Yeah this is why it feels crude. But I’ve learned that a depressingly high percentage of people need to be appealed to based on “how does this affect me”? An awful lot of people don’t give a shit how things will affect their neighbours.
Like, all I know is that next year I’ll be paying transit fares for two teenagers and that’s going to do a number on us.
This might be a bit crude, but it would be cool to have a “cuts calculator” to help people visualize what sort of expenses they’ll have vs, say, bridge toll/tax savings.
I think most people are extremely ignorant of how these government decisions actually affect them.
And today, my first blog for Foundations 1: The Bio Domain: The Brain, Stress and Self-Regulation, was published. Here it is! /3
self-reg.ca/reading-the-...
I've been loving the program, and I'll be finished by mid-April. And I'm writing a blog for @selfreg.bsky.social's website for each of the four courses in it. /2
Hey folks,
So, since late August/early September, I've been enrolled in something pretty significant.
I've been taking the Self-Reg Foundations Level 1 Certificate Program from @selfreg.bsky.social. /1
And that's no surprise, because they've internalized the classical behavioural view so thoroughly that the idea of connection and attunement feels soft or permissive to them. /END
And frankly, some people genuinely believe that control and compliance are the only language kids understand - especially disabled and neurodivergent kids. /21
Over time, you end up with an institutional culture where the evacuation mindset becomes normalized and anyone suggesting alternatives sounds naïve or irresponsible. /20
But teachers who naturally gravitate toward relational, attuned work? They either burn out trying to do it within a system that doesn't support it, or they leave. /19
But there's also something to be said about how the system itself selects for and reinforces a certain approach.
Teachers who are drawn to, or who thrive in, rule-based, protocol-driven environments stick around. /18
But learning to actually attune to a dysregulated kid? That requires emotional labour, presence, self-awareness about your own arousal state, and vulnerability.
It's a hell of a lot harder - but it's far more useful. /17
Evacuation protocols are concrete, they follow a checklist, they absolve individual teachers of the burden of reading a situation and responding relationally.
They're also backed by liability concerns and institutional policy. /16
I mean, think about it - inertia and comfort with what's familiar almost always wins in our school system. /15
And this is because they've been so conditioned to use evacuation and other arousal-amplifying methods that they can't be bothered to learn other ways. /14
But I'd go so far as to say that not only does the system not equip them with said skills, or want to......but some, maybe even many teachers, don't WANT to learn what actually works. /13
So what do we do?
Well it's easy to say that teachers are operating within a system that doesn't equip them with the skills or permission to do what actually works. /12
But instead, we use emergency procedures that only amplify their arousal.
And then we label the kid as "violent" when we should be examining how the adult response contributed to the outcome. /11
The key thing to keep in mind is, these so-called "safety" practices often violate what kids actually need in those moments: connection, space, someone who can read their state and help them come back down. /10
Because a five-year-old with scissors isn't a threat-response scenario; it's a REGULATION scenario.
The evacuation itself becomes the traumatic event that tips things over. /9
Evacuating a classroom is a reactive, protocol-driven response. What's far more appropriate is a relational, attuned response that reads what's actually happening with the child. /8
I'll tell you what he'd do. He would CONNECT with that child. He would have caught it earlier on.
He would be able to stop the incident before it even happened. /7
Think about this - they constantly evacuate classrooms, even with five-year-olds. And they might say it was because the five-year-old pulled up a pair of rounded scissors.
Well, what would Stuart Shanker do? /6
Namely, she pointed to something crucial: there's a huge disconnect between safety protocols that are ostensibly designed to prevent escalation but actually CAUSE it - especially for dysregulated kids who are already in a heightened state. /5
I recently had a wonderful chat with my friend Susan Hopkins, executive director of the MEHRIT Centre. She agreed with me, and had some really powerful insights. /4
Let us not forget the classical view of human behaviour has shaped how we view children's behaviour today.
And it's still predominant in most school systems, especially those that place an emphasis on the use of PBIS. /3
But here's a question that no one seems to be asking. Maybe, just maybe, the teachers themselves are the causes of some of that violence.
Just a thought. /2
Okay, I've got some things to say here.
We hear hear a lot about violence in schools, but most troubling of all, we seem to blame a lot of this "violence" on neurodivergent and other disabled kids. /1
Great interview Katy! Also….check your DMs…..I sent you something.
If you missed my chat with @sheldonmacleod.bsky.social on FX 101.9 today you can find it here!
I’m on until the end of the hour to respond to some of the comments of other people on the topic of healthcare.
fx1019.ca/on-air/local...
