Rethinking traditional behaviour management to better support complex trauma-surviving students

Children and adolescents who have survived complex trauma have suffered the type of ongoing and repeated traumatic experience that includes factors such as physical, sexual, and/or emotional abuse, significant neglect, and/or family violence. Complex childhood trauma (sometimes referred to as paediatric or child maltreatment-related post traumatic stress disorder (De Bellis and Kuchibhatla, 2006) can have a significant impact on the developing nervous system which can lead to impairment in the capacity to relate and to emotionally self-regulate. During the schooling years, this can lead to the presentation of concerning school behaviours that schools tend to respond to with equally as concerning punitive consequences, often involving practices of exclusion. This article will emphasize the importance of schools accessing and then encompassing learnings from neuroscience into their behaviour management policies and practices. Neuroscience has provided an extra explanatory framework to complement understandings of student behaviour drawn from the clinical sciences. It is not only explaining why and how some of these student behaviours occur, but is also providing a different template of possibility for enhancing the educational and life outcomes for this vulnerable group of young people through more effective and more inclusive school practices.


Introduction
There is a growing body of research examining the ways to remediate the impact of complex trauma on the functioning and well-being of children and adolescents through therapeutic and systemic interventions (Porges, 2011;Read et al., 2014;Reeves, 2015;Schore, 2003;Taylor, 2012;Zilberstein, 2014). Complex trauma involves the exposure to multiple traumatic events over an extended duration (particularly in the early years of life) and the long-term impact of people to achieve and maintain positive life outcomes. This misalignment is certainly not due to a lack of care or capacity in schools. Indeed, schools are filled with educated, compassionate and dedicated professionals who work tirelessly to teach and support children and adolescents. There are, however, a number of important reasons why this misalignment can exist and why it may persist.
First, students from complex trauma histories can present with school behaviours that are very concerning and difficult to manage due to their type, frequency and intensity. These students can struggle with relationships, in particular with trusting and responding well to figures of authority. They can also become emotionally dysregulated to the extent that there can be safety and well-being issues for not only the student of concern, but also for other students and school personnel (Teicher et al., 2003;Ziegler, 2005).
Second, it is a consistent frustration for school educators that more traditional forms of behaviour management that seem to work well with the majority of students can be ineffective when used with complex trauma-surviving students and can even lead to more challenging and persistent behaviours and further disengagement from learning, relationships and school. For example, many of the more traditional approaches to whole-school, classroom and individual student behaviour support and intervention practices and policies in schools draw from the theoretic framework of behaviourism. This often successful approach utilises behaviour analysis and intervention techniques which are drawn from research psychology methodologies and a belief that the thoughtful and informed adjustment of environmental stimuli, antecedents and consequences, including the use of rewards and punishments, encourage positive behaviours and minimize the frequency and intensity of undesirable learnt student behaviours (Horner et al., 2010;McIntosh et al., 2009;Moore, 2011;Sugai and Horner, 2002). However, behaviourist or other behaviour management techniques can prove problematic for some trauma-surviving students if used in a manner that does not consider the neurobiological causes of concerning behaviour that are discussed in this article. When behaviours persist or are deemed serious or unsafe, it is not uncommon for students to be subjected to significant punitive responses in the hope that this will alleviate or extinguish behaviours and enhance engagement with schooling. Unfortunately, these responses can often create further complexities, not only for complex trauma-surviving students, but also for the other systems outside of the school aiming to support them, particularly when responses include excluding practices such as suspension and exclusion from school (Perry, 2009). As a result, supports within these systems can be impaired or fail and disengagement from the schooling system can ensue.
A third reason for misalignment can relate to the difficulty for a workforce the size of that within the schooling system to access high quality information and rigorous training regarding trauma-informed practice. There are a multitude of schools in each country, each filled with busy educators and support personnel whose access to professional development opportunities can be restricted to systemic and curriculum priorities. As the numbers of trauma-surviving students are relatively small when compared to overall student populations in schools (for example, 2014 data in Australia suggest the rate of children between 0-17 years under care and protection orders is approximately 8.7 per 1000) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015), the needs of this particular group may not, in many instances, be viewed as a systemic training priority. To advocate for this systemic professional development for educators, it is important to emphasise the importance of a holistic and multi-agency response, which includes schools, to address child protection and care for this often vulnerable and victimised group of students.

A brief description of the neuroscience underpinning complex trauma
This article will assert that professional development to help educators work more effectively to address the needs and behaviours of complex trauma-surviving students should refer to neuroscience. By explaining the impact of complex trauma on the developing nervous system of young children, neuroscience is suggesting a different approach is needed to understand and address the concerning behavioural presentations of complex trauma-surviving, schoolaged young people. Research into the development, structure and functioning of the human brain and entire nervous system is complex and continues to expand, and it is not feasible that school personnel should be trained in this area in depth. However, there are a small number of helpful learnings from neuroscience that can inform and enhance educator understanding and student support regarding the impact of complex trauma on school behaviour.
There is a general consensus that complex trauma can have a profound impact on the development, structure and functioning of the nervous system (NS) which consists of interconnecting neurons throughout the brain, spinal cord and body (Anda et al., 2006;Perry, 1999Perry, , 2002Porges, 2011;Schore, 2003;Siegel, 2012;Twardosz and Lutzker, 2010). The central NS includes cells within the brain and spinal cord and the peripheral NS connects the central NS to sensory and other organs, muscles, blood vessels, and glands. Under adaptive circumstances, the workings of these systems help a human being to survive, thrive, adapt and develop. However, with the maladaptive conditions underpinning complex trauma, there can be significant and unfortunate impairment of the development and functioning of these systems (De Haan and Gunnar, 2009;Panksepp, 1998).
Clinical studies, including those using sophisticated brain scanning technologies, have provided evidence suggesting that complex trauma suffered during childhood is associated with adverse development of specific parts of the brain (De Bellis and Kuchibhatla, 2006;Hart and Rubia, 2009;McCrory et al., 2011;Riem et al., 2015;Teicher et al., 2012;Whittle et al., 2013). Furthermore, studies have associated the experience of complex trauma during childhood with detrimental functioning of the human response system for emotional regulation (Bruce et al., 2009;Cicchetti, 2013;Lu et al., 2013;McLaughlin et al., 2015;Pechtel et al., 2014).
The brainstem, the peripheral nervous system, and flight, fight or freeze One part of the brain that it is helpful for educators to grow in their understanding is the brainstem. The brainstem is situated where the spinal cord merges with the cortex and much of its development is completed by the time an infant is born. The brainstem mostly manages two vital components of the peripheral NS: the parasympathetic NS and the sympathetic NS.
The parasympathetic NS manages core regulatory functions that are vital to human survival, including body temperature, heart rate, respiration and blood pressure (Porges, 2011). The sympathetic NS has a protective mechanism which becomes particularly active during the perception of threat which is commonly understood as the fight, flight, or freeze response (Schore, 2003, Thompson et al., 2014. Once a threat is perceived, this system initiates the physiological fight or flight response by (for example) slowing down digestion and diverting blood away from the stomach and redirecting it to the major muscle groups, increasing heart rate and the secretion of stress hormones throughout the bloodstream. Alternatively, this same system can set off the freeze response which can slow heart rate and respiration and cause the body to become very still. Chemicals can be released that produce what is commonly referred to as dissociation, a state in which individuals become less susceptible to pain and experience a psychological distance from perceived threat. When threat is no longer perceived, further chemicals are released by this same system to reverse these effects (Perry, 1999(Perry, , 2002Porges, 2011;Schore, 2003;Siegel, 2012;Thompson et al., 2014).
When considering the functions of this part of the NS, it is important to understand that it is the perception of threat, rather than the objective existence of an actual threat, that initiates this response. For students who have experienced complex trauma, a physiological response to perceived threat at school is an experience that can occur regularly, with little warning, and in response to threats that do not actually exist. For them, this sympathetic NS response has become maladaptive and feelings of being unsafe and surges of overwhelming anxiety can occur rapidly and dramatically as a reaction to what would normally be considered to be benign school conditions, activities or relationships (O'Neill et al., 2010;Shonkoff et al., 2012). Behavioural responses resulting from this type of NS response can be quite disconcerting to witness and difficult and time-consuming to remedy.
During such behaviour events, students' endocrine systems can secrete excessive amounts of two important hormones. The adrenal glands (located just above the kidneys) immediately release adrenalin and when this response is severe or persists after a couple of minutes, the adrenal glands then release a second chemical, cortisol. Once in the brain, cortisol remains much longer than does adrenalin, where it continues to affect brain cells until a homeostatic mechanism eventually reduces levels (Bevans et al., 2008;Everly and Lating, 2013;Shonkoff et al., 2012).
When school personnel perceive that a student has calmed, they may enact disciplinary responses, interrogatory procedures or other interventions. At this time, however, the student's adrenalin levels may have reduced but cortisol levels may not yet have dissipated. Under such circumstances, a further emotional reaction is possible and if this eventuates, educators can put themselves and others at risk of outcomes of a further behavioural outburst by the student. For this reason, a considered amount of time involving low stimulus activity may be required before questioning or behavioural interventions are attempted to allow for the dissipation of both adrenalin and cortisol (Dedovic et al., 2009). If viewed through a behaviourist lens, this type of response to what might be considered to be a very serious behaviour may be interpreted by some school personnel as 'being soft' or as potentially reinforcing non-preferred behaviour. However, if viewed through a neuroscience lens, it becomes clear that this behaviour is a result of a physiological event that can be beyond the conscious control of the student and that can have a significant impact on the student's capacity to understand and respond in ways that will influence the future frequency and intensity of such behaviour.

The limbic system (the amygdala and the hippocampus)
Another part of the NS functioning that is important for educators to understand is the limbic system which goes through significant development during the first three to four years of life.
This system is situated in the sub-cortical or inner parts of each hemisphere of the brain and consists of a complex set of brain structures. It is helpful for educators to have a basic understanding of two of these structures; the amygdala and the hippocampus. The amygdala manages processes underpinning human emotion and relating, and the hippocampus has an important role in learning and the making, storage, retrieval and use of memories. When working well, the limbic system helps human beings to process the range of human emotions and to relate to and connect with others. It also allows for the association of human emotions with thoughts or memories, for empathetic responses, and for the capacity to learn and adapt to emotional and relational experiences (Clark et al., 2010;Vogt, 2009). For students who have suffered complex trauma during the first years of life, the development of the limbic system can be affected and thus can compromise their capacities to relate, emotionally regulate and understand and respond adaptively to the experiences and states of others (Andersen et al., 2008;Dannlowski et al., 2012;McCrory et al., 2011;Riem et al., 2015).
As the amygdala and hippocampus interact with each other, the capacity for memory to evoke an emotional response is not uncommon in the human experience. Of course, for trauma-surviving students, some memories are extremely unpleasant and emotional responses that they can evoke can be quite worrying and can lead to an overwhelming stress response and concerning behaviours. Memory is a mechanism for understanding and responding to new experiences based on associations with past experiences. Traumatic memory often consists of unclear images, emotions or sensations formed by recollections that can trigger troubling physiological responses for students who have survived complex trauma (Ziegler, 2005). Triggers for such memories might be unseen and unknown to school personnel working with these students and it is not always within the power of educators to prevent the evocation of these types of memories by their students. However, it is important that they recognize this vulnerability in trauma-surviving students and respond to any resultant anxiety and behaviour as a neurobiological response and not as a deliberate and chosen behaviour (Goodman et al., 2010).
School personnel should also consider that too much cortisol in the brain for extended periods can impair the activity of the hippocampus and increase the likelihood of a student not having accurate recall of the details of a serious, behavioural event. Any lack of communication from the student after such an event can easily be misread as their avoiding discussion or refusing to relay information, or even blatantly lying, when it may actually be due to confusion, distracted storage, and inefficient retrieval of memories. In such situations, it is helpful to understand the neuroscience to more adequately interpret the motivations underlying a student's behaviour (Goodman et al., 2010;Siegel, 2012;Zilberstein, 2014).

The Pre-Frontal Cortex
The cortex comprises of a number of convoluted layers forming the exterior of the brain. Like the limbic system, it also completes much of its development during childhood but remains even more malleable according to human experience and learning through the lifecourse. The cortex is divided into two hemispheres, each with four lobes (frontal, temporal, occipital and parietal) which regulate a complex range of functions, including language, the ability to manage sensory input and interpretation, and bodily movement (Clark et al., 2010). The prefrontal cortex is highly developed in humans and regulates the most complex and specifically human functions such as executive functioning, higher order and abstract thinking, negotiating, planning and decision making. The pre-frontal cortex is the final part of the brain to complete most of its development with this usually occurring in the mid to late 20's (Clark et al., 2010).
The learning function of the pre-frontal cortex means that behavioural interventions implemented by educators must be processed by the student's pre-frontal cortex to be meaningful to the student. However, an important understanding that is often unknown to educators is that increased neural activity in the brainstem reduces neural activity in the prefrontal cortex and vice versa (Perry et al., 1995). Both of these parts of the brain cannot be highly active at the same time. A helpful image is one of a calm brainstem that allows for higher level cortical engagement with learning and the environment. An overactive brainstem not only augments the sympathetic NS response but also creates the conditions for students to be cognitively 'absent' from lessons and schooling over periods of time, possibly helping to explain why many such students can suffer from learning difficulties. In addition, when neural activity in the brainstem is on overload and activity from the pre-frontal cortex is inhibited, the student's capacity to apply logic, problem-solve or settle the emotion-driven limbic system, and therefore calm feelings and behavioural responses, is limited. Providing time and support for the dissipation of stress hormones and the settling of the sympathetic NS response and the overactive brainstem after a significant behavioural event may create better conditions for students to emotionally regulate and re-engage with learning.

Plasticity, neural development and pruning -the good news and the bad news
It is important for educators to have a basic understanding of the concept of neural plasticity; a term used to describe the brain's capacity to change and adapt in response to stimulus. In recent decades, studies have provided significantly more information about this potential for change in the brain than had been understood in previous times. For example, it is now understood that the brain remains plastic throughout the lifespan and that there are 'critical' or 'sensitive' periods during which particular parts of the brain are more plastic and develop more rapidly than others and are therefore more susceptible to change (Andersen et al., 2008;De Haan and Gunnar, 2009;Pechtel et al., 2014;Porges, 2011;Siegel, 2012). As examples, the brainstem undergoes rapid development in utero prior to birth, there is intensive neural development in the limbic system during the first three to four years of life and again during puberty and the pre-frontal cortex is at its most plastic up until the mid to late 20's (Pechtel et al., 2014;Porges, 2011;Siegel, 2012;Twardosz and Lutzker, 2010). Consequently, the concept of brains being 'hard-wired' is outdated and disproven. Unfortunately, however, the term can persist in the education lexicon and can impact the beliefs of educators (and others) to a greater or lesser extent when they are trying to understand and respond to students' challenging behaviours.
Neural development involves the establishment and reinforcement of neural pathways consisting of interconnecting neurons. Very simply put, the development of neural pathways involves the repeated passing on of electrical-chemical information from neuron to neuron, through a process which creates and strengthens both the pathways and the synaptic connections between neurons. With repeated exposure to positive and predictable environmental, personal, interpersonal and other stimuli, particularly during the rapid development that occurs during critical periods such as early childhood and puberty, helpful pathways can be grown and reinforced in young brains. Where pathways or synaptic connections are not reinforced repeatedly, the nervous system removes these in a process referred to as neural pruning. Neural development and neural pruning are processes that work together over the lifespan to develop the structure of the brain and to guide its many functions (Clark et al., 2010;Perry et al., 1995). However, it is the rapid development of the brain during the early childhood years that explains why very young children are so at risk of the lasting effects of trauma. The same plasticity that allows young brains to quickly learn, communicate, relate and feel, also makes them highly susceptible to negative and harmful experiences (De Bellis et al., 2013;McCrory et al., 2011;Perry, 2009;Shonkoff et al., 2012;Twardosz and Lutzker, 2010).
This harm can be exacerbated if the source of the trauma involves adults who are main attachment figures, on whom children are dependant for basic human needs (Perry, 1999). For example, if the responses of a primary care-giver to a young child are unpredictable -sometimes threatening and harmful, sometimes neglectful, and sometimes nurturing -the adaptive and healthy neural pathways that would occur in the context of healthy social development would not receive the repeated and regular reinforcement they would receive in a situation of consistent, nurturing care. Studies examining childhood neglect have shown that the failure of main attachment figures to meet children's physical, cognitive, emotional and/or social needs, can have a detrimental impact on the development of young brains (Nelson et al., 2014). The brains of young children who receive little, poor or no communication and relational responses from adults tend to lack the stimulation required for healthy neural activity and development. Indeed, neurological studies from severely neglected children have shown brains with less mass that have low white matter densities, impaired development in the limbic system and the corpus callosum (the neural bridge between the left and right hemisphere of the brain), high electrical activity in the brainstem (the 'survival' part of the brain) and low activity in the pre-frontal cortex (Chugani, 2001;Nelson et al., 2014;Peng et al., 2013;Perry, 1999Perry, , 2002. If brain development suffers at early and critical periods, it is more likely that there will be emotional and behavioural outcomes that may explain students' later responses at school (Andersen et al., 2008;De Bellis et al., 2013).
Neuropsychological studies have shown that complex early childhood trauma can place students at educational risk by revealing associated deficits in cognitive ability, language and memory functions, attention, and emotion regulation and discrimination (De Bellis et al., 2013;Hart and Rubia, 2009). It is this susceptibility that can lead to young children having serious and long-term emotional, social, and behavioural outcomes that can prove immensely challenging for those who aim to support, relate to or educate them (Hart and Rubia, 2009;McCrory et al., 2011).
Consequently, research in neuroscience is suggesting that the concerning school behaviours of students who have experienced complex trauma may not simply be learnt or purposefully chosen, but rather can be due to disorganized or maladaptive development of synaptic connections and neural pathways during critical periods of neural growth during the first years of life. As such, these behaviours and responses may not be easily remedied by behavioural approaches using a punish/reward paradigm. Indeed, if neuroscience is providing an evidence-based explanation for these behaviours, it makes sense to draw from neuroscience to develop systems of school support and behavioural intervention. Such approaches may enhance students' capacities to relate to others and emotionally regulate and (therefore) learn and engage at school. Improvement in this area may also lead to improvement in their capacity for future adult relationships and parenting, which is vital for thriving societies (Lukek, 2015;Yehuda et al., 2001).
Whilst neuroscience is providing explanations for the difficulties faced by students who have survived complex trauma, it is also providing a window of opportunity for schools to develop a wider range of responses to students' challenging behaviours and more inclusive practices that are better placed to ameliorate traumatic histories. Two key areas of support that can be readily implemented by schools include enhancing students' capacities for adaptive relating and for emotional regulation. It is recommended, therefore, that schools capitalize on the substantial amount of time they have in contact with students and take reasonable steps to enhance these capacities .
Admittedly, school personnel have no definitive way of knowing what neural activity is occurring in the brains of trauma-surviving students but they can draw from an understanding of elements of neuroscience that provide sound reasons for behaviours exhibited by these students and attempt to adapt their responses accordingly.

Resilience and relationships
Encouraging findings come from a body of research looking into developmental resiliency which emphasizes that not all who have survived complex trauma suffer the difficulties discussed in this article (Masten, 2014). Studies have examined commonalities in the experiences and outcomes of young people who have survived a range of traumatic life experiences, including complex trauma as a result of care-giver behaviour (Cicchetti, 2013;Cowen et al., 1984;Masten et al., 1990Masten et al., , 1999Masten and Coatsworth, 1998). Recent advances in scientific methodologies have reinforced findings by examining the neuroscience underpinning this type of resilience, including brain imaging, studies of genetic and epigenetic change, and examinations of stress response and immune system functioning and cortisol levels (Masten, 2014).
This body of research clearly acknowledges that human psychological development can suffer from severe interference in the usually protective processes embedded in the caregiving system. However, it is also now understood that resilience in the face of the debilitating effects of complex trauma is more likely for children who experience a positive relationship with a relationally available and competent adult, are effective learners and problem-solvers, are engaging to others, and perceive they have areas of competence and efficacy. These factors are commonly encouraged by educators in students during their schooling years and this body of research highlights just how vital it is for students who have experienced complex trauma to consistently and unconditionally have access to opportunities for growth in these areas (Masten, 2014;Masten et al., 1990). Caring and supportive educator-student relationships can result in enhanced neurological function and improved behavioural and overall well-being outcomes for the trauma-surviving student. (Siegel, 2012). Not only does this type of relating provide the safety and emotional security under stress that these students so desperately need, it may also allow for the development and reinforcement of neural pathways that enhance connection with and empathy for others (Siegel, 2012;Szalavitz and Perry, 2010).
Behaviour management practices in schools, in the main, are underpinned by the assumption that students will know how to relate to others. Educators may assume that students understand and can respond to the concepts of authority, respect, trust, obedience and remorse when some students who have experienced complex trauma may have adapted to respond, over many years, to cruelty, mistrust and survival. Rather than understanding that adults in school are basically kind and responsible people aiming to provide for their educational success, these students may view them as threatening, uncaring or manipulative.
When behaviour management practices are implemented in this context, they are most likely to fail. Without significant work on interpersonal relationships, rewards and punishments can be viewed as manipulative and cruel. Withdrawal from class, detentions, suspensions or expulsion will not only reduce any opportunity for relationship building, but are more likely to reinforce the maladaptive and negative world views held by these students. Whereas an average, 'healthy' student would respond to an imposed consequence in a way to ensure it does not happen again (that is, to modify their behaviour in an adaptive manner), students who have experienced complex trauma may respond differently, becoming more entrenched in their negative ways of viewing and coping with their worlds. In short, strategies commonly used to manage student behaviour may actually make things worse for these students.
It is important that educators realize early that working on relationships with these students will also test the resilience of the adults involved. Some students can put up strong barriers to interpersonal relationships and, if relationships are established, may experience an overwhelming need to test or sabotage them (Everly and Lating, 2013;Panksepp, 1998;Schore, 2003). This can be very confronting for an educator who has invested much effort into developing a relationship with a troubled student and who had come to believe the student valued both the bond and their sincere efforts to maintain it. Students who have survived complex trauma can be viewed as among the most vulnerable and victimized groups of children and adolescents, and schools do have a responsibility to manage, support and educate them in the most inclusive way possible. It is vital, therefore, that educators recognize that this confronting type of behaviour reflects students' relationship histories and their maladaptive strategies for coping with stress and relatedness (Szalavitz and Perry, 2010). It is important that they do not take it personally which is easier said than done but is an important capacity for resilient teachers.

Emotional self-regulation
In addition to a focus on relationships, it is vital that schools assist students who have experienced complex trauma with developing their capacities for emotional self-regulation, as it can be bouts of dysregulation that lead to the extremely challenging behaviours and excluding punitive responses which ultimately inhibit relationship building (O'Neill et al., 2010;Panskepp, 1998;Porges, 2011). Proactive measures could include working on relationship development, careful observation and data collection regarding precursors to anxiety in students and repeated and regular opportunities for students to practice emotional regulation strategies when early distress is identified. This work should be repeated and ongoing and students should be afforded opportunities to try again when they do not regulate well or quickly, as the goal is to develop and reinforce adaptive responses and build student resilience over time.
It is also important that schools are prepared and resourced for days when severe student dysregulation occurs so that they are not restricted solely to punitive and excluding responses. Educators and school systems can prepare for the eventuality and respond with consideration of the significant neurobiological drives being experienced by the severely dysregulated student and prepare to address associated safety considerations for staff and other students. As discussed earlier, studies have shown that during severe dysregulation, the brainstem is most active and the sympathetic nervous system response will be elevated; leading to a focus on perceived threat and survival (i.e., the flight, flight, freeze response) (Thompson et al., 2014). The pre-frontal cortex may not be functioning well so questioning the student or expecting them to engage in a logical discussion will not be likely to be helpful. The hippocampus may be affected, so memory and recall could be impaired. The amygdala will be activated, so emotional responses will be virtually under no conscious control. Stress hormones will be surging through the student's circulatory system and the electro-chemical activity occurring in the brain will be highly disorganized, so behavioural responses may be maladaptive, aggressive and/or disturbing (Thompson et al., 2014). If experiencing a fight or flight response, students might exhibit physical aggression, destructive behaviours or may try anything they can to escape. Those who experience the freeze response may emotionally and psychologically dissociate and become unresponsive for a time. No matter the presentation, these students need to be given ample time and careful support to achieve a regulated emotional state.
The reparative work to be done after the crisis has subsided can be the most troubling and controversial for school communities if viewed only through a behavioural lens. The field of neuropsychology suggests that the most important response to such a crisis event in a child or young person is inclusive teaching and rebuilding and repair of relationships and the avoidance of further disrupted attachments (Zilberstein, 2014). Research suggests that punitive or excluding consequences could further exacerbate the relational and emotional concerns for the student. It would also suggest that the crisis should be viewed as an opportunity for learning (once the student's dysregulation has subsided) rather than as an opportunity for punishment. However, school behaviour management policies can articulate that this level of verbal and physical aggression requires serious punitive consequences which can include suspension or expulsion. Schools are often dealing with the concerned parents of students who witnessed and were frightened by the event, and the expectation that something be done about the student's behaviour. This can present schools with challenges that require a whole school response which should be carefully articulated both in the individual student's support planning and in the school's behaviour management policy. Ideally, schools should clearly articulate their aspirations for an informed and considered response to the support needs of complex trauma-surviving students.
In reality, we know that schools are complex communities driven by a multitude of dynamics and pressures and we know that these students do end up suspended or expelled too frequently. However, despite these disciplinary measures being deemed unavoidable at times, there are ways to 'do them better'. Schools need to consider ways to minimize the harm of disrupted attachments as much as possible. For example, if a decision is made to suspend a student, attachment disruption can be minimized by keeping the time away from school as short as possible and ensuring communication from adults who have been doing much of the relational work with the student continues during the suspension. This can be done in ways the school feels comfortable, including visits, emails or phone calls.
After the suspension is completed, a 'fresh start' approach could be encouraged for when the student returns to school. This may be more successful than an approach whereby someone in authority at the school outlines to the student a list of behavioural expectations that they are to meet if they are approved to return. This is commonly done during a meeting with the student often referred to as a 're-entry meeting'. Schools often hold these meetings because of the belief that 'drawing a line in the sand' will lead to the student becoming intimidated or shamed into compliance and this approach does tend to work with many students who do not have a trauma history. However, for complex trauma-surviving students, this approach can exacerbate anxiety and emotional dysregulation which can increase the likelihood of more troubling behaviours and additional punishment. Ideally, any discussion regarding the behaviours that led to the suspension or behavioural expectations after returning to school should occur when the student was contacted or met during the suspension under low anxiety conditions leaving the activity on the first day back to school to focus on safely and successfully reintegrating the student into classroom activity.
As complex trauma-surviving students can be described as one of the most vulnerable and victimized groups of children and adolescents, schools do have a responsibility to adopt trauma-informed practices underpinned by neuroscience to avoid exclusionary disciplinary responses and to manage, support and educate these young people in the most inclusive way possible. This is particularly relevant for complex students who are in the child protection system or live in out-of-home care, who live with a parent or carer with a mental illness, who are refugees or have been adopted from parts of the world compounded by violence and poverty, or who are still living in an abusive or violent context. Indeed, if the schooling system does not act and react to the needs of this group of students in a way that is informed by neuroscience, it is suggested that this can impede the work of other systems and the education, life and well-being outcomes of this vulnerable group. This issue deserves a thorough and consistent national approach to school training and support so that all educators have access to the important understandings from neuroscience in a way that mirrors the trauma-informed approaches now adopted in other child and adolescent support agencies and contexts. Without staff access to this important information, school policy and practice is likely to continue to be driven by behaviour management approaches that will continue to fail to address the maladaptive behaviours and related concerns of these students. Without an understanding of the neuroscience, school educators simply do not have the tools that they need to do this vital work.