An IEBR Analysis of Mitch’s Math Class Blow-Up
Mitch’s blow-up happened after the student teacher made no effort to understand Mitch’s behavior. Instead, she quickly responded to his refusal to do the math problem on the board with ultimatums. This escalated Mitch’s response from avoidance to refusal and finally to physical threats. Let’s analyze that situation using the I-E-B-R framework for analysis:
| Behavior
(Mitch) Avoided teacher’s attention and avoided her request Refused to go to the board to work math problem Eventually threatened the teacher with his clenched fist and raised book |
| Response
(Student teacher) Requested Mitch to work math problem at the board Demanded Mitch follow through on her request Threatened him with punishment if he did not comply Punished him (removed from classroom and then school) for his threatening behavior |
The student teacher responded to Mitch’s behavior immediately without an analysis of what was driving his behavior. As a result, their interaction escalated to the point where Mitch threatened her and the school came down hard on him. Sending him to an alternative school for kids who are a threat to school safety was another immediate response to him in this instance, still lacking an attempt to get at what motivated his threatening behavior.
Unlike the teacher in this incident, you probably already have some good ideas about what motivated Mitch in the midst of this face off. If you sat down and talked to Mitch, do you think you could be genuinely curious about finding the ‘why’ for his threatening behavior?
Let’s fill in the rest of the I-E-B-R chart for Mitch’s Math Class Incident, based on what we already know about Mitch.
| Issue
Lacked genuine self-esteem and academic (math) competence |
| Emotion
Feared humiliation |
| Behavior
Avoided; refused (defiance); and eventually threatened |
| Response (by teacher)
Requested; demanded; threatened; and eventually punished |
Using the chart, we can see that Mitch sought to avoid humiliation in front of his peers. First he avoided, then he refused, and finally, when the teacher demanded compliance, he impulsively threatened her. Avoiding public humiliation is a powerful motivator for most of us, especially middle school aged boys. For Mitch, it was important enough to disregard the consequences of his defiance. Kind of reminds us of the boy wailing on the bedroom door in the opening segment, doesn’t it? You can see why Molly chose to disengage (and lock the door).
With an understanding of this primary motivation, how would you assess the student teacher’s actions in demanding Mitch’s compliance? Looks like her actions were making the threat of humiliation even worse. She was asking him to attempt a problem he was unable to solve and then to back down to her threats, all in front of his classmates. Sounds like a great recipe for humiliation, but not a great one for cooperation or de-escalation. If she was aware of the emotion (fear of humiliation) and the issue (need to feel adequate), do you think she would have pursued the “go to the board or else” strategy?
The act of threatening a teacher upset the school administrators enough that they immediately responded by sending Mitch to a school for kids with behavior control problems. And, not surprisingly, Mitch began to skip school more often than not. What do you think of the administration’s decision to send Mitch to the alternative school? How does it fit with his core emotions and issues? I suspect the banishment conveyed a message that he was deemed unfit for regular school, which had to be very humiliating. Were you surprised when I told you that Mitch then started skipping school regularly? That would be his “functional” way of avoiding feeling humiliated and inadequate.
A better set of responses to Mitch would have included careful consideration of the emotions Mitch was trying to manage and the issues driving them. For instance, the teacher’s demands only increased Mitch’s risk of public humiliation. An attuned teacher would not have put him in that position in front of his peers. We would hope that the teacher could look beyond her own anger at being publicly defied to ask why this boy was acting this way. How was he defending himself? If she were on top of things, she would have known that Mitch was not keeping up in math. A good IEBR assessment of Mitch would lead us to the fact that Mitch was hiding the fact that he couldn’t do the math. Later, we will see how IEBR analyses not only prevent inappropriate responses, like the one with the math teacher, but help define appropriate goals. In this case, how can she help Mitch get caught up in math?
Don’t worry; we won’t hang Mitch out to dry. We’ll get back to him later and find a better alternative, based on better attunement. I’ll bet you can think of some developmental work Mitch needed in order to avoid another incident like this: communication; emotional competence; internal discipline; genuine self-esteem?
As you can see, the approach the school took was making an even bigger mess of Mitch’s life. Ultimately, we want to make A MESS the right way.