Blog

Be a Tolkien Ent: Responsiveness vs. Reactivity in Education and School Counseling

murrayof

Our students are reactive. As educators we are called upon – not to be reactive, but to be responsive. 

A responsive educator posture doesn’t always come naturally, especially when we are confronted with the reactive crisis-sense of a student, or a staff member for that matter. The sense of emergency is contagious. We are deeply attuned to it as fellow humans. Much in the same way that people will react to a snake before they are even consciously aware that they have seen one, we will react to others’ sense of crisis and emergency before we’ve paused to think about the nature of the issue. It is a healthy group survival response, but it is not conducive to developing self-regulation and maintaining a learning environment.

Deliberate responsiveness is the term I use to describe process-oriented, attuned, and thoughtful responsiveness. It is an over-arching theme to nearly everything I advocate for at the intersection of education and mental health. It requires significant practical planning and conceptual reframing to maintain a responsive position. Dr. Jacob Ham describes “learning brain vs. survival brain” in this popular video. To maintain conditions that support students being in learning brain, the adult staff group has to maintain its own collective version of learning brain.

Tolkien provides us with a fantastic and clear example of this with the behavior of the ents -Middle-Earth’s tree-like giants. Tolkien’s ents serve as a model of practicing deliberate responsiveness.

In Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, Frodo’s companions Merry and Pippin find themselves on a side quest recruiting reinforcements for the battle against Saruman’s armies.

They have the good fortune to encounter Fangorn, a tree-like giant. A battle is brewing, and Merry and Pippin’s compatriots are vastly outnumbered. They entreat the powerful Fangorn to help them in battle and to recruit more ents. Fangorn listens carefully, sometimes responding “Now don’t be hasty.”

Fangorn listens and explains at a pace we might associate with “mindful eating.” After much of this slow listening and explaining, he agrees to consider the hobbits’ request. However, he is not going to consider such an important question on his own. He calls a meeting (an entmoot) to consult and decide along with other ents. By using this special name, entmoot, Tolkien signals that this is an established process, not a reaction. The entmoot goes on for three days before they reach a conclusion. 

When reactivity meets process, everything slows down, and crisis-energy is dissipated. 

Tolkien was really on to something, both about human nature and the nature of trees. Real trees live for hundreds of years. They have a system akin to the human nervous system, though one difference is speed. Their electrical signals travel at the slow rate of one inch every three seconds (Wohlleben, 2105, p. 8). Peter Wohlleben’s popular The Hidden Life of Trees describes tree behavior, including their ability to communicate with each other through the air and fungal networks underground. Between their long lives and their rates of internal and external communication, trees are on a very different time scale than humans. Trees are active, but so slowly relative to us as to be unrecognizable without special attention and effort.

As educators and school counselors, we can learn from trees and from Tolkien’s ents. Our students will turn to us reactively, frustratedly, and as desperate as Merry and Pippin begging Fangorn for assistance. We will likely feel activated to join them in their reactivity. But, we can strive to be as different from our students in our response as ents are from hobbits, and as different as trees are from people. 

We can welcome the student’s crisis into the safe, secure, and slow speed of thoughtful adult consideration. We can listen, long and engaged, like Fangorn. We can even use his “hm, hoom” sounds of considered acknowledgment. We can stop and think. And we can tell our students that we will continue to think about the issue they have presented, and we will consult with the other school staff about such a significant challenge. And yes, it may take a while to give this all the thought, consideration, and collaboration it deserves. But, like Fangorn again, we will dependably follow up and follow through.

References 

Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954). The two towers: the lord of the rings part two. Ballantine

Wohlleben, P. (2015). The hidden life of trees; What they feel, how they communicate. Greystone

Informing Students About Observations: My Unpopular Opinion

murrayof

Here’s my unpopular opinion: Students of any age in schools should be notified about formal observations. 

Student observations are a common and important evaluation method in special education. Observations are part of nearly every initial special education evaluation process, as well as many other processes including general progress measurement, re-evals, and as part of placement considerations.

My opinion rests on a few fundamental beliefs:

It is respectful and ethical to inform any person that they are being observed. It is a gesture of respect that most people would appreciate, regardless of whether they are minors.

It is best to maintain a classroom where any and every visitor is identified. A classroom, even a large classroom, is a defined and close group that spends an enormous amount of time together. All non-members who enter the space are noticed by most of the students. -And some students wonder, speculate, and worry about the purpose and intentions of visitors. All the members of the classroom group deserve an introduction of visitors and a brief explanation of their purpose. In my classroom, the student being observed will be aware of the specific purpose of the visitor. Depending on circumstances and the privacy preferences of that student and their parents, it may be appropriate to tell the class that the visitor is here to “see the classroom”. -A truth that respects privacy concerns.

The third fundamental belief I will share is a bit more complex to explain. I often hear the concern that knowledge of the observation might impact the student’s performance during the observation. This is true. We can’t easily measure or correct for the impact of knowledge of the observation on the student’s performance. But we also can’t easily measure or correct for the impact of having an unusual and unexplained person in the room observing. Given these two possibilities, I’d much rather choose the option in which people receive respectful communication.

In research involving minors, the relevant concepts are informed consent and informed assent. In research, it is best practice to obtain informed assent from minors along with informed consent from their guardians. In some cases researchers record the minor’s informed dissent along with their guardian’s informed consent. School observations should be treated with the same respect. A student’s dissent to being observed is valuable information to record in one’s observation, should it go forward.

I recommend informing the student about any upcoming observation some days in advance, and reminding them about it each day leading up to the observation. If the observer is unfamiliar to the student and there is an opportunity to have an introduction before the day of observation, I would recommend that as well. If that is not possible, sharing a picture of the observer will help decrease the uncertainty. I recommend that you simply treat the student with at least the same respect that we understand most people would appreciate being treated with under similar circumstances.

Toward a Philosophy of Safety Management in Schools

murrayof

From my experience talking with teachers and staff working in schools, it appears that the frequency of violent aggression from students in schools is rising. A recent report from the American Psychological Association supports this conclusion. (McMahon et al., 2024)

Anecdotally, most of the rise is among the youngest children along the K-12 spectrum. While many, but not all, of these younger students have a relatively limited capacity to injure someone, they can cause these formative student learning environments to feel chaotic and unsafe. 

School staff is charged with maintaining a safe learning environment. This is a fraught and vexing challenge because the relevant laws and guidelines about responses to student violence are less than coherent. School staff in dangerous situations chiefly want to keep people safe, but they must simultaneously be concerned about “getting it wrong” amid complex real-world circumstances, and often confusing guidelines and instructions. The stakes are high all around.

There is no US federal law addressing seclusion and restraint in schools. The federal Department of Education most recently shared a resource document on seclusion and restraint in 2012. This document defines restraint as any “personal restriction” of movement, and that seclusion and restraint should only be used when there is “imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others.” (p. 12) 

I live and work in Massachusetts where there is law that governs seclusion and restraint, most recently amended in 2014. The law is not entirely coherent, and interpreted in many different ways by different individuals. I must have been party to hundreds of confusing group conversations where educators are trying to work out what constitutes a physical restraint, and when it is an appropriate response. I think their careful attention to these questions is laudable. I also think the conversations need not be so confusing, and that unclear laws and guidelines contribute majorly to the confusion. 

Earlier this year I asked the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) if any discussion or process was occurring regarding updating and clarifying the law, and I was only redirected to their online resources dating back to 2014. So, apparently not.

The Massachusetts law includes “assault or imminent, serious, physical harm” in each mention of when a restraint may be appropriate. In trainings and discussions about physical restraint the assault part is forgotten or disregarded. According to Massachusetts law it is appropriate for a staff member to prevent a small child from hitting them, and a gentle deflection or hand on their fist appears to qualify as a restraint since it restricts the student’s freedom of movement. 

In practice there is a lot of confusion. That confusion is combined with anxiety about scrutiny and potentially “getting it wrong” at both staff and administrative levels. The unfortunate impact of these factors is the underreporting of restraints. In short, when the rules are confusing and the stakes of making a mistake are high, the incentives are not aligned with accurate classification and reporting of restraints. This makes it all the harder to maintain data and track what is occurring in schools.

As a starting point for discussion I would like to propose a principle and a question for your consideration. 

In some school roles, especially working with students with significant behavioral challenges, staff should be aware that they are likely, at times, to be the target of violence. However, making yourself available as a target of violence is not part of the job. That’s an important distinction, and hopefully clear enough to readers.

For example, a small child may be unlikely to seriously physically harm an adult through strikes with their arms and legs, but that does not mean that the staff must allow themselves to be struck, scratched, and bitten. If the staff member leaves the room and closes the door to prevent the student from hitting them, the staff member should not open the door if it seems near certain that the student will continue to hit the staff member at that point.

Similarly, we should not allow students to hit other students at school. Depending on the students and the circumstances there may not be an imminent threat of serious physical harm, but staff should not allow students to be assaulted at school and Massachusetts law supports intervention to prevent or stop assault. All interventions must use minimal force, and often don’t require any physical intervention, but in some circumstances preventing assault requires a minimal physical intervention.

Allow me to pause to acknowledge that this is an uncomfortable topic. As I write, I worry about a staff member using more force than necessary. We know that physical intervention from school staff can lead to serious problems. Unfortunately, once violence or the threat of violence is present, the available choices reflect the difficulty of the situation. If we don’t intervene we are allowing a dangerous situation. If we do intervene it is also a dangerous situation. One of the most salient questions at any given moment is, which choice is safer? The answer to this question involves weighing many factors, moment to moment.

The actual experience of maintaining safety with an escalated and violent student is not much like an example we might use for training or explanation. It is not a static set of circumstances we can easily explain and evaluate. Instead, an episode develops and requires an ongoing evaluation of how to keep the student, others, and yourself, as safe as possible.

My question regards the meaning of “brief physical contact to promote safety” in Massachusetts law. Is a deflection of a strike “brief physical contact to promote safety” or is it a restraint, restricting freedom of movement? How about a brief (as in less than 30 seconds) escort into a calm-down room? If the escort uses minimal force but is very brief, is it “brief physical contact to promote safety” or is it a restraint? 

After 23 years working in this realm, as a reasonably bright person who is comfortable making sense of laws, I still do not have clear answers to this question and others. In talking to other similarly experienced people I hear the same confusion. Speaking to school culture at large, this is avoidance at its worst. Almost no one wants to look directly at the distress and address the thorny challenges. But safety is too important a topic to avoid and leave in a confusing and murky state. Physical safety is our first and most obvious responsibility as educators in loco parentis. We should be addressing this in the public square. Relegating these issues and conversations to quiet and disconnected corners is doing nothing to help the development of better practices.

I gave this piece an ambitious title – Toward a Philosophy of Safety Management in Schools – and I hope it represents a small step in that direction.

References

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Restraint and seclusion: Resource document. U.S. Department of Education. www2.ed.gov/policy/seclusion/restraints-and-seclusion-resources.pdf

Massachusetts 603 CMR 46.00 Prevention of Physical Restraint and Requirements IF Used

McMahon SD, Worrell FC, Reddy LA, Martinez A, Espelage DL, Astor RA, Anderman EM, Valido A, Swenski T, Perry AH, Dudek CM, Bare K. (2024). Violence and aggression against educators and school personnel, retention, stress, and training needs: National survey results. Am Psychol. 2024 May 30. doi: 10.1037/amp0001348. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 38815064.

Presenting at Unity Conference 2024 in Dublin, November 11th and 12th

murrayof

I’ll be presenting about The Therapeutic Inclusion Program at the Unity Conference on Tuesday, November 11th.

The Unity Conference is put on by The International Child and Youth Care Network (CYC-Net), and is focused on relational practice.

The Therapeutic Inclusion Program is the subject of my book with Laura Balogh of the same name. It details a relationship-based inclusive education program for students with significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges.

If you’re in Dublin, or you would like to be, join me on November 11th at the conference.

Encountering Distress and Violence in Specialized School Programs

murrayof

The Constrained Psychology of Educators Part 3: Distress, Behavior, and Violence

In my experience in schools, school staff working in specialized programs desperately need to talk about encountering severe distress and being subjected to violence. At the same time, outside of quiet and personal conversations, almost no one wants to talk about the challenges they’ve experienced. Shame, fear, and stigma bring school staff to feel that they can’t or shouldn’t talk about their work. 

This doubly constrains the practice and development of school programming for students with significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. My previous two pieces (part 1, part 2) described how the comforting illusion of easy explanations and solutions constrains the thinking and effectiveness of school staff and cuts off the opportunity for deeper understanding and relationship-based therapeutic work.

School staff must protect the privacy of the students and families they work with. This does not prevent discussion of best practices, trends, and more generalized experiences.

The hush-hush tendency is pervasive in all forums, including social media forums otherwise used by professionals of all stripes. It is also evidenced by my book with Laura Balogh being the only book dedicated to the topic, despite the proliferation of “therapeutic programs” (or similarly titled) across thousands of schools nationally and internationally. This is a sad state of affairs and we would much prefer our book to be in conversation with other emerging literature specific to the topic.

Just imagine taking on such an incredibly complex and difficult job, and not discussing it with other professionals. The hush-hush culture stifles development and innovation in programming to the serious detriment of children with significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges who are being served in schools. 

Within programs supporting students with significant social, emotional, and behavioral challenges it is not unusual for student distress to be expressed through violence toward staff. With unclear laws and regulations regarding physical intervention to maintain safety, and pervasive fear of “getting it wrong” in high-stakes situations where staff is charged with keeping everyone safe, school staff mostly do not want to talk about it outside of quiet conversations with their closest confidants at work. Again, these conversations do nothing to further safer and better practices in the professional field, despite the commonality of the problems faced across school districts. They also do little to slow the destructive high turnover rate for staff in specialized programs, which robs the program and the children of stability. 

While the administrators I am currently collaborating with support my efforts, these same problems are usually present at the administrative level. I’ve known administrators who, surely feeling constrained by pressures of their own, insist that responses to violence are simple and that the laws and regulations are clear. These same administrators do not implement any system for tracking violence against teachers. 

Given the lack of clarity, data, and professional conversation, the trend I observe within specialized programs in schools is the normalization of student violence. This is a huge disservice to everyone associated with the programs, especially the students. We can be compassionate, understanding, and deeply attuned to the distress of students, without normalizing violence. Our society is not accepting of people who express themselves through violence toward others, and we are doing no favors for students by acclimating them to a culture where violence is normalized. 

Here are two effective and important ways to undo these trends: 1. Keep data on violence of any kind. This includes violent threats, attacks, attempted violence, and destruction of property. Keeping this data goes a long way toward preventing a mindset where violence becomes an expected and normal part of the culture. (I have developed a simple system for doing this and I’m happy to share it with you.)  2. While maintaining the privacy of your students and families, seek professional conversation and collaboration with others doing similar work. You likely talk to your direct colleagues – now include people working in other school districts, and even people in different parts of the country and world. While the absence of discussion and development is discouraging, the good news is that the potential for connection and development is immense.