Contents
Chapter 7
Chapter 16
Chapter 18
Chapter 19

[Back to Books]
 
[Back to Brandt Publishing]

Chapter 16
Developing Personal Responsibility 
in the Disabled Child

Erin Powell smeepowell@yahoo.com
Special Education Teacher
Gateway Elementary School
Creighton Elementary School District
Phoenix, Arizona

A real test of the validity of the responsible thinking process for many educators is how well the
process works with special ed students. As I've traveled throughout the U.S. and overseas, I've
heard both teachers and administrators claim over and over again that many special ed children
cannot think and decide for themselves how to deal responsibly with their peers and adults. Some
educators claim that a number of these children really can't distinguish right from wrong, and so
teachers and parents are held responsible for the children's actions.

Erin Powell, without a doubt one of the most competent special ed teachers I've ever met, at one
time believed that her students were limited with regard to personal responsibility. For many years,
she had trained others in the use of behavior modification. But Erin was willing to challenge her own
beliefs and what she had learned from others. I often recall the day I was visiting Erin's class when
little Jimmy refused to line up. I was overwhelmed by what she did with Jimmy and the other
children. Even to write these words brings tears to my eyes.

Erin had seven students in class that day, all between five and eight years old. Jane was six years
old, with mild mental retardation. She tried to speak in complete sentences, but others had great
difficulty understanding what she said. Vanessa and Amy were seven years old and were also mildly
mentally retarded. Sheryl was an eight-year-old non-verbal autistic child who used communication
overlays and signing to communicate. Oscar was also an autistic eight-year-old. He communicated
verbally using at least three-word sentences. Eddy was five years old, with severe mental
retardation. He was microcephalic and used a wheelchair that gave him maximum support. He could
roll on the floor to go small distances in the classroom, and other individuals pushed him in his
wheelchair. He was working to express himself by using a switch connected to a loop tape. Finally,
there was six-year-old Jimmy, who was labeled severely mentally retarded. He had difficulty
speaking but was beginning to use single-word phrases. Jimmy used a walker to move around.

Erin asked the students to line up for lunch. All except Jimmy formed a line; Jimmy started walking
around the room. Erin guided him to a wall with a poster depicting the classroom rules and a board
with "Yes" and "No" communication symbols on it. Using RTP, she guided him through the
questions, and Jimmy finally committed to following the rules and began to make his plan, using the
symbols to communicate. While Jimmy was working with Erin, the other students waited patiently in
line listening to Jimmy. There wasn't one disruption. When Jimmy was done answering Erin's
questions, excited by having made a plan, he turned to walk toward the other students in line. In his
excitement, he bumped into a desk, laughed, then took his place at the end of the line. He was
smiling at us and, unintentionally, bumped into the person in front of him. Erin suggested to Jimmy
that he take his place at the front of the line and lead the class to the cafeteria.

Jimmy was so proud that he was being responsible by leading the class to the cafeteria, he often
looked back and smiled at the adults. Sometimes when he looked back, he bumped into a post or a
wall. And when he did, he would laugh and then proceed onwards. Meanwhile, the rest of the class
followed Jimmy, staying in line without any adult telling them what to do. Jane, hardly reaching the
top of Eddy's wheelchair, was pushing him while staying in line. This was her classroom job. At the
cafeteria, some of the children, on their own or with some assistance, took their appropriate seats at
the table. Others went through the line to get food for those who couldn't manage it on their own.
Remarkable!

So many educators suppose that children like those in Erin's classroom could not do many of the
things they did on that day (or any other day). They couldn't learn to respect the rights of other
students. They couldn't learn to help others when the need presented itself. I saw, firsthand, how
children with severe disabilities could be successful and responsible for their actions using
higher-order thinking. On that day, Erin Powell taught me far more than I could have ever taught
her.

Ed Ford 

I have always taught self-contained Varying Exceptionalities classrooms. I've worked with primary,
intermediate, and middle school aged students, who function mostly in the mild to severe mental
retardation range. Among these students are children with physical impairments, visual impairments,
autism, and medical fragility. All of my students are mainstreamed into the general curriculum at
some level; some go daily to the regular education classroom, while others go a few times a week.
All are included in music, art, physical education, special events, and other non-academic programs.
Having my students included in the school community is a major goal; therefore, it is important that
my students participate in our school's RTP program.

I heard Ed Ford speak about RTP three years ago. I became excited about the possibilities of RTP
because I was tired of token economy, group and individual contingency, and response-cost
programs that I had learned about in my college behavioral modification courses. It took so much
time and resources to develop and implement them, and once I got them started, including the
training of staff and students, and they seemed to be working well, they would always lose their
effectiveness. Before my introduction to RTP, I thought that using behavioral modification
techniques was the only way to manage my class. As I learned about RTP, I kept thinking to myself,
"How are my students going to be included in this?" At the time, half of my students did not know
how to comprehend questions, much less answer them appropriately, and some of my students
were completely non-verbal. I asked Ed Ford for advice on how I could implement this program in
my classroom. Ed replied,"The same way as with other students." And he told me that I should have
high expectations for my students. I took his advice and developed ways to adapt the program so
that my students could participate.

In order to implement RTP with my students who did not comprehend how to answer questions, I
adapted the RTP questioning process by simplifying the questions, supplying visual aids, and adding
role-playing situations. Here is an example showing how I adapted the RTP for one of my students.
Jimmy was a 6-year-old boy who was severely mentally retarded and physically impaired. He used
a walker to ambulate. He talked using one-word utterances to express his needs, and he had
difficulty answering basic questions related to daily events. Jimmy sometimes would disobey
directions and hit other people, bringing attention to himself. One day, the students in my class were
asked to line up to go to lunch, and Jimmy started walking in circles and hitting the students in line
while laughing.

Teacher: What are you doing?

Jimmy: (Looks at teacher while laughing.)

Teacher: Are you hitting other students? (She pretends to hit herself.)

Jimmy: (Points to "Yes" on communication overlay.)

Teacher: What are the rules? (Points to our classroom rules chart with realistic pictures paired with
written rules.)

Jimmy: (Points to appopriate picture-rule pairing on chart.)

Teacher: That's right, Jimmy. We keep our hands to ourselves. (Teacher pats her hands on her lap
to illustrate rule.)

Teacher: What happens when you break the rules? Do you hurt other people? (Mimicking the faces
of the students who were hit.)

Jimmy: (Points to "No" on communication overlay.)

Teacher: Yes, it does hurt. Can you tell me, 'Yes'?

Jimmy: (Points to "Yes" on communication overlay.)

Teacher: Is this what you want? Do you want to hurt your friends?

Jimmy: (Points to "No" on communication overlay.)

Teacher: What are you going to do now? Are you going to line up with your hands to yourself?
(Pretending to line up this way.)

Jimmy: (Points to "Yes" on communication overlay.)

Teacher: What happens if you disrupt again? Do you go to the responsible thinking classroom?

Jimmy: (Points to "Yes" on communication overlay, then gets in line and stands still while waiting to
leave.)

Jimmy needed visual aids, help from me, and role playing to handle the RTP questioning. This
assistance enabled him to comprehend the questioning. He was the one who was controlling his
experiences, who was thinking about what he wanted. His actions were merely what he used to
achieve his goal; his actions were not his goals. I was no longer forcing him to change his behavior
by trying to control him through reinforcements. Instead, by using the questioning process suggested
by RTP, I was teaching him to think about how he could achieve his goals without hurting others. As
time went on, Jimmy became able to understand and answer the questions verbally using two-word
utterances.

For my non-verbal students, I have created various overlays for their communication devices that
facilitate their answering the RTP questions. The number of locations on each student's overlay
depend on his or her comprehension ability. Sean, a five-year-old labeled severely mentally
retarded, used a two-grid overlay with "Yes" and "No" programmed on his communication device.
Cindy, an 11-year-old multiply handicapped child, used a nine-grid overlay on her communication
device. She had locations programmed with the following rules: "Keep hands to yourself," "Be nice
to our friends," and "Follow directions". She also had on her overlay: "Yes," "No," "RTC," "I am
ready to work," "I like this plan," and "I need a break." Sharon,an eight-year-old autistic child, used
a 32-grid overlay to communicate. Phrases on Sharon's overlay referred to her most common
disruptions (such as running and not following directions), "Yes", "No," the classroom rules, and
alternative behaviors that she could choose instead of disrupting.

Even though it took some time to teach the students how to comprehend the questions, I found that
it was time well spent. They--including students with severe disabilities--were learning to think for
themselves while respecting the rights of others. They were becoming responsible for how they
treated others while they were trying to achieve what they wanted. At times, it was a matter of
asking the initial question: "What are you doing?" Then, I could see the student stop and think about
it. For instance, Tammy was a six-year-old with mild mental retardation who spoke using two- to
three-word utterances. One day at Story Time, the students were participating in a flannel-board
story. Tammy kept jumping up to grab a flannel-board piece, even though it was not her turn. I
repeatedly told her to sit down and wait for her turn, but she did not listen. I had slipped back into
my old ways of dealing with students. Once I realized this, I waited for the next opportunity. Then,
the next time she jumped up to grab a flannel-board piece, I asked her, "What are you doing?" She
stopped, dropped the piece, sat down, and said, "Hands to self." Another example: Todd, a
multiply handicapped eight-year-old, was dumping clay onto the floor. I asked him what he was
doing, and he stopped dumping the clay onto the floor and resumed playing appropriately. And
another: Sharon, a low-functioning autistic seven-year-old, was running away from the class after
being asked to line up. When I asked her what she was doing, she stopped running and joined the
line.

Now I am working in a VE classroom with fifth, sixth, and seventh grade-aged students. Using RTP
has been easier with older students. I still adapt the questions for some students, but they are more
mature and able to learn the questioning process quicker. Jennifer, a non-verbal autistic
12-year-old, sometimes hits other people who wear glasses or have hair in their faces. When she
hits other people, I go over the RTP questions with her. She uses the classroom rules chart and a
nine-grid overlay to express herself. The overlay has phrases like "Yes," "No," "Glasses off," "Move
hair," "Move please," "Leave me alone," "I'm mad," and "Can I go away?" Jennifer has learned how
to communicate instead of hitting others through the plans she has developed with RTP. Peter is a
12-year-old student with mild mental retardation. Before he came to my class, he had been placed
into detention and suspended numerous times from a previous school for skipping classes, stealing,
and fighting. His previous school did not use RTP. Within the first month during which he used the
process, Peter came to me three times and told me that he was going to fight a person but then
remembered his plan. He developed a plan to walk away as soon as he became mad at someone.
Peter independently followed his plan using RTP. Because of this, he has avoided at least three
fights.

I have been using RTP for three years. Through the years, there have been some frustrations. The
hardest thing is getting the staff to use this process consistently. As in many self-contained
classrooms, the staff turnover rate is high; therefore, I am constantly teaching new people to use
RTP. It is hard for people to understand the significance of using the process if they have not gone
through training that includes an introduction to perceptual control theory. PCT provides whole new
way to look at individuals and their behaviors, especially for those who have been trained in
behavior modification.

To reduce the time required to teach staff, including instructional aides, speech therapists,
occupational therapists, physical therapists, and volunteers, I have found it helpful to provide visual
aids and models for staff to use in RTP questioning. I have the questions posted in the room next to
the classroom rules chart. The questions are in large lettering. I also give the staff small cards with
the questions written on them. These cards go with us when we are out of the room. I walk the staff
through the questioning process whenever a disruption occurs. Even though this stops the class
activity, it is a learning experience for everyone. Not only does it provide a model for the classroom
staff, but it also provides a model for the students.

Another frustration I have encountered is getting parents involved in the RTP process. It is difficult
to teach parents proficiency in using the process. Even though my students' parents sign a discipline
policy plan describing how RTP is used in the classroom, and even though I regularly discuss how
their children are using the process throughout the year, I have found that most of the parents do not
use this process at home. During meetings with parents who have asked for help with controlling
their children's home behaviors, I have thought to myself, "What a perfect opportunity to teach the
RTP process." But after I explained RTP and the theory behind it, and left copies of the questions
with the parents, I discovered that the parents still were not using the questions at home and, thus,
still continued to have disruptions at home. I have come to believe that parents need training in their
homes so that they fully understand the RTP process. In such training, the parents are encourged to
learn the questioning procedures, plan developments procedures, and negotiating procedures. After
observing the process as used by others, the parents would have opportunities to use the process
themselves, initially under the guidance of an expert.

The final frustration I have experienced is that I am currently at a school that does not have a
responsible thinking classroom. The RTC is a very important component of RTP, especially for
older students. The RTC is a place where the students have an opportunity to work on a written
plan. It is a place away from the environment where they are disrupting. It is a place that has trained
staff to help the students. The RTC is a great place to negotiate students' plans because it is a quiet
and safe environment. When I taught at a school with an RTC, the RTC teacher was incredible with
my students. She learned how to use communication devices for individual students, she trained her
staff on each child's needs, and she knew how to adapt the questions for each student. Because
there is no RTC to which my students can choose to go, we have developed a substitute. My
students go to a "thinking chair" within the classroom when they disrupt for a second time. This is
where they develop and negotiate a verbal plan with staff.

Since we have implemented RTP, I no longer have to spend countless hours on developing behavior
modification programs that ultimately lose their effectiveness. I still encounter daily disruptions from
students in my classroom. These will always occur. The important difference is that my students are
becoming more and more responsible for how they deal with others as they strive to get what they
themselves want. This insures that their choices are purposeful. I no longer use behavior
modification programs. Controlling and manipulating students is ineffective. I'm teaching my students
to think for themselves.

RTP not only allows my students to use their higher-order thought processes--cognitive skills that
many people have claimed are not possible for students with severe disabilities--it also allows my
students to be responsible for themselves. And is this not the ultimate goal we should strive for with
all individuals?