1-5% of students fall into Tier 3 interventions. Our third tier in this metaphor might be a device that constantly alerts the authorities to the speed of one particular car. Tier 3 is a highly acute intervention directed at the most disruptive students. These students demonstrate significant behavioral disruptions, and are likely to struggle along the continuum of classroom expectations. These students are receiving Tier’s 1 and 2, and still experience ongoing struggles. Obviously behaviors that are dangerous fall into a tier 3 intervention, but others behaviors can qualify as well. Consider a student who has chronic difficulty and is not responsive to Tier 1 or 2 interventions. Or a student who is impeding the learning environment for others. Either of these cases might warrant a Tier 3 nomination.

What kind of interventions exist at Tier 3?

For students with significant behavioral issues, a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) might be necessary. The nature of the behavior in question will determine the outline of the BIP. Interpersonal conflict between students might include a number of ideas: eating lunch in a private setting, walking from class-to-class at designated times to reduce conflict, anything that minimizes the amount of unstructured time that student has to engage in disruptive behaviors. The BIP will target specific behaviors. It will outline specific objectives. And the BIP will designate prevention strategies and consequences.

Parental involvement is extremely important to Tier 3 interventions. An Emergency Intervention Plan should have parental input and sign-off in order to help keep the students accountable. Additionally, keeping the parents informed of problem behaviors at this level will give our student another layer of support at home. Parents can review behavior plans. They can add feedback to the crisis teams. And parents can provide helpful insight into a child’s behavior.

Individualize the intervention

Tailoring the plan to the student is critical for Tier 3 interventions. Failing to individualize the intervention will result in an ineffective intervention. Expulsion is an example of a very ineffective intervention that is too broad to be helpful. Simply kicking kids out of school fails to uniquely address their problem behaviors. An individualized plan takes into account the specific problem. It outlines specific expectations. And it sets out predictable and realistic consequences for the student. Ideally, the student themselves have some degree of involvement in the genesis of this plan, as well.

The tier 3 interventions will also involve the greatest number of people. These interventions should be multi-disciplinary and team-based. Teachers and administrators will need help from counselors, parents, agency representatives, the courts, and others to ensure success. Tracking should be consistent, and the data should be reviewed regularly. Plans that are effective will set the goal of producing positive change. These plans will incorporate realistic strategies at home and at school. And these plans should attempt to understand where the behaviors are coming from, and why they are recurring.

Nominating students for a tier 3 intervention should be done cautiously. Tier’s 1 & 2 should be implemented to fidelity and have shown to be ineffective before considering transitioning a student into a tier-3 intervention. The reason for this is the number of resources that will be allocated to the student once a Tier 3 intervention is undertaken. There will be lots of work from the multi-disciplinary support structure, the parents, and the student will experience disruption in their life as well.

The post PBIS Tier 3: The final layer of PBIS appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.

A problem exists

The first step is recognition by both individuals that a problem exists. This requires that both people think about the problem, and consider what each of you had to do with the nature of the problem. Try to own your piece of the problem that exists. That way, when you approach the other party, you can at least acknowledge how you contributed, in a humble way. And if the other person involved in the conflict can accomplish the same task, then you both can approach each other knowing the part of the problem that each of you helped to create.

Once you understand the role you played in the conflict, the two of you can have a discussion that is geared toward solving a problem, versus winning an argument. When two people have the goal of winning an argument, it means that one person is going to lose. And when one person walks away “a loser,” it is unlikely that resolution to the conflict will be lasting.

Agree to address the problem

One benefit to conflict is that maybe you are both in conflict because of things that you do not know. And in some cases, you do not know what you don’t know. When two people are having conflict, it typically is the case that one person is not 100% right and the other person is 100% wrong. Typically, in interpersonal conflict, each person has their grievances and each person feels as though they have been wronged. Being hurt is part of what motivates each person to remain in the conflict. Each person wants the other person to acknowledge their role in causing pain.

Understand the other person, understand the conflict

In an effort to understand the perspective of the other person, try taking turns speaking. But not only are you going to take turns speaking, after each person speaks the other person has to summarize what was said to the satisfaction of the speaker. This type of back and forth will ensure that each person gets to speak their mind, and it will ensure that each person is understood exactly as they are intending.

Arguments tend to become very productive when we are listening while knowing that they are going to have to listen well enough to at least summarize what they are saying. This is opposed to what usually happens in an argument where one person is talking, and while they are talking the other person is not listening to them, only thinking about what they want to say. These types of strategies lead two people to talk over the top of each other and not listen.

Support mediation and plan compromise

An additional benefit of rephrasing each person’s frame of reference, is that, sometimes, people are not exactly sure why they are upset. Sometimes people start a dialogue with the person they are upset with in order to try to understand where their feelings are coming from. In this instance, if the aggrieved is cut off as they are speaking because they are not making their point quickly, or clearly enough, the culprit, in this case, is likely to only escalate the situation. The escalation occurs because the aggrieved is unable to make their case, and the culprit is unable to understand the problem as it is not being stated properly. A third party can be helpful when seeking resolution of this kind. Sometimes, conflict mediator can help cut through the confusion created by the emotions and help each person see their role in the conflict.

Address the differences and monitor change

The final steps of conflict resolution are an agreement to formulate a plan to address the conflict and then monitor that plan’s implementation moving forward. This means that after each person fully understands their role in the conflict, and understands how it made the other person feel, there is going to be a solid plan put in place that can be monitored by both parties. Remember, conflict is a normal part of relationships.

The conflict resolution process requires:

1. Recognition by both individuals that a problem exists.
2. Mutual agreement to address the problem and a mutual desire to find resolution.
3. An effort to understand the perspective of the other person.
4. Recognize what causes the conflict between the parties.
5. Interventions by third parties can support mediation.
6. A willingness by one or both parties to compromise.
7. An agreement on a plan to address the differences.
8. Monitoring the impact of any agreements for change.

The post Conflict resolution for young people appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.

Background:

Several differences have identified differences in the same-sex friendships between school-age males and females. While there are plenty of similarities in the same-sex friendships of males and females, there are notable differences that are relevant to the way interpersonal conflict is structured. The friendships of female students tend to be characterized by greater emotional intimacy than those of school-aged males. In children as young as 6 years old this is evident. Additionally, it holds true as children age, as well as across children of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, females tend to engage in more efforts to preserve friendships; demonstrating more frequent contact and socialization. When we consider that the friendships of male youth are often characterized by greater involvement in physical activities that do not require the exchange of personal information or emotional intimacy, some of the immediate differences between male and female friendships in school-aged youth. Although the relationships between females are characterized by higher levels of interpersonal intimacy than their male counterparts, females often have more severe conflict than males.

One reason the authors of the study suggest that females have more severe interpersonal conflict is exactly due to the high degree of emotional intimacy. When females have conflict with each other, they are more likely to harbor awareness of confidential information about the other person that is likely to become weaponized. Additionally, the intense need for shared confidences can be a potential source of misunderstanding and conflict for females. In contrast, males are more likely than females to respond to conflicts with same-sex peers by directly confronting the offender verbally or physically. Directly responding to a peer who has committed an offensive act, without divulging sensitive personal information about the person, may facilitate resolution of the conflict. Provided more serious aggression is avoided. What’s more, the restrained emotions in males’ same-sex friendships provide for less intense conflict, when conflict does occur.

Differences between male and female friendships

The structure of the friendships differs between males and females as well. The closest same-sex friends of females are more likely than those of males to occur in isolation. An example would be two close friends who magnify the strength of their bond by socially isolating from the milieu. Thus, demonstrating to themselves and the rest of the group that the bond is exclusive. Males’ closest same-sex friendships are more typically embedded within the context of a larger group. Think about two good male friends who are on the same sports team. While their friendship is exalted, it is not outside the context of the rest of the social milieu.

The notable differences between these two friendship paradigms are magnified under the stress of conflict. When a female and her closest same-sex friend have conflict, there is not any peer support group to ground the conflict and provide mediation. Groups can provide more objective third-party assessments during times of conflict; additionally, established groups can provide allies, alternate partners, as well as eliciting loyalty to a larger organization, all of which moderate the escalation of interpersonal conflicts. Groups can also help diffuse negative emotional responses to the inevitable social comparisons that occur between any two individuals in a relationship by providing additional individuals with whom more favorable comparisons may be drawn. This is to say that when you only have one person to compare yourself to, if they are objectively better than you, you are either a success or a failure. However, when you have an entire group of people, chances are you might not be the strongest in the group, but you are likely not the weakest either. An important consideration to mitigate interpersonal conflict.

How did the study examine conflict resolution

The authors of this study examined middle school students, in 5^th, 7^th, and 9^th grade, over the course of a year. And the results of the study suggested that 1) the closest SSF of females exhibited greater signs of emotional vulnerability than did their male peers. 2) Females imagined they would feel significantly worse than males were there current closest same-sex friendship to end. 3) Females also believed their lives would change significantly more than would males’ lives were their current closest same-sex friendship to end. 4) Despite the shorter duration of females compared with males’ closest same-sex friendships, significantly more females (36%) than males (17%) reported that their closest same-sex friend already had done something to hurt their friendship. Finally, 5) females reported having significantly more close friends with whom they were no longer friends than did males.

How did they measure close friendships?

We could imagine that when a female experiences the ending of a friendship, it is the case that she has to shed the skin of that friendship, so-to-speak, in order to find a new friend. This would help us understand the 5^th point, above, that females were more likely to be no longer friends with old friends. It would also help us understand that females who lost friendships are at greater risk for ending up feeling as though they are along. Compared to males, who are likely to cycle through the same social milieu and find new friends. This is consistent with findings that indicate that males are likely to indicate that their best friends are people whom they have not spoken too in many years. It is as if male friendships simply become dormant for a period of hibernation.

What kinds of questions were asked to measure friendship and conflict resolution?

Participants were asked to name their three closest same-sex friends, and then were asked “which of these friends is your very closest friend?” The students were asked about how often they “talk or do things with [close friend’s name]?,” followed by a scale that consisted of: 1 (everyday), 2 (2-3 days a week), 3 (once a week), 4 (a few times a month), and 5 (once a month or less). The second question assessed duration of friendship in months: “How long have you been friends?,” followed by a scale that consisted of: 1 (less than 1 month), 2 (1-3 months), 3 (3.6 months), 4 (6 months to 1 year), or 5 (more than 1 year).

Participants were also asked about anticipated emotional reactions to the potential termination of their closest same-sex friendships. Students were asked: “How badly would you feel if your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (would not care at all) to 5 (would feel very badly). The second question asked: “How much would your life change if your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (would not change at all) to 5 (would change very much). The final question addressed whether the friendship had ever been threatened: “Has [close friend] ever done or said something to you that hurt your friendship?,” followed by 1 (no) or 2 (yes).

The third section of questions identified prior close same-sex friendships that ended. Participants were asked: “Have you ever had a close friend of the same sex with whom you are no longer friends?” Participants were then asked to list the names of those friends. For those who listed one or more names, the following questions were posed: first, “How badly did you feel when your friendship with [close friend] ended,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (did not care at all) to 5 (felt very badly). Second, “How much did you life change when your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (did not change at all) to 5 (changed very much). And each of these questions were also asked to the participants former friends. For this section, responses to each question were averaged across all former close same-sex friends of a participant.

Where do we go from here?

The authors of the study found no differences in how males and females felt when their closest same-sex friendships dissolved. A positive indication that the dissolution of a close friendship was equally difficult for both genders, regardless of the context and gender differences in the relationship. One guess as to why these differences in conflict resolution is that females are less developed to manage conflict at this stage of their lives; however, the authors only note this for consideration. Instead, placing more weight on the nature of the heightened levels of emotional intimacy, and friendships that occur in more isolated contexts. One thing is certain, conflict resolution is a critical developmental skill for young people to learn. And something we will explore further in our next post!

Check out some of our other posts:

Personality: The heart of diversity

Compassion = Empathy + Action

Social Media – Tool or trap?

The post Are female friendships more fragile? appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.