Abstract
Parents raising their children to adulthood is a primary goal of most societies. How it is done, and even what defines adulthood, varies quite significantly across cultures. So varied are the parental practices that it is hard at times to see agreement in values, goals, and approaches taken to raise children. One thing all parents can agree on, however, is that we want all of our children to live long and healthy lives. When a child dies, it is tragic; when a child dies by his or her own hand, it is catastrophic. It is arguably the most devastating event that can befall a family.
This column provides a succinct primer on some of the basic constructs that adults need to know to help keep our students with gifts and talents from completing suicide. Of course, preventing suicide in all children is our absolute goal. To that end, however, it is helpful to learn about some of the recent research on the suicidal behavior of students with gifts and talents as a means of understanding what correlates, setting events, perspectives, and experiences are either the same as or different among gifted students and the general population of students.
This column focuses on the school as the primary context to look out for potentially suicidal gifted students. This makes sense, as students spend considerable amount of time in school, being involved with others associated with their school. Also, schools are replete with caring professionals who make regular observations of the students. These adults in the students’ lives generally have the capacity to compare notes about the students. Moreover, a very important element of information about each child comes from the other students. Finally, school environments left to develop on their own can become uncaring and more difficult to thrive in as a student. However, school-based efforts to create a safe school environment tend to be successful.
Historical Context
The national statistics on suicide are reported by age group and have been kept for many years. Prevalence rates are typically reported as a ratio of the number completed per 100,000 people. Generally speaking, 15- to 24-year-olds have the third lowest prevalence rates of completed suicides among all of the age classifications. This is sadly ironic as suicide is the third leading cause of death for this age group. The highest rates tend to be in the oldest age classifications—those 75 and older. For the 15 to 24 age group, the rate in 2009 was 10/100,000. Since 1955, the prevalence rates rose approximately 240%. However, the long-term trend for this age group has tended to range between 10 and 14 out of 100,000.
The biggest unanswered question is “What is the prevalence rate of suicide completions for students with gifts and talents?” Unfortunately, there is no definitive way to answer that question at this time. Given that there is no substantial evidence that the rates are higher for the gifted population, it makes sense to consider the rates as being very similar to the general population. Assuming the prevalence rate of completed suicides to be approximately 10 per 100,000, what else should one know to help the cause? Suicide completion is one of four behaviors to consider. The others include ideation, gesturing, and attempts. Ideation is thinking about suicide, gesturing means making an attempt that is determined to not be a legitimate effort to die, and attempts are legitimate efforts to kill oneself. Research on these behaviors is more complicated and in some ways more difficult to study. Gesturing is the most difficult to study as the behavior is often not reported. Overall, suicidal ideation is relatively common in the 15- to 24-year-old age group, whereas completions are quite rare. Moreover, many attempts are made on average for each completion.
School-Based Approach
Schools represent social systems where differing types of communications are ongoing. When students communicate, it is often about their lives, preferences, experiences, relationships, and so forth. Teachers tend to interface with students primarily about their academic expectations, with far less time spent on personal matters. School counselors have professional agendas that include career and academic counseling, affecting disruptive behavior, scheduling, coordinating school activities and services, and the like. School leaders have their own field of vision that includes schoolwide initiatives, personnel matters, parent–teacher organizations, facilities, finances, and so forth. Parents and guardians see their children outside of school and have limited communication with school personnel. In schools, communication typically remains within the groups (students, teacher, counselors, parents). In these schools, students can be at greater risk for falling through the cracks. Schools that also communicate across groups do their work with a much more comprehensive perspective of the students.
To help prevent suicide, we need to recognize that, most of the time, peers are more aware of the suffering that the suicidal student is experiencing than are the adults. Of course there are exceptions. Given this fact and because so few of us have enough training to actually diagnose people as suicidal, we should set the expectation much lower than diagnosing suicidal behavior. Our goal should be to look for students who are in distress. As educators, administrators, counselors and psychologists, we can look for classic signs of distress such as changes in behavior, lethargy, anger, frustration, recent break-ups with significant others, or loss of family members or friends. By looking for these kinds of correlates, we can monitor a student’s basic level of struggle. Once we see evidence of stressors, we should walk the student to the school counselor and/or school psychologist, guaranteeing that the appropriate level of psychological services will be administered. As important as this step is, it is not enough.
To establish the safest environment, training must be provided for all the stakeholders. The training should have three specific goals and one overarching goal: eliminating myths about suicidal behavior, teaching nuances about identifying manifestations of distress, and creating a community of caring. When these goals are reached, the overall environment will be safer and healthier for all the stakeholders—the overarching goal.
Goal 1. Eliminating Myths
Myths tend to exist over time and have bases in emotion, including sometimes fear. In the case of suicidal behavior, a few primary myths should be dealt with directly. These mistaken beliefs are the following: talking about suicide will increase its occurrence; once suicidal, always suicidal; suicide is primarily a legal matter. Creating an environment wherein students and adults understand that suicidal behavior is a mental health problem that can be prevented can be a turning point relative to gaining active participation from the stakeholders. Once the stakeholders recognize that talking about it will not cause it, they will often become more involved and will not feel the same sort of stressors associated with suicide that come with worrying that any acknowledgment of suicide will be potentially harmful. Most of us who work in schools try our best never to do harm to a student. Learning that creating an atmosphere wherein suicide and/or distress can be discussed openly as a means to enhance the child’s safety will help to overcome an emotional barrier.
Goal 2. Learning Nuances
Current research supports traditional correlates of suicide also being viable for students with gifts and talents. Some of the most important correlates are depression, abuse of alcohol or drugs, suicide among family members, break-up of significant relationship, death in the family, and access to lethal means. While this is not exhaustive, depression is very highly correlated to suicidal behavior. Consequently, these behaviors and experiences can be used by the various stakeholder groups to monitor the level of distress of students with gifts and talents. We cannot afford to overlook these types of behaviors or experiences as either common problems to youth or as indicative of gifted students. We need to recognize them for what they are.
Goal 3. Creating a Caring Community
Caring communities must be created and nurtured. They do not tend to emerge on their own. Caring communities tend to have agreed-on goals and clearly articulated expectations for behavior. In this case, organizing leadership groups made up of representatives of all stakeholders is a good first step. Building consensus around goals for the school along with the expectations for being a community member is an important first step. Stakeholders, learning some of the basics of effective schools including the sharing of power and decision making, are also important qualities of caring communities. The espoused values should be manifest throughout the school with telephone numbers to call or email addresses for referrals readily available. Safe zones and quiet spaces should be carved out for the well-being of the students.
In sum, the school must feel safe, and students need to feel a high level of empowerment. I suggest working toward a slogan that represents the responsibility shared by everyone. This ensures a collective awareness that everyone has important roles and responsibilities for the well-being of others. In this sort of environment, all stakeholders can thrive, and suicidal behavior of all students (including those with gifts and talents) may be prevented.
Footnotes
The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.