Consider identifying six strategies for de-escalating ?students. The strategies may be tools or techniques assisting in proactively heading off escalation or de-escalating a child who i

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale Academic OneFile Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

Data on Bullying Reported by Researchers at Walden University (Teachers' Awareness In Identifying Microaggressive Behaviors Within the K-12 Classroom). Date: Feb. 15, 2021 From: Mental Health Weekly Digest Publisher: NewsRX LLC Document Type: Brief article Length: 363 words Lexile Measure: 1550L

Full Text:  2021 FEB 15 (NewsRx) — By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at Mental Health Weekly Digest — Current study results on Social Behavior – Bullying have been published. According to news originating from Minneapolis, Minnesota, by NewsRx correspondents, research stated, "In the field of education, teachers are sentries for maintaining proper decorum, upholding school policies, and maintaining a social justice classroom, free of adversarial behaviors."

Our news journalists obtained a quote from the research from Walden University, "While the premise of proper social and academic student engagement is expected, teachers are not always aware of or able to respond to inappropriate social interactions. This qualitative study using a narrative inquiry approach investigates and portrays the levels of awareness and decision-making processes teachers possess when addressing microaggression and microaggressive behaviors."

According to the news editors, the research concluded: "Five public school teachers from varying grade levels in a culturally diverse school district participated in semi-structured, in-depth interviews for this study."

This research has been peer-reviewed.

For more information on this research see: Teachers' Awareness In Identifying Microaggressive Behaviors Within the K-12 Classroom. Social Psychology of Education, 2021. Social Psychology of Education can be contacted at: Springer-Verlag, Van Godewijckstraat 30, 3311 Gz Dordrecht, Netherlands. (Springer – www.springer.com; Social Psychology of Education – www.springerlink.com/content/1381-2890/)

The news correspondents report that additional information may be obtained from Cheryl L. Burleigh, Walden University, Richard W Riley Coll Educ & Leadership, 100 Washington Ave South, Suite 900, Minneapolis, MN 55401, United States.

The direct object identifier (DOI) for that additional information is: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-020-09604-9. This DOI is a link to an online electronic document that is either free or for purchase, and can be your direct source for a journal article and its citation.

Keywords for this news article include: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, North and Central America, Bullying, Health and Medicine, Mental Health, Social Behavior, Walden University.

Our reports deliver fact-based news of research and discoveries from around the world. Copyright 2021, NewsRx LLC

The citation for this news report is: NewsRx. Data on Bullying Reported by Researchers at Walden University (Teachers' Awareness In Identifying Microaggressive Behaviors Within the K-12 Classroom). Mental Health Weekly Digest. February 15, 2021; p 117.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2021 NewsRX LLC http://www.newsrx.com/newsletters/Mental-Health-Weekly-Digest.html Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)    "Data on Bullying Reported by Researchers at Walden University (Teachers' Awareness In Identifying Microaggressive Behaviors

Within the K-12 Classroom)." Mental Health Weekly Digest, 15 Feb. 2021, p. 117. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A651748880/AONE?u=pres1571&sid=ebsco&xid=7c53039c. Accessed 19 Apr. 2023.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A651748880

Essential components of school-based intervention for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: An integration of research and practice

Daniel D. French

Cooperative Educational Services, Trumbull, CT, USA

ABSTRACT Despite over 50 years of research and discussion concerning school-based interventions for stu- dents with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), a discernible consensus regarding the core elements of intervention for this student population remains elusive. This discordance is seen by many as an obstacle to the proper design, dissemination, and implementation of effective prac- tice, and has been attributed to the vast number of interventions available, the complexities asso- ciated with the numerous interactive variables involved in their implementation, and the research to practice gap. The present article blends experiential knowledge with relevant literature in a dis- cussion of essential components of school-based intervention for students with EBD from the per- spective of a practitioner.

KEYWORDS EBD; emotional and behavioral disorders; special education

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) are arguably among the most challenging students facing today’s educators. The difficulties presented by this student popula- tion have been well-documented for decades (Hewett, 1968; Hobbs, 1982; Redl & Wineman, 1951; Steinberg, Knitzer, & Zabel, 1992) including and up to the present time (Conroy, 2016; Farmer, Reinke, & Brooks, 2014). Within this exten- sive body of literature is an abundance of knowledge con- cerning the magnitude of the problem (Bradley, Doolittle, & Bartolotta, 2008; Kauffman & Landrum, 2009; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fliesch, 1990) as well as the numerous inter- ventions available to effectively meet the academic and behavioral needs of these students in a school setting (Gage et al., 2010; Lewis, Hudson, Richter, & Johnson, 2004; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Reitz, 1994). Almost 25 years ago, Reitz commented on the breadth of this know- ledge base when he wrote: “There currently exists a dizzying array of theoretical models, general program types, and indi- vidual services or interventions that one could pick from in developing an effective, comprehensive classroom program for students with emotional and behavioral problems” (p. 312). Commentary from more recent research suggests the field continues to have ample information about effective practices for students with EBD (Conroy, 2016; Maggin, Robertson, Oliver, Hollo, & Moore Partin, 2010; Walker, Clancy, Tsai, & Cheney, 2013).

However, despite the obvious benefits of this vast body of literature, it appears that its enormity, coupled with the diffi- culties involved in the successful application of this know- ledge to a myriad of real-life circumstances (Conroy, Stichter, Daunic, & Haydon, 2008), have hindered the professional community’s efforts to arrive at a consensus regarding the

most important components of effective school-based inter- vention for this student population (Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Simpson, Peterson, & Smith, 2011). As Simpson et al. (2011) note, establishing accordance among professio- nals on this matter is a necessary first step in the develop- ment of consistent and effective practice: “First there is a need for professionals in the field to identify agreed-upon indispensable and fundamental elements and features of effective programs for children and youth with EBD” (p. 232). The value of determining the essential components of evidence-based practices for students with EBD was also dis- cussed recently by Farmer et al. (2014) in the context of the applicability of interventions to “real world” (p. 72) settings. These authors accentuated the importance of identifying the essential components of evidence-based practices while simul- taneously focusing on their fidelity and the feasibility of their implementation in specific settings.

Over the past three decades, numerous researchers have attempted to narrow the focus of the literature by identifying those interventions believed to be the most efficacious or vital to the process of educating students with EBD. The Peacock Hill Working Group (1991), Landrum, Tankersley, and Kauffman (2003), Lewis et al. (2004), Neel, Cessna, Borock, and Bechard (2003), Gage et al. (2010), and Simpson et al. (2011) represent some of the more prominent contributions to this effort. Their achievements have illuminated many of the central issues on which researchers and practitioners must focus to establish and maintain effective school programing for students with EBD. However, although the sum total of these efforts is laudable, identification of the core program components required for effective intervention with this stu- dent population remains elusive.

CONTACT Daniel D. French [email protected] Cooperative Educational Services, 25 Oakview Drive, Trumbull, CT 06611, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

PREVENTING SCHOOL FAILURE: ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH 2019, VOL. 63, NO. 4, 369–381 https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1619510

The reasons for this appear to be twofold: First, the rec- ommendations from these authors, albeit considerably pared from the entire body of available literature, continue to be numerous and varied making it difficult for practitioners to decide upon the truly fundamental components when con- structing a school model for this student population. Second, the complexities and interconnections involved in the implementation of these components render their mere identification ineffective without the additional specificity and insight required to successfully navigate these obstacles. Maggin, Wehby, Farmer, and Brooks (2016) discussed the problem of complexity in the context of “correlated con- straints” (p. 127) as well as in the assertion that effective interventions for students with EBD must be multidimen- sional and flexible in order to respond to the multivariate, interrelated nature of the numerous issues involved.

This concern was also addressed by Walker et al. (2013), who commented that published lists of recommended inter- ventions can provide some direction and structure to practi- tioners, but also advised that additional steps will ultimately be required for these interventions to be effectively incorpo- rated into meaningful practice. Moreover, Simpson et al. (2011) noted that broad descriptions of program compo- nents may not provide adequate specificity to be sufficiently instructive and called for expansion and clarification of the key elements of an effective and scientifically based practi- tioner model.

The research to practice gap that has vexed special educa- tion for many years (Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, 2005; Gage et al., 2010; Greenwood & Abbott, 2001; Maggin et al., 2010; Walker et al., 2013) is germane to this ongoing struggle to achieve the professional consensus Simpson et al. (2011) and Farmer et al. (2014) deem neces- sary, insofar as consensus will most likely remain elusive if researchers and practitioners fail to see eye to eye on this issue. Although evidence-based practices are paramount to successful programing for students with EBD (Cook, Cook, & Tankersley, 2013; Gage et al., 2010; Lewis et al. 2004), the prioritization of these practices may not be well-suited to empirical analysis due to the complexities that arise from the interdependence of numerous strategies that are often implemented simultaneously in real-life, dynamic, nonexper- imental conditions.

This concern was raised by Gage et al. (2010) in their discussion of multicomponent intervention when they noted “current research efforts have not captured the potential and promise of incorporated, multisystemic, comprehensive treatment options” (p. 298). Similarly, Conroy et al. (2008) offer an extensive discussion of the many complex, dynamic variables that often undermine the internal and external val- idity of classroom intervention research for students with EBD. They included the observations that classroom-based research often lacks social validity (i.e., usefulness, feasibil- ity) and that teachers involved in classroom-based interven- tion research frequently do not use the interventions being investigated following the conclusion of the study for this reason.

In light of these challenges, the process of establishing the relative value of school-based interventions for students with EBD may benefit from the contributions of experienced practitioners who have had opportunities to observe differ- ent combinations of strategies in relation to a multitude of relevant variables (e.g., experience level of teachers, severity of student psychopathology, interpersonal skills of teachers, fidelity of implementation). Conroy (2016) commented on this issue noting the tendency for research pertaining to stu- dents with EBD to be “top-down” (p. 192), meaning that it is often approached from the perspective of the researchers. She advocated for increased collaboration between research- ers and practitioners and noted the importance of the over- all contexts within which interventions occur that may not be identified in studies targeting a specific intervention.

Simpson et al. (2011) also discussed the limitations of sci- entific analysis when confronting certain aspects of the com- plex world of special education and presumably the numerous judgments that must be made pertaining to the nuanced and constantly changing variables of human behav- ior. Accordingly, they emphasized the importance of logical judgment, common sense and professional “experience- based opinions” (p. 233) in the education of EBD students. Furthermore, in their discussion of the research-to-practice gap, Maggin et al. (2010) highlighted the importance of practitioner contributions for the integration of research, policy, and practice. These authors proposed that cooper- ation among researchers, policy makers, and practitioners “can result in a reciprocal, interactive relationship between science and practice” (Maggin et al., 2010, p. 310) and that practitioners would “provide feedback on the feasibility and acceptability of research and policy initiatives” (Maggin et al., 2010, p. 315) regarding interventions for students with EBD. Finally, Lewis et al. (2004) advised that reducing the research to practice gap was ultimately the responsibility of both researchers and practitioners.

In consideration of the recurring efforts to identify essen- tial components of school-based intervention for students with EBD, as well as the appeals for increased contributions from practitioners, the following discussion integrates exist- ing research and prominent literature with experiential learning derived from the iterative process routinely applied by practitioners in the course of our work with students in schools. Principally, the purpose of this article is to fuse “top-down” and “bottom-up” knowledge toward a consensus view of what constitutes core elements of school programing for students with EBD. The article’s content is intended to offer ample specificity to be beneficial to practitioners while simultaneously providing researchers a pragmatic perspective on the prioritization of the myriad of strategies and issues involved in the education of students with EBD.

Introductory suppositions

Prior to a discussion of the central elements involved in the establishment of effective school programing for students with EBD, it is necessary to present four critical observations about the task. Awareness of these fundamental truths is

370 D. D. FRENCH

essential to the process as they permeate all aspects of suc- cessful programing for this student population, and if over- looked, can easily undermine the entire process or diminish the efficacy of otherwise sound strategies.

Recognition of the challenge

The problems presented by this student population are severe and the task of providing effective intervention for these students equally difficult. Although this observation appears well-established (Center & Callaway, 1999; Neel, 2006; Redl & Wineman, 1951; Steinberg & Knitzer, 1992), its implications for the very human, day to day interactions involved in the intervention process are easily lost in the often impalpable, exclusively cerebral context of scientific lit- erature. Successful intervention for EBD students can only occur with a full appreciation for the magnitude of the chal- lenge and the level of emotional fortitude and resolve required by those involved in the intervention process. Students with EBD include children and adolescents with severe trauma histories, untreated psychopathology, and long-standing, ingrained patterns of antisocial behaviors borne of a complex array of both constitutional and envir- onmental influences (Cullinan, 2007; Redl & Wineman, 1951). Common behaviors exhibited by this student popula- tion include noncompliance, verbal and physical aggression, self-injury, elopement, and a wide range of disruptive behav- iors (Cullinan, 2007; Kauffman & Landrum, 2009).

Even under the best of circumstances, student progress may be slow and often fraught with periods of emotional and/or behavioral upheaval. Furthermore, transient environ- mental and/or familial stressors can easily exacerbate this already severe symptomatology to levels beyond that which can be safely managed in a school setting. Although the severity of these symptoms may vary as a function of the child’s particular profile and the extent to which the child’s emotional, behavioral and academic needs are matched with the appropriate educational and mental health supports, it is apparent that the overall challenges inherent to this student population are quite formidable and most certainly contrib- ute to the poor outcomes that have been attributed to these students for many years (Smith, Katsiyannis, & Ryan, 2011; Steinberg & Knitzer, 1992).

Accordingly, the task of establishing effective school- based intervention for students with such profound, com- plex, and refractory disabilities is daunting. Teachers will contend with highly disruptive and, at times, aggressive behaviors. School administrators must anticipate damage to the building (e.g., a hole in the wall), calls for emergency services to transport students to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation, frequent behavioral incidents on transportation vehicles, and an array of both transient and substantive threats (Cornell, Sheras, Gregory, & Fan, 2009). School social workers and school psychologists must be prepared to assess the risk of suicide, make reports to child protective services, and provide frequent counseling support to stu- dents and families in acute emotional distress—while also remaining focused on the goal of academic progress and

attaining the documentation and achievement standards of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015). The high stress and attrition rates found among teachers of EBD stu- dents (Adera & Bullock, 2010; Center & Callaway, 1999) are testament to the magnitude of this challenge and underscore the necessity of having highly skilled and committed teach- ers as a foundation to effective programing (Simpson et al., 2011).

Effective intervention requires specialized training

Understanding the magnitude of the challenge involved with educating students with EBD generates a second fundamen- tal truth—intervention for this student population requires a specialized knowledge base and skillset (Conroy, 2016; Lewis et al., 2004; Neel, 2006). However, teacher knowledge about effective practices appears to be quite low. Research indi- cates that special education teacher preparation programs place little emphasis on classroom management (Oliver & Reschly, 2017) and in-service training for teachers of stu- dents with EBD is minimal (Wagner et al., 2006). Furthermore, many authors have reported that the use of evidence-based practices for this student population does not occur with any regularity (Conroy, 2016; Landrum et al., 2003; Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Simpson et al., 2011) despite the existence of a large body of scientific evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of these practices (Cook et al., 2013; Lewis et al., 2004).

Numerous explanations have been offered for this short- coming, including a lack of treatment fidelity (Landrum et al., 2003), insufficient input from practitioners (Conroy, 2016), blaming students with EBD for their unresponsive- ness to traditional mechanisms of controlling behavior such as punishment (Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991), a fail- ure to evaluate program interventions for their effectiveness (Walker et al., 2013), a belief among practitioners that spe- cific evidence-based practices are not applicable or relevant to their classrooms (Boardman et al., 2005; Farmer et al., 2014), and a lack of consensus regarding best practice (Peacock Hill Working Group, 1991; Simpson et al., 2011).

Although each of these explanations undoubtedly bears a degree of truth, ultimately the responsibility for facilitating effective programing for students with EBD rests with edu- cational leaders (i.e., superintendents, principals, directors of special education) because they set the agenda, influence cul- ture, allocate resources, prioritize goals, and are tasked with ensuring that their employees are prepared to meet those goals. Yet, due to the specialized nature of interventions for students with EBD and the rarity in which these interven- tions actually occur in practice, educational leaders may not have the experience or knowledge necessary to lead their staff in the implementation of effective practice. This is pre- cisely the impetus behind Maggin et al. (2010) having rec- ommended that policymakers at all levels (i.e., local, state, and federal) have familiarity with the treatment needs of this student population.

However, given the mounting demands on educational leaders to facilitate the instruction of a generation of

PREVENTING SCHOOL FAILURE: ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH 371

students with increasingly diverse needs, it may be unrealis- tic to require these leaders to be well-versed in the complex interventions required for students with EBD. Nevertheless, it is critical that educational leaders recognize the level of expertise and resources necessary to meet this challenge and facilitate the process of acquiring adequate support for their staff. Reitz (1994) discussed this issue noting the necessity of acquiring ongoing supervision and training from knowledge- able professionals in the implementation of interventions for students with EBD. He accentuated the need for long-term administrative commitment to the process as well as the identification of a core group of staff members who would receive the proper training and be primarily responsible for the implementation of the appropriate strategies. Reitz also cautioned that successful implementation will require a min- imum of two to three years to develop—a point that sheds light on the magnitude and complexity of the challenge.

The importance of ongoing training is shared by others (Conroy & Sutherland, 2012; Farmer et al., 2014). For example, Farmer et al. discussed four different intervention models for students with EBD based upon sustained support from knowledgeable professionals that go beyond the trad- itional isolated workshop format. The Peacock Hill Working Group (1991) also touted a consultant driven program in their discussion of successful program models for students with EBD and, of course, the national movement toward school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) utilizes a consultant-based model in its implementation (Sugai & Horner, 2006).

Interpersonal skills of the teacher

A third premise underlying effective intervention for stu- dents with EBD pertains to the relational skills of the profes- sionals who work directly with this student population. A staff member’s interpersonal presentation may be the lynch- pin to the entire process of effecting meaningful change for students with EBD because interventions for students with EBD occur in an interpersonal context (e.g., praise, repri- mands, redirection) as do the majority of the problematic behaviors exhibited by these students (e.g., aggression, non- compliance, withdrawal). In fact, the very nature of EBD is interpersonal impairment (Landrum et al., 2003). As such, problematic student behaviors are frequently precipitated or triggered by interpersonal interactions between the student and teacher and can easily escalate in both intensity and duration as a function of the manner in which the teacher interacts with the student.

This is especially important in light of the proclivity for many students with EBD to exhibit behavioral difficulties in response to minor stressors (Cullinan, 2007) and to perceive rejection (Redl & Wineman, 1951) or ill-intent where none exists (Hinshaw & Anderson, 1996; Hobbs, 1966). The teacher’s interpersonal presentation, particularly his or her ability to communicate with a nonjudgmental, warm, and steady demeanor, absent any hint of annoyance or rejection, can be influential in steering a potentially problematic

interaction with a student toward a mutually satisfying con- clusion free of any conflict.

Furthermore, the teacher’s interpersonal presentation is critical to successful intervention as it is the primary