Safe, Supportive, and Inclusive Learning Environments for Young People in Crisis and Trauma

Plaiting the Rope

Patty Towl, Sheryl A. Hemphill

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9780367243722
• eBook ISBN: 9781000051513
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Children and young people from diverse populations are statistically more at risk of exclusion, however education providers can make a difference to all children and young persons' learning outcomes no matter what their personal circumstances. To achieve this, not only must educators form closer and more authentic relationships with these children and their communities, but the governments that fund learning environments must also be prepared to provide adequate resourcing and training opportunities.

Safe, Supportive, and Inclusive Learning Environments for Young People in Crisis and Trauma addresses both the general and specific issues that may prevent children and young people from diverse populations from being safe, supported, and included in learning environments. Some chapters focus on general factors that contribute to both inclusion and exclusion at early childhood and in formal school environments, while others present research-based best practice and practical advice to enable good education outcomes for indigenous, migrant, and LGBTQI children and those who experience mental health problems, drug misuse, and abuse. Lastly, the book includes information about how to negotiate and set up programmes that have been shown to be effective with communities that differ from the dominant culture.

This book provides practitioners in education, health, and social work with information and practical advice on how to retain all children and young people in early childhood, formal school education, and tertiary settings.

PART I
Diversity in education contexts

1
Complex trauma and the teacher

Relationships and learning

Anne Southall

The problem

While mainstream classrooms are responsible for educating all students, schools remain places where children from traumatic backgrounds experience severe educational disadvantage. Over the last decade, the fields of neuroscience (Cozolino, 2014) and psychiatry (Cook, Blaustein, Spinazzola, & van der Kolk, 2003) have informed a growing body of research that claims the trajectory of these students can be altered through the pedagogies and specific educational interventions that respond to the profound and long term impact of trauma on learning (Perry, 2006a, 2009). Despite these findings, students from backgrounds of abuse are still three times more likely to fail school, five times more likely to have severe attendance problems, and six times more likely to have severe behaviour problems (Blodgett et al., 2015). Referred to as interpersonal trauma or complex trauma, the experience of abuse, neglect, and other adverse life experiences during childhood is linked with a sequelae of long term cognitive and behavioural consequences (Cook et al., 2005; Felitti et al., 1998), including deficits in verbal abilities (Tayler, 2015); learning and memory (Grill, 2005); anxiety and disassociation (Stein et al., 2013); depression and aggression (Becker-Blease, Turner, & Finkelhor, 2010); post-traumatic stress disorder (Stein et al., 2013); and functional impairment in cognition, affect regulation, social relationships (DePrince, Weinzierl, & Combs, 2009), and executive functions (Diamond, 2013).

Attachment theorists (Main & Solomon, 1990) further observe that internal attachment models formed through traumatic experiences in childhood impact early exploratory systems, cognitive organisation, and the attachment system that regulates emotions and develops language (Howard, 2013). Children with disorganised and insecure attachment histories associated with interpersonal trauma are more likely to view adults as inaccessible, unresponsive, or hostile (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). These attachment histories are strongly linked to a range of outcomes that impact success in school. “Attachment influences school success through two routes: indirectly through attachment to parents, and directly through attachment to teachers and schools” (Bergin & Bergin, 2009, p. 141)

Regardless of these consequences, leaders in the field claim that through the brain’s neuroplasticity, children with complex trauma have the potential to develop neural pathways (Schore, 2010) and rewrite the attachment models formed during childhood through corrective relationships with other adults including teachers (Bergin & Bergin, 2009). It appears that each teacher-student relationship is constructed independently of the child’s prior adult-child relationships including mother-child attachment security. Further, structures of self-regulation such as attention, persistence, flexibility, motivation, and confidence can all be improved as a result of teaching and learning practices (DePrince et al., 2009).

Teachers can have this mitigating effect on the negative consequences of childhood trauma through positive relationships with their students that disconfirm earlier attachment expectations and communicate a sense of safety to these children through the development of trust. However, while the research continues to add weight to this claim, studies of the teacher-student relationship consistently highlight the negative and often conflictual relationship observed between children with attachment disorders and their teachers (Pianta & Walsh, 2014), “placing students on a trajectory of school failure in which they are unable to connect to (the) academic and social resources offered within classrooms and schools” (Hamre, Pianta, Bear, & Minke, 2006, p. 59). Studies suggest that the pivotal point for this trajectory may lie with the personal attributes of the teacher and that the majority of teachers may not have the education, experience, or capacity to form corrective relationships with children who have emotional or behavioural disorders. Forming the kind of relationships required may challenge teachers’ own social and emotional capacities (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), their professional identities, and their beliefs about power and discipline practices (Morgan, Brown, Heck, Pendergast, & Kanasa, 2013). If teachers are to afford “unconditional respect to each child … offered even when respect is not returned or reciprocal” (Hodas, 2006, p. 53) and provide trusting and safe learning environments for children who maybe aggressive or unresponsive (Hughes & Cavell, 1999), then the education sector may need to support the development of teacher competencies to assure it. Currently, while there is a growing body of research into complex trauma and its impact on learning, far less research has focussed on what is required of the teacher in this learning relationship.

Teacher knowledge of impact of trauma

Researchers working in the field of early childhood trauma suggest that what is needed for the teacher to develop this emotional understanding is knowledge about the needs of children with complex trauma (Bath, 2015). Programmes designed to build the capacity of teachers to meet the needs of children from traumatic backgrounds have adopted the term trauma informed to describe this approach and claim that “simply increasing awareness of the key principles of development and brain function would, over time, lead to innovations and improved outcomes” (Perry, 2009, p. 253).

However, trauma theory is an emerging field and there are very few studies supporting the notion that by being trauma informed, teachers will be able to design programmes that will improve the learning outcomes for these students. Downey’s (2007) claim that “understanding the experience of the abused and neglected child assists us to develop compassion, patience and empathy” (Downey, 2007, p. 4) is one that needs to be investigated. If, as Morgan suggests, “different ways of being an educator are required in order to re-engage young people facing multiple complexities in their lives” (Morgan, Pendergast, Brown, & Heck, 2015, p. 1), then, knowledge about the impact of complex trauma may not be all that is needed to improve the learning outcomes for these students.

The critical role of the teacher

Perry (2006a, 2006b, 2007; Perry & Szakavitz, 2007), a leading researcher in the trauma field, has observed “the invisible yet powerful web of relationships that effective educators create between themselves and learners, and between and among learners, is crucial to an optimal learning environment” for children from traumatic backgrounds (Perry, 2006a, p. 27). Researchers across disciplines confirm this observation and consistently report that a secure relationship with a teacher has the potential to promote a traumatised child’s active exploration of the environment and socially competent interactions with others, restoring their capacities for connection and learning (Downey, 2007). In fact, longitudinal studies have established that a meaningful connection to a significant adult contributes to improved academic outcomes for all students and that children in classrooms with teachers offering more responsive interactions demonstrate greater gains in cognitive, self-regulatory, and relational functioning (Desrosiers, Japel, Singh, & Tétreault, 2012).

Similarly, in a meta-analysis of over 1,000 articles, Cornelius-White (2007) found the effect size of the teacher-student relationship to be larger than any other typical educational innovation or curriculum change (Cornelius-White, 2007). Hattie (2013) in a synthesis of 800 meta-analyses further concluded that a positive teacher-student relationship was associated with higher levels of student engagement, more respect for self and others, fewer resistant behaviours, and greater student-regulated activity (Hattie, 2013).

While the benefits for all children have been well documented, there is considerable evidence to suggest that the teacher-student relationship may be a particularly significant determinant of outcomes for at-risk students (Liew, Chen, & Hughes, 2010). Studies that include students at risk for behavioural problems, aggression, and disengagement suggest that a close and accepting relationship with a teacher is critical in the developmental trajectory for these children (Tsai & Cheney, 2012). Throughout the literature, the findings show “in the absence of developmental relationships, other intervention elements yield diminished or minimal returns” (Li & Julian, 2012, p. 157).

Improved relationships with peers

Longitudinal studies of teacher-student relationships from preschool age to the early years of schooling have found that children with close relationships to their teachers are more socially competent with peers (Mashburn, Hamre, Downer, & Pianta, 2006). Hughes, Cavell, and Willson (2001) analysed a selected subgroup of aggressive students and found that teacher support uniquely predicted peer preference for those students. They observed that peer perception of teacher support had a buffering effect on peers’ social preference of aggressive students and that students take cues from their teacher in determining whether a peer is likable or not (Hughes et al., 2001).

In their research into classroom dynamics, Montague and Rinaldi (2001) confirm this strong interrelationship among student behaviour and teacher and peer perceptions, concluding that “students with behavioural and/or learning problems are at greater risk than other students for rejection by teachers and peers, which places them at considerable risk for poor school outcomes” (Montague & Rinaldi, 2001, p. 77). Later, Blair and Diamond (2008) in their extensive study on the promotion of self-regulation as a means of preventing school failure, supported this claim and concluded that the social-emotional skills that were developed through the teacher-student relationship provided social support through the development of peer relationships. Teacher rejection, they observed, is actually a precursor of peer rejection for students with behavioural...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword: Australian context
• Foreword: Aotearoa New Zealand context
• Preface
• List of contributors
• Part I Diversity in education contexts
• Part II Practical and positive outcomes for diverse school populations
• Index