Will Schools Re-Open
Without Pathologizing their Students’ Emotional Needs?
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog
Article]
Introduction
As a school
psychologist and Past-President of the National Association of School
Psychologists (NASP), the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health
reactions and needs of all children and adolescents (and their parents and
families) during this pandemic is of great concern.
But as I continue
to virtually consult with my school districts and colleagues around the
country, and as I lead three weekly MasterClass PLCs—helping administrators,
teachers, and related service professionals plan for the post-pandemic
re-opening of our schools. . .
. . . I consistently reassert the science-to-practice
decision-making processes advocated by Dr. Anthony Fauci, Dr. Deborah Birx,
and Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York.
And yet, the
popular education press—whether consciously or not—has not always practiced
objective, data-based reporting especially when related to the social,
emotional, behavioral, and mental health status of our nation’s students.
The Continuum of Unobjective Reporting
When faulty,
unobjective reporting occurs (and note, it does not always happen),
it occurs along a “continuum of culpability.”
At one end of
the continuum, some educational publications have (perhaps, inadvertently)
practiced “sloppy writing.” This results in the appearance that the publication
supports one or more specific social-emotional learning frameworks—including
some that have never been validated or are not needed for the conditions
described.
For example, a
promotional description of an Education Dive article published on May
15, summarizing a National Education Poll of 1,936 members about their top
concerns as schools open post-pandemic, stated:
“As some schools reopen and others weigh the option,
top concerns (among the NEA members in the poll) like widening equity gaps and
lack of SEL supports as some students drop off the radar are being taken into
consideration.”
While the actual NEA
Poll Analysis noted that 78% of the participating NEA members thought that the
“Lack of built-in supports & social-emotional well-being of students” was a
serious or very serious problem in their respective schools, the article never
used the term or acronym SEL.
Critically, if
someone had not read the actual NEA article, the Education Dive
description and article might have led them to believe that the NEA was
endorsing the SEL framework—not a generic collection of social-emotional
supports.
_ _ _ _ _
In the middle of
the continuum are publications that advocate for specific social-emotional
learning frameworks because (a) they, for example, receive advertising,
foundation, grant, or federal/state funding that influences this advocacy; or
(b) they amass political, public, or social media attention for the same
reason.
Included here, for
example, are a handful of professional education news organizations,
foundations or independent thinktanks, and professional associations that
publish news briefs or newsletters that appear objective, but are influenced
for the reasons immediately above.
Given their
orientations and the current popularity of the term SEL, many of these groups
reframe everything possible into that acronym—even though their real focus is
on students’ social, emotional, and behavioral skills, functioning, and
interactions.
This can get quite
confusing for the typical educator as a Harvard Graduate School of Education
research group recently identified 40 different SEL frameworks.
Representing this
state of confusion, they stated:
Throughout its history, the field of social and
emotional learning (SEL) has been defined or characterized in a variety of
ways. In some respects, the term SEL serves as an umbrella for many subfields
with which many educators, researchers, and policy-makers are familiar (e.g.,
bullying prevention, civic and character education and development, conflict
resolution, social skills training, life skills, “soft” or “non-cognitive”
skills, 21st century skills). However, discussion of this broad non-academic
domain lacks clarity about what we mean and is beset by dilemmas about how best
to measure and promote skills in this area. Underlying this challenge, and in
some ways compounding it, is the fact that the field more generally is
structured around a large number of organizational systems or frameworks that
often use different or even conflicting terminology to talk about a similar set
of skills.
And yet often, the
professional education news organizations, foundations or independent
thinktanks, and professional associations that publish “new stories” that fit
“their” conceptualization of “SEL” rarely:
- Discuss the complexity and confusion around this term;
- Disclose their financial supporters; or
- Describe the potential conflicts of interest around their work, or the fact that their goal is to guide readers toward their beliefs, or toward related publications that are being sold to generate profits.
_ _ _ _ _
At the opposite
end of the continuum are publications that knowingly promote or lead
readers to (a) inaccurate conclusions; or (b) sensationalized or panic-driven
emotions and decisions; and/or that encourage or reinforce (c) stereotypes,
biases, or clinically perilous implications.
For unsuspecting
readers who trust these publications and/or who do not have the time or
capacity to “fact check,” these conclusions, emotions, or stereotypes can lead
to unfortunate or inappropriate decisions or actions that can harm students
and/or delay the delivery of appropriate services, supports, programs, or
interventions.
_ _ _ _ _
But ultimately, the
issue here is not the publishers, associations, organizations, or
publications. Clearly, the First Amendment allows these publications, and a
“public relations battle” with these groups is futile.
The issue is the
potential harm done to students, staff, and schools, and that educators must
be vigilant for the misleading or biased publications, and must avoid their
service delivery traps.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why is Education Week Sensationalizing the Pandemic’s
Effects on Students ?
So how did the
topic for this Blog message originate?
Last week (May 6,
2020), Dr. Kathleen Minke, a school psychologist and Executive Director of the
National Association of School Psychologists, wrote a piece for Education Week.
The substance
and content in the article was excellent as it encouraged readers to
recognize that school psychologists are available to help:
- Teachers adapt to virtual instruction, the delivery of services to students with disabilities, and ways to provide emotional support to students and their families;
- Parents and guardians create the best “home and school” schedules, structures, and settings to facilitate students’ academic progress and physical and emotional well-being;
- Students find the informal and formal supports they need when, for example, experiencing stress, loss, abuse, panic, or feelings of self-harm; and
- Schools get ready to evaluate the presence of students’ general and pandemic-specific social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges when they return to school, and to address their root causes through strategic or intensive interventions.
At the end of the
article, Dr. Minke suggested that Districts must consciously address the
psychological and emotional needs of both students and staff when planning the
post-pandemic re-opening of their schools.
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog
Article with Dr. Minke’s Recommendations]
_ _ _ _ _
So where’s the
problem?
The “problem” is
the title of the piece:
The Pandemic Is
Causing Widespread Emotional Trauma. Schools Must Be Ready to Help
This title is
sensationalized and irresponsible.
This is because no
one knows how many students have actually been traumatized by the pandemic.
My points:
- First of all: I know of no schools in this country where students—at this point in time—have been formally and/or accurately evaluated to validate the clinical presence of emotional trauma.
- Second: Without these assessments—and a definition of “widespread”—no school psychologist that I know would characterize the current needs of our students as “widespread.”
- Third: Any assessment would need to review a student’s pre-existing social, emotional, and behavioral history and status, include observations and interviews, and involve multiple assessment instruments to “rule out” or “weigh in” any independent, comorbid, or combined physical, medical, or emotional factors or conditions related to the pandemic.
- Fourth: While a student might be traumatized by the pandemic itself (for example, due to an obsessive fear of getting sick), it is more likely that any confirmed traumas will be due to the effects of circumstances triggered by the pandemic.
Examples of such effects might
include the death of a parent, domestic violence, physical abuse, witnessing
illegal drug use, or the exacerbation of a pre-existing mental health condition
due to social isolation.
- Finally: All of the principles and actions within the steps above are essential to determine (a) the actual presence of a student’s social, emotional, or behavioral concerns; (b) the root causes of any needs, and the depth, breadth, and severity of their impact; and (c) whether the needs can be successfully addressed by teachers as part of a whole-class intervention, or whether they require more specialized small group or individual interventions delivered by counselors, social workers, or school psychologists.
_ _ _ _ _
Critically, the Education
Week title increases the risk that educators will “pathologize” the
emotional impact of how their students lived, learned, socialized, and survived
their pandemic stay-at-home time and circumstances.
And in this “frame
of pathology,” it is likely that far too many students will be seen as being
ill, having deficits, needing sympathy, or requiring “therapeutic” services
“from the experts” than will actually be the case.
Understand me
clearly: When students have an objectively validated need for strategic or
intensive clinical services—based on sound, multi-disciplinary assessments (see
above), they should receive those services.
But, as a school
psychologist, understand that we need to immediately create and then sustain
the positive, prosocial, relationship-driven school and classroom settings for all
students on the first day that schools re-open. This should be a
prerequisite to the multi-tiered, multi-disciplinary assessments that also
should be available.
Said a different
way: Schools will need to consciously plan and help all
students—from preschool through high school—to emotionally re-connect
individually, socially, academically, within their peer and grade-level groups,
and as a study body when they re-open.
Schools need to
approach their re-opening from a strengths-based perspective.
Moreover, they need
to understand that, when they return to school, students will exhibit different
levels of social, emotional, and behavioral variability, and that this is normal
and expected. We don't need to be giving them messages that they are
somehow "emotionally broken."
And so, our guiding
planning templates and protocols should be similar to those used when students
return to school from a natural disaster, a national or local tragedy, or a
significantly stressful in-school event.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Summary
Lest you think that
my critique above was aimed at my good colleague Dr. Minke, know that I
e-mailed her earlier this week about the concerns expressed above. Moreover, I
directly asked her where the headline in question originated.
Her e-mail back
stated:
Hi,
Howie. I had nothing to do with either headline. Both were created by Ed Week.
The point of the piece was preparation...for whatever a particular school and
district might be facing. My current favorite metaphor from the online world:
We are all in the same storm but we are not in the same boat. Kathy
_ _ _ _ _
There is an old
adage in the media business: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
This is not the
time for the media to use fear, sensationalism, or emotional triggers to
get attention, satisfy their funders or benefactors, or implicitly or
explicitly “sell” their beliefs or orientations.
This is the time
for common sense, empathy, objectivity, facts, and data-based decision-making.
We are all
experiencing different social, emotional, and behavioral reactions and
responses to the current pandemic and how it has affected our lives. We, as
adults, understand what is happening far better than our children and
adolescents.
Let’s act as
leaders and caring adults as we support our students through these times.
Let’s understand
and build on their existing and emerging strengths.
Let’s “provide
great benefits” and “do no harm” as we prepare to welcome our students back to
school. . . socially, emotionally, behaviorally, as well as academically.
_ _ _ _ _
I appreciate, as always, the time that you
invest in reading these Blogs, and your
dedication to your students, your colleagues, and the educational
process— especially in the face of the challenges we all have recently
experienced.
Please feel free to send me your
thoughts and questions.
And please know that—even during
this time when most schools are closed for the rest of the year—I continue to
be available to you through Zoom calls. . . if and when you need me. Contact me
at any time.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE for the Full Blog
Article]
No comments:
Post a Comment