I am writing legislation [in Florida] to
I am trying to find out if any State / school district has a model like this in place that I can reach out to to inform my proposal.
THANK YOU
Joel Smith
JSMITH@FISPONLINE.ORG
Replies sorted oldest to newest
My wonder is what problem is this trying to solve? Inadequate funding? Lack of understanding for how to serve students with histories of adversity? My concern is that this "solution" doesn't address the problem and honestly, it worries me a little. It runs the risk of labelling and sorting kids. There is so much evidence that while ACE scores are an indicator, they are not defining. Not only that, the typical ACE score misses huge pieces.
To me the real problem is that the educational system has built in systems that demand compliance instead of collaboration, and value individuality over community. Those mindsets are pretty firmly baked into the system at this point. The tools most commonly used to achieve compliance and reward individuality are a combination of rewards, exclusion, consequences, shame and humiliation. So the real problem isn't identifying and providing "special service" it is how the system is built. Just identifying the students and providing "resources" won't shift the culture or the practices currently used.
Transforming the system which is held in place by policies, which ultimately are upheld by the people working in (and themselves shaped by) the system requires a shift in culture and mindset. That is an ongoing process.
Perhaps the bill that needs to go before the legislature is state-wide support for professional development on the practices that shift toward being trauma responsive. That would improve outcomes for ALL students, not just the students impacted by adversities because ALL students (and educators too!) benefit from systems that build a sense of I belong, I matter and I'm safe here. When we use the john powell's model of targeted universalism - making it better for all - with different paths for different groups, we get both better buy in and better results.
Having spent years doing professional development, I think it is also important to remember that educators, like students, need to be met where they are, encouraged and offered small practical steps for change. If you'd like to try a sample of the kind of thing I'm talking about we have a workshop coming up at the end of July. Here is the link. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/r...tickets-159041022981
Hi Joel,
Please be mindful that a score does not directly correlate with the impact of those ACEs. New research (see attached) shows that positive experiences during childhood are very protective. Additionally, having a score go with a child, year to year, could reinforce bias that is counter productive.
Have you considered aligning with others who are also working on legislation that addresses childhood trauma - and more. www.ctipp.org/nationaltraumacampaign/
The attached journal articles underscore the importance of POSITIVE childhood experiences.
Thank you for reaching out!
Karen
Thank you for your response. I am absolutely mindful of protective factors, positive relationships, grit, resilience and the antidotes to ACES. I am more concerned about who is suffering and insuring that the antidotes are made available to them
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am very aware of the potential for profiling. Frankly, I care less about that than flowing the services and supports to the suffering child in order to ameliorate the negative life experience. If we do that proactively and effectively, i believe the potential for profiling is controllable
Jody:
I love all of what you said and especially this:
"Perhaps the bill that needs to go before the legislature is state-wide support for professional development on the practices that shift toward being trauma responsive. That would improve outcomes for ALL students, not just the students impacted by adversities because ALL students (and educators too!) benefit from systems that build a sense of I belong, I matter and I'm safe here."
The last thing we need is for an ACE score to be another label or diagnostic, which is ridiculous as it only indicates what happened to us and not how we coped with it (or not), what resources we did or didn't have, not what we need or require to heal, not what our individual risk factors are (or are not).
While it's very true that we know, on a population level, children and adults are impacted by ACEs, it's the concept that is important as there aren't sweeping generalizations or precise interventions. After all, the original ACEs miss much. What we do know is that safe and kind and just places and spaces benefit everyone, that room and space and tools and access to healing is important, but also that our systems must first BECOME healing so that they don't retraumatize, or continue to marginalize and stigmatize people. We can respect and understand that trauma has impact without labeling, scoring, or weaponizing ACEs. We need to share information ABOUT ACEs with people not use an ACEs history or score against people - which is what has already been done too often with the DSM.
Cissy
Cissy, I SO agree.
Joel, I don't believe given the current systems that "profiling is controllable"... the required shift in thinking is required before you create another label...it won't happen afterward. None of us have that magic wand. Our experience is that it takes 3-5 years to make that cultural shift at the level of school.... much longer at the district...and even longer at the school. I believe the proposal has a potential to exacerbate harm.
Good morning
Thank you for your thoughts. I respectfully have a different view
Hi, Joel. I have to say that I agree with the responses that you have already received. In particular, Karen's suggestion to read more about the work around Positive Childhood Experiences and the H.O.P.E. framework. Robert Sege's work closely aligns with research from Dr. Bruce Perry that has definitively shown that a child's relational health is better predictor of future outcomes than their ACE score. Not all children with a high ACE score need supportive services at school or in their community. Children who have a low PCE score and a low ACE score are often at MORE risk than a child with a high ACE score balanced with a high PCE score.
In addition to the fears that have already been expressed regarding "profiling" and stigma, I would worry that using an ACE screener alone would not catch the kids that have very low relational scores and these are often the kids who need more support. I'm guessing your schools already have a number of screens they use that accomplish the same aim as an ACE screen - it may be helpful to add the PCE screener into the mix to see what kids are missing. Dr. Perry's new book, What Happened to You? explains this science in a way that has helped me make more sense of the implications and how I communicate it. Maybe it will help you too. Good luck in your efforts to try to get kids what they need.
I think my biggest challenge is that once again it is deficit based screening. There are other ways to screen that look at what is needed instead of "what happened".... and include things like support systems and specific tools for supports for specific lagging skills. I still worry about this.
