Inteligencia emocional
HABILIDADES DE VIDA: SESIÓN 16: ¿Es importante mi familia?
On the international scene there has been a substantial amount of work published that theorises, advises and gives policy and ideological guidelines about the practical aspects of providing critical incident responses within the school environment (these have been summarised in Appendix Three). Within secondary schools in this country there has been a shorter history of published work on the management of such incidents. Dale (1992) was one of the first to publish in Aotearoa New Zealand. At the time she was working as a counsellor in a large secondary school. Her research was centred on her own experience and that of other counsellors who had had to deal with a high profile death in their school. She pointed out the need to respond to a critical incident as imperative and to not do so is to invite possible unhealthy resolution by those involved. Moreover, from her experience she had realised, the necessity of providing a comprehensive response that addressed:
…the needs of, for example, siblings, parents, teaching staff, the crisis team itself, the emotionally disturbed, those already grieving, the withdrawn grievers, and those with children close to the age of the deceased. Students may have a widely flung set of personal contacts and death may affect several institutions (Dale, 1992; p. 25).
Dale drew particular attention to the special needs of adolescents. She commented that young people are often hard to read so that the degree of their distress may not be evident and therefore they may not receive the help that may benefit them. The very nature of the developmental tasks of the adolescent means that their experience of the critical incident will be complex. At this time they are making sense of their world. When an incident happens this sense- making is challenged. Dale (1992, p. 28) comments that:
It takes by surprise many teenagers in the throes of establishing their independence and identity. It throws them up against uncertainty and shakes the confidence in their future.
Ridling (1995) corroborated these findings when she researched the effect that sudden traumatic incidents had on students, teachers and parents. Her
recommendations indicated the need for a school wide plan rather than a counsellor led response. This was not to downplay the counsellor’s role but to include the whole school community as an integral part of any response especially considering the long term impact that the event could have on the school and on some of the individuals within it.
More importantly, with regard to this project, Ridling (1995, p.16) makes the point that:
The views of students need to be sought, and in appropriate ways, they need to be involved in decision making and the development of crisis plans.
There is nothing in the literature to indicate that this suggestion has been taken up although in individual schools this may have happened.
Rivers (1995, 1994,1988) has made a significant contribution to the field. He based his guidelines on a number of assumptions:
Firstly, that people who experience trauma and who have unusual reactions are not necessarily disordered; secondly that those who live through the experiences of trauma are survivors, not victims; thirdly, that through communities taking care of their own a greater quality of recovery will prevail, and, fourthly, that through an understanding of the basic stages and the key concepts, communities are better able to restore those things that are essential to those communities’ survival (Rivers, 1994; p.5).
There were also a number of concepts that informed those who were working within this field of practice: that survivors are responsible for their own recovery; that survivors own the event, that survivors have the right to be included in the process of recovery, that matters need to be met as they arise; and to use the normal structures rather that implementing new ones (Rivers, et. al, 1993). Following the publication of these concepts, a team of professionals, including Rivers, was commissioned to develop guidelines (Beautrais, et. al., 1997 and 1997a). A comprehensive plan for critical incident responses was developed. The responses were divided into four distinct parts: pre-impact, impact, post- impact and recovery. These principles are designed to decrease the risk of
suicide contagion within the adolescent community. These guidelines are included in Appendix Four.
These have been made available to all schools and are an attempt to help schools to deal as positively as possible with the prevention of suicide and postvention in the case of a completed suicide. The principles are applicable to a wider range of incidents than suicides alone.
After these had become available, McCarthy and Hermansson (1998) conducted a study that looked at schools’ responses to these guidelines. The outcomes make grim reading if we are to look at the preparedness and the efficacy of the school to respond to an incident. Only 15% of the schools who responded considered themselves well prepared for an incident. In brief:
Responses from only half of the nation’s secondary schools were received. One could wonder if the other half were not prepared to look at the issue. Only 42% of the schools who responded were prepared to the point of having a policy in place to deal with a student suicide should it happen. Only 44% offered programmes to students that respondents considered to be part of suicide prevention. Only 48% of respondents listed any useful books the school had available on youth suicide. A very small percentage (15%) assessed their school as well prepared while a similar number, (17%), admitted to the school not being prepared (McCarthy & Hermansson, 1998; p.109).
The need to provide responses has been recognised and supported by the
government and in April 2001 Group Special Education1 (formerly Special
Education Services), and a section of the Ministry of Education, were contracted to give assistance to schools. This was recognised by a Document of Accountability between Group Special Education and the Ministry of Education (Coggan, et. al., 2001).
The current services that are available are easily accessible to schools through the Ministry website and hard copies of the documentation. The intent of these is described by the Ministry of Education (2007, p1) as:
1 There is approximately 2,500 Ministry staff working in special education throughout New Zealand. They are part of the wider Ministry of Education, and are called the Ministry of Education, Special Education (GSE).
...intended to help build understanding around management of such events. The Ministry is committed to supporting schools and early childhood services to provide safe environments, and it gives staff responses to critical incidents high priority.
A full copy of these guidelines, known as “Traumatic Incident Management Support for Schools and Early Childhood Education (ECE) Services” is attached in Appendix Five.
This discussion continues by outlining the development and rationale for providing responses in schools.