LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Safety Act of 2018, this $400 million legislation contained provisions for mental health assistance allocations to schools, firearm safety measures, and school safety requirements. It required Florida schools to implement increased security efforts that included, among other things, hardening school properties, implementing a mobile device reporting tool, hiring school law officers, developing and implementing a behavioral threat assessment instrument, and developing and implementing a statewide threat assessment database. The legislation also authorized county sheriffs to voluntarily establish controversial guardian programs in schools. According to the Florida Department of Education (2020), guardians are “armed personnel who aid in the prevention or abatement of active assailant incidents on school premises. They are either school employees who volunteer to serve in addition to official job duties or personnel hired for the specific purpose of serving as a school guardian. Guardians must pass psychological and drug screenings, and successfully complete a minimum of 144 hours of training.”

      The legislation also established the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, whose purpose was to investigate system failures in the Parkland school shooting and in previous mass violence incidents, then develop recommendations for system improvements. These recommendations were later brought to the Florida legislature in 2019 and led to the passage of Senate Bill 7030, which was designed to build on the original school safety act passed in 2018 and provide strengthening of accountability and compliance with the law. The bill included amendments to 17 sections of the original bill and expanded on the requirements for access to mental health supports in schools. It also included provisions for protecting school climate through restorative strategies and increased the involvement of school counselors in discipline policies and procedures. Other provisions in the law, however, continued to support the controversial guardian program, as well as the presence of law enforcement on campuses, further posing a risk for increased student arrests.

      Following the enactment of these two school safety measures, most Florida schools complied, but some did not, prompting Florida’s governor to call for a grand jury to investigate noncompliance with the state laws. Following its investigation, it was determined there were numerous systemic issues preventing compliance, as well as funding issues. The grand jury also indicated there were some inefficiencies created by the law, specifically regarding the controversial guardian program, and recommended further clarification by the legislature. Another important recommendation was that the Florida Department of Education be authorized to monitor school districts and enforce compliance with school safety laws passed by the legislature.

      Following the recommendations of the grand jury, a third school safety bill, Senate Bill 7065, was proposed to the legislature, but it failed to pass (Florida Senate, 2020).

Rapid Reference 2.5 Texas School Safety Policy: Texas School Safety Act, Senate Bill 11, 2019

      In May 2018, just two and a half months after the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, another school shooting occurred at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas. In response to this devastating act of violence, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions to investigate possible solutions for improving school safety (State of Texas, 2018). Following the roundtable discussions, the governor released a school safety action plan (Abbott, 2018) that laid the foundation for school safety legislation.

      Like the Florida legislation discussed in Rapid Reference 2.4, the Texas legislation contained some similarities. For example, Texas’ schools were required to implement hardening of school properties and hiring of school law officers. However, the Texas legislation differed in several aspects. Not only did it incorporate many of the components identified in the school climate research, but also it included SEL language. It required schools to implement a systemic and coordinated multi‐tiered system that addressed school climate and the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of students. It also required schools in Texas to develop and implement threat assessment teams and to refer students for mental assessment when threat assessment indicated a need. In addition, teachers in Texas were required to receive continuing education each year in recognizing how grief and trauma affect student learning and behavior and how trauma‐informed strategies can support the academic success of students impacted by trauma or grief. The policy also required Texas’ schools to offer, as part of the physical health curriculum, instruction in mental health conditions, substance abuse, suicide prevention, and social‐emotional skills such as managing emotions, responsible decision making, and establishing and maintaining positive relationships. Lastly, the policy required schools to incorporate instruction in digital citizenship, including information regarding potential criminal consequences of cyberbullying (Texas School Safety Act, SB 11, 2019). The legislation also directed the Texas commissioner of education to develop rules for implementing many of these provisions.

      In response to these school safety policies, or perhaps in preparation for the pending requirements, many schools and districts in the state subsequently created district‐level SEL leadership positions and began developing comprehensive SEL programs and supports. As a result, excitement for SEL increased, and SEL implementation efforts began emerging in schools and districts across the state. Although the Texas legislation fell short of requiring the state education agency to develop instructional standards for social and emotional learning, advocates for SEL believed the bill provided the momentum that would be needed for advancing SEL in the state.

      Given the school safety concerns, school leaders are recognizing that school culture and climate are fundamental to implementing sustainable SEL. In addition, there is widespread agreement on the importance of defragmenting the traditional approach to educating young people. Using a multi‐tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework, schools are beginning to employ a “whole child” approach for identifying student supports, including supports for social, emotional, and character development.

      Impact of Trauma and Adversity

In addition to the public’s growing concerns for school safety, the rising impact of trauma and adversity on a growing number of children and youth is considered another significant force underlying the surge of interest in SEL. As discussed in this chapter, the trauma experienced around the world during the COVID‐19 pandemic of 2020 led experts to predict a long‐term toll on mental health for people of all ages. In fact, a report published by the Well Being Trust and the Robert Graham Center (Petterson et al., 2020) predicted that an additional 75,000 Americans would die from “deaths of despair” (i.e., deaths due to drugs, alcohol, and suicide) as a result of the pandemic, and that was in addition to the more than 240,000 deaths already caused by the virus, as recorded at the time of this writing. Essentially, this would amount to an epidemic within the pandemic. In circumstances such as this, children and youth are not immune to these outcomes. In fact, the suicide rate for persons aged 14–18 increased 61.7% from 2009 to 2018. (Ivey‐Stephenson, et al, 2020). Other data on children’s and youth’s mental health were reported in the 2019 YRBS study issued by the CDC in 2020, indicating a rising concern for mental health problems with this population.

      The repercussions of any traumatic event can undermine a child’s sense of safety, stability, and well‐being, and those with a history of abuse, neglect, or exposure to negative environmental conditions are most vulnerable. Other vulnerabilities include, but are not limited to, foster care placement, the presence of a disability, or living with caretakers already suffering from mental health problems, as noted in the study by Fothergill (2017). Young adults who are just entering the workforce and beginning to experience the struggles of learning to live independently also are vulnerable to the long‐term impacts of trauma, particularly under the economic distress caused by the pandemic. Prior to the onset of the pandemic, numerous studies had already reported that schools, communities, and families were “feeling the impact of adversity and trauma on a scale of massive proportions” (Wycoff & Franzese, 2019, p. 3). More than half of the school‐age children in the United States had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) prior to the pandemic. In 2014, the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to

Скачать книгу