The
Neurological Science Does Not Add Up—Another Fad & More Wasted Time in
Pursuit of a Silver Bullet (Part II)
Dear Colleagues,
Introduction
Our last Blog
message (January 11, 2020) was the first in this current two-part Series
dedicated to helping districts, schools, educators, and mental health
practitioners understand the research to-practice limitations of (a)
trauma-informed programs; (b) trauma-“infused” programs built on the SEL-CASEL
or PBIS frameworks; and (in this Blog message—Part II) (c) trauma-focused
programs that include mindfulness and meditation programs or approaches.
Critically, readers
need to understand the differences between trauma-informed programs and
trauma-informed practices.
Part I of this
series stated very clearly that (a) there are many students who have
experienced trauma-specific events in their lives; (b) these students need
to be identified through objective multi-instrument assessments; and (c)
these students need specific services, supports, strategies, and
interventions—that is, trauma-informed practices—that address
the social, emotional, and behavioral effects of these traumas.
[CLICK HERE to link to
Blog Message, Part I:
Trauma-Informed Schools: New Research Study Says “There’s
No Research.” Schools “Hitch-Up” to Another Bandwagon that is Wasting
Time and Delaying Recommended Scientifically-Proven Services (Part I)
But Part I also
emphasized that some students exhibit emotional reactions (e.g., “fight,
flight, or freeze”) due to emotional triggers that are not
trauma-related. In fact, we provided a number of examples of these
non-trauma-related emotional triggers.
We also emphasized
that ALL students demonstrating high frequency or significantly intense
emotional reactions in school need to have their emotional triggers identified
through objective and valid multi-instrument assessments.
Next, Part I
discussed our concerns with trauma-informed programs— “pre-packaged”
programs with many different components and activities that are largely
implemented intact and school-wide. We emphasized that virtually
all of these programs have not been independently and objectively
validated through sound research across multiple settings and
circumstances.
Here, we expressed
our concerns that some districts and schools are implementing these programs—potentially
wasting time, money, and other resources; and potentially delaying
appropriate services and supports to students in emotional need, while making their
problems worse or more resistant to change.
Finally in Part I,
we put our “money where our mouth is”. . . as we summarized a recent study that
reviewed over 9,000 other studies, published over the past ten years, that
examined trauma-informed school programs.
Using objective,
research-sensitive criteria, this study determined that none of the studies
they analyzed met their criteria for sound research.
Our conclusion: Our concerns that schools are implementing
“trauma-informed” or “trauma-sensitive” programs that have not been objectively
validated, do not work, and are counter-productive was supported.
_ _ _ _ _
In this Part II,
we will discuss the relationship and inappropriate use of mindfulness and
mediation with students experiencing trauma. Here, we will describe (a) the
non-existent methodologically-sound or validating research for school-based
mindfulness programs; (b) how one popular commercial company—that provides
unvalidated mindfulness training to individuals and schools—rationalizes its
existence (while making multi-millions of dollars and wasting precious school
time and resources); and (c) how the biological and neuropsychological
underpinnings of trauma-related student emotionality is inconsistent with the
primary goals and desired outcomes of most mindfulness programs, and these
programs do not have the multi-tiered psychologically-grounded clinical
interventions needed by students with significant social, emotional, and
behavioral challenges.
The theme across
both Parts of this Series 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 to 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Re-Introduction: Mindfulness and
Meditation
Over the past few
months, I have been updating my Stop & Think Social Skills Program’s
manual and materials. The Stop & Think Program is an evidence-based
program as designated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), and it has
been adopted in thousands of schools nationwide since 1990.
Noting that the
most-essential outcome of any social skills curriculum or program is to help
students—across the preschool through high school age span—develop independent
and adaptive social, emotional, attributional, and behavioral self-management
skills, I have enhanced the Manual’s research-to-practice discussions of
emotional regulation, control, and coping.
Significantly, in
preparing these enhanced discussions, I re-reviewed not just the relevant
psychological research, but also the relevant neurological research.
But I have also
been “forced” to re-review the “research” on mindfulness and meditation—because
this bandwagon has maintained its popularity in the popular press, and more
districts and schools (still) seem to be adopting these practices without regard
for the research.
Indeed, the popular
press—including a number of well-established national professional teaching
organizations—continues to publish testimonials or “case studies” where they
conclude that their mindfulness program-for-the-day has “significantly and
causally” improved school climate, student behavior, and staff instruction.
[Of course, the
research methodologies underlying these cases studies are completely without
merit, and there is no way—given these methodologies—that any causal
relationships could ever be established.]
And yet, some
districts and schools have inappropriately used these testimonials or case
studies as their rationale for adopting these programs or practices.
In doing this,
these districts and schools have fallen prey to one or more of the “challenges”
discussed in the Introduction of this Blog message.
_ _ _ _ _
Pulling all of this
together, this Blog section will provide the following:
- A brief summary of and references to our past Blog discussions in this area.
- A brief summary of our updated research review in this area.
- A substantive discussion of how the neurological research supports the psychological research explaining students’ emotional control and coping, and their emotional self-regulation and self-management.
SPOILER ALERT
!!! The last discussion will largely
invalidate the “connection” between the student-focused needs of most schools,
and why they adopt mindfulness programs.
In our experience
(and based many popular press case studies), most schools adopt mindfulness
programs to change the emotional volatility and reactivity of students who have
experienced trauma or who are exhibiting significant social, emotional, or
behavioral challenges.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summarizing Our Past Mindfulness Program Discussions,
and Reviews of the Mindfulness Research
During the past few
years, I have devoted at least five Blogs to the Mindfulness “movement.”
In my February
13, 2016 Blog, I critically reviewed four research articles on Mindfulness
that were published in 2013.
[CLICK
HERE] Reviewing Mindfulness and
Other Mind-Related Programs: More
Bandwagons that Need to be Derailed? Why
are Schools Wasting their Time and Resources on Fads with Poor Research and
Unrealistic Results?
At the end of
the Blog, I stated,
“Without reviewing data from the original development
of the Mindfulness curricula or interventions used, these studies suggest that—if
anything—'the jury is still out.’
None of
these results objectively proved that the Mindfulness approaches had any short-
or long-term effect on student behavior.
And, none of these results come close to making
a compelling argument for adopting any of these Mindfulness approaches in any
other classroom, school, or district.
(Critically,) (O)ne of the potential problems with
Mindfulness is that—even if it works—any improvements in self-control,
self-awareness, or attention do not necessarily translate into student
improvements in demonstrating social, behavioral, emotional coping and control
skills.
And these are the outcomes that educators are
interested in.
Thus, just because students are able to be more
attentive and focused on the present, this does not mean that they have
learned, mastered, and are able to apply the interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, or emotional control and coping
skills needed to deal with that present.
If we are going to invest the money, time, and
training that these Mindfulness programs require, why are we not, instead,
investing in the evidence-based social and emotional skills programs proven to
actually produce behavioral change?”
_ _ _ _ _
At the beginning
of November 2017, we published a three-part Blog Series focusing on the
implicit goal of most Mindfulness programs or approaches:
To help students to be more aware and in control of
their emotions, thoughts, and behavior.
During this Series,
we analyzed the research and practice of Mindfulness, concluding that—from an
objective, data-based perspective—the approach does not deliver on this
stated goal.
In order to focus
educators’ attention on the best, research-based processes that DO meet this
goal, we discussed how cognitive-behavioral strategies and interventions
have over 35 years of research supporting their social, emotional, and
behavioral efficacy with children, adolescents, and adults.
We then mused:
What would happen—relative to the goals
above—if schools invested the same time, training, and attention to cognitive-behavioral
strategies, with their longstanding record of student success. . . instead of a
passing fad that educators will recall in the future with a deep breath and a
roll of their collective eyes?
[CLICK
HERE for Part I of the Series]
November 4, 2017
New Article Again Debunks “Mindfulness” in Schools: Teaching
Emotional and Behavioral Self-Management through Cognitive-Behavioral Science
and The Stop & Think Social Skills Program. . . Don’t We Really Just Want
Students to “Stop & Think”?
_ _ _ _
_
[CLICK
HERE for Part II]
November 18, 2017
Teaching Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Self-Management Skills to All
Students: The Cognitive-Behavioral Science Underlying the Success of The
Stop & Think Social Skills Program
_ _ _ _
_
[CLICK
HERE for Part III]
December 2, 2017
Teaching Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Self-Management Skills to All
Students: The Cognitive-Behavioral Science Underlying the Success of The
Stop & Think Social Skills Program
_ _ _ _ _
In Part I of this
2017 Blog Series, we discussed the past and current research, efficacy, and
realities of Mindfulness programs in schools across the country, and the $1.1
billion industry-fed “bandwagon” that many districts have “jumped on” over the
past few years.
Overall, the updated
research cited in Part I made the following points:
- Most of the Mindfulness program research has either not been methodologically sound, or it has not produced objective and demonstrable success.
- The few studies that have shown “good evidence” have focused on adults with clinically-significant mental health issues (anxiety, depression, and pain), not on school-aged students.
- Rather than use the few studies that have shown “good evidence” to rationalize the use of Mindfulness in schools (or worse, someone’s subjective, personal pronouncements), educators need to read the substantial body of research that should eliminate the use of Mindfulness programs in schools.
- Sound research has not definitively demonstrated that Mindfulness programs are successful at the preventative (e.g., Tier 1) level in schools. In fact, the Behavior Research and Therapy study cited in Part I indicates the opposite.
- There are a significant number of large school districts and other schools (covered by the popular press) that are wasting precious professional development and classroom time and money on this fad.
- Students who need evidence-based approaches to address their social, emotional, and behavioral needs—but are receiving Mindfulness training instead—are potentially being harmed because more effective services are being delayed.
- Students would be far better served if their districts and schools were providing multi-tiered social skills training and cognitive-behavioral therapy approaches—given their long histories of demonstrated efficacy in hundreds of studies with school-aged students.
_ _ _ _ _ _
In Part II of the
Series, we used the evidence-based Stop & Think Social Skills
Program as an exemplar for how to teach students social, emotional, and
behavioral self-management through a social skills instructional curriculum.
Initially, we defined
Self-Management as a child or adolescent’s ability:
- To be socially, emotionally, and behaviorally aware of themselves and others;
- To effectively control their emotions, as well as their thoughts, beliefs, expectations, and attributions; and
- To behaviorally demonstrate successful interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills.
We then noted
that:
On a social level, children
and adolescents need to progressively learn the self-management skills that
contribute to effective: (a) listening, engagement, and responding; (b)
communication and collaboration; (c) social problem-solving and group interactions;
and (d) (once again) conflict prevention and resolution.
On an emotional
level, they need to learn the self-management skills that result in: (a) the
awareness of their own and others’ feelings; (b) the ability to manage or
control their feelings and emotions; (c) the ability to cope with the emotional
effects of current situations; and (d) the ability to demonstrate appropriate
behavior even under conditions of emotionality.
Finally, on a
behavioral level, children and adolescents need to learn the self-management
skills that help them to be actively engaged in and responsible for their own
learning (individually, and in small and large groups), and to demonstrate
appropriate behavior in the classroom and across the common areas of the
school.
We concluded that
existing Mindfulness programs do not adhere to the science-to-practice
principles of cognitive-behavioral science or the social skills instructional
approaches guided by social learning theory.
_ _ _ _ _
In Part III of
the Series, we reviewed (a) an October 11, 2017 article in Scientific
American (“Where’s the Proof that Mindfulness Meditation Works?”) that
referenced (b) an article published the day before in Perspectives on
Psychological Science, and (c) yet another Scientific American
article (“Mindfulness Training for Teens Fails Important Test”) that was
published on October 31, 2017.
The latter
article began as follows:
“Over the past
several decades, the practice of mindfulness has evolved into a booming
billion-dollar industry, with growing claims that mindfulness is a panacea for
host of maladies including stress, depression, failures of attention, eating
disorders, substance abuse, weight gain, and pain.
Not all of these
claims, however, are likely to be true. A recent critical evaluation of the
adult literature on mindfulness identifies a number of weaknesses in the extant
research, including a lack of randomized control groups, small sample sizes,
large attrition rates, and inconsistent definitions of mindfulness.
Moreover, a systematic
review of intervention studies found insufficient evidence for a benefit of
mindfulness on attention, mood, sleep, weight control, or substance abuse.
That said, there
is empirical evidence that mindfulness offers a moderate benefit for anxiety,
depression, and pain, at least in adults.”
_ _ _ _ _
This article then
asked whether Mindfulness can effectively address depression and anxiety in
teens. It noted that some research suggests that Mindfulness can be useful, but
it again reinforced the critique above regarding the shortcomings in the
research.
Finally, the
article summarized a large-scale study with 308 middle and high school students
in 17 different classrooms across five different schools who were randomly
assigned to a Mindfulness training or Control group (published in Behavior
Research and Therapy in 2016).
The students
receiving Mindfulness training participated in weekly 35 to 60 minute sessions
conducted by the same certified instructor, they were encouraged to practice
mindfulness techniques at home, and they were given manuals to assist in this
practice. All participants were assessed at three different time points with measures
of anxiety and depression, weight and shape concerns, well-being, emotional
dysregulation, self-compassion, and mindfulness. Baseline measures were taken one week before
the intervention, a post-test measure was taken a week after the sessions were
over, and a follow-up assessment was administered about 3 months later.
Despite the many
outcome measures used, there was no evidence of any benefit for the Mindfulness
group based on either the immediate post-test or the follow-up evaluations.
In fact, anxiety
was higher at the follow-up for males in the mindfulness group relative to
males in the control group. This result also occurred for participants with low
baseline depression and weight concerns—the Mindfulness training led to an
increase in anxiety for these individuals over time.
This study is
notable not just for its insignificant (to slightly negative) outcomes, but
because it documents that the significant amount of time needed to implement the
Mindfulness program—for both the clinician and the students—largely went
for naught.
_ _ _ _ _
Finally on June 2,
2018, we updated our previous discussions—adding a review of some of the
Mindfulness curricula being used in some schools.
[CLICK
HERE for this Blog Message]
June 2, 2018 Making Mountains Out of
Molehills: Mindfulness and Growth Mindsets. Critical Research Questions
the Impact of Both
In our
introduction, we reminded colleagues that mindfulness was originally popularized
by Dr. John Kabat-Zinn with a goal of helping adults cope with stress, anxiety,
pain, and illness. Kabat-Zinn integrated meditational practices from the
Buddhist tradition with yoga and medical science into a mindfulness-based
stress reduction program that was not designed for use with children and
adolescents.
A number of
national and international groups adapted Kabat-Zinn’s work to schools and
students—among them The Inner Kids Program (Los Angeles), MindUP (The Goldie
Hawn Foundation), Mindful Moment (The Holistic Life Foundation), Rise-Up
(Mindful Schools), and Mindfulness in Schools Program (Great Britain).
But, despite the “home-grown
research” cited by some of these groups—to argue the merits and validity of
their materials—there are many critical questions.
For example, have
they been:
- Independently and objectively validated across. . .
- Multiple randomly-selected communities and school sites, involving...
- Students who are representative of students in schools and communities nationwide?
Moreover, have the
participating schools and students been:
- Compared with randomly-selected comparison schools that received the same amount of time and training relative to students’ attention and emotional control (just not through a Mindfulness curriculum). . .
- Evaluated on outcomes using objective, reliable, and valid measures completed by different observers- - including the students themselves. . . where
- These measures were given at least twice before the program was begun, multiple times as the program was implemented, and at least twice (after at least 6 months, and then 12 months) after the program was over?
In other words,
have these programs been implemented with fidelity, and objectively evaluated
in ways that demonstrated that they produced meaningful results?
Moreover, have
their researchers demonstrated that the student-specific results were directly and
causally related to the Mindfulness program—and not due to the “special”
attention paid to the students involved, to the individuals leading the program
and its sessions, or to the way the schools or students were selected?
_ _ _ _ _
Our conclusion in
June, 2018 was that:
At this
point, the research and practice simply do not support the implementation of
Mindfulness programs by any district or its schools.
Even if a district or its schools has “already
invested in the training time and materials,” they are still investing
instructional time that should be focused on the SAME student outcomes, but
with demonstrated, evidence-based multi-tiered practices and strategies.
In other words, we
recommended that districts and schools stop throwing good money after a bad
investment.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A
Mindfulness Research Update
It is not my goal
here to provide an in-depth methodological analysis of the most-current sound,
objective, and quasi-experimental studies investigating the efficacy of
mindfulness programs or interventions with school-aged students.
At the same time,
in preparing for this Blog message, I did review the research, and I
found very few methodologically-sound studies published since my June, 2018
Blog (see Blog citation above).
One important
article, published in the journal Mindfulness in 2019, reviewed many of
the studies that I also found. Authored by McKeering and Hwang, the article is
titled, “A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based School Interventions with
Early Adolescents.”
[CLICK
HERE for original article]
In their research,
these authors reviewed nine electronic databases that identified 1,571 studies
discussing mindfulness with early adolescents. After evaluating the quality of
the research methodologies in these studies, only 13 studies met their
criteria for sound research. That’s less than 1% of the studies
assessed.
This, once
again, demonstrates that—just because a study on mindfulness appears in a
“professional” journal—this does not mean that the study and its stated
results and conclusions are valid.
This is also
important because, according to McKeering and Hwang, “(t)he review found
positive improvements reported in well-being measures in 11 of the 13 papers.”
But our story does
not end here.
While we appreciate
the good work of these authors, we must note that psychological or
psychoeducational interventions are most useful when their successes are
sustained either (a) without the need for continued intervention
sessions, or (b) after the intervention sessions have been discontinued.
Methodologically,
this is tested when studies evaluate the impact of an intervention (a)
immediately after it has been fully implemented; and then (b) after another
six, twelve, or eighteen months—where no additional intervention training has
occurred. When studies only do (a) above, they are called “pre-post” studies.
When they do both (a) and (b), they are called “pre-post-post” studies.
Critically, of the
13 papers that McKeering and Hwang “certified” as using sound research methods,
the Table summarizing these studies in their article indicated that:
- Only four of the studies used pre-post methods;
- Only three additional studies used pre-post-post methods; and
- None of the studies used “multi-respondent, multi-instrument, and multi-setting methods.
Of the three
pre-post-post studies, two collected their second “post” data only three
months after the first set of post data were collected, and the other one
did not specify when it collected its follow-up “post” data.
Thus:
- None of the “methodologically-sound” studies truly used sound research methods, and
- Any conclusions regarding the impact (relative to changing student behavior) or usefulness (relative to sustaining changed behavior) of these articles’ mindfulness approaches either were not be determined or are not present.
This conclusion is
further strengthened by the fact that none of the studies used
multi-respondent, multi-instrument, and multi-setting methods.
That is, they did
not evaluate the impact of the mindfulness interventions using (a) multiple
respondents (e.g., students and teachers); (b) multiple assessment instruments
(e.g., student self-report, teacher behavior ratings, classroom observation,
and physiological measurements); and (c) in multiple settings across the school
(e.g., in different classrooms, and different common school areas—where many
stressful situations for students occur).
Thus, based on
McKeering and Hwang’s recent study, 1,571 originally-identified studies were
reduced to 13 studies, that we subsequently reduced to zero
methodologically-sound studies.
The implication? Schools need psychological and
psychoeducational interventions that are sustained (largely by the students
themselves) over long periods of time—without the need for continuous teacher
or mental health professional monitoring or involvement. When students cannot
sustain their initial intervention progress or success over time, these
benefits typically are lost, because school personnel simply can’t keep up with
them in the face of other, more essential priorities.
_ _ _ _ _
The McKeering and
Hwang study reinforced an October 19, 2017 article by Brian Resnick. In Is
Mindfulness Meditation Good for Kids? Here’s What the Science Actually
Says, Resnick noted that in 1970 there were no professional journal
and no newspaper stories discussing “mindfulness.”
In 2015, he counted
1,200 professional journal, and 32,000 newspaper stories on “mindfulness.” But
he noted that very few of the professional journal articles involved
school-aged students, and virtually all of the newspaper stories had more to do
with “public interest” than research-based assertions.
Indeed, Resnick
concluded his article by saying that “the evidence for mindfulness in adults is
limited, but promising.”
Relative to
school-aged students, he stated:
I found only three recent systematic reviews on the
use of mindfulness and mediation practices in schools. . . (T)hey generally
find positive results, but note methodological flaws in the literature. . .
Because mindfulness sessions are composed of a grab
bag of activities— concentrating on breathing, concentrating on sounds, groups
discussions of the mind-body connection—it’s hard to know what, exactly, the
mechanism for these positive changes is, and if that mechanism is unique to
mindfulness . . . And that’s one of the biggest criticisms of mindfulness that
I kept encountering in reporting: It’s all kind of vague. Mindfulness—a
collection of disparate concentration activities—targets broad regions in the
brain and broadly helps people on a number of things.
Overall, there’s evidence that
suggests mindfulness has a positive effect for kids on anxiety and cognitive
measures. But the research isn’t clear on why, whom it’s most beneficial for. .
., or whether the effect is specific to mindfulness instruction.
Without trying to be unfair, I would
like everyone to re-read Resnick’s conclusions above—substituting the
made-up word, Mindfulcillin, for Mindfulness. I want you to make
believe that Mindfulcillin is a new drug on the market, and that its
promos say that it can decrease students’ anxiety and increase their attention
and academic productivity.
Given the words or phrases “methodological
flaws,” “a grab bag of activities,” “hard to know exactly what the mechanisms
for these positive changes are,” and “the evidence suggests a positive effect,
but it isn’t clear on why or whom it’s beneficial for” in Resnick’s statement
above:
Would any of you allow your eight year
old child take this medication?
This is why the Federal Drug Agency exists,
and why only drugs that have been scientifically proven to positively impact
specific medical problems (with extremely low levels of side effects) are
approved and made available to the public.
This is also why these drugs are only
prescribed by medical professionals who have been licensed at the state level
as competent in their selection and use.
Neither of these conditions are present
for Mindfulness—or its Medication correlate.
None of the Mindfulness studies reviewed in
the past or currently for this Blog comes close to the scrutiny of a new
medication or drug. While we assume that Mindfulness programs are being
selected for the schools by well-meaning educators, do they have the training
or skills—like our medical colleagues—to make these decisions?
_ _ _ _ _
But There is More: The Selling
of Mindful Schools
One of the leading training and distribution
mindfulness vendors (and, I am using the word “vendor” very consciously)
is Mindful Schools. This company
claims to have trained over 15,000 “Certified Mindfulness Instructors” with its
full-year certification program currently costing $5,875 (you do the $88
multi-million dollar math !!!).
Significantly, this “program” consists of a
10-month, 300-hour remote program, and two “retreats.”
Thus, there is no live, physical, or
direct observation on-site training, clinical practice, supervision and
accountability, or objective evaluation of any “Certified Instructors”
ability to lead a school in this company’s approaches.
This is basically practicing psychology
without a license.
_ _ _ _ _
In looking at the company’s Leadership and
Lead Trainers, I saw THREE individuals with doctorates (in Education,
Religion, and Social Work)—and NO doctoral-level school, child, or
related psychologists.
This multi-million dollar grossing company
and its training is largely run by business-people, marketers, and former
educators who were involved in a mindfulness program—many at their original
“home” schools.
Indeed, in the description for the
certification program, the Mindful Schools website states,
“The Mindful Teacher journey is supported by a diverse
and interdisciplinary team of highly skilled and experienced teachers working
at the intersection of mindfulness and education.”
Thus, one of the
“leading” mindfulness training programs in the country is not based on the
(school) psychology of learning and cognition, normal and abnormal behavior,
social-emotional development and psychology, or developmental and behavioral
growth. . . . regardless of the marketing allusions, graphics,
descriptions, and diagrams on its website.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative to
research, if you click on one of the citations that this company uses to
“validate” its training and school implementation program, you get a page with
30 research citations.
These are the
same “research” articles that have been reviewed by other authors (see
these reviews described earlier in this Blog).
While there are testimonials on their
website—in the form of “Implementation Stories,” there are NO studies on the
website validating the program or practices being sold by Mindful Schools.
Based on the absence of research validating
their own program, it appears that Mindful Schools is selling
large doses of “Mindfulcillin” (see my earlier comments).
They are making money, while schools are
wasting money that could be dedicated to evidence- and psychologically-based
sound practices.
Moreover, their own Senior Program Manager,
Oren J. Sofer was quoted in Resnik’s October 19, 2017 article, Is
Mindfulness Meditation Good for Kids? Here’s What the Science Actually
Says (see our earlier discussion of Resnick’s article) as saying:
“You can overstate the research and make claims that
haven’t been validated, but saying that (Mindfulness is) ‘experimental’ I
believe is understating the research. I think it’s important to research this
stuff, but at the same time, it’s important to have common sense. Do we as
adults and educators in society have a responsibility to teach children to be
self-aware? You don’t need a research study to answer that question.”
Pardon my French but.
. . .What a load of self-serving and reprehensible crap.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Connecting the Psychological and Neurological
Foundations of Emotional Self-Regulation and Self-Management
If the non-existent
research on Mindfulness (and mediation) discussed above is not enough, let’s
look at the primary goals of a Mindfulness program alongside the teaching of
social, emotional, and behavioral skills, and the neuropsychology of emotions
and emotional reactivity.
As noted earlier,
one of the goals of a social skills program is to teach students emotional
self-management—what some call “emotional self-regulation,” and what others
broaden into discussions of “emotional intelligence.”
Critically, my
preference is to stick with the term “emotional self-management”—recognizing
that this involves instruction in emotional awareness, emotional control, and
emotional coping skills, respectively, that translate into students’ overt
behavioral skills and interactions. Thus, ultimately, emotional self-management
is an observable, behavioral student outcome.
Specifically,
emotional self-management consists of a student’s ability to maintain:
- Physiological (relative to adrenaline in the vascular system, and cortisol in the limbic system) control and, hence, emotional control;
- Cognitive self-statement and attributional (relative to attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and self-evaluations) control; and
- Physical behavioral and interpersonal (relative to prosocial interactions, social problem-solving, and conflict prevention) control and execution.
As discussed above,
a primary premise of mindfulness and its use of meditation (see the articles
cited) is that:
“When students are
more aware of their physiological and emotional states, they demonstrate better
attention, engagement, and emotional regulation . . . less anxiety, stress, and
emotional reactivity . . . and better interpersonal relationships and
self-compassion.”
But these claims
are inconsistent with both the psychological and neurological foundations of
emotional self-regulation and self-management.
Some of the most
important scientific foundations here include the following:
- Awareness does not automatically translate into Skill. While awareness can be taught, the social, emotional, or behavioral skills that help students respond to their awareness must also be taught.
- From a psychological perspective, most emotional behavior or reactivity is Classically Conditioned (a la Pavlov).
- From a neurological perspective, most emotional behavior triggers before a student’s conscious awareness or cognitive control over that behavior.
- For all students—but especially those who are emotionally volatile or significantly impacted by trauma—their conditioned emotional responses need to be un-conditioned, re-conditioned, or counter-conditioned. . . and this takes a multi-tiered system of supports that often includes clinically- or therapeutically-intensive interventions.
We briefly discuss
each of these scientific foundations—recognizing that they are inconsistent
with the cognitive/neocortex-driven foundations of Mindfulness.
_ _ _ _ _
Summary:
Mindfulness versus the Neuropsychological Science of Emotions
Virtually
everything about mindfulness and meditation is about awareness, cognitive
control and decision-making, and maintaining a level of emotional stability.
Thus, virtually everything neuropsychologically about mindfulness is in the
cortex and neocortex.
Given this and our
discussion above, it should be apparent that:
Virtually all
mindfulness programs that emphasize meditation and cognitive control techniques
will not prevent the amygdala from activating and, thus, will not
prevent students’ fight, flight, or freeze conditioned responses during
emotionally-triggering situations.
Moreover, we
have yet to see any mindfulness program in this country provide a true,
psychologically-based multi-tiered system of support—involving evidence-based
clinical/therapeutic interventions for students with significant
emotional-behavioral needs.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
A Brief Description of Two Evidence-Based
Clinical/School Interventions for Students with Significant Trauma-Related
Challenges
Two of the
evidence-based clinical/school interventions for students with significant
trauma-related challenges are Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention for Trauma
in Schools (C-BITS), and Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
(TF-CBT). These were noted in the Tier II/III intervention list in the Blog
section immediately above.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary and
Recommendations
This two-part
Series was dedicated to helping districts, schools, educators, and mental
health practitioners understand the research to-practice limitations of (a)
trauma-informed programs; (b) trauma-“infused” programs built on the SEL-CASEL
or PBIS frameworks; and (in this Blog message—Part II) (c) trauma-focused
programs that include mindfulness and meditation programs or approaches.
Critically, readers
need to understand the differences between trauma-informed programs and
trauma-informed practices.
Part I of this
series stated very clearly that (a) there are many students who have
experienced trauma-specific events in their lives; (b) these students need
to be identified through objective multi-instrument assessments; and (c)
these students need specific services, supports, strategies, and
interventions—that is, trauma-informed practices—that address
the social, emotional, and behavioral effects of these traumas.
[CLICK HERE to link to
Blog Message, Part I:
Trauma-Informed Schools: New Research Study Says “There’s
No Research.” Schools “Hitch-Up” to Another Bandwagon that is Wasting
Time and Delaying Recommended Scientifically-Proven Services (Part I)
But Part I also
emphasized that some students exhibit emotional reactions (e.g., “fight,
flight, or freeze”) due to emotional triggers that are not
trauma-related. In fact, we provided a number of examples of these
non-trauma-related emotional triggers.
We also emphasized
that ALL students demonstrating high frequency or significantly intense
emotional reactions in school need to have their emotional triggers identified
through objective and valid multi-instrument assessments.
Next, Part I
discussed our concerns with trauma-informed programs— “pre-packaged”
programs with many different components and activities that are largely
implemented intact and school-wide. We emphasized that virtually
all of these programs have not been independently and objectively
validated through sound research across multiple settings and
circumstances.
Here, we expressed
our concerns that some districts and schools are implementing these programs—potentially
wasting time, money, and other resources; and potentially delaying
appropriate services and supports to students in emotional need, while making
their problems worse or more resistant to change.
Finally in Part I,
we put our “money where our mouth is”. . . as we summarized a recent study that
reviewed over 9,000 other studies, published over the past ten years, that
examined trauma-informed school programs.
Using objective,
research-sensitive criteria, this study determined that none of the studies
they analyzed met their criteria for sound research.
Our conclusion: Our concerns that schools are implementing
“trauma-informed” or “trauma-sensitive” programs that have not been objectively
validated, do not work, and are counter-productive was supported.
_ _ _ _ _
In this Part II,
we discussed the relationship and inappropriate use of mindfulness and
mediation with students experiencing trauma. Here, we described (a) the
non-existent methodologically-sound or validating research for school-based
mindfulness programs; (b) how one popular commercial company—that provides
unvalidated mindfulness training to individuals and schools—rationalizes its
existence (while making multi-millions of dollars and wasting precious school
time and resources); and (c) how the biological and neuropsychological
underpinnings of trauma-related student emotionality is inconsistent with the
primary goals and desired outcomes of most mindfulness programs, and these
programs do not have the multi-tiered psychologically-grounded clinical
interventions needed by students with significant social, emotional, and
behavioral challenges.
The theme across
both Parts of this Series 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 to 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.
_ _ _ _ _
As I noted in
Part I: For my administrative
colleagues, if you have committed to a Mindfulness or Growth Mindset “program,”
I understand your potential frustration (and cognitive dissonance) in the
research and remarks above. While I apologize for the disruption, I cannot
change the research.
If you would like
to discuss this—or anything related to the success of your students, staff, and
school(s)—I am happy to talk with you at any time. Give me a call, or drop me
an e-mail.
There are
evidence-based and field-tested solutions for students’ social, emotional, and
behavioral self-management that are evidence-based, field-tested and
proven, and that can be implemented in a short period of time.
This is the perfect
time to prepare for your next school year’s successes.
Best,
Howie
