Childrens Challenging Behaviour - Essay Example

Children’s Challenging Behaviour Client Inserts His/her Name Client Inserts Grade Course Client Inserts Tutor’s Name 30/04/2012 ASSIGNMENT I Introduction to Challenging Behaviour in Children; Causes and Responses A challenging behaviour refers to any form of behaviour that alters the normal learning and/or development of the child/pupil (Penny, Christine & Jill 2001). This behaviour affects not only the owner (the child portraying it), but it also affects the other children with whom he or she is learning with and the adults who mostly get concerned on any unbecoming behaviour or better, any positive behaviour (Parenting Home 2012). The adults of concern may be the parents/guardian, caretaker at an orphanage, teacher(s) of such a child and the public. For a child in a particular kindergarten, the concerned teacher or any staff attending to the child’s needs may feel that their efforts are at large frustrated. That is why it becomes necessary for any qualified person dealing with young children to have a deep understanding of how such issues are handled professionally. The issue, for example, understands the cause of certain behaviour in a particular child, previously unrecorded is the first line in attempting to solve the problem (Penny et al. 2001). What should be kept in mind is the fact that challenging behaviour will certainly affect the child’s future social aspects and can also greatly affect the performance of the whole school. Among school children, a challenging behaviour occurs in many different forms. Temper tantrums in a child leads as an example. Children, although we do not often expect a lot from them in terms of reasoning, there are some temper regimes that generally are not normal. Being un-cooperative among children is often an observable behaviour. In a typical class, a teacher may come across a child who does not concentrate throughout a lesson and apparently refuses to adhere to some simple rules and guidelines. Some children will make unreasonable demands (Penny et al. 2001). For example, consider a child demanding to see his or her mother during school time. That would be quite challenging and for a child, you just not go for ‘you just sit down and listen’ angle. Some challenging behaviours are quite complex. You will find some of the children injuring themselves; threaten his or her fellow children by charging them physically and shouting at others. Arriving to school late is also a form of challenging behaviour especially if it is apparently a recently acquired one (Dunn, Austin, & Huster 1997). Another common challenging behaviour among children is poor eating habits. This can be as weird as smearing food on the face. Mischievous accusations against fellow children and insisting on their being punished are also common. Other children will refuse to work with others during learning and/or playing. These will exclude themselves and technically are lone rangers. Different forms of challenging behaviour indicate different causes and subsequently different angles to take in an attempt to find a solution. Some are socially stirred, some emotionally, psychologically, genetically and physically (History on the Net Group 2001). Some children will be abnormally noisy and hitting at any object they come across such that they may end up destroying public property, school property, his or her own properties or those of his or her fellow classmates. Various studies have displayed challenging behaviour as a major problem that no one should ignore and thence concludes that they are indeed challenging and can develop to an irreversible level if ignored. Challenging behaviour develops gradually to a point of no return if uncontrolled in advance. Causes of strange behaviour are several and it calls for any carer to concede the challenge of first investigating the root of the problem; A child in pain after a physical injury may appear un-cooperating for example. He or she may detest any directives given and consequently disobey. He or she unknowingly attends first to his or her trauma. With no ability or willingness to express his or her problems, the final resort ends up turning into disobedience. A child finds it rather hard to communicate essentially because he or she thinks either it is a vice or to a lesser extent, it will be shameful. Pain may be emotional or physical. Emotional pain may be originating from apparently social neglect from the child’s point of view. Again, this neglect may originate from yet another bigger problem. For example, self hate and poor display of mingling with others. The cause of emotional disorder in children may be as funny as parents denying a certain obviously unreasonable demand from their children. In fact some children will refuse to eat and so on (Dunn, Austin, & Huster 1997). At the age of kindergarten children (usually 3-5 years of age), the children will generally show a reduced appetite for food whether hungry or not, at home or at school. This may be seen rather as strange but it is common. Children will show slow growth as compared to other ages (infant age and teenage). Lack of efficiency in feeding may therefore appear a challenging behaviour to the parent or any other caretaker where much of the food carried from home to the school may end up being wasted. A qualified children educator or nutritionally informed parents automatically accepts the challenge and sees to it that the child feeds on a healthy diet. Some problems are genetically engineered. This way, the behaviour inherently embedded in the children and thus realizing this may be time-taking. Genetically acquired behaviour may be hard to control because its nature carries its own originality and normalcy. However, there are ways to tackle even the weirdest behaviour basically because every problem with a cause has possible cure. For example, excessive eating habits as a genetically acquired behaviour can be tackled by giving a particular selection of mix of foods that in the long run will be only supplying the needed empirical nutritive substances. Mental health condition of child may change the actions of the child and this may be hard for unqualified child attendee to pin down. Psychological understanding of a particular child during the first schooling days will lead a long way to noting a change in particular traits of the child in question (Aeppli 1986). Mental health alteration can cause emotional disorientation and one may find a child either exceedingly silent, inattentive or doing weird things. Detection of such behaviour may be noted when, for example, a child gives answers that are completely out of scope and apparently on ad hoc basis when unexpectedly asked a question. Lunacy is also possible, a case where, hallucinations may be striking (Jorm, Matthews & Maclean 2006). Other specific ailments such as epilepsy need medical attention and relentless brotherly care (Jorm et al. 2006). Mental health problems are of the type that calls for parent’s attention. Some of emotional problems originate from parental or the carer’s neglect (Elizabeth 2012; Parenting Home 2012). Challenging behaviour may be acquired too. A kindergarten child is in the course of learning different phenomena in his or her new world. Virtually everything is new and thus beautiful to the young mind. The children take their toll in mingling with new friends, learning how to communicate with them and appreciating their values (Vicki et al. 2012). Delicate as the child is, he or she is likely to acquire and uphold new values which will translate changing behaviour on the concerned adult. The social environments in which a child grows or dwells in most of his or her time require analysis and control. Often, children have been misunderstood leading to dangerous restrictions on the child’s movements and the need to express themselves (Keith, Ayhan & Carolyn 2001). However, this is not the way to go about it. Parents need timetabling. A special time must be spared for attending to family affairs as these are as important as attending to diplomatic duties in the work place (Shaw 1998). It is advisable to guide the children rather than setting rules and demanding forcibly a child to adhere to. Children have feelings too and indeed, they are ‘just small people’ (Keith et al. 2001). Children’s lack of ability to communicate is a problem in itself as opposed to the problem to communicate other problems such as injuries. This originates from the behaviour of the caretakers. It is not funny that many parents casually and harshly rebuke a particular behaviour in a manner that makes their kids fear them at the expense of respecting them (Keith et al. 2001). In some communities, children are strictly neither allowed to speak nor sit around adults. What do we expect of such children in terms of communicating their problems or answering questions to an adult? The obvious element of fear corrodes the internal self worth of a child, who practically does not distinguish times when he or she is right or wrong thing. Instead, everything told to a grownup appears erroneous. Self expression is the gateway to success for your child even in his later life (Jorm et al. 2006). Conclusion There are many other forms challenging behaviour of substantial significance. All forms of challenging behaviour are defined by the surrounding society (Keith et al. 2001). Their different forms suggest that they need to be tackled differently. However, there are general guidelines that one need to follow and in order of sequence they include; (i) understand well the reasons for the behaviour (in other words, try to establish the cause) and (ii) treat the cause. Controlling your anger is a virtue in this task. Gentle punishment can be introduced to particular behaviour especially acquired behaviour–acquired behaviour is the easiest to control. ASSIGMENT II POLICIES FOR CHALLENGING BEHAVIOUR Policy on Managing Challenging Behaviours This is a policy that attempts to control the governing of challenging behaviour observed among various children. It concerns the children that are under the care of Bexley Council and the Social Policy Management Services (SPMS). The policy provides a framework that will ensures that children are given deserving care. It thus focuses on the carer’s practices as they are the key close components to the children and children perceive them as both as parents and/or role models. It guides the carers and any staff close to or attending and involving themselves in children’s day to day activities. It integrates local procedures and presupposes that each carer must prove adherence to them or do better. However it allows for some flexibility given that it may not be entirely practical in all areas of Bexley Council’s service (BCC 2000). The policy bases its arguments on the theory that the carer holds the future of the child. This is more or less a fact because the child cannot govern his or her behaviour as adults do. Adults, in contrast, use common senses and on choice, adopt what behaviour codes that they think conform to the society’s expectations. For the children, the policy gives the responses expected from the carers geared towards combating challenging behaviour. They are the bait the children are expected to bite anyway, given the closeness thereof. The policy cuts cross both kindergarten-age children and older young people. It emphasizes coming up with individual care plan and Behaviour Management Plan (BMP) for every child and this forms the main strategy. The policy first calls for the carers in a particular institution or area to work as a team whenever possible, be hypersensitive to personal needs of each child and respond appropriately, be critical so as to note changes as they are displayed by each child and determine the threshold for these changes and think ‘twice’ on how to tackle the problem and find solution (BCC 2000). It also advocates for training of the carers whenever possible so as they can get and gauge the effectiveness of their prior practice. A potentially violent situation may leave the carer at crossroads where he or she becomes virtually indecisive, not knowing what to do next. But he or she must do something whatsoever, unfortunately. The policy provides an option where it puts forward dealing with each child at a time as the best strategy. Keeping calm is the best policy at such a situation and then tackles each case of behaviour at a time (BCC 2000). When it appears difficult, raising the issue to others is the second alternative. Some forms of challenging behaviour will even require presence of a psychiatrist who may try to understand the child. For this policy, adoption of a particular strategy to control behaviour of a particular child should be a recommendation on the BMP of that child. The BMP gives the trends that the process of the changing behaviour has taken since the child’s admission in a particular school or to a particular home, orphanage and so on. The policy disapproves any injurious form of punishment on the children. For example, it states that a carer should not at whatever cost hold the child by the neck (strangling), kick the child, twist child’s limbs or pull child on the hair. So, how should the carer handle the question of challenging behaviour where punishment is seen as a thing of the past? The policy suggests other ways and the argument is the same as that of Skinner’s (Elizabeth 2012). We should consider what we do when a child does something good. Do we appreciate? How? As much as we feel an urge to punish wrong doers, in the same way we must appreciate achievers. The policy opts for a gentler course basing on the fact that children are delicate entities. Befriending the children yet showing unhappiness on what they do is a silent tool and effective to a good extent. Again, the policy outlines that congratulating or rewarding the top performers in various contexts is more or less the same as whipping a poorly performing child. The guideline is that a carer should learn to understand the changing behaviour of a child and take the correct action mostly in form of comparative challenging, advising and coaxing the child to change the bad behaviour. School Discipline & Pupil Behaviour Policy This is a policy adopted by Chelmsford High School for Girls. It describes the code of conduct expected for pupils. It advocates for behaviour acceptable both in the school and in the society. The interest is to inquire into the school’s view of challenging behaviour, the way it is handled and solved and the appropriate punishment or penalties that are tagged to these behaviour. The policy has been prepared as required by the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The policy underpins and elaborates what acceptable behaviour is. It also advocates for rights of the pupils collectively and individually. The pupil and the staff are expected to respect each other. With this policy, pupils whose behaviour shows vulnerability to change amidst the prevailing programs are identified and supported. There is great linkage between the management and individual parent making it possible for the pupil’s behaviour to be controllable and a changing behaviour is detected from two bearings. Therefore, governing the pupil’s behaviour becomes significantly easy (School Behaviour Policy 2008). Challenging behaviour here is seen as patrolling over the social and psychological aspects in the sense that these are the most common. The staff members work as a team to combat a particular challenging behaviour. However, the parents and the carers are highly expected to be responsible for their children behaviour whether the children are in school or at home. Like in the previous policy, training for the staff is a component of this policy. The staff members are expected to undergo or to have undergone seminars concerning proper handling of behaviour issues so that a better understanding and relationship is attained between the staff and the pupils. The policy prepares the key challenging behaviour that may be expected and they include racial segregation, bullying and physical and sexual harassment. On the question of punishment, the policy insists on penalising the ‘bad behaviour’ and not the ‘person’. The penalty is rewarded to individual and the policy highly disapproves penalties that are rather humiliating. In fact the policy upholds that there are only three purposes for a particular penalty to be executed on any pupil namely; to indicate to the pupil that his or her actions are unacceptable, to discourage repetition of the actions and to caution other pupils that their fellow’s behaviour is not acceptable whereof they are expected to refrain from adopting such a behaviour – nothing more. The very idea of the policy is that bad behaviour is not up to the expectations of the management in the first place (SBP 2008). However, its occurring is normal and as so; the policy invites and considers any sanctions that may be included for the purposes none other than for modelling and promoting good behaviour with courtesy and avoiding any escalation of conflict. The policy has subsection of school rewards policy and recognizes rewarding for various achievements as a method of encouraging hardworking and good behaviour. The policy states that every deserving pupil must be rewarded without favouritism whatsoever and acknowledges that only ‘good work’ and ‘good behaviour’ will be rewarded (SBP 2008). The applicable strategies for facing unsatisfactory behaviour are highlighted. Penalties are given in accordance in corresponding gravity of offence. As the pupils are expected to adhere to particular set code of conduct, challenging behaviour other than that from natural cause is considered an offence. The relevant staff is expected to talk with the pupil privately, reprimand the pupil verbally, warningly withdraw from a particular lesson, refer the pupil to the relevant staff member (for example, the staff member with the role of guidance and counselling) or writing punishment. The two policies discussed help a keen reader note the differences in the way challenging behaviour may be handled across different age profiles. The policy on managing challenging behaviours suggests no need in punishing the small children. Little children do not necessarily realize that their behaviour is changing (Jorm et al 2006) unlike the older fellows. Jorm et al. (2006) suggest that the implication of this is that these very children will certainly not appreciate the significance of punishment that may be employed in such a case. The policy then seemingly leans on this proposition. On the other hand, the School Discipline and Pupil Behaviour Policy justifies application of punishment or some sort of penalty by insisting that it is the punishment is on the wrong done (acquired challenging behaviour included) and not on the wrong doer. The value of the punishment is thus expected to be appreciated by the pupils and the teacher. A pupil is expected to change through reasoning. The bottom line is that for kindergarten-age children, challenging behaviour should only be controlled through other means including rewarding the ‘good’ behaviour – this forms indirect punishment or threat for the bad behaviour yet taking a soft route. Penny et al. (2001) feels quite differently and suggests that however mild a punishment may appear, there should be a form of punishment for wrong done for all ages. His argument is that every human being is at least sensitive to virtues and vices irrespective of age. However, small kids should be punished right on the act. I suggest that Penny’s standing is correct all round by considering the case of stubborn kids who will never respond effectively on the so called soft punishment. The carer, mostly the parent (especially as viewed in the second policy), is viewed as the key role player in the overall governing of child’s behaviour and that, specifically the parents, the behaviour portrayed by a particular child depicts the parents’ responsibility index in controlling the their children’s behaviour. The suggestion of the policies is that it would be even more reasonable for the carers not to forfeit any chances for training which may appear on their way. Some challenging behaviours are extraordinary and the carers should trace first the cause of the behaviours before responding with misguided punishment moves (penny et al 2001). Different carers should conceive the fact that the ball is in their court and that the behaviour portrayed by the children they take care of directly forms a reflection of their integrity and accountability. A strategy to use for example is the BMP (as used in the first policy, above) so that one records the behaviour of the child say on the first week of admission. This can help to trace the child’s behaviour trends. Conclusion There is a clear distinction between the two policies discussed in that the first policy examines challenging behaviour observed in kindergarten-age children. It has been shown that smaller children require somebody else to guide and help the child identify which behaviour to adopt and there is no point for harsh intimidating on noting bad behaviour. Older pupils are expected to govern themselves through reasoning failure to which a much heavier penalty is prescribed. The common point of the two policies is emphasis on the role of the carer. He or she is expected to cooperate with the management so as to control the behaviour of the children as a team but with the larger weight falling on the carer’s shoulders. Some forms of challenging behaviour are natural and inherent in children whereas others are acquired along the life journey. It is the role of the carer to sense the turning point of a particular child’s behaviour and take the necessary steps (Kendra 2012). List of References Aeppli, W., 1986. Rudolf Steiner Education and the Developing Child. Massachusetts: Anthroposophic Press. Dunn, D.W., Austin, J.K., and Huster, G.A., 1997. Behaviour problems in children with new-onset epilepsy. Seizure, 6(4), p. 283-287. Elizabeth, G., 2012. B.F. Skinner's Behavioural Theory. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 April 2012]. Jorm, A.F., Share, D.L., Matthews, R.M., 2006. Behaviour Problems in Specific Reading Retarded and General Reading Backward Children: A Longitudinal Study. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 27 (1), p. 33- 43. Keith E.N., Ayhan, A., Carolyn, E.J., 2001. Interactional Contributions to Language Development. Lawrence Erlbaum, 11, Pp.33-56 Kendra, C., 2012. About.com Guide, What Is Cognitive Psychology? [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 April 2012]. Parenting Home (PH), 2012. All about parenting. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 April 2012]. Penny, M., Christine, H., and Jill, F., 2001. Understanding Children’s challenging Behaviour. Nelson Thornes. P. 16-44. School Behaviour Policy. 2008. School Discipline & Pupil Behaviour Policy: Approved by the Governing Body: October 2008 1. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 April 2012]. Shaw, S.M., 1998. Family Activities and Family Leisure. In: Canadian Families. ed. L.C. Johnson. Toronto: Thompson. The Beacon Council Scheme. 2000. Foster Care. [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 29 April 2012]. The History on the Net Group (HNG). 2001. What is a Challenging Behaviour? [Online]. Available at: [Accessed 28 April 2012]. Vicki, D.S., Barbara, J.S., Sylvia, L.D. et al. 2012. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 32, 1, p. 24-37. Read More