As with all descriptions of client encounters, materiel changes are made to protect client confidentiality.
As a licensed professional, I'm required to participate in "continuing education" to keep my license current. After 33 years in the field, I've seen a lot of CE unit offerings, some interesting, lots boring. Some of the best were CEU's I constructed myself to address my own interests, including 2 weeks with Peter Fleming in southern Italy studying Contribution Training (see my website for more) as well as the CEU's received in pursuit of certification with Ross Greene Ph.D., author of The Explosive Child and Lost at School and a 5 year NIMH study recently published proving the efficacy of his method of "Collaborative Proactive Solutions."
I'd seen and heard of the "Explosive Child" book, but had no intent to enter Greene's room early last summer. Getting the CEU's for my license renewal was all I wanted. So I explored the vacation option, you know, the one where professionals get their CEU's and vacation at the same time.
Cape Cod, early summer, the beach, my wife could come, family in New England I could visit. The dates worked. So place and time was set. Now to pick a class that I wanted to learn. It was Ross Greene or some other class that I found to be a bit too touchy feely for my taste, so Greene it was.
I read The Explosive Child on the trip north feeling some obligation to be a responsible student. Well, I read most of it, it was vacation after all. I could read the rest through the week of the conference, which is what I did (having little option, being laid up the entire time with a bad back. It was that or lots of bad TV, so I compromised, reading some and watching some, not lots of bad TV.) When the class began on a high school campus with weathering on its buildings and trees from the thick Cape Cod moisture, the comfortable informality of The Cape was evident, flip flops and t-shirts abounding.
Greene was unassuming - as high end scholars can be. He had been on faculty at Harvard, what else is there to say - or as so many from that most esteemed institution do, to not have to say. Confident, soft spoken, not overbearing like some successful creators of methodologies. Friendly. I was not prepared to be impressed as he rolled out his experience of working with tough kids. I thought he might be one of those guys with a great personality, a lot of charisma that can be so influential but so very hard to replicate. I'd been working with tough kids for decades, so I figured there'd be some reformulation of principles and strategies that have become standard in working with hard kids like: Parents need to be in control and execute a clear behavioral plan centered around "if/then" contingencies such as: "Johnny, IF you clean up your room, THEN you get to go outside and play;" A behavioral plan that is intuitive, scientifically validated by all of my Applied Behavior Analysis colleagues, the bedrock of family systems theory where the parents function as the "executive branch" of the family, setting the structure for the children. How does collaboration fit into this?
I started to pay attention as Green repeatedly focused on the importance of carefully and accurately understanding the child's point of view - not from the parents, or the therapist, or the teacher, but from the kid. I became more intrigued when Greene reinforced over and over the importance of avoiding describing the problem to be discussed in therms of "problem behaviors." He then (had the audacity to) suggest we not present the child with our "theories" about "why" they are behaving in the fashion that's causing us such discontent. Imagine, denying us, the highly educated, very experienced therapists our moment to enlighten the child about their inner motivations. Denying parents who know the kids best - why can't they communicate their expert point of view to their own child?!? Teachers who often spend more time with the child than the parents - they have a real objective point of view to offer the child. All of us adults know what's really going on. So why NOT allow us our moment to "communicate" our observations with the child?
The reason the Collaborative Proactive Solutions model doesn't encourage the sharing of our erudite "theories" with the child is because what we've done, inadvertent as it may be, is overwhelm and intimidate children with our theories. Theories that are often way over the child's cognitive level to understand anyway. Theories that often demean or embarrass the child by pointing out in grand style their lack of judgement and lack of restraint. We haven't left the child behind, we've used shame to attempt to change their behavior. We repeatedly accuse our children of aggression, irresponsibility, bad intent and disregard for parents and siblings welfare. The fact that sometimes the theories may be accurate is besides the point. When the child's being overwhelmed by our power, they are much more likely to respond in a defensive and even hostile fashion, adding more fuel to the fire of the conflict.
Now shame may have some place in child rearing, but, in my view, only when children are very very young and in very proscribed circumstances. We've all seen a small child erupt in tears when they've done something wrong and a parent simply looks at them in a disappointed fashion without saying a word. That's shaming. It can have a proper function, when integrated into the child's emotional package, of self reflection. But the level of shaming that we participate in with our kids in the name of helping them is grossly misguided in my opinion. This is exactly what CPS avoids. By asking children about their behavior in a way that doesn't focus on their behavior (not really as hard as you might think), we lower their defensiveness and heighten their willingness to participate. By dropping our theories, we create a much broader space for the child to tell us their views of the situation. By validating what they say in a reflective, non confronting way, we encourage them to say more. By not pressing them about "why" they did or did not do something (see my post of 3/2/15 "The End of the 'Why' Question") we draw them to tell us what's really on their mind. And isn't that what we really want to know anyway??
Asking the child in a neutral way welcomes participation. Responding in confirming, supportive and non-judgmental ways will garner us much more information much more effectively. Using "reflective listening" (which many parents have learned at some point in college or training), in which we reflect back what the child is telling us in a non judgmental fashion allows space for more communication - and isn't THAT our goal? Remember, parents, listening reflectively isn't agreeing, it's just listening and creating a space for the child to trust and talk.
So I paid more attention to what Greene was saying. And it was made more and more sense as the week continued.
I returned to Atlanta, much more thoughtful than I'd anticipated being after my mostly bedridden week in New England and gave it the old college try. An 11 y/o boy with classic high functioning autism who had come due to some new behavioral concerns. He sat looking at a random spot on the floor, typical for lots of kids on the spectrum who find eye contact difficult. I asked, open ended questions, hoping for a thread of response to which I could "actively listen." It was the longest 25 minutes of any session I've ever had. I was trying to actively listen to shoulder shrugs, to monosyllabic grunts or to the ever present mumbled "I don't know." Slowly, carefuly, I responded. He responded. Repeat. I worked hard; no theory, no behaviors, no "why" questions. This went on for a while and after responding to concerns that actually sounded like a full thought, he looked up - making eye contact - long, lingering eye contact with me for the first time since walking in the door - and after a dramatic pause said with great emotional affect, "Finally, someone's listening to me!" (emphasis not added) Well, that pretty much did it for me - I'd interviewed hundreds of kids on the spectrum without getting a response like that. He's doing great now - really. He still has autism, but we learned enough to put in place enough that provides him the supports he needs.
I was hooked and soon signed up for Greene's advanced certification program.
If you read this blog, you're likely to hear more.
