Leading the way: Trauma-informed educators and alternatives to

suspension

American Council of School Social Workers ConferenceNew Orleans, LAJanuary 26, 2015

Presentation Objectives

• Participants will gain knowledge on how trauma manifests itself in the classroom setting & how education professionals have historically addressed problematic behavior

• Participants will know the components of the alternative intervention & strategies staff can implement to decrease time off task

• Participants will be exposed to strategies they could use to be leaders in moving this process to other schools & how to influence current school leaders

Impact of Trauma on Educational Well-Being

• History of trauma can manifest itself in the classroom:

• Internalized and externalized behaviors• Inability to self regulate• Inappropriate boundaries• Inability to cognitively process information• Inattentiveness• Need for constant redirection• Need to move• Unexpected reactions to triggers

Impact of Trauma on Educational Well-Being

• Court-involved students are/have:• Less likely to do their homework• Lower scores on standardized achievement tests• More than twice as likely to fail a grade• Assigned to special education services with greater frequency• Higher discipline referral rates, suspensions, and expulsions • Lower GPAs • Higher school absences• Lower high school graduation rates• Lower IQs• Lower self-esteem

Background on Suspension/Expulsion

• OSS most commonly recognized method of addressing conduct infractions in middle and high schools across the country

• In 2006 over 3 ¼ million students suspended annually across this country – with over 100,000 of these in Michigan

• 7% of the entire school population missing at least 1 school day/year due to suspension/expulsion – a figure that has doubled since the 1970s

• Actual % are higher as in school suspension statistics are not tabulated nationally

Zero Tolerance Policies

• State Board of Education Model Code of Student Conduct (2014)

• EX) fighting, gambling or defacing school property (10 days OSS)

• Ex) gambling, drugs and weapons as well as a variety of criminal activities (Expulsion)

• Virtually any inappropriate behavior can result in time away from the school environment and academics

• Disproportionately impacts students of color, special education, and court-involved students

Unintended Consequences of Zero Tolerance Policies

• Exclusionary discipline policies conflict with current best knowledge about adolescent development

• Lost valuable continuity in mastering the curriculum • Multiple OSS leads to high absenteeism• missing work during period OSS translates to lower grades• negative correlation between OSS rates and achievement scores

on math, reading and writing • OSS linked to increased high school drop-out rates• Putting students in unsupervised and unstructured situations led

to further problems• School exclusion detrimentally effects all around social

adjustment

Causes of over-using OSS/Expulsions

• institutional bias,• school culture,• teacher training, and • adult perceptions• To address these causes, CBF administration

made the decision to implement the Monarch room as an alternative to OSS/expulsion

Case for court-involved students

• OSS use linked to negative psychosocial functioning, and development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and aggressive behavior in and outside of school

• OSS promote feelings of inadequacy, hopelessness , suppressed negative emotions, poor self-image, social rejection, resistance to building relationships, increased risk substance abuse, suicidal ideations

• School may be the only stable and predictable institution in a child’s life

• Troubled students need to find support in the school before they resort to inappropriate behaviors & find themselves in OSS/Expelled

• When students feel engaged at school and feel a sense of connectedness, rates of school violence decrease and school safety increases

Getting Started: Assessing School Readiness for Implementing a Trauma-Informed Alternative to Suspension

Why? • Personal philosophy

– Mental health as Social Worker, clinical and School– Schools dual service delivery systems

• Traditional discipline does not work in long run– Power and control short-term benefits– Displayed behaviors often misinterpreted– Need to teach life skills

• Increase academic achievement-need to be in school• Enhance collaboration: agencies with education• Ideal setting-Vista Maria’s campus

Monarch Room Description

• Separate room• Facilitated by trauma-informed professionals• Available all day• Incorporates Sensory motor technologies• Short-term: Goal is to return to class in 10

minutes• Not seen as punitive by staff or students• Extensive data is collected

Methods

• Sample- 620 Girls enrolled at CBF btw Sept. 2011 and June

2014 (MS population not included)- 86% residents @ VM, 14% CS- Ages 14-18- Race: AA (70%) W (24%) H (3%) AI (1%)- First stay at VM: 57%; 43% experienced multiple

stays- Average time per stay: 133 days

Methods

• Secondary data analysis of data analyzed from:

• Monarch room tracking logs (frequency of monarch room use, OSS) & matched with

• Administrative data from PowerSchool (entry and exit dates, grade level, race, # absences)

Research Questions

• Do racial disparities exist in Monarch room use?

• Does frequent school mobility (multiple entries in and out of the school) predict monarch room use?

• Did the intervention reduce the number of suspension/ expulsions given?

ResultsTable 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample (N=620)

Monarch Room Users Non-Users N (%) N (%) X2 (df) P< r

Total 244 (39) N= 376 (61)

Race 8.81 (3) 0.01 0.13White 46 (19) 103 (27)

AA 191(78) 255 (68)Hispanic 7 (3) 16 (4)

# Stays 111.40 (3) 0.001 0.421 74 (30) 263 (70)2 94 (39) 90 (24)

3+ 76 (31) 23 (6)

# Suspensions 43.50 (3) 0.001 0.290 217 (89) 376 (100)1 18 (7) 02 7 (3) 03 2 (1) 0

# Absences Mean (SD) Median Range

Year1 (N= 395) 8.62 (11.42) 4 0-70

Year 2 (N= 296) 11.01 (14.48) 6 0-83

Year 3 (N= 245) 12.82 (15.09) 10 0-98

Results

Table 2: Grade Level of Enrollees Over Observation Period (years)** Monarch Room Users Non-users

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total

N N N N (%)Non-users N N N (%)

9 36 50 35 121 (54) 61 23 20 104 (40)

10 24 69 73 166 (48) 109 46 23 178 (52)

11 12 31 42 85 (42) 68 30 17 115 (58)

12 1 22 27 50 (42) 52 10 8 70 (58)** As students were enrolled over multiple years, the total students per grade captured in the table is higher than the unduplicated student count (620)Year 1 X2= 30.06 (4), P< .001, r=.30Year 2 X2= 7.66 (4), P< .11Year 3 X2= 35.02 (4), P< .001, r=.34

Results

History of out-of-school suspensions/expulsions

Yes No

N (%) N (%)X2 (df) P< R

Total 27 (4%) 593 (96%)

Race 2.46 (1) .12 .08

AA* 23 (5%) 423 (95%)

Other 4 (2%) 170 (98%)

# Stays 17.79 (1) .000 .18

1 4 (1%) 333 (99%)

2 or more 23 (8%) 260 (92%)

# Absences 4.05 (1) .044 .09

Under 10 19 (4%) 503 (96%)

10 or more 8 (9%) 90 (91%)

Table 3: Demographic Characteristics of the Sample by History of Suspensions/Expulsions (N=620)

* African American

Results

(Cox & Snell) .17, (Nagelkerke) .23, Model X2 (3) = 134.16, p<.001. *p<.05, ***p<.001

95% confidence Interval

Predictor (SE) Lower Estimated Odds Ratio

Upper

Intercept 1.35 (.25)*** Race -.5 (.21)* .43 .62 .91

# Stays -1.39 (.18)*** .19 .26 .37

# Absences

-1.13 (.26)*** .27 .31 .51

Table 4: Predictors of Monarch Room Use (N=620)

Results

95% confidence Interval

Predictor (SE) Lower Estimated Odds Ratio

Upper

Intercept -3.42 (.48)*** Race -.50 (.52) .22 .60 1.7

# Stays -1.41 (.51)** .09 .24 .66

# Absences

.36 (.49) .55 1.44 3.7

# monarch room events

.08 (.01)*** 1.06 1.09 1.12

Table 5: Predictors of Suspension/Expulsion (N=620)

Cox & Snell) .10, (Nagelkerke) .31, Model X2 (4) = 76.12, p<.001. **p<.01, ***p<.001

Discussion

• Monarch room has been demonstrated to be a successful alternative to suspension/expulsion

• It has been implemented successfully despite the fact that the population of girls at CBF has become more challenging over time

Leadership, Replication of the Model & Implications for Policy & Practice

– Policies, procedures, and protocols• Discipline policy of the school and standards of behavior• Communication

– Professional development– Liaison btw school administrators & mental health

professionals– Coaches for staff and administrators– Data driven decision-making

Today’s Presenters

Beverly A. Baroni, Ph.D., LMSWPrincipal, Clara B. Ford Academy

beverly-baroni@cbfacademy.com

Angelique Day, Ph.D.Assistant Professor, Wayne State University, school of Social Work ew6080@wayne.edu

Publications

• West, S.D., Day, A.G., Somers, C.L., & Baroni, B.A. (2014). Student Perspectives on how Trauma Experiences Manifest in the Classroom: Engaging Court-Involved Youth in the Development of a Trauma-Informed Teaching Curriculum. Children and Youth Services Review, 38. 58-65.

• Crosby, S.D., Day, A.G., Baroni, B.A., & Somers, C.L. (In Press). School Staff Perspectives on the Challenges and Solutions to Working with Court-Involved Students. Journal of School Health.

• Day, A.G., Somers, C. L., Baroni, B.A., West, S.D., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C.D. (In Press). Evaluation of a Trauma-Informed School Intervention with Girls in a Residential Facility School: Student Perceptions of School Environment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma.

Publications

• Baroni, B.A., Day, A.G., Somers, C.L., Crosby, S., & Pennefather, M. (Under Review). The Adoption of the Monarch Room as an Alternative to Suspension and Expulsion in Addressing School Discipline Issues Among Court-Involved Youth.

• Crosby, S., Somers, C., Day, A., & Baroni, B. (Under Review). Working with traumatized students: Measures to assess school staff perceptions, awareness, and instructional responses.

• Weber, N. M., Somers, C. L., Day, A., & Baroni, B. A. (Under Review). Predictors and outcomes of school attachment and school involvement in a sample of girls in residential treatment.