready to work. A teacher must judge when it is appropriate for the child to go either to the RTC or to an area in the classroom to develop a written or verbal plan. How a teacher makes this decision depends on how the RTC staff cooperate with the child and his teachers. Other considerations are the child’s age and where the child best develops plans. (Never do Carmen’s three- and four-year-olds go to the school RTC. They stay in the classroom. Erin’s five- to eight-year-olds occasionally choose the RTC, and Erin works in close cooperation with the RTC staff.) An example of the latter case is when a child, regardless of being in another part of the classroom because he was disrupting in the group, might find ways to continue disrupting. Developing a plan in the classroom would not be appropriate, because the child is not willing to follow rules. In that case, it would be advisable to send t he child to the RTC to develop a plan. If a child wants to be an active participant in class activities, he will be willing to develop a plan in the classroom.A child’s developmental age is important when determining if the child goes to a location within the classroom or visits the RTC. A child functioning at an infant level could find the RTC overwhelming and experience anxiety. Clearly, that child would be unable to develop a plan. If that child remained in the classroom, he could focus on the plan. Teachers must be flexible when determining the best location for making the plan. When children with special needs visit the RTC, it is important to educate the RTC staff about each child’s capabilities. For example, Amy, mentioned above, needed assistance in using her DynaVox augmentative device. Speci- fically, she had difficulty stabilizing her arm to push the buttons on her DynaVox. The special education teacher taught the RTC staff how to mobilize her arm so she could communicate with them. Frequent communication between the RTC staff and classroom staff must occur in order for there to be optimum success.Many teachers, parents, and administrators think that children with special needs, pre-school to elementary, do not have the capability to respond to or understand RTP. It is our experience that when teachers make a conscious effort to help children participate in RTP, these children will rise to the occasion. They can learn to control their perceptions while, at the same time, respecting the rights of their peers, resulting in more time for learning, exploring, and playing. |
Carmen Duron