Schools “Hitch-Up” to Another Bandwagon that is Wasting Time and Delaying Recommended Scientifically-Proven Services (Part I)
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
While most
educators know that they are supposed to implement “evidence-based” academic
and behavioral practices in their schools (according to the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act), most of our districts and schools still struggle
mightily in this area.
Some of the
“challenges” here include the fact that many educators:
- Do not know the differences across the terms “evidence-based,” “scientifically-based,” and “research-based;”
- Do not know how to evaluate and discriminate between methodologically and statistically-analyzed “sound” research versus “passable” research versus “unsound” research;
- Assume that “published” research—especially when in a national professional journal—much less in a national foundation’s technical report, an association newsletter or E-blast, or a popular press publication or newspaper is automatically “sound” research;
- Assume that “published” research is “sound” because it was sponsored or advocated by a “trusted” source, a well-regarded “expert,” a social media “giant,” or an entity (for example, the U.S. Department of Education, one of its funded federal Technical Assistance Centers, a State Department of Education) that “would only disseminate sound research” (of course—I am being facetious here);
- Overgeneralize the results of one or a small number of sound studies, while also not understanding that even “sound” research may not be relevant to their districts or schools—because the research does not apply to their settings or demographic conditions, students or staff, or the underlying root cause reasons for their circumstances;
- Do not have the time or the within-district expertise to evaluate the quality of the research in identified and needed areas; and
- Do not have the resources, training potential, staff or staff expertise, or funding to implement even sound research with the needed intensity, integrity, and sustainability.
I am not trying to
be disrespectful here. I understand these challenges— given the many schools I
consult with across the country and internationally— all too well.
But I still need to
note that far too many districts and schools consciously, dismissively, or
naïvely “jump on unsound, unproven, or ill-fitting educational bandwagons,” and
adopt partially, poorly, or untested programs, practices, or interventions.
All too often, they
are then “surprised” when these programs do not succeed.
Parenthetically, it
is important to note that some vendors depend on some of the
“challenges” above to sell their programs, curricula, or consulting
services.
That is, they use
their marketing, “sales pitches,” and testimonials to secure contracts—knowing
that the district or a school does not have the expertise, resources, or time
to do its own objective “due diligence” . . . and that, if the district or
school did conduct its own competent and objective product evaluation,
it would never purchase the program, curriculum, or consulting service.]
_ _ _ _ _
But, most
critically, when districts and/or schools implement programs or curricula
that are invalid, untested, or inappropriate to their students. . . and they
are unsuccessful, there are real implications.
These include:
- Time, money, and other resources are wasted.
- Staff and student motivation and momentum are hindered.
- Positive and needed student change or improvement is undermined, unrealized, or unraveled.
- And, especially, staff and student trust is damaged, such that staff and student resistance to the next (possible most effective) program increases.
At a surface
level, the implementation of unsuccessful programs—that never should have
been implemented in the first place—involves poor planning, decision-making,
and needless waste.
At a deeper
level—not to be an alarmist—this represents educational malpractice.
If a doctor
would not use an untested drug on his/her patients, how can a responsible
educator rationalize the use of an untested (or poorly matched) program or
curriculum in his/her district or school?
At any level,
one must question the validity of any district or school’s complaints about its
lack of time, money, and other resources when it selects and implements invalid
or untested programs that—predictably—are unsuccessful (or worse).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Trauma-Informed Schools, SEL, Mindfulness, and
Meditation Revisited
Over the past few
months, I have continued to monitor the research and practice of three areas
that are beginning to be linked programmatically in the schools:
- Trauma-Informed or Trauma-Sensitive Care, or Trauma-Informed Systems
- Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)
- Mindfulness and Meditation
In this two-part
Blog Series, I will update you on the newest research-to-practice in these
areas, while also citing past Blogs that have directly addressed these approaches.
This first Part I
discusses a recent study that reviewed over 9,000 studies, published over the
past ten years, investigating trauma-informed school programs. Using objective, research-sensitive criteria,
this study determined that none of the studies met their criteria for
sound research.
We discuss this
result in the context of the thousands of schools across this country that have
potentially implemented invalid, unsound, or wasteful (as above)
trauma-informed programs, and describe an evidence-based multi-tiered approach
that responsibly addresses the needs of students impacted by trauma. We also address the flawed national PBIS and
SEL-CASEL frameworks, recommending that they not be used as the foundation of a
more generic school-wide approach for these students.
In Part II, we will
discuss the relationship and inappropriate use of mindfulness and mediation
with students experiencing trauma. Here,
we will describe the biological and neuropsychological underpinnings of
trauma-related student emotionality, and how mindfulness and mediation will not
change this emotionality—especially when it is classically conditioned (i.e.,
Pavlovian in nature).
The theme across
both Parts of this Series—and consistent with the Introduction above—is that:
Districts and schools need to know the Trauma-Informed
Care, SEL, Mindfulness, and Meditation research-to-practice as all of these
areas have significant flaws that should result in educators questioning their
use in schools.
Recognizing that
districts and schools do not always have the time or expertise of evaluate the current
research-to-practice, I hope that this two-part Series (and my previous Blogs
on these topics) will help to close this gap.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Trauma-Informed Schools: New Research Says There is No Research
Over the past five
years or more, the national discussion on the effects of trauma—especially
relative to school-aged students—has increased exponentially. Fueling this discussion is a screening tool
that was developed in the mid-1990s, the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale, that we believe is being
misinterpreted and misused. The result
has been the wasteful adoption by many schools “Trauma-Informed” programs and
practices that are not providing the appropriate services, supports, and
interventions to students.
We discussed the
ACEs in detail in a recent Blog stating:
Aren’t Schools with Positive,
Safe Climates Already “Trauma Sensitive”? Unmasking the ACEs, and Helping
Students Manage their Emotions in School
The original ACE Study was conducted by the Kaiser
Permanente Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) in Southern California from
1995 to 1997 with two waves of data collection.
As they were receiving physical exams, over 17,000 HMO members completed
confidential surveys regarding their childhood experiences and their current
health status and behaviors.
Significantly, beyond the fact that the sample was from a limited
geographic area, the participants were primarily white and from the middle
class.
Below are the actual ACE Study Questions. Each “Yes” response received one point toward
the “final score.” As educators, please
read these items relative to today’s students. Think about how many of your students have
experienced four or more of these events so far in their lives (more on that
below).
While you were growing up, during your first 18 years
of life:
1. Emotional Abuse. Did a parent or other adult
in the household often or very often… Swear at you, insult you, put you down,
or humiliate you? or Act in a way that made you afraid that you might be
physically hurt?
2. Physical Abuse. Did a parent or other adult
in the household often or very often… Push, grab, slap, or throw something at
you? or Ever hit you so hard that you had marks or were
injured?
3. Sexual Abuse. Did an adult or person at
least 5 years older than you ever… Touch or fondle you or have you touch their body in a
sexual way? or Attempt or actually have oral, anal, or vaginal
intercourse with you?
4. Emotional Neglect. Did you often or very often feel that … No
one in your family loved you or thought you were important or special? or Your family didn’t look out for each other, feel
close to each other, or support each other?
5. Physical Neglect. Did you often or very
often feel that … You didn’t have enough to eat, had to wear dirty clothes, and
had no one to protect you? or Your parents were too drunk or high to take care of
you or take you to the doctor if you needed it?
6. Parental Separation or Divorce. Were your
parents ever separated or divorced?
7. Mother Treated Violently. Was your mother or stepmother: Often or very often pushed, grabbed, slapped,
or had something thrown at her? or Sometimes, often, or very often kicked, bitten, hit
with a fist, or hit with something hard? or Ever repeatedly hit at least a few minutes or
threatened with a gun or knife?
8. Household Substance Abuse. Did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker
or alcoholic or who used street drugs?
9. Household Mental Illness. Was a household
member depressed or mentally ill, or did a household member attempt suicide?
10. Incarcerated Household Member. Did a household member go to prison?
_ _ _ _ _
The
most critical concerns with the ACEs’ Questions are:
·
They do not
discriminate between “finite” events (e.g., having a household member
incarcerated) and events that can occur over time or in a repeated way;
·
Thus, they do not
quantify many of the events (e.g., how long was the separation, how many times
was your mother physically threatened);
·
They do not
identify the age (or age range) when the child or adolescent experienced each
event;
·
They do not ask
for a rating of the intensity of each event (e.g., along a Mild-Moderate-Severe
continuum);
·
They do not get a
rating of the emotional impact of each event at the time that it occurred
(e.g., along a None-Low-Mild-Moderate-Significant-Life Changing continuum); and
·
They do not get a
rating of the current (assuming an event occurred in the past) and/or continuing
emotional impact of each event.
Given the absence of this critical
contextual information, we do not really know the cumulative depth, breadth,
intensity, or impact of an individual’s traumatic history. Indeed, we may just simply know how many
events an individual may have experienced.
_ _ _ _ _
New Research
Study on the Trauma-Informed Research
In July, 2019, Maynard, Farina, Dell, and
Kelly published an article, “Effects of Trauma-Informed Approaches in Schools:
A Systematic Review,” in the Campbell Systematic Reviews published by
John Wiley & Sons.
The goal of the study was to systematically
and objectively review the empirical research in Trauma-Informed approaches in
schools so that the research-based efficacy of the different approaches being
implemented could be evaluated.
Eventually, the authors did a comprehensive
research review that identified 9,102 possible school-based, trauma-related
articles that were published during the last ten years. After removing duplicate articles from the
review, they began to apply the criteria above to the remaining 7,173
studies— eventually excluding 7,106 studies.
Of the remaining 67 studies: All 67 were excluded. 49 did not use random controlled trials or
quasi-experimental design methods; 12 did not examine the effects of a
trauma-informed approach; and 5 examined only one aspect of a trauma-informed
approach.
Thus: These authors determined that there were no
school-based, trauma-informed research studies over the past ten years that were
conducted using sound research methodologies such that the programs
investigated could be objectively determined to be effective in addressing the
trauma-related needs of school-aged students.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Expanding on the Concerns with the Trauma-Sensitive/Informed
School Movement
As noted, we
published two Blogs dedicated to this topic during 2019.
If you CLICK on
the date of the Blogs below, you will link directly to the Blog that is
posted on my website (www.projectachieve.info/blog).
Aren’t Schools with Positive,
Safe Climates Already “Trauma Sensitive?
Unmasking the ACEs, and Helping Students Manage their Emotions in School
_ _ _ _ _
The Traps and Trouble with
“Trauma Sensitive” Schools: Most Approaches Are Not Scientifically-Based,
Field-Tested, Validated, or Multi-Tiered. A National Education Talk Radio
Interview (Free Link Included) Puts it All into Perspective
_ _ _ _ _
In those two Blogs devoted to this subject,
we stated our beliefs that:
- Some educators have become over-sensitized to this issue—for example, incorrectly attributing some students’ emotional or behavioral issues to “trauma” when they are due to other factors;
- Some schools do not understand and are misusing the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) scale and research; and
- Some districts—with all good intents—have adopted “trauma sensitive” programs and protocols that are either not needed or not advisable.
Clearly, Maynard, Farina, Dell, and Kelly’s
systematic review of the trauma-informed “research” demonstrates the validity
of the third concern above. Indeed,
given the innumerable states and districts that have already adopted trauma
sensitive or informed programs, protocols, and practices, Maynard’s review
suggests that many of these implemented programs are NOT scientifically-based,
have NOT been well field-tested, and are NOT validated using objective and
methodologically-sound approaches. In
addition, some districts and schools are likely using approaches that are NOT
directly applicable to their students and needs, and are NOT being implemented
along a multi-tiered continuum.
_ _ _ _ _
To support these statements, the August 17th
Blog described in detail answers to the following questions:
Issue #1: Do Practitioners Understand the Original
ACEs Research, Its Strengths, and Its Limitations to School-Based Practice?
Issue #2. Are
Schools Implementing Specialized “Trauma Sensitive” Programs When They Should
be Implementing More Comprehensive (Pervasive and Preventative) Positive School
Climate Practices?
Issue #3. Do
Schools (Have the Time to) Evaluate the Integrity and Utility of their Trauma
Sensitive Programs Prior to Implementation, and How Many Schools Choose
their Programs Due to Cost and Not Outcomes?
Issue #4. Do
Schools Understand the Science-to-Practice Components that Facilitate Students’
Emotional Self-Management—The Key Preventative “Skill” Needed by All Students?
_ _ _ _ _
The October 12th Blog
updated the August discussion, and provided a link to a national radio broadcast interview that I did on this subject
with Larry Jacobs, the host of Education Talk Radio—on October 4, 2019.
_ _ _ _ _
Once again, please feel free to re-read the
original Blogs to get a more detailed analysis of the Reports and summary
discussed above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
Multi-Tiered Strategic/Intensive Interventions for
Students with Significant Trauma Issues
As noted above—and
in our August 17th Blog, when districts and schools use comprehensive,
systematically-implemented multi-tiered Positive Behavioral
Support/Social-Emotional Learning (PBSS/SEL) systems that teach and motivate students
to learn, master, and independently apply social, emotional, and behavioral
self-management skills, they will automatically be addressing the emotionality
that many students experience due to trauma.
But the
evidence-based PBSS/SEL system that we advocate is not grounded by either
the flawed national PBIS framework or the flawed national SEL-CASEL framework.
The PBSS/SEL system
that we advocate is grounded by individual, group, and organizational
principles of psychology and well-established research-to-practice. This system has been integrated into the
Project ACHIEVE model that was designated as an evidence-based program
in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA; www.projectachieve.info).
We have discussed
this issues before. Please note two
previous Blogs that described and analyzed the flaws in both the PBIS and
CASEL-SEL frameworks:
The Year in Review (Part II):
Schools’ Pursuit of Effective School Discipline, Classroom Management, and
Student Self-Management Strategies
_ _ _ _ _
Analyzing Your School
Discipline Data and Your SEL (PBIS or School Discipline) Program: Students’
Discipline Problems are Increasing Nationally Despite Widespread SEL/PBIS Use
(Part I)
_ _ _ _ _
And, please note
two additional earlier Blogs that described the evidence-based components of an
effective, valid, and multi-tiered science-to-practice PBSS/SEL system that has
been implemented nationwide for over 35 years:
Redesigning Multi-Tiered
Services in Schools: Redefining the Tiers and the Differences between Services
and Interventions
_ _ _ _ _
Solving the Disproportionate
School Discipline Referral Dilemma: When will Districts and Schools Commit to
the Long-term Solutions? There are No Silver Bullets—Only Science to
Preparation to Implementation to Evaluation to Celebration (Part III)
_ _ _ _ _
But—as noted in
Maynard, Farina, Dell, and Kelly’s
systematic review of the trauma-informed research—a multi-tiered system needs
to have services, supports, strategies, and interventions to address the
strategic or intensive needs of students who experience frequent and/or high
levels of emotionality due to trauma.
To accomplish this, a sound multi-tiered
system needs to have:
- Data-based problem-solving and functional assessment processes that determine the root causes of a student’s emotionality. These assessment processes validate that the student’s emotionality is triggered by past or present traumatic events, and not by the many other emotional triggers that are not trauma-related (see the section immediately above); and
- Evidence- or research-based services, supports, strategies, and/or interventions that are linked to the root cause analyses and that have a high probability of student-centered success.
For students who
need small group or individual intervention—due to their social, emotional,
behavioral, or mental health challenges, the school’s mental health and related
service professionals (e.g., school psychologists, counselors, and social
workers) need to be directly involved.
This is because some of these students need more clinical intervention,
and these mental health professionals are the best-trained and skilled people
to deliver them.
[CLICK HERE for the Entire Blog Message that Identifies
Ten Strategic or Intensive Clinical Interventions that can be used with
Students affected by Trauma, and Descriptions of the following four
trauma-focused therapeutic approaches:
- Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT)
- Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS)
- Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS)
- Trauma Systems Therapy (TST)]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This two-part Blog
Series is dedicated to helping districts, schools, educators, and mental health
practitioners understand the research to-practice limitations of specific
trauma-informed programs, as well as those built on the SEL-CASEL and PBIS
frameworks. This discussion will include
mindfulness and meditation programs and approaches—again, within a
trauma-treatment context.
In this first Part
I, we summarized a recent study that reviewed over 9,000 studies, published
over the past ten years, investigating trauma-informed school programs. Using objective, research-sensitive criteria,
this study determined that none of the studies met their criteria for
sound research.
We then discussed
this result in the context of the thousands of schools across this country that
have potentially implemented invalid, unsound, or wasteful (as above)
trauma-informed programs, and describe an evidence-based multi-tiered approach
that responsibly addresses the needs of students impacted by trauma. We also addressed the flawed national PBIS
and SEL-CASEL frameworks, recommending that they not be used as the foundation
of a more generic school-wide approach for these students.
In Part II, we will
discuss the relationship and inappropriate use of mindfulness and mediation
with students experiencing trauma. Here,
we will describe the biological and neuropsychological underpinnings of
trauma-related student emotionality, and how mindfulness and mediation will not
change this emotionality—especially when it is classically conditioned (i.e.,
Pavlovian in nature).
The theme across
both Parts of this Series—and consistent with the Introduction above—is that:
Districts and schools need to know the Trauma-Informed
Care, SEL, Mindfulness, and Meditation research-to-practice as all of these
areas have significant flaws that should result in educators questioning their
use in schools.
Recognizing that
districts and schools do not always have the time or expertise of evaluate the
current research-to-practice, we hope that this two-part Series (and my
previous Blogs on these topics) will help them to choose effective,
multi-tiered approaches to address the social, emotional, and behavioral needs
of students impacted both by trauma and by other emotionally-triggering
situations, circumstances, and/or conditions.
We also hope to
encourage districts and schools that have already adopted and implemented
trauma-informed or sensitive programs to objectively and comprehensively
evaluate their research, practice, and student-centered outcomes— especially
with students who have strategic or intensive clinical needs.
Virtually all of
the research-to-practice discussion in this Blog suggests that these districts
and schools may be wasting money, time, and other resources using programs that
(a) are invalid, unsound, or unproven; and (b) will not “mature” over time to
produce the results that they are not demonstrating right now.
_ _ _ _ _
Now that the New
Year has passed and we (as educators) are “back in session” (I am flying right
now to a full week consultation in the Northeast), I want to remind everyone
that:
- There is still at least five months left in the school year, and that there is still time to start a new academic and/or social, emotional, or behavioral initiative to benefit your students; and
- Most districts are fully into their strategic planning mode for the next school year.
Relative to both
areas, I am fully prepared to help you “add value” to the great things that you
are already doing, or to evaluate your current initiatives— especially those
that are not producing the results that you desired.
I am currently
working with over ten different districts—from inner city to extremely
rural. While most of my consultations
are long-term (from three to five years), I usually start most of them by
completing a “Plan for Planning” process that includes (a) a strategic Current
Status and Needs Assessment in the area of desire or concern; (b) a Resource
and Outcomes Analysis; and (c) an Action Plan that provides a one to three year
change or value-added process that includes resources and training, components
and content, implementation timelines and actions, short- and long-term
outcomes, and formative and summative evaluations needed.
In most cases, my
consultations start with a free, one-hour telephone conversation with a
district or school leadership team where we clarify needs and goals, generate
and answer critical questions, and decide— mutually—if we are a good match.
I encourage you to
contact me to set up this free conversation.
As noted above, it is not too late to (re)start a new, focused
initiative right now, or to begin planning for the 2020 to 2021 school year.
Best,
Howie
