Another Federal Push… What’s the Deal with Trauma Sensitive Schools?

Why Schools Can't Become Trauma-Sensitive Unless They Simultaneously Address Bullying, Exposure to Violence, Persistent Academic Failure, and Other Student Mental Health Issues 

   I hope you are doing well as we move into Fall and the end of the first quarter of the year.

   Today’s message will carry somewhat of a “mixed message.”  I am going to discuss trauma, its impact on students in schools, and the importance of implementing approaches that help these students to succeed in school. 

   At the same time, I am going to emphasize that many of the approaches needed for these students are no different than other (or the same) students who have experienced significant, negative home or life events; teasing or bullying; persistent academic failure and frustration; social rejection, aggression, or isolation; or acute or chronic exposure to violence.

   Finally, I am issuing a warning that an increased emphasis on “Trauma-Sensitive Schools” and “Trauma-Informed Practices” by the federal government and some of its funded national Technical Assistance centers has already created yet another “cottage industry” of companies, consultants, and “specialized trainings” in this area. 

   My concerns are rooted in my attendance at the National School-Based Mental Health Conference last month in Pittsburgh.  I have attended (and presented at) these conferences for at least a decade, and it was notable that- - at the 2013 Conference- - there were virtually no conference sessions on trauma-sensitive or –informed practices.  And yet, suddenly, at last month’s Conference, there were ten or more sessions discussing this topic.

   Again, I am not saying that this is not an important topic and/or mental health/behavioral concern.  However, I am cautioning that many of these sessions were recommending “trauma-specific” treatments or programs that have not been field-tested or validated in schools or with large numbers of students.  And yet, here they are being advocated for at a major national conference.

Critically, virtually all of these “trauma-sensitive or -informed” trainings:

   *  Are not needed at the Tier 1/Prevention or even Tier 2/Strategic Intervention levels of social, emotional, and behavioral support if a school has a sound school-wide program in this area- - one that focuses on students’ social competency and self-management skills.

   *  Have not (once again) been field-tested nor demonstrated their short- or long-term success or their unique need in actually helping students to cope with significant levels of trauma (especially in the absence of other mental health supports).

   *  Add yet another specialized responsibility to our teachers’ “plates” that they are unprepared to fully address, and that they should not need to address- - once again, if the school had sound Tier I/Positive Behavioral Support System approaches in place.

_ _ _ _ _

The Bottom Line is that:

   *  We need to prepare and support all teachers in how to create positive, differentiated, and success-oriented classrooms that teach students the academic and social, emotional, and behavioral skills that they need to be successful. 

   *  These latter skills need to focus on teaching students to demonstrate and apply interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping skills.  As taught, these skills need to be embedded into the academic activities where students need to collaborate and work together, and into students’ social and interpersonal individual and group activities and interactions.

   *  These skills need to be explicitly applied to the areas of behavioral health, bullying prevention, truancy and dropout prevention and reduction, PBIS and positive approaches to discipline, and social and emotional learning.

   *  Schools and districts need to have skilled mental health specialists (typically school psychologists and clinical social workers) who know the cognitive-behavioral and emotional coping interventions to help those students who need more intensive social-behavioral services and supports.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

How Did this All Start ?

   The most-recent focus on trauma began when a series of studies were published in the late 2000s that related to the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, research that originated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; www.cdc.gov), and Kaiser Permanente's Health Appraisal Clinic in San Diego.  In one of the largest investigations ever conducted to assess the relationship between ten specific childhood experiences and their later-life health and well-being, information was collected from patients who were undergoing comprehensive physical examinations at more than 17,000 health maintenance organizations.

   The ten home or family experiences covered the first 18 years of the respondents’ lives (the survey does not discriminate when the events occurred), and the experiences were rated “Yes” or “No” relative to whether they ever occurred- - even once.  The experiences involved (a) parental or adult emotional abuse or physical threats, physical aggression, sexual touching, sexual penetration; (b) parental drug abuse, separation or divorce, mental illness, or incarceration; and (c) times where the respondent did not feel loved or supported or protected, did not have clean clothes or supervision, or did not have medical care when needed.

   According to the CDC’s website, “the ACE Study suggests that certain experiences are major risk factors for the leading causes of illness and death as well as poor quality of life in the United States. It is critical to understand how some of the worst health and social problems in our nation can arise as a consequence of adverse childhood experiences.  Realizing these connections is likely to improve efforts towards prevention and recovery.”

Comment.  Without minimizing the real impacts of these individual and cumulative life events, and acknowledging the burgeoning research in this area, it is important to recognize that:

   *  Most of the research in this area is correlational- - these ten home and family life events during childhood or adolescent do not necessarily cause adults to have health and/or social problems.  All we know is that adults with these problems, retrospectively, had a higher number of the ACE events.

Moreover, we cannot generalize the results of data from thousands of adults to predict the impact of these events on a single adult- - or even a single child or adolescent.

   *  For an individual student, the intensity of the ten events may be more predictive of the cited adult problems than the number of the events.  Study participants did not rate the intensity of the events- - they only reported, from their perspectives, whether the events occurred or did not occur. 

   *  For an individual student, the age when the one or more events occurred, and their emotional coping skills and/or the presence of external support systems may be more predictive of the impact of the events than their actual number.

   *  As noted above, there are other home, community, and school events (e.g., bullying, exposure to violence, the impact of a disability) that were not on the ACE that may be as predictive to adults’ (and students’) health and social status.

_ _ _ _ _

The Bottom Line is that schools need to:

   *  Routinely screen all students for social, emotional, and/or behavioral concerns.  However, we need to recognize that the best screeners are classroom teachers who have positive relationships with their students, are tuned in to them as individuals, and are able to recognize when they are struggling in these areas.

   *  Have early intervention teams (e.g., Student Assistance Teams, Student Services Teams) who include the best academic and behavioral professionals in or available to the school- - who then work with the school staff, parents/guardians, and the student him/herself to determine the “root causes” underlying the social, emotional, and/or behavioral concerns.

   *  Have professionals skilled in social, emotional, and behavioral interventions, and (when needed) additional mental health response systems so that the services, supports, strategies, and/or programs needed to address the underlying causes of a student’s challenges can be successfully addressed. 

Significantly, this “system” may involve school-based or school-linked community mental health professionals- - especially when the school does not have the depth of expertise needed, or when the student needs intensive supports at that level.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Where Has This Gone ?

   Somewhat parallel to the ACE research has been work published in 2005 and then 2013 by the Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC).  Focusing first on the policies needed to “Help Traumatized Children Learn,” and then to create “Trauma-Sensitive Schools,” the MAC’s work has become embedded in legislative action in Massachusetts that established (FY2014) a Safe and Supportive Schools Grant Program.  The grant money is to help schools to create and implement plans to help establish “Safe and Supportive School Environments.”

   Significantly, the legislative act defined a “Safe and Supportive School Environment” as:

“A safe, positive, healthy and inclusive whole-school learning environment that (i) enables students to develop positive relationships with adults and peers, regulate their emotions and behavior, achieve academic and non-academic success in school and maintain physical and psychological health and well-being; and (ii) integrates services and aligns initiatives that promote students’ behavioral health, including social and emotional learning, bullying prevention, trauma sensitivity, dropout prevention, truancy reduction, children’s mental health, the education of foster care and homeless youth, the inclusion of students with disabilities, positive behavioral approaches that reduce suspensions and expulsions and other similar initiatives.”

   In the 2013 document, the MAC emphasized the importance of aligning all of the initiatives above together because “the same legal and policy conditions necessary for trauma sensitivity are also necessary for a wide range of other important education reform initiatives.”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

 

Summary and Conclusions

   Many of the social, emotional, and behavioral reactions, responses, and needs that students have when they experience significant, negative home or life events; teasing or bullying; persistent academic failure and frustration; social rejection, aggression, or isolation; or acute or chronic exposure to violence coexist.  Significantly, then, it makes no sense (nor is it realistic relative to teachers, time, and training) to implement separate, discrete prevention and early response programs for what appear to be somewhat different situations.

   We know that there are five components needed in a (Tier I) prevention and early intervention approach to supporting all students- - especially those students experiencing the life and social circumstances above.  These are:

   *  Positive school and classroom climates and relationships

   *  Identifying and teaching core, needed interpersonal, conflict prevention and resolution, social problem-solving, and emotional coping skills

   *  Establishing a behavioral accountability system and holding students accountable to using their social, emotional, and behavioral skills

   *  Maintaining consistency throughout the process

   *  Applying the process to all settings, while encouraging the different student peer groups in a school to become full partners in supporting the process

   Beyond this, schools and districts need a continuum of services, supports, strategies, and programs that provide interventions and mental health supports to students (and families) in greater need.

   We have got to work together- - effectively and efficiently- - in order to establish these system, school, staff, and student approaches.  We should not be swayed by companies, consultants, or
specialized training approaches that have not been field-tested or validated in schools or with large numbers of students, and that take our attention away from the “common core” of components that help create truly safe and support school environments.

   I hope that some of the ideas above resonate with you.  Please accept my best wishes as you continue to provide the services and supports that all of your students need. Have a GREAT week !!!

  

Best, 

Howie

Minneapolis Superintendent Bans Most Suspensions for their Youngest Students

What Districts Need to do Instead of Suspending (Young) Students:  Effective Student, Staff, and Student Approaches 

Today, I am writing this E-Blast at 30,000 feet as I return from presenting a workshop on "How Teaching Social Skills in the Classroom Increases Academic Engagement and Reduces Discipline and Mental Health Problems" at the annual School-based Mental Health Conference that was held this week in Pittsburgh.

   While I will share some reflections on the conference in two weeks, today I want to focus on a recent Education Week article. Titled "Minneapolis Superintendent Bans Most Suspensions for Youngest Students," the article describes how School Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson has placed an immediate moratorium in her district on suspending students in prekindergarten through Grade 1 for non-violent behaviors.

     CLICK HERE FOR EDWEEK ARTICLE

   Clearly, for the Minneapolis schools, this decision is related to the fact that the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights is investigating the district due to its "inconsistent (read disproportionate) suspension practices." But this issue is not new-especially over the past year or so-as a number of scholarly or investigative reports have (again) noted that nationally:

     * Zero tolerance school discipline policies do not work;  

     * Minority students and students with disabilities are disproportionately sent to the principal's office for "low level" issues like disrespect to teachers-situations that should be resolved in the classroom by the students, their teachers, and as appropriate, the students' parents, guardians, or caretakers;

     * Minority students and students with disabilities are disproportionately suspended from schools-again, often for "offenses" that often do not rise to the level of needing a suspension;

     * Preschool students are kicked out of school (typically due to behavior) more often than any other age group attending our nation's schools; and

     * Educative, restorative, culturally- and trauma-sensitive, and other school, staff, and student interventions have demonstrated their consistent ability to decrease student misbehavior, while increasing positive school and classroom climates, prosocial and effective interpersonal interactions, and students' academic engagement.

   While Superintendent Johnson's decision is a good start, I hope that some additional things have occurred at the same time in the areas of:

     * Professional development,

     * Staff supervision and support,

     * Data-based problem solving, and

     * The availability of district-employed consultants (or coaches) who have the expertise to work with classroom teachers-helping them implement needed social, emotional, and behavioral interventions.

   The point is:  

If students are not demonstrating consistently positive and prosocial behavior in the classroom, the teachers--supported, as needed, by other support professionals--need to determine why this is happening so that classroom-based instructional or intervention approaches can be implemented to change the behavior and solve the problem.

   If all we do is to make policy decision to not suspend students without the problem solving approaches focused on identifying and addressing existing problems, we are not appropriately serving students, staff, schools, or systems.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  

Why Do Students Demonstrate Social, Emotional, or Behavioral Challenges?

   When students demonstrate social, emotional, or behavioral challenges, we need to work together to figure out why. Sometimes this can be done by an individual teacher. . . sometimes this is accomplished by a grade-level (or instructional) team working together. . . and sometimes this requires a school-level multidisciplinary early intervention team (like a Student Assistance Team, RtI Team, Student Services Team, or the equivalent).

Critically, though, everyone in the school needs to be trained in the same effective data-based problem-solving process (that addresses both academic and behavioral situations), and this process needs to be integrated into the school's RtI or Multi-Tiered Services approach. Beyond this, schools need to have professionals with extensive knowledge in classroom interventions so that problem analysis results can turn into the right effectively-implemented interventions.

    

CLICK HERE FOR A FREE RTI SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION MANUAL

   (Look at First Entry on this Page)

   Once again, we first need to understand the underlying reasons for a student's problem BEFORE we begin implementing instructional or intervention approaches.  

Clearly, your doctor always does a medical analyses of your problem before beginning treatment. Doctors do not implement the same (Tier 2) interventions for every patient that walks into their office. If they did that, many patients would still be sick (or worse), and doctors would either lose patients (figuratively or literally!), and in the latter situation, they would probably lose their licenses to practice (due to successful litigation against them).

     Some of the primary reasons why students demonstrate social, emotional, or behavioral problems in the classroom include:

    * They do not have positive relationships with teachers and/or peers in the school, and/or the school or classroom climate is negative. . .or negative for them.

     * They are academically frustrated (and often, unsuccessful), and this frustration and failure is exhibited emotionally, socially, or behaviorally.

     * Their teachers do not have effective classroom management skills, and/or the teachers at their grade or instructional levels do not have consistent classroom management approaches.

     * They have not learned how to apply and demonstrate effective interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and/or emotional coping skills to certain (school-based) situations in their lives.

   * Meaningful incentives (to motivate appropriate behavior) or consequences (to respond to inappropriate behavior, while simultaneously motivating appropriate behavior the next time) are not consistently present.

     * They are not held accountable for appropriate behavior by, for example, requiring them (a) to apologize for and correct the results of their inappropriate behavior; and (b) role play, practice, or demonstrate the appropriate behavior-after the fact-that they should have done originally.

     * Their behavior is a function of inconsistency-- across people, settings, situations, or other circumstances. For example, in the face of inconsistency across different teachers, some students will manipulate the situation or see how much they can "get away with." When peers or parents reinforce inappropriate student behavior, students sometimes use this as an excuse, or they behave inappropriately because they value their peers more than the adults in the school.

     * They are experiencing extenuating, traumatic, or crisis-related circumstances outside of school, and they need support (sometimes including mental health) to stabilize and address these situations so that they can be more successful at school.

[NOTE that many classroom teachers have received inadequate training in classroom management during their university-training, and many schools/districts do not provide systematic and ongoing in-service training and supervision in this area. This is also true of administrators. Thus, many educators are not trying to be ineffective in this area-they can only do what they know to do.]

[NOTE that there are a wide range of social, emotional, and behavioral interventions-- many that can be implemented by classroom teachers with the support of special education, related services, or mental health professionals. However, many of these professionals have not been trained in these interventions, or their roles do not include the consultation time needed to work with classroom teachers to facilitate their implementation.]

   SEE THE WEBINAR BELOW THAT DISCUSSES HOW TO LINK FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT WITH THESE STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONS

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Why Do Some School-wide Approaches to Discipline and Behavior Management Not Work?

   There are two reasons why many school-wide approaches to school discipline and classroom management have not worked across the country.

   The first reason is that the goal for many schools is to decrease or eliminate office discipline referrals and/or school suspensions, rather than teaching and reinforcing students' social, emotional, and behavioral self-management and self-control skills.

   The second reason is that effective, multi-tiered school discipline, classroom management, and student self-management processes have not been integrated into most district or schools':

* Annual school planning and improvement process

* Staffing and resource management process

* Professional development and school/staff evaluation process

* School-level Committee and shared leadership process

* Curriculum and instruction process

   For us, effective schools have the following primary goals:

1. High levels of academic engagement and academic achievement for all students.

2. High levels of effective interpersonal, social problem-solving, conflict resolution, and coping skills/behaviors by all students (and staff).

3. High levels of critical thinking, reasoning, and problem-solving skills by all students (and staff).  

4. High levels of teacher confidence- relative to instruction, classroom management, and in helping students with academic or behavior problems.

5. Consistently effective instruction and classroom management across all teachers/instructional support staff.

6. Low levels of classroom discipline problems, discipline problems that need to involve the Principal, or discipline problems that require student suspensions or expulsions.

7. High levels of parent support and involvement in student self-management.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Summary  

   Clearly, it is great that districts and schools nationwide are examining and evaluating their outcomes relative to their academic and social, emotional, and behavioral services, supports, strategies, and programs for all students. And, I applaud the Minneapolis School District for recognizing that suspensions are not going to change the (mis)behavior of their youngest students, and that different approaches are needed. 

   As a school psychologist and a national consultant who has worked with thousands of schools and districts over the last 30 years, I know first-hand that many of the things described above DO work and DO NOT cost excessive amounts of money. As is often said, "We can't work any harder than we are, but we CAN work smarter."

   I hope that some of the ideas above resonate with you.  Meanwhile, please accept my best wishes as you continue to provide the services and supports that all of your students need. Have a GREAT week !!!

Best, 

Howie