Crisis events are associated not only with negative mental disorders for our students, but also with significant learning difficulties. As educators, it is important for us to know what we do, immediately after a crisis that can prevent our students to the trauma that contributes to these negative results.
Crisis intervention in schools is still in its infancy. No single model has been adopted because of lack of scientific researchTo be done giving reasons. We just do not know what works best with the students in the schools. We struggle with what works most effectively when we rely on cognitive approaches or so-called cures continue "talking" to ignore the physiology of trauma. Recent scientific studies have not supported the use of what is still a widespread assumption Crisis Intervention Model: Jeffrey T. Mitchell 's model of critical-incident stress debriefing (CISD). Several studies have found Mitchell's model to beno more effective than no intervention at all, and in some cases it was actually increased post-traumatic stress symptoms in a number of the beneficiaries.
Within about forty-five minutes, with up to thirty people at a time, including CISD made a "fact" phase in the basic information available to inform them of the what to expect, too. Figures circulated among common reactions to stress and other more debilitating symptoms. This will be followed by a "feeling out" period, duringup to thirty participants are asked to answer such questions: "What was the worst part of the incident for you personally?" This phase is accompanied by proposals to deal with stress and then followed by "re-entry" into the world.
At a presentation of Mitchell's model, which I visited with school district personnel and state Department of Mental Health of the workers, I was most of the audience noticed how uncomfortable as they listened to his proposal. The body language of the audienceMembers pointed out that their own stress would be increased, if only just shown the video of a debriefing. Many spectators stood up and left the actual presentation seen shaking their heads. While the video to see, we saw some people take a dip in the worst part of the trauma for her clearly aroused physiologically and emotionally, yet within moments, was at the time and the group was left with a final caution. "Be careful driving home," they were warned, "as youmay still be disturbed "after leaving the intervention.
People have spoken about their experiences participating in debriefing sessions. After 9-11, for example, many participants indicated that the intervention was not helpful. One participant said he was "numb" during the meeting and that weeks later he was still having nightmares and often feel as if he has been stifled (Groopman, 2004). Another participant said that hearing other victims of what they saw and describe whatthey had suffered too much. He had left the meeting when another participant described seeing a body part, you fall over a sidewalk (Begley, 2003). After an earthquake in Turkey, "said one recipient:" It was as if the debriefers opened me like in surgery and did not stitch me back up (Begley, 2003, p. 1). "
Cognitive approaches, such as Mitchell, who ignore that the physiology of the body, the potential for hysteria because creating, how easily overwhelm the body experiences. When the body isby a flood of stress and emotions, which often reminds one of the worst part of the trauma, he protects himself by creating an alternate reality or dissociated state. Hysteria is a form of dissociation. Participants who have become hysterical during the debriefing sessions away from the group, so they do not detract from it, like other members of the group (Mitchell & Everly, 1996a). Rather than accept this as an expected outcome of the crisis, but we can bring our new knowledge about the brainBody and the work we do to prevent such reactions.
Adjustments of the model are Mitchell, which can leave many educators in the field of crisis intervention. Some are reluctant to general conclusions that the model is not helpful (Brock & Jimerson, 2002) made despite the growing number of studies have shown that losing the support of debriefing approaches (GIST & Devilly, 2002). Practitioners "remain committed to the principle of debriefing", because "clinical experience" value in the "possibility of proposingExpressing feelings (Deahl, Gillham, Thomas, Searle, & Srinivasan, 1994, p. 64). "are other efficient model No reference to economic reasons for the continued use of the concept (Arendt & Elklit, 2001). We need something, and it seems to work for us. Why else would we continue with the debriefing techniques requires caution and restraint to use one of as many responsible scientists and practitioners (GIST & Devilly, 2002)?
Instead of the eighth to leave the many warningsDebriefers pursue their work, by adjustments in the respective model. The preoccupation with this answer, however, continue it without a careful examination of the impact of crises, such as brain and body physiology, intervention models are developed and implemented, that the potential to cause damage described by too many recipients have.
In an overview of recent developments in the field of crisis intervention, I was shocked to find how little discussion there, as the brain and bodybe affected by trauma. Crises are always a psychological events that are called, with the mentally intervened as a trauma to the mind alone happens. We seem to be noted that our cognitive account of the most powerful tool for healing, but in reality it is the body, mediated through the old reptilian brain, the wisdom to know how that has naturally recover from trauma and heal itself.
Most people recover from disasters, natural andspontaneously over time. In fact, we've been experiencing an "abnormal" behavior as a result of trauma, is actually part of a healthy process of recovery (Groopman, 2004), in which the body is doing what it knows how to do in order to stress the process until to its natural end. Call the Impalas, the moments needed to shake off the stress of his attack and then leads to (see chapter four). Whether we are aware of it or not, in most cases, our body naturally finds a way to do the same. It is only a smallPercentage of people who have a catastrophic event that requires formal intervention experience. This is consist mainly small percentage of persons with past histories of trauma, with "fragile emotional profiles and few available resources (Torem & DePalma, 2003, p. 12)." For example, we know that students with previous exposure to traumatic events more threatened by the accumulation effect of stress on the nervous system. "The new demands [traumatic] the energyFormation of more symptoms ... [so that the traumatic] response is not only chronic, it intensifies "(Levine, 1997, p. 105).
More vulnerable students are likely to need formal support in recovery from a crisis in the school. For most, however, we know that the body is the ability to heal itself, and the healing of stress and trauma is possible simply by investing in community with others. These are important points to keep in mind when creating an effective crisis interventionModel for the schools. Dr. Steven Hyman, provost of Harvard University, reminds us that the rituals we have in our various cultures has helped in our healing and recovery from the crisis events can be. He makes note of Shivah in Jewish culture and creates fear among the Catholics. Dr. Hyman noted that "Nobody needs anyone to say something! Especially not in the script about a debriefing." Dr. Hyman has argued that in times of crisis, where it is the power of our social networks, which helpsus a sense of meaning and security in our lives (Groopman, 2004).
Dr. Hyman is not the only one responsible for making scientific statements that "no one should say something for everyone." A group of renowned scientists assembled by the American Psychological Society - Richard McNally of Harvard University, Richard Bryant of the University of New South Wales, and Anke Ehlers of King's College London - has been a clear record: "Pushing people about their feelings to talk and thoughtsvery soon after trauma may not be beneficial ... For scientific and ethical reasons, professionals should no longer be compulsory debriefing of trauma-exposed persons (Begley, 2003, p. 2).
With a growing number of studies warn us to abandon debriefing approaches, why is the story going and oral reports on the details of the crisis is still considered useful? Why cognitive and narrative approaches to crisis intervention are gaining support in some professional circles? This trend canPart of the prevailing cultural prejudices that we are on our way to talk anything. This conversation is, for most consultants, the best known and most comfortable way of operation. However, seems not justify a declaration that, as ethical professionals, we ignore a striking Body of Evidence. Imaging techniques used in cognitive approaches to trauma, "not good for people with brains and not good for people with physical," tells "the story is again traumatized and make things worse (van der Kolk,2002). "
Dr. van der Kolk, as recently spoke at a conference about the fact that, like most consultants, he did not know how to show the work that he and traumatized survivors pace. Like most consultants today, he said he was "not aware of the effect that people talk about these things very scary." Learning about the effects of trauma on the brain is what prompted him to speak around the world to educate professionals about the dangers of re-telling of the history andso-called "Talking Cure". Crisis Intervention Specialists working in the schools begin to acknowledge the dangers. School Crisis Management Research Summaries according to the official newspaper of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) stated that early crisis intervention with detailed verbal recollections of events may not be helpful and may be at higher risk of high arousal space (Brock & Jimerson, 2002).
What seems to be most helpful about currentApproaches to crisis management will meet in a group and dissemination of information. Litz and colleagues published a study comparing the CISD model, with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) (Litz, Gray, Bryant, & Adler, 2002). Common between the approaches typical reactions to education and training in coping skills for stress and anxiety. The results showed that a meeting is in a group is what helped to maintain morale and cohesion. Group interventions seemed to serve as an opportunity for thosein the group feel less stigmatized, more valid, and that is authorized. Psycho-education and dissemination of information about what was to be expected as a useful part of this crisis approaches cited. A number of individual meetings, if they are useful as supportive therapy when assessed (a) the need for sustainable treatment, (b) provided psychological first aid, and (c) offer education on trauma and treatment resources.
Several group interventions have been foundTo reduce anxiety, improve self-efficacy, and to improve the cohesion of the group (Shalev, Peri, Rogel-Fuchs, Ursano, & Marlowe, 1998). They were also found to play a role in reducing alcohol abuse (Deahl, Srinivsan, Jones, Thomas, playing Neblett & Jolly, 2000). However, it has also found that single-session crisis intervention for high-risk group of trauma survivors, with pre-trauma mental health (Larsson, Michel, & Lundin, are 2000) inadequate. Persons with previous injuries, such asBurns, accidents or violent crime, may in fact single-session group crisis intervention (Bisson, Jenkins, Alexander & Bannister, 1997; Mayou, Ehlers, & Hobbs, 2000) are damaged. This information is invaluable as we work together as educators to develop an effective crisis intervention model.
Common myths about crises
It is important to some of the myths that exist today about the impact of trauma on our students address. These myths are everywhere and come fromdated assumptions about children, we now have the brain research to refute.
Some events are more traumatic than the others
I have experts in the field of crisis intervention dive into long speeches about certain events as traumatic as other witnesses. In most cases, these discussions are not helpful. I listened to a moderator too detailed for a broken arm from a physical attack as traumatic than a broken arm from a car accident, andWar as a traumatic than an earthquake. It is not a matter of some traumatic events than others. Trauma is not the case, it is in the nervous system (Levine, 1997). Depending on the condition of the nervous system of the individual and the resources available before, during and after the event, it may, it seems, some benign can be very debilitating to the other. In the belief that some events objectively to all more or less traumatic will be assessed very dangerousAssumptions about the individual pupil. We can not expect that some students will be less of what we have measured, less terrifying traumatic event. This is how we understand and do not miss school to see their trauma symptoms after an event, which was terrible for her.
Psychological causes of injury trauma
While it is true that a trauma has the potential to induce psychological injury, such an explanation does not go the whole truth about the damage causedof traumatization. When people learn to traumatized that crises are not only psychological events, but physiological experience them with relief. What they do not go through "in the head," it is the natural reaction of the body. The people suffer years of anxiety after a car accident, for example, or to believe an operation that she needs to go be crazy. Her doctors tell them that there is nothing physically wrong with them that there is no reason for their suffering. Notalks to them about what went through her brain and body, so that they determine that the problem must be in your head. With this result, the belief is that they need a form of talk therapy is necessary. I have with my own eyes how this result leads to hopelessness, as traumatized people make numerous attempts at various forms of therapy with little or no success. They know they do not feel the same. You know, they all have the cognitive techniques were applied to themtaught by their well-meaning therapists. You do not have simply better.
Medical tests can not detect the problem and psychological approaches that are left do not interfere with the body's response to trauma traumatized people feel to the cottage. If we are looking for physiology, but we find answers. We learn that among other things, the physiological changes, stress increases heart rate and increases resting levels of cortisol. Hormones and neurotransmitters are altered in the shortor long term depending on the history and resources. Physiological symptoms require a physiological approach. This is what is missing in the crisis intervention programs used today.
To take care of children to adults to determine how the threat is an event
Regardless of how small children, pre-verbally or verbally, they have their own nervous system, their own brains, their own body and mind, and they experience life and its events as much as anyone else. You can no words forTheir experiences, and they can in adults for comfort and understanding look in the face of a frightening event, but they must not be conducted if they feel scared. We can not tell a student that they are good and what is happening is no big deal "when in fact it was a big deal to them. We are at risk of closing their body's natural healing mechanism, if we are doing. There are opportunities to support the natural process of healing and there are ways to subvert it. Students talk about how the feeling isan example of how our cognitive mind can interfere with the ability of the body to heal.
A colleague of mine once shared that, was seriously injured when a young girl, she fell off her bike and knees. She was so stunned by the fall that she could not cry. She realized as an adult looking back on the case that they must have been in a state of shock, because all she felt was numb. Saw on their arrival at the door of her house and her mother that she had been injured, but she did not crywas praised for his, like a brave girl. "What a good girl you are," said the mother look, "You're not even cry." After this incident, "said my colleague that she ensure that she did not cry, no matter what came their way made. She used her words, the cognitive power of their mind, their body's natural reaction to shut down so that they would be regarded as courageous and strong.
Adults have no way of knowing how an event threatening or frightening to a child. If we think we can decideobjective, is what a student's subjective experience, we have no chance to understand or are involved with students in crisis.
Developmental immaturity Can Protective
Some believe that the younger students, the less the students will experience fear and terror. This is not supported by scientific evidence. A nationally certified school psychologist (NCSP) gave a lecture at my school district is encouraging us to take advantage of its crisis intervention model. As part of thethe introduction to his work, he said that both developmentally mature and gifted students are at greater risk of crises and burdened than their less developed peers. Students can be Smarter than less intelligent students traumatized, because they recognize the case threatened, he said. They recognize the traumatic event was, because they are cognitively high enough to judge the case as threatening. After this presenter, "not Developmentally, immature studentsunderstand the event, it is not so traumatic for them. "
Trauma is an event, the physiological effects of all in his wake (to varying degrees) regardless of the level of intellect. The school psychologist statements show a dangerous ignorance of science and what the brain and body of experience in the face of the threat.
Recent attempts to crisis intervention in schools
A number of educational specialists from various disciplines have tried to develop to crisesIntervention models that meet the needs of schools. Three different men, they develop their own approach to my school district presented at three different times. I will check in each of their proposals: (1) Bill Saltzman from the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress, (2) Michael hatred from Chapman University in Orange County, California, and (3) Stephen Brock, a nationally credited school psychologist and coordinator of the Crisis Management in Schools InterestGroup.
Saltzman
Dr. Bill Saltzman's approach emphasizes the need to tailor to the crisis of development of the students being served (Saltzman, 2003). He reminds us that the answers will be of particular students, their age and maturity can. For example, preschoolers may display cognitive confusion. You may not know that the danger is past, when a crisis event and ends need to be repeated concrete clarifications for anticipated confusions. Elder,School-age students, certain fears, display triggered by traumatic memories. You may require help to identify and articulate these memories and related fears. You can benefit from encouraging, not to generalize, according to Saltzman. Young people can start on the other side to show post-traumatic acting out behavior such as drug use, delinquency and sexual activity. Saltzman suggested that the young people help to understand acting-out behavior as an attempt todeaf to their response to, or their anger over the vote, the organization can be useful.
Value placed on family and friendship. The preservation and maintenance of relations after a crisis event for students in every phase of development is crucial. Saltzman pointed out that sometimes physical relocation of crisis events that lead to abruptly interrupt normal daily contact with relatives. If this happens, it is helpful to maintain the efforts to sustain relational ties, irrespective of their physicalSeparation to be comforted by them.
Saltzman reveals that it is always important that students be integrated into the school and classroom environment as quickly as possible. Somatic symptoms and specific fears in the school or the loss of a loved one, it may be difficult to enter for a student returns to school are related. The family and school must work together to ensure that are solved fears of students and attendance at school will receive.
Saltzman Modelcontains a protocol that first interview survivors of crisis issues into seven steps, he asks. The first step is to provide facts about where the students had collected during the event, were exposed to what and how they knew that the people involved. An important question at this stage about whether or not the student who has ever lived, lead or any other type of crisis, trauma, including the submission to the violence, serious illness or sudden, unexpected losses. The next four levels of questionsto do with the responses of students to the crisis. What was the subjective reaction to the event? Are they new behaviors or new concerns at present, since the event? What kind of pain responses they appear? Finally, in the sixth stage of the interview, students are asked about their coping mechanisms before the last phase of the closure of the interview is finished.
Saltzman's approach is appropriate. Awareness and consideration of various forms and needs of students in differentStages will be helpful. Should this with caution, however, that in times of crisis, students can easily and quickly step back to earlier stages of development, so that young people view the behavior of preschoolers. Saltzman pointed out "anxious attachment" as a possible pre-answer, which must not include detention and wanting to be away from the parent or worrying about when the parents come back. This can happen with young people. As pre-school students,Young people can also greatly benefit them, about the "rigorous surveillance" of the calm and collected after school, always know where their workers are.
In a review of all hypotheses Saltzman responses from students at different ages, it was easy to see that one of these reactions can come from a student at any stage of development. We want no assumptions about how a student is in some measure to their age. If we expected, we do not see what we needto. Nevertheless, it is useful to be aware of the age and ability differences. Especially among young people, one should expect to see these age-specific behaviors, such as "premature entry into adulthood." Sure you something specific to adolescence. However, due to adolescence in the behavioral approach Saltzman, such as "life-threatening re-enactment, revenge or self-destructive behavior risk of accidents and sudden change in interpersonal relations and the needs and plans"can easily be seen in some younger school age children after a crisis event.
To provide Saltzman approach, like most is the cognitive and emphasizes the use of language and oral questions. It is unclear how quickly demand for a crisis on all issues from the first interview protocol are. Like other cognitive approaches, including the debriefing model, Saltzman asked survivors about their crisis, "talk most disturbing moment" and "worst fears." We must learn from theExamples that we have now to us that this species can increase from questioning disease.
Hass
Dr. Michael Hass has tried to help schools develop a crisis intervention model using the principles of Solution Focused Brief Counseling (Hass, 2002). His emphasis, like most others is on the questioning of the crisis overcome. The stages of crisis in an interview in his approach are the clarification of roles, a description of the problem, a study dealing with the current efforts to "scale"Progress in addressing, for the formulation of the "next step", and closure. The focus of this approach lies in the creation of useful coping strategies. Questions during the interview so as to facilitate the management to take the students enable them to action in his own name.
Examples of the management questions: What do you do for yourself in this situation? Who do you think would be most helpful to you in this time? What is with this person would be very helpful? Haveby an alarming situation? How did you get through them then? Create the development of resources for students, in difficult times is the key. "Scaling" questions are also related to coping. They help students assess how much better or worse, they think they are doing and give a measure of the crisis consultants, how much progress has been made. Tutors and students together to solve the problem in order to reach solutions for the movement of the scale in the desired direction.
While Hass'Presentation, he stressed the importance of telling the story of what happened during the crisis. He explained that the researchers have discovered that putting is a traumatic event in the language is a crucial feature of the healing process. The idea is that language helps, the images and feelings that we are over a horrific event, better organized, be understood and solved.
The studies that hate related, were conducted by Dr. Edna Foa, a professor of psychology at the University ofPennsylvania, twenty years ago, began his studies of rape victims. She found that most victims of rape again spontaneously and without the need for formal intervention, but that fifteen percent developed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (Groopman, 2004). Foa developed a technique of storytelling to restore the power of resistance among those who continue to suffer. The women were asked to say to tell her story in a tape recorder and hear, then again, and they are listening, and so on. Within about twentyMeetings, Foa found that out of thirty participants twenty-nine a significant improvement in symptoms and their ability to act. They led their improvement of the history of change over time. It became increasingly organized, with a beginning, a middle and an end. It has been suggested that because they were able to sit this a well-developed account of the incident, they were more likely to develop perspective on the event, creating a sense of distance, a feeling ofClosing it, and feel more hope for the future.
Hatred "Overall, the emphasis is on strengthening and empowering the students to be addressed after a traumatic event very helpful. It is important to strike a balance between the alarm reaction in the nervous system caused the event and what will be, reassurance that the alert to create. However, it is dangerous to a technique for professionals involved in the school at the age of working children, when were the few studies that suggest that support for such an approach,Done with adult women who experienced sexual violence. The appropriateness of using such an approach with students may be suspicious, especially if other outstanding professionals have seen in this area tells the story of re-traumatising the victim (van der Kolk, 2002). It is true that in trauma survivors to tell their story in an organized, fluid way, without may be overwhelmed by it, this is a sign that they were recovering from the experience. Tells the story at any given time in aMay be a treatment for trauma survivors is important. However, we are not talking about adult treatment. We speak about crisis intervention for pupils of school age. Now that so many responsible scientists and practitioners warn us that tells the history of hysteria, and may cause re-traumatization, it is best to not support such an approach in the schools.
Brock
Dr. Stephen Brock developed a model of crisis intervention for schools that take into account the different stages ofthe event (Brock & Jimerson, 2002). The first stage is the effect, or when the crisis occurs. The next stage is the first phase of the reaction of the school to the event, which he calls "setback." Immediately after the event, received the student-relationship with "psychological first aid" and in some cases, medical intervention. Support systems must be used during this phase that loved ones are and united. Be psycho-educational groups, supervisor training, and information flyersalso important at this time will be needed as a risk-screening and referral for students, the intensive intervention.
The "Post Impact" phase in the days and weeks after the event. This is the time, the Brock Group suggests that crisis debriefings occur as well as ongoing psychological first aid, psychotherapy and crisis prevention / preparedness for the future. Rituals and monuments can be helpful at this time, and in the next phase of"Recovery / reconstruction."
Recovery / reconstruction, the final stage of the approach, which includes the anniversary preparations. Anniversary reactions have been as intense like first ones (Gabriel, 1992).
Brock recommends that reacts to a school in the recoil phase, comply with all relevant staff within the team to clarify their roles and decide who should do what. It will play a different part of the school psychologists, nurses, therapists, and administrators.
Thepsychological first-aid approach of Brock is specifically designed for schools as a group crisis intervention (GCI). It was designed to work with large groups of students who work experienced a common crisis. Such groups are large classrooms in general. The approach is not intended for use with severely traumatized students, whose responses to crises are likely to GCI (Brock, should intervene 2002). As in the Mitchell model, these students are removed from the group and referred to the mental healthProfessionals. It is proposed that GCI occur to ensure the start of the first full day of school after the dissolution of the event that the participants are psychologically prepared to talk about the crisis (Brock, 2002).
The six-stage model includes an introduction, providing facts and dispel rumors, sharing stories, share responses, empowerment, and Exit. GCI is ideally completed in one session lasting one to three hours of the classroom, depending on the development of theStudents. Similar to other approaches, group presenters introduce themselves and define their roles. Opportunities for students to share their stories, their reactions, and to be "empowered" by focusing on coping and stress management available.
Atom Feed (xml)