Consider the attached journal articles on trauma and education. Based on the articles below reflect on trauma in education, and think about how these educational practices and strategies reduce the effects of trauma in educational settings, as well as the role of inclusion for populations at high risk of trauma.
Your headings would include an introduction, educational settings and populations, diversity, equity, and inclusion, educational practices, vicarious trauma, and a conclusion
129
Preparing Trauma-Sensitive Teachers: Strategies for Teacher Educators
Connie Honsinger, Ph.D
Chesterfield County Public Schools
Mavis Hendricks Brown, Ph.D.
University of Richmond
Abstract
Many children who attend school have or will experience some type of trauma that may impact
cognition, behavior, and relationships (Van Der Kolk, 2014). The result of these adverse
experiences is often diminished concentration, memory, organization, and language skills that
can exacerbate maladjustment in the school setting (Ogata, 2017). According to the National
Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) (2016), difficulties displayed by children impacted by
trauma can also include poor social skills, increased aggression, an inability to trust,
dysregulation, fearfulness, anxiety, and avoidant behaviors. Despite how common exposure to
trauma is and the significant impact it can have on students and the classroom, few teachers are
prepared to recognize and respond appropriately. This paper will provide information and
resources that can assist teacher educators to better prepare future teachers to address these
concerns and build resilience in all students particularly those impacted by trauma.
Keywords: Trauma, Classroom, Strategies
“When little people are overwhelmed by big emotions, it is our job to share our calm, not join
their chaos.”
L. R. Knost
“There is no more effective neurobiological intervention than a safe relationship.”
“Relationships are the agents of change and the most powerful therapy is love.”
— Bruce Perry, PhD, MD, researcher & child psychiatrist
130
Trauma has no boundaries with regard to age, gender, socioeconomic status, race,
ethnicity, geography, or sexual orientation and it is often a common experience of individuals
who struggle with mental health disorders. Students who have experiences of trauma exist in
every school and community. There is a strong correlation between students who have
experienced trauma and poor school performance (Goodman, Miller, & Olatunji, 2011). Given
these concerns, it has become critically important to help prepare teachers with the skills and
strategies necessary to successfully work with students who have been impacted by trauma.
Virginia has taken the lead in focusing on issues that impact children with the
establishment of the Children’s Cabinet by Governor Ralph Northam in June of 2018. The
executive order identified a number of priorities; (a) Early childhood development and school
readiness, (b) Nutrition and food security, and (c) Systems of care and safety for school-aged
youth. One of the goals of the governor’s policy council on PreK-12 education in Virginia was to
identify significant issues and make recommendations on how to improve public education.
Equity and opportunity for every student was described as a high priority and within this
category the council acknowledged the importance of promoting alternatives to punitive school
discipline. Recommendations further supported the implementation of positive behavioral
supports, restorative practices, and making Virginia a national leader in using trauma-informed
instruction in all of its public schools to support student success.
In addition, the governor created the Trauma-Informed Care for Children Work Group
that was charged with developing recommendations to enhance student safety and to support a
consistent, evidence-based, and culturally-competent statewide response to childhood trauma.
Although the groups are in the preliminary stages of work, one recommendation that has come
131
forward is for child and family-serving agencies to adopt the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) definition and framework of trauma-informed care.
The Virginia Department of Education has also reflected this emphasis on trauma
education within teacher licensure and recertification requirements, approved August of 2018.
According to the State Board of Education, Licensure Regulations for School Personnel (Article
2.1) Human Development and Learning, skills in this area shall contribute to an understanding of
the physical, social, emotional, speech and language, and intellectual development of children
and the ability to use this understanding in guiding learning experiences and relating
meaningfully to students. Highlighted within this article is an understanding of trauma, including
child abuse and neglect and other adverse childhood experiences and family disruptions (VDOE,
2018). According to Tara McDaniel, director of teacher education in Virginia, there are no plans
at the moment to include any specific professional development regarding adverse childhood
experiences and understanding trauma, as that is currently left up to the individual locality (T.
McDaniel, personal communication, January 23, 2019).
Developing a Trauma-Informed Approach
Given the absence of direction on the specific content related to trauma, what should
teacher educators include in their teacher preparation programs? Currently the child abuse and
neglect recognition and intervention training curriculum guide on the Virginia Department of
Education website (Attachment A, Superintendent Memo #209) provides some information
regarding child abuse recognition and reporting, promoting resiliency, and resources. In
addition, information from The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA, 2014) can assist teacher educators with resources on trauma-informed care and
trauma-sensitive practices. Both are excellent resources however, what are the most important
132
concepts teachers should know prior to walking into the classroom? How can teacher educators
help future teachers develop a trauma-sensitive lens, what skills are needed, and what does this
look like in practice?
Institutions as well as many school districts and organizations have looked to local
expertise for direction in providing education in becoming trauma-informed. The Greater
Richmond Trauma Informed Community Network (TICN) is a diverse group of individuals,
convened by Greater Richmond SCAN (Stop Child Abuse Now), who share a commitment
towards the creation of a more trauma informed and resilient community within the Greater
Richmond region. This network includes a number of committee’s to address this mission
including a training committee that has developed a common language and understanding around
our community on the impact of adverse childhood experiences and strategies to build individual
and community resilience.
Members of the training committee provide community workshops free of charge as well
as presentations to specific organizations upon request using research-based information and best
practices. The TICN Outcomes Committee has worked to develop an evaluation plan to measure
the collective impact and value of the TICN in the community. Knowledge is assessed using a
variety of methods including pre and post-tests, evaluations, qualitative feedback, and
assessments to identify changes in how individuals, organizations, and/ or systems function and
interact as a result (Greater Richmond SCAN, n.d.).
The Virginia Department of Behavioral Health, responsible for promoting behavioral
health wellness, has also launched their Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Initiative with its
Master Trainer series in partnership with Dr. Robert Anda, one of the original researchers of the
ACE study. Two cohorts of trainers have participated in this two-day in depth training with the
133
charge to conduct a minimum of three additional trainings in their own communities across the
state. This training is provided free of charge and trainers are listed on the prevention works
website (Virginia Prevention Works, 2019).
According to SAMHSA (2014), a trauma-informed approach includes four Rs; (1)
Realize the widespread impact of trauma and understand potential paths for recovery, (2)
Recognize the signs and symptoms of trauma in clients/ students, families, staff, and others
involved with the system, (3) Respond by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies,
procedures, and practices, and (4) Resist re-traumatization. Using this framework, teacher
educators can address student needs and promote learning that will prepare them to work with K-
12 students who have been impacted by trauma. Key concepts, skills, and strategies within this
framework will be addressed in this article.
Realize: The Impact of Trauma
The first step to becoming trauma-informed is the realization that trauma is pervasive in
the lives of children. It is not isolated to students with emotional and behavioral disabilities or
select schools or communities but exists everywhere. According to the U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) (2013), an estimated 679,000 children were victimized by
maltreatment that included neglect, physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. Nearly a half
million children who experience physical and sexual abuse and neglect are placed into foster care
each year (Dwyer & Noonan, 2005). An estimated one in five Americans was sexually molested
as a child, one in four was beaten by a parent, and one in eight children witnessed their mother
being physically assaulted (VanDerKolk, 2014). Nearly 11 million children under the age of 18
grow up in households with alcoholic relatives; 10 million have experienced the incarceration of
a parent and live below the poverty level in unsafe communities (Paccione-Dyszlewski, 2016).
134
There is little question, that for many students, adverse childhood experiences or ACEs
are common and often highly interrelated; where one ACE occurs, there are usually others (ACE
Interface, 2015). There is a significant dose-response relationship that indicates the more adverse
experiences; the more likely an individual is to experience mental, physical, behavioral health,
and social problems (Felitti et al., 1998). Adverse experiences are also more likely to be
transmitted from one generation to the next repeating toxic levels of stress and unhealthy coping
patterns.
Teacher educators will want to keep in mind that some future educators they work with
have their own histories of trauma (Carello & Butler, 2015). Statistics regarding undergraduate
college students indicate as high as 66-94% report exposure to one or more traumatic events
(Frazier et al., 2009). The introduction of information regarding adverse childhood experiences
can trigger individual responses that pre-service teachers may not be prepared for. As a result,
teacher educators need to be mindful of potential reactions and be prepared to provide
appropriate support and resources that may range from warning students of such a reaction prior
to the introduction of the material to the provision of resources for those who may want to seek
additional supports provided by the institution such as counseling.
Recognize: The Signs and Symptoms of Trauma
SAMHSA defines trauma as an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is
experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening and that has
lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or
spiritual well-being. In addition, the adverse events often involve intense fear and helplessness
and fall outside of one’s ability to cope (Perry, 2017). Examples of trauma include, but are not
limited to: experiencing or observing physical, sexual, and emotional abuse; childhood neglect;
135
having a family member with a mental health or substance use disorder; experiencing or
witnessing violence in the community or while serving in the military, poverty, and systemic
discrimination (NCTSN, 2016).
A significant number of youth have previously or will experience some type of trauma
prior to the age of 18 that may impact their ability to regulate their emotions, develop healthy
relationships, and achieve academic success in the school environment (Van Der Kolk, 2014).
Neurobiological studies have identified physiological changes to children’s brains due to
exposure to trauma potentially resulting in emotional and behavioral responses that can interfere
with learning (Center on the Developing Child, 2007). Children impacted by trauma may
experience diminished concentration, difficulty with memory and organization, increased
aggression and negative peer interactions, dysregulation, avoidant behaviors, and distrust of
teachers which can exacerbate challenges in the school setting (NCTSN, 2016; Ogata, 2017).
So how does a teacher know if a student has been affected by trauma? The answer is,
despite some academic, behavioral or social indicators, they may never know. We need to
presume the K-12 students we serve have a history of traumatic stress and exercise “universal
precautions” by creating systems of care that are trauma-informed (Hodas, 2005). Universal
design theories share some common principles with trauma-informed care such as using a
strengths-based, person centered, and solution-focused approach (Carello & Butler, 2015).
Respond: Using a Trauma-Sensitive Lens
Teachers working with children and adolescents in the school environment spend a
significant amount of time addressing difficult behaviors and assisting students with poor
academic achievement (Keller-Dupree, 2013; Perry, 2009). Educators who learn about the
impacts of trauma can have a greater understanding of some of the underlying reasons for
136
children’s inappropriate behavior in the classroom rather than misreading it as intentional
misconduct in need of more harsh consequences. A barrier to adopting a new and more trauma-
informed approach for educators who believe in a discipline-oriented or more confrontational
style for student misbehavior is the perception that one is “being soft” (Walkley & Cox, 2013).
Meeting the needs of students is a collaborative effort among all school professionals.
The strategies associated with a trauma-informed environment need to span a continuum of
prevention through intensive intervention using a multi-pronged approach that includes access to
both internal and external supports (Chafouleas, Johnson, Overstreet, & Santos, 2016). Internal
supports such as school counselors, social workers, psychologists, and special education teachers
can help to facilitate coping when students are experiencing stressors. The goal is to provide
universal (Tier 1) supports for all students by fostering a positive environment and skill building.
Students who need more intensive services (Tiers 2 & 3) may require more targeted or individual
interventions to support academic, social-emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs. These
supports can extend to adult needs for education as well as support with regards to practices,
data, and systems.
It has been well documented that trauma changes the way children and adolescents
interact with others and they may adopt behaviors or patterns of thinking that can compound
their problems and cause further trauma. Evidence-based approaches have demonstrated the
importance of breaking the cycle of trauma by considering the question, “What happened to
you?” instead of “What’s wrong with you?” (SAMHSA, 2012). Multi-tiered frameworks of
service delivery such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) are built on
foundations involving early identification of risk, varied levels of intervention designed to teach
skills and prevent more serious problems which align well with a trauma-informed approach.
137
The focus is on positive, preventive, and proactive approaches and a continual data-driven
evaluation of responses. It is critical for teacher preparation programs to address frameworks
such as PBIS. According to the National Education Association (2014), positive behavior
supports help teachers recognize the significance of classroom management and preventive
school discipline in order to maximize student success.
A shift in mindset puts the focus on what has happened to the child and what skills are
needed rather than focusing on discipline alone for behavior that may be a student’s attempt to
cope with elevated levels of stress (Greene, 2014). Failure to acknowledge the impact of
traumatic stress in children in the school setting may also lead to mislabeling students and giving
diagnoses such as attention deficit disorder and oppositional-defiant disorder among others
(Black, Woodsworth, Tremblay, & Carpenter, 2012). Further support for this movement came
from the recent reauthorization of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which included the
provision for trauma-informed approaches, training for school personnel, and recognition of the
strong relationship between a positive school climate and student learning (NEA, 2014; Prewitt,
2016).
Many children who have experienced traumatic events view the world as a dangerous
place and are more vulnerable to stress which can sabotage their ability to manage emotions and
use coping mechanisms that can help to regulate their behavior. The development of learning
environments that feel safe and supportive require underlying foundations such as trusting
relationships, organization and structure, and engagement that builds on student strengths and
teaches self-regulation skills. Teachers who provide trauma-sensitive supports in their
classrooms can play a significant role in healing for students impacted by trauma but those
practices will also benefit the growth and development of all students with whom they work. It
138
is important for teacher educators to provide prospective teachers not only an understanding of
the importance of becoming a trauma-informed educator but specific strategies for K-12 teachers
to follow in order to become trauma-sensitive practitioners (Table 1). These strategies fall within
the three main components of the trauma-informed care movement.
Creating Safe Environments
The trauma-informed schools movement was created to encourage the development of
positive and supportive learning environments that are responsive to the needs of students who
have been impacted by trauma. Safety and consistency are cornerstones of a trauma-informed
educational practice. This is often created through the use of school-wide positive behavioral
interventions and supports and classroom expectations that are consistently taught and reinforced
(Cavanaugh, 2016). High rates of positive interactions help to build upon student strengths and
support feelings of success and self-efficacy as do increased peer supports and social skills
instruction (Sugai, O’Keefe, & Fallon, 2012). The classroom environment should be a place of
comfort and safety. The teacher can foster a caring classroom community where peers support
each other as well as modify the physical environment by considering desk arrangements, color,
lighting, music, scents, plants, and even alternative seating options. The environment can be the
first line of defense and set the stage for regulation to occur throughout the school day. Imagine
as a student coming from a loud and crowded bus ride, navigating through a busy hallway with a
school bell ringing to a classroom where the teacher greets you by name with a smile, lights are
lowered, the room is organized, there is calming music playing, and the schedule for the day is
clearly displayed in the front of the classroom with the expectations outlined for the beginning
routine. All students thrive and feel safe in an environment where the expectations are clear,
routines are predictable and consistent, and students know what to expect (Sugai & Horner,
139
2010). Research indicates school and classroom environments benefit from the integration of
trauma-informed strategies within the PBIS framework which focuses on improving school
climate, reducing problem behaviors, and enhancing academic achievement (Chafouleas et al.,
2016).
Building Relationships and Connections
Students who have experienced trauma may have some difficulty forming healthy
relationships. Discouraged children often have a negative view of self, others, and the world
which may translate to maladaptive ways of dealing with others and school related tasks. Safe,
predictable, and consistent relationships can help to bring the brain back into regulation allowing
students to then be able to access higher level thinking and reasoning skills (Perry, 2011).
Supportive relationships with students that provide unconditional positive regard can promote
healing and growth. Perry (2011) referred to relationships as the “agents of change” and Comer
(1995) said, “No significant learning can take place without a significant relationship.”
According to student interviews, teacher actions that demonstrated care and respect included
both verbal and nonverbal signals and behaviors such as calling them by name, answering their
questions, talking respectfully to them, noticing and greeting them, and helping them when they
needed help (Payne, 2008). Students can often quickly tell when a teacher’s interactions and
intent are not genuine and if their behaviors indicate judgement or support.
Students impacted by trauma often have lagging social and emotional skills that can
make developing positive relationships and connections with them more challenging. Teacher
educators could introduce the 2 X 10 strategy to teacher candidates for practice (Wlodkowski,
1983). This strategy includes talking with the person for at least two minutes each day for ten
days in a row. The conversation should be brief, honest, allow for student voice, solution
140
oriented, and a reminder the student is accountable to others (Smith & Lambert, 2008). This
simple strategy can increase student engagement, improve behavior, and send the message to the
student that you are interested and you care (Smith & Lambert, 2008).
Supporting and Teaching Emotional Regulation
Increasingly important is an awareness of the internal emotional state of the adult. When
a student exhibits disruptive or even aggressive behaviors an adult’s emotional reaction may
elicit a similar response. This is not only ineffective but can often escalate the situation.
Educators must maintain a focus on preventative strategies while also understanding how to
respond to challenging behaviors. According to Tackie, Nixon, and Keels (2018), aggressive or
disruptive behaviors are indicators that a physiological response inside the student’s brain and
body is also taking place. Adults may feel similarly making it difficult to respond in a calm and
thoughtful manner. Helpful strategies could be taught through role playing potential scenarios of
student disruptions and include depersonalizing the behavior (it’s not about you), remaining calm
and minimizing your outward reactions (using deep breathing and possibly some mindfulness
techniques), and using short and simple language (Tackie et al., 2018). A sequence of strategies
could include; 1) identify the behavior the student is displaying, 2) check to see if you interpreted
their behavior correctly, 3) affirm and validate student feelings, 4) assist the student in
identifying reasonable choices or options, and 5) follow up with the student and discuss what
went well, what possible changes or plans need to be in place for the future. Some things to
avoid may include 1) don’t argue or get into a power struggle, 2) don’t raise your voice, and 3)
don’t handle the situation in public in front of the student’s peers because you will open the door
to additional drama (Tackie et al., 2018).
141
When a student is feeling stressed and overwhelmed or may be trying to deal with
traumatic or painful memories the pre-frontal cortex or rational thinking and problem-solving
areas of the brain shut down and a state of intense emotions with often impulsive responses takes
over (Siegel, 2011). Students need skills in order to manage stressors so it is critical that
teachers learn specific techniques they can model and practice with students that can build
coping strategies such as identifying and validating emotions, deep breathing, positive imagery,
and the creation of calming spaces or break times that can assist a student to calm emotions and
return to a focus on learning (Weist-Stevenson & Lee, 2016). Teachers in the field can access a
variety of support personnel such as the school counselor, social worker, and psychologist who
can provide further guidance in this area. Perry (2006) recommends a sequence of engagement
that begins with calming or managing emotions also referred to as regulation in order to be able
to connect with or relate to the student and then reason with them. Regulation can be done
independently by the student who has learned the skills and tools needed for reducing stress or
can be assisted by the teacher using a calm voice, giving choices, modeling use of sensory items
or moving to a calming area. Once regulated the teacher will be able to relate to the student,
identify and validate feelings, and then move into problem-solving or reasoning with the student.
Resist Re-traumatization: Traditional Approaches are Not Working
Research indicates traumatic experiences in childhood can lead to toxic levels of stress
that can disrupt development, impact academic success, and contribute to behavior problems in
school-aged children (Clarkson Freeman, 2014; Proche, Fortuna, Lin, & Alegria, 2011).
According to a study conducted in Spokane Washington, students with three or more adverse
experiences had three times the rate of academic failure, five times the rate of severe attendance
problems, six times the rate of school behavior problems, and four times the rate of poor health
142
compared with children with no known trauma (Blodgett et al., 2012; Iachini, Peetiwala, &
DeHart, 2016). Without sufficient education, teachers are more likely to view these behaviors as
bad or disruptive resulting in a focus on punishment as opposed to skill building (Emmons &
Belangee, 2018). Traditional approaches to disruptive behavior in the classroom often focus on
consequences and include strategies such as a change in status on a behavior chart, a loss of
points or privileges, public correction, removal from the classroom, calls home, and suspension.
The school discipline reform movement, considering the impact of trauma, has
recommended the reduction of exclusionary discipline practices and an increase in the use of
non-punitive, trauma-informed restorative practices to address the root causes of disruptive
student behavior (Max, 2017). Evidence-based, multi-tiered behavioral frameworks, such as
School Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS: www.pbis.org), are built
on a prevention oriented approach that is proactive rather than reactive. This framework includes
a continuum of intervention support designed to teach skills and prevent problems (Universal,
Tier 1), early identification of risk (Targeted, Tier 2), and more intensive interventions
(Individual, Tier 3) supports (Sugai & Horner, 2009). Implementation of SWPBIS can help
improve overall school climate and safety by explicitly teaching and reinforcing expectations and
self-management skills, promoting positive relationships, and taking a strengths-based approach
which are key components of a trauma-sensitive school and classroom (Bradshaw, C., Koth,
C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J., 2009).
Research indicates students who have experienced even one suspension are less likely to
earn a high school diploma, less likely to earn a college degree, and more likely to have been
arrested and been in prison than their non-suspended peers (Rosenbaum, 2018). As seen in zero
tolerance policies, applying the same standards of punishment regardless of individual
143
characteristics often results in discriminatory practices with minority students and students with
disabilities (Mayworm & Sharkey, 2014; U. S. Department of Education, 2016). Evidence shows
discipline practices that remove students from instruction, such as office referrals or suspensions,
do not help to improve either student behavior or school climate (Skiba, Shure, Middelberg &
Baker, 2011). In reality, removal and suspensions isolate students and communicate the message
“you do not belong” which in turn can cause additional trauma (Forbes, 2012). Neither out of
class or out of school suspensions teaches appropriate behavior but rather teaches students what
they are not supposed to do and that is it important not to get caught (Mayworm & Sharkey,
2014; Strawhun, Peterson, Fluke, & Cathcart, 2015).
There is a need for school discipline policies to balance accountability with an
understanding of traumatic behavior. According to the U. S. Department of Education (2016),
3.5 million students are suspended in-school and 3.45 million suspended out-of-schools each
year and even more alarmingly are the noted disproportionately suspended numbers of African
American children. According to the Virginia Department of Education, a large portion of
student suspensions were due to incidents of disrespect and classroom disruption (VDOE, 2016).
Negative consequences of suspensions include a higher risk of academic failure, disengagement
from school, failure to graduate on time or at all, student alienation, alcohol and drug use, and
future antisocial behavior (Sheryl, Stephanie, Herrenkohl, Toumbourou, & Catalano, 2014).
The fact that a great majority of suspensions are attributed to disruptive behavior as
opposed to more serious or violent offenses tells us it is past time to reconsider our approach to
student discipline. Understanding the students we work with and how to meet their needs can
provide more equitable learning environments and focus on solutions rather than punishments.
Trauma-informed educational practices such as using a multi-tiered systems approach where
144
expectations and self-management skills are explicitly taught and positively reinforced can
provide much needed supports not only for students but for teachers as well.
Conclusion
The teaching profession is challenging both intellectually and emotionally particularly
with the increasing numbers of students who are impacted by trauma. It is important to develop
an awareness and understanding of the impact of trauma on the lives of children before we can
begin to implement effective strategies that can support learning in the classroom. It has also
become painfully clear that traditional methods of discipline that focus on consequences do not
develop the skills students need to be successful. Research supports the use of Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports in conjunction with trauma sensitive practices that
address the environment, relationships, and one’s ability to regulate emotions (Chafouleas et al.,
2016; Dorado, Martinez, McArthur, & Leibovitz, 2016; Sugai & Horner, 2010). The essentials of
a trauma-informed approach include a focus on the four Rs; Realize, Recognize, Respond, and
Resist Re-traumatization. The ultimate goal of implementing trauma-sensitive practices is to
provide safe environments where students can feel supported, increase their ability to identify,
express, and manage emotions, decrease trauma-related symptoms that can impact behavior, and
increase their ability to develop healthy relationships which in turn can promote success in the
school as well as the community setting (Dorado et al., 2016; Hummer, Crosland, & Dollard,
2009). Safe, predictable, and consistent relationships can help to bring the brain back into
regulation allowing students to then be able to access higher level thinking and reasoning skills
(Perry, 2011). The Examples of Trauma-Sensitive Classroom Practices chart (Table 1) provides
a number of proactive strategies within these essential components that teacher educators can
145
highlight when helping preservice teachers develop the skills and strategies necessary to put
information into practice.
Table 1
Trauma-Sensitive Classroom Strategies
Environment Relationships Self-Regulation
Welcoming, positive signage,
daily greeting
Greet students by name
every day
Identify and validate emotions
Predictable routine, visual
schedule posted each day
Use calm, respectful voice
& demeanor (unconditional
positive regard)
Teach students how to scale
emotions (e.g., on a scale of 1-5
how strong, Zones of Regulation
Communicate clear, consistent
expectations for ALL
activities and settings
Inquire about students’
interests & strengths
Teach / Model a variety of deep
breathing techniques
Design of physical
environment – organized,
defined spaces, etc.
Increase opportunities for
humor and fun
Yoga poses (e.g., Yoga Pretzels,
Yoga for the Classroom)
Consider lighting, alternative
seating, calming music, etc.…
Hold regular class meetings
or proactive circles
Mindfulness (e.g., Mind Up
Curriculum, Mindfulness for Kids)
Provide a safe space for
calming (e.g.,“peace corner,”
“meditation room,” passes to
take a break, etc.)
Use behavior specific praise
for academic skills and
behavior (Identify skill.
behavior; not just good job)
Sensory items available for use
(stress ball, fidgets, etc.…)
Active supervision; be aware
of students’ body language,
tone of voice, emotional state
Plan activities and move
seating frequently to help
peers develop connections
Coloring Mandalas, Zentangle, etc.
146
Prepare students for
transitions, give advance
notice, use common signal
Use cooperative learning
strategies to increase
engagement
Movement / brain breaks (e.g., Go
Noodle, Move to Learn,
CosmicKids, Fuel Up to Play)
Monitor seating arrangements Provide opportunities for
helpful participation (jobs,
mentor, etc.)
Incorporate themes of emotion
regulation into curriculum /
literature
Communicate safety
procedures & how you will
handle situations
Address issues / concerns in
private NOT public
Progressive Muscle Relaxation
Use positive recognition /
reward systems and logical
consequences NOT systems
based on punitive
consequences or take away
Assume positive intentions
– Often students struggle
because of lagging skills
(punishment will not create
the skills they need)
Establish a safe/quiet place for
students who feel overwhelmed
(e.g., peace corner, meditation
space)
Increase engagement, provide
student voice and choice in
learning / projects
Collaborative problem-
solving – Include the student
when developing plan
Talk about, teach, and model stress
management
References
Black, P., Woodsworth, M., Tremblay, M., & Carpenter, T. (2012). A review of trauma-
informed treatment for adolescents. Canadian Psychology, 53(3), 192-203.
Carello, J. & Butler, L. D. (2015). Practicing what we teach: Trauma-Informed educational
practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35(3), 262-278.
Cavanaugh, B. (2016). Trauma-informed classrooms and schools. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 41-
46.
147
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2007). A science-based framework for
early childhood policy: Using evidence to improve outcomes in learning, behavior, and
health for vulnerable children.
Retrieved from
https://developingchild.harvard.edu/
Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2016).
Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health, 8,
144-162.
Clarkson Freeman, P. A. (2014). Prevalence and relationship between adverse childhood
experiences and child behavior among children. Infant mental Health Journal, 35(6),
544-554.
Cole, S. F., O’Brien, J. G., Gadd, M. G., Ristuccia, J., Wallace, D. L., & Gregory, M. (2005).
Helping traumatized children learn: Supportive school environments for children
traumatized by family violence. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Advocates for Children.
Dorado, J., Martinez, M., McArthur, L., & Leibovitz, T. (2016). Healthy Environments and
Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A whole-school, multi-level, prevention and
intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School
Mental Health, 8, 163-176.
Dwyer, D. & Noonan, K. (2005). Measurement error in reported reasons for entry into the foster
care system. Southern Business and Economics Journal, 28(3&4), 88-107.
Fallot, R. D., & Harris, M. (2009). Creating Cultures of Trauma-Informed Care (CCTIC): A self-
assessment and planning protocol. Washington, DC: Community Connections.
Retrieved from http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/icmh/documents/CCTICSelf-
AssessmentandPlanningProtocol0709
148
Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., Koss, M. &
Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of
the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 245–258.
Forbes, H. (2012) Help for Billy. Beyond Consequences Institute.
www.BeyondConsequences.com
Frazier, P., Anders, S., Perera, S., Tomich, P., Tennen, H., Park, C., & Tashiro, T. (2009).
Traumatic events among undergraduate students: Prevalence and associated symptoms.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 450–460.
Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain: A review. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry 41, 97–116.
Greater Richmond (SCAN) Stop Child Abuse Now. (n.d.). Trauma-Informed Community
(TICN) Network. Retrieved from http://grscan.com/trauma-informed-community-
network/
Goodman, R. D., Miller, M. D., & West-Olatunji, C. A. (2011, August 22). Traumatic stress,
socioeconomic status, and academic achievement among primary school students.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy. Advance online
publication. doi: 10.1037/a0024912
Greene, R. (2014). Lost at school. New York, NY: Scribner
Iachini, A. L., Petiwala, A. F., & DeHart, D. D. (2016). Examining adverse childhood
experiences among students repeating the ninth grade: Implications for school dropout
prevention. Children & Schools, 38(4), 218-226.
149
Hodas, G. (2006). Responding to childhood trauma: The promise and practice of trauma-
informed care. Retrieved from
http://www.childrescuebill.org/VictimsOfAbuse/RespondingHodas
Keller-Dupree, E. A. (2013). Understanding childhood trauma: Ten reminders for preventing
retraumatization. Practitioner Scholar: Journal of Counseling & Professional
Psychology, 2(1), 1-11.
Mayworm, A. M., & Sharkey, J. D. (2014). Ethical considerations in a three-tiered approach to
school discipline, policy and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 51(7), 693-704.
National Child Traumatic Stress Network (2016). Symptoms and behaviors associated with
exposure to trauma. Retrieved from http://www.nctsn.org/trauma-types/early-childhood-
trauma/Symptoms-and-Behaviors-Associated-with-Exposure-to-Trauma
National Education Association. (2014). Positive behavioral interventions and supports: A
multi-tiered framework that works for every student. An NEA Policy Brief. Retrieved
from https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB41A-Positive_Behavioral_Interventions-
Final
Ogata, K. (2017). Maltreatment related trauma symptoms affect academic achievement through
cognitive functioning: A preliminary examination in Japan. Journal of Intelligence,
5(32), 1-7.
Overstreet, S. & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: Introduction to the
special issue. School Mental Health, 8(1), 1-6.
Paccione-Dyszlewski, M. R. (2016). Trauma-informed schools: A must. The Brown University
Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 32(7), 1-8.
Payne, R. (2008). Nine powerful practices. Educational Leadership, 65(7), 48-52.
150
Perry, B. D. (2006). The Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics: Applying principles of
neuroscience to clinical work with traumatized and maltreated children. In N.B. Webb
(Ed.), Working with traumatized youth in child welfare (pp. 27-52). New York: The
Guilford Press.
Perry, B. D. (2009). Principles of working with traumatized children. Retrieved from
http://teacher.scholastic.com/professional/bruceperry/working_children.htm
Perry, B. (2011). The boy who was raised by a dog. New York, NY: Basic Books
Porche, M., Fortuna, L., Lin, J., & Alegria, M. (2011). Childhood Trauma and Psychiatric
Disorders as Correlates of School Dropout in a National Sample of Young Adults. Child
Development, 82(3), 982-998. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29782885
Prewitt, E. (2016). New elementary and secondary education law includes specific “trauma-
informed practices” provisions. Retrieved from https://www.acesconnection.com/g/aces-
in-education/blog/new-elementary-and-secondary-education-law-includes-specific-
trauma-informed-practices-provisions
SAMHSA. (2012). About the National Center for Trauma-Informed Care. Retrieved from
https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic
SAMHSA. (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed
Approach SAMHSA’s Trauma and Justice Strategic Initiative. Retrieved from
http://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s-Concept-of-Trauma-and-Guidance-for-a-
Trauma-Informed-Approach/SMA14-4884
Sheryl, A. H., Stephanie, M. P., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2014).
Student and school factors associated with school suspension: A multilevel analysis of
151
students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States. Children and Youth
Services Review, 36(1), 187–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.022
Siegel, D. J. (2011). The whole brain child. New York, NY: Bantam Books
Smith, R., & Lambert, M. (2008). Assuming the best. Educational Leadership, 66(1), 16–21.
Strawhun, J., Peterson, R., Fluke, S. & Cathcart, A. (2015). In-school suspension strategy brief.
Lincoln, NE: Student engagement Project, University of Nebraska- Lincoln.
Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-Intervention and School-Wide Positive
Behavior Supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17,
223-237.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2010). Schoolwide positive behavior supports: Establishing a
continuum of evidence-based practices. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools,
11(1), 62–83.
Sugai, G., O’Keefe, B. V., & Fallon, L. M. (2012). A contextual consideration of culture and
school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14,
197-208.
Tackie, H., Nixon, J., Keels, M. (2018). Strategies for de-escalation and student re-
engagement. Practice Brief #5. TREP Project.
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). School climate and discipline: Know the data.
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/data.html
Van Der Kolk, B. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of
trauma. New York, NY: Penquin Random House.
Virginia Department of Education (2016). Annual report for discipline, crime, & violence.
Retrieved from
152
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/info_management/data_collection/support/school_safety/ind
ex.shtml
Virginia Department of Education (2019). Child Abuse and Neglect Recognition and
Intervention Training Curriculum Guideline. Retrieved from
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/guidance/health/child_abuse_intervention_training
Virginia Department of Education (2018). Professional studies requirements for Prek-12
endorsements, special education, secondary grades 6-12 endorsements, and adult
education. Retrieved from
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency20/chapter543/section140/
Virginia Prevention Works (2019). Virginia’s Adverse Childhood Experiences Initiative.
Retrieved from http://www.virginiapreventionworks.org/family-wellness/
Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools and communities.
Children & Schools, 35(2), 123-126.
Wiest-Stevenson C, Lee C. Trauma-informed schools. (2016). Journal of Evidence-Informed
Social Work.13 (5):498-503.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (1983). Motivational opportunities for successful teaching [Leader’s Guide].
Phoenix, AZ: Universal Dimensions.
education through
trauma-informed teaching
Shantel D. Crosby, Penny Howell, & Shelley Thomas
: Students in the middle grades experience tremen-
dous development in various domains. However, childhood
trauma can significantly impede this development, further
exacerbating the functioning of our most vulnerable student
populations. This article aims to describe the use of trauma-
informed teaching as a form of middle-level, social justice
education, providing a description of trauma, as well as how
traditional classroom management and instruction can affect
traumatized students. This article also provides narratives of
current and emerging models of trauma-informed teaching,
connecting them to the goals of social justice education, and
providing practical strategies for implementing such practices
in middle-level schools and classrooms.
Keywords: school-to-prison pipeline, social justice education,
socio-emotional development, trauma-informed teaching
This We Believe characteristics:
● Educators value young adolescents and are prepared to
teach them.
● Students and teachers are engaged in active, purposeful
learning.
● Curriculum is challenging, exploratory, integrative, and
relevant.
● The school environment is inviting, safe, inclusive, and
supportive of all.
● Comprehensive guidance and support services meet the
needs of young adolescents.
● Health and wellness are supported in curricula, school-
wide programs, and related policies.
Students’ middle-grade experiences are critical to their
future academic success and life chances (Balfanz, 2009;
Losen & Skiba, 2010). To thrive, young adolescents need
good attendance records at safe, resourced schools, the
beliefs (and evidence) that hard work and positive beha-
vior contribute to their success, and engaging, rigorous
coursework that contributes to college and work readiness
(Balfanz, 2009). Conversely, young adolescents whose
experiences do not align with these indicators or whose
life circumstances interfere with or contradict those attri-
butes are less likely to leave the middle grades confident,
motivated, and prepared for their next steps.
This is particularly true for those living in poverty
(Balfanz, 2009), those in urban schools, and racial/eth-
nic minority students, who disproportionately face com-
plex challenges in and out of school due to poverty,
oppression, and trauma (Brandt, 2006). Unfortunately,
students’ natural responses to trauma can contribute to
various school problems, including discipline referrals
and school suspensions (Cole et al., 2005; Wolpow,
Johnson, Hertel, & Kincaid, 2009), which begin to sig-
nificantly increase at the middle school level (Losen &
Skiba, 2010). Students who are suspended during early
middle school are more likely to receive additional sus-
pensions by the end of their middle school experience
(Owen, Wettach, Hoffman, 2015). More specifically, data
show that Black students in middle school receive dis-
proportionate amounts of school suspension, as schools
suspend Black females at four times the rate of White
females and Black males at triple the rate of their White
counterparts. (Owen et al., 2015). These rates indicate a
pressing need for middle school teachers to examine all
facets of the referral process for all students, and espe-
cially for those who traditional exclusionary practices
have disproportionately impacted.
www.amle.org 15
This We Believe (National Middle School Association
[NMSA], 2010) highlights the need for teachers to recog-
nize and embrace their students’ lived experiences within
their curriculum and classroom community in order to
better respond to the complex issues their students face.
Teaching through a trauma-sensitive lens personifies a
number of the 16 essential attributes of This We Believe (i.e.,
Active Learning, Challenging Curriculum, School
Environment, Guidance Services, and Health and
Wellness) affording young adolescents the opportunity to
learn in an intellectually, academically, emotionally, and
physically safe environment that best meets their needs.
The purpose of this article is to describe the use of
trauma-informed educational practices to promote social
justice in middle-level education and enact THIS WE
BELIEVE’s characteristics of successful schools for young
adolescents (NMSA, 2010). This article will provide mid-
dle-level teachers an explanation of trauma and describe
how traditional classroom management and instruction
affects traumatized students. It will also explore the use of
trauma-informed teaching through narratives of current
and emerging models, focusing on how a trauma-
informed approach is well suited to address the issues that
plague our most vulnerable middle school students.
Finally, we provide a vignette and practical steps for how
middle-level educators can create more supportive learn-
ing environments by promoting social justice education
through the use of trauma-informed practice.
Social justice
As a dynamic process, social justice education is evolving and
varied in practice. Nevertheless, its foundational tenets
include the following: (a) Awareness of the privilege and
disempowerment that unequally exists across groups of peo-
ple in our society; (b) Recognition of the prevailing power
held by the dominant group and its pervasive impact on all
systems within society; and (c) Commitment to lifelong
reflection on the ways in which we perpetuate oppression and
actively working against it (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009).
Therefore, social justice education involves the process of
acknowledging the systemic and institutional inequities that
ubiquitously pervade our society and actively addressing
mechanisms of privilege and oppression through critical self-
reflection (Cochran-Smith, 2004).
…trauma-informed teaching is, within
itself, an act of social justice education.
In Pedro Noguera’s The Trouble with Black Boys and
other Reflections on Race, Equity, and the Future of Public
Education (2008), the author, a leading researcher and
advocate for social justice in education, argues that instead
of punishing the students who have the most needs
socially, emotionally, economically, and academically,
schools should strive to become the educative places they
aim to be. As advocates for middle-level students, we con-
cur with Noguera and assert that trauma-informed teach-
ing is a necessary approach to address some of the
disproportionate discipline and academic gaps in stu-
dents’ experiences. We identify trauma-informed teaching
as a viable solution to current inequities present in the
field of education, and propose it as a mechanism for
addressing This We Believe by providing all young adoles-
cents a safe school environment, opportunities to develop
healthy minds and bodies, and access to comprehensive
guidance and support services from school professionals.
Therefore, we posit that trauma-informed teaching is,
within itself, an act of social justice education.
Psychological trauma has been defined as our response to
emotionally or physically harmful events that damage our
ability to function across social, emotional, behavioral, or
physical domains (Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2012). Trauma can
include a wide spectrum of events, ranging from acute
experiences (e.g., surviving a natural disaster) to chronic
trauma—known as complex trauma—which has a persis-
tently negative impact on the ways in which youth function
on the aforementioned domains (Cole et al., 2005; Cook
et al., 2005). Complex trauma may include, but is not
limited to, physical or sexual abuse, ongoing community
violence, or parental neglect (Griffin, 2011). Childhood
trauma, acute or complex, has been recently labeled as
“America’s hidden health crisis” (ACEs Connection,
2016), as it is an ever-present reality for many youth across
our nation, impeding their development and creating
residual negative health effects later in life. In one study,
almost 50% of youth in the United States experienced at
least one or more form of serious trauma (Data Resource
Center for Child and Adolescent Health, 2011/2012),
illustrating the widespread nature of such adverse life
events among youth. Furthermore, 26% of youth are
expected to experience a traumatic event by the age of 4
(National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth
16 Middle School Journal September 2018
Violence Prevention, 2012), indicating that approximately
one-quarter of students will enter middle school already
having encountered traumatic exposure.
Trauma-informed practice in schools requires educa-
tors to recognize the prevalence, impact, and indicators of
childhood trauma and to respond to student behavior in
ways that support traumatized youth without re-
traumatization (SAMHSA, 2015). Birthed out of an inter-
disciplinary approach to students’ well-being in schools,
trauma-informed school practice requires that educators
receive basic training on childhood trauma and recognize
ways that it may manifest in students’ behavior (Crosby,
Somers, Day, & Baroni, 2016). It also requires that tea-
chers demonstrate insight and flexibility in their class-
room management and instruction practices. Additionally,
administrators must become intentional in their efforts to
develop a culture of support—for students and teachers
alike—in order to foster school-wide trauma sensitivity
(Oehlberg, 2008). This is often grounded in staff profes-
sional development (Day et al., 2015), sensitive school
discipline policies (Baroni, Day, Somers, Crosby, &
Pennefather, 2016), and strong interdisciplinary colla-
boration between education, mental health, and social
work professionals, as well as other child-serving practi-
tioners to ensure that school personnel are well-equipped
to meet the complex needs of their students (Ko et al.,
2008). In essence, trauma-informed teaching seeks to
acknowledge the ways in which a young adolescent’s life
course is subsequently affected by trauma, and to use
trauma-sensitive strategies in place of the traditional,
punitive, and trauma-blind school practice that has his-
torically compounded the effects of students’ trauma.
Enacting social justice through
trauma-informed practice
There are various ecological factors and societal condi-
tions that contribute to the prevalence and persistence of
childhood trauma, particularly in racial/ethnic minority
communities (Bellair & McNulty, 2005; McNulty & Bellair,
2003). Historical and present-day racism, as well as the
systemic oppression embedded within our current societal
structure, has developed and sustained communities with
children and families struggling to thrive amid tremen-
dous poverty, social disadvantage (Bellair & McNulty,
2005; McNulty & Bellair, 2003), and violence (Anderson,
1994). In fact, African-American students are twice as
likely to grow up in an impoverished community, often
encountering more crime, neighborhood violence, and
overall trauma (Brandt, 2006). In these communities, his-
torical economic disinvestment, mass incarceration
(Thorpe, 2014), and under-resourced schools (Taylor &
Piche, 1991) are but a few examples of the oppressive
elements at play, contributing to generational and
ongoing conditions. In addition to having higher likeli-
hood of trauma exposure, these students often have
greater difficulty functioning in a healthy way in the midst
of such adverse circumstances (APA, 2008).
Schools have implemented trauma-informed practices
broadly across school levels through professional devel-
opment programs and the use of various distinct trauma-
informed teaching frameworks. For example, The Flexible
Framework (Cole et al., 2005) and Compassionate Teaching
(Wolpow et al., 2009) are both models for implementing
classroom management and curricular changes to create
trauma-sensitive school environments that are conducive
to students’ learning. Cole et al. (2005) proposes The
Flexible Framework as a customizable model that schools can
use to implement trauma-informed classroom manage-
ment. The framework encourages ongoing professional
development for teachers and school staff to become
aware of the impact of trauma, practical classroom strate-
gies and responses to students’ behavior, and legal con-
siderations that may impact trauma-exposed students. It
also encourages supportive consultation between teachers
and mental health practitioners to assist teachers with
difficult student issues. Compassionate Teaching (Wolpow
et al., 2009) describes a curriculum plan centered on
three primary goals: (a) creating safety and connection;
(b) improving students’ self-regulation; and (c) helping
students to develop personal agency, social skills, and
academic competence.
These models adhere to the foundational principles
of social justice by fundamentally challenging the way in
which school staffs view students and their behavior. These
models support teacher awareness of students’ trauma and
disempowerment in their school and community context
and promote critical recognition of the ways in which
systems—including the school itself—contribute to this
disempowerment. Additionally, these models equip school
staff with skills and tools to reflect on and challenge their
responses to students that perpetuate disempowerment
through re-traumatization and harsh school discipline. As
an example, four interrelated studies (i.e., Baroni et al.,
2016; Crosby, Day, Baroni, & Somers, 2015; Day et al.,
2015; West, Day, Somers, & Baroni, 2014) described the
www.amle.org 17
evaluation of a multifaceted trauma-informed teaching
intervention that utilized the foundational goals of
Compassionate Teaching with court-involved students in a
middle and secondary school setting. The intervention
included changes to the school’s classroom management
practices, curriculum, and student disciplinary proce-
dures. It also utilized an empowerment approach, includ-
ing the students themselves as participants in the
development of this new trauma-sensitive school culture
(West et al., 2014). The preliminary findings of these
studies show reductions in students’ post-traumatic stress
disorder symptoms (Day et al., 2015), reductions in stu-
dent suspension and expulsion rates (Baroni et al., 2016),
and a philosophical shift from biased perceptions of stu-
dents toward more trauma-sensitive perceptions and
responses to student behavior (Crosby et al., 2015). Still,
childhood trauma knowledge and training has not yet
been systematically implemented at the teacher prepara-
tion level.
Classroom management practice
and traumatized students
Classroom management practices focused on behavior
management in today’s middle schools are typically
grounded in a school-wide plan focused on safe schools,
antibullying, and zero-tolerance policies. While teachers do
have professional autonomy within their own classrooms,
most schools require that they adhere to school-wide prac-
tices in an effort to enforce consistency and standards across
the school population. Even with teacher autonomy, Anyon
et al. (2014) found that most discipline issues begin similarly
with a referral to the office and “tend to be driven by minor
infractions and subjective categories of student misconduct”
(p. 380). This referral sets in motion a series of events that
ultimately lead to harsher consequences and little room for
reconciliation for the student. These events tend to have
more dire outcomes for particular students; studies of school
discipline outcomes demonstrate disparities with students of
color, students from low-income families, and those with
disabilities receiving harsher consequences based on more
subjective criteria (Losen & Skiba, 2010).
Under traditional classroom management practices,
traumatized students often struggle immensely to meet
expectations, as trauma can create social and emotional
impairments that often manifest as behavioral problems,
impulsiveness, difficulty controlling emotions or behavior,
and problems in interpersonal relationships (Cole et al.,
2005; Wolpow et al., 2009). Young adolescents who are
experiencing typical development (i.e. identity, social,
emotional, moral, intellectual, and physical development)
present many of these behaviors as they come to terms
with their ever-changing state of being. However, experi-
ences of trauma heighten these responses to new levels, as
students cope with intensified anger and aggression,
internal and external emotional triggers, and more chao-
tic and unstable contexts outside of school (Day et al.,
2017; West et al., 2014). They also deal with an inhibited
ability to verbalize their emotions, making it difficult to
form the emotionally supportive relationships that could
mitigate these responses (Crosby et al., 2016). This causes
significant complications inside and outside of the class-
room, as teachers often misinterpret these behaviors as
apathy (Cox, Visker, & Hartman, 2011) or defiance
(Wolpow et al., 2009), leading to traditional teacher
responses that are often more harmful to the youth’s
overall well-being (Cole et al., 2005). This perception of
traumatized youth behavior has heavy influences on the
disciplinary decisions that teachers and administrators
make (i.e., school suspension and expulsion). Not only do
such decisions and policies contribute to poorer academic
and socioemotional outcomes (e.g., school-to-prison
pipeline) (Cameron & Sheppard, 2006), but they also
perpetuate contentious classroom environments upon the
student’s return to school.
The Flexible Framework counters these traditional
responses by providing a host of nonacademic strategies
for helping teachers build strong, positive relationships
with students, and emphasizing the use of clear and con-
sistent disciplinary alternatives to hold students accounta-
ble for their behavior while also being sensitive to its root
causes (Cole et al., 2005). Another example, the Monarch
Room (MR), is one potential disciplinary alternative uti-
lized by a trauma-informed alternative school. As
described in Day et al. (2015), the MR is a safe space
classroom that is available throughout the school day—by
teacher or student self-referral—for students who become
triggered or emotionally escalated. Trauma-trained staffs
manage the MR and work with students using brief, posi-
tive supports (e.g., problem-solving, sensory integration
tools) to help students to de-escalate and self-regulate
their emotions before returning to class. Individual class-
rooms have also adopted school-wide aspects of the MR
with sensory tools available within a designated space in
each classroom so that students can resolve their heigh-
tened emotional states and self-soothe as needed while
18 Middle School Journal September 2018
remaining in class. Teachers receive in-depth training on
how to utilize these tools in their respective classrooms, as
well as ongoing training on how to be reflective and
sensitive in their responses and behavior as to avoid trig-
gering or re-traumatizing students (Day et al., 2015).
Curriculum and traumatized
students
Traditional approaches to curricular design and enactment
are more teacher directed, skills based, and narrowly focused
on content standards (Kliebard, 1995). Within the current
educational climate, high-stakes accountability has shifted the
goal of curriculum to one focused on improving test scores
through rote memorization, skill-building exercises, and cur-
ricular interventions for struggling learners. For traumatized
students in these traditional academic environments, even
basic elements of the learning process can be very daunting.
Childhood trauma impacts a number of cognitive functions as
well as brain development, which may lead to problems with
organization and memorization, and other issues that impact
learning (Cole et al., 2005;Wolpow et al., 2009). Students with
traumatic histories often struggle with meeting the academic
demands of the classroomdue to socioemotional stressors and
triggers that persistently hinder these executive functions.
However, teachers generally focus on students’ academic
progress with less attention to their socioemotional
development.
The goals of a trauma-informed curriculum are twofold:
(1) teaching substantive content and (2) addressing the
socioemotional needs of students. It can be extremely chal-
lenging for traumatized students to focus on the former when
little or no attention is given to the latter. Therefore, it is
imperative that teachers are intentional about creating a safe
learning environment through instruction, providing oppor-
tunities for emotionally healing adult and peer relationships,
and integrating content that focuses on students’ socioemo-
tional learning and development. Through the three afore-
mentioned goals of Compassionate Teaching (Wolpow et al.,
2009), curriculum plans help students to not only learn con-
tent, but to also gain the social and emotional skills needed for
academic success. This model provides rich examples, activ-
ities, and practical strategies that can be translated into most
middle-level education lesson plans. The Flexible Framework also
describes academic instruction for traumatized children,
focusing on providing structure and consistency for students,
emphasizing classroom safety, and utilizing multiple, varied
methods of teaching material (Cole et al., 2005).
A trauma-informed teaching
vignette
Veda, a sixth-grade language arts teacher, considers the
importance of neurological development as she designs
instruction, particularly for her students who have experi-
enced trauma. Throughout the year, she has created a class-
room environment that is a secure place for students to learn
content, higher level thinking, and self-regulation, and she
has done so without mentioning trauma. Instead, she uses
what she knows about adolescent development as well as what
she knows about the neurological development of students
exposed to trauma. She recognizes the plasticity of her stu-
dents’ brains and the need for traumatized students to have
exposure to higher-order thinking to rebuild neural networks
by “doing something” with what they learn. They also need
empathy and the use of feeling words modeled for them in
order to build their capacity for expressing emotions and
regulating their behavior. Thus, Veda has explicitly taught
students this important facet of their own neurology, main-
taining consistent classroom routines, utilizing explicit
instructions that encourage self-assessment, and by using
feeling words and “I” statements—rather than punitive
actions—when addressing student misbehavior. She likewise
avoids actions that might trigger students’ “fight, flight or
freeze” (Craig, 2017) neurological responses such as threats
or controlling demands.
For this particular lesson, Veda focuses students on
College and Career Readiness anchor standards around
Comprehension and Collaboration (Common Core State
Standards Initiative, 2018). Her lesson includes frequent
opportunities for the sixth graders to talk while they are
learning so that they are indeed doing something with their
new knowledge while helping them explore how ideas are
expressed through language. Both Veda and the students use
formative assessments with routine, immediate feedback, so
that a safe and comfortable learning environment is affirmed.
Through this cycle of reflection and “doing,” students build
dendrite mass, further enhancing their cognitive functioning
(Craig, 2017).
Veda begins the lesson with a learning target focused on
CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.6.2 (i.e., deciphering the theme of
a text) (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2018). She
understands the need for students with trauma histories to
learn using multiple modalities and to work collaboratively,
and has structured the lesson with this in mind. To start, she
explains to students what they will do. They have previously
watched a YouTube video and today they will choose one of
www.amle.org 19
three related poems to read in small groups, discuss its ele-
ments, and prepare to write their own poetry based on the
video and their chosen poem. She intentionally gives students
the choice to select which poem they will read (and which
group they will join), as exercising control and choice in their
environment can provide a level of comfort and security to
students with traumatic histories. After reviewing the expec-
tations that are used consistently for talk in the classroom,
students review what they already know about language use
around meter and rhymes. Veda scaffolds the discussion to
address potential misunderstandings, and as they read in
small groups, students write comments and questions on Post-
its that Veda can pick up, read quickly, and provide feedback
as she moves around to each group. As she circulates, she is
also vigilant about social dynamics and student interactions in
each group (e.g., bullying, ostracizing) that might threaten
the safety of the learning environment.
When the students finish reading the poem, they con-
tinue to answer strategic questions about what they read; they
include checks for understanding less common language
usage as well as checks for comprehension and questions
about their emotional responses to the poem. Veda has
designed the questions with the understanding that students
who experience trauma may miss information because their
focus might be on affect (a teacher or peer’s facial expres-
sions) rather than content, and these students need opportu-
nities to integrate new knowledge alongside what they already
know. As the groups complete their tasks, Veda returns to the
whole class structure to allow students to share while they
check their responses and hear their classmates’ different
perspectives. To perpetuate consistency, Veda wraps up using
a familiar routine, having students reflect on their work and
do something with what they learned—she asks them to con-
nect the themes in their respective poems to a famous quote
on their exit slips before they leave class. Throughout the
lesson, Veda has utilized trauma-sensitive practices to both
teach substantive content (i.e., CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RL.6.2)
and address the socioemotional needs of students (through
affirming, questioning, and building empathy), leveling the
playing field for trauma-exposed students who might other-
wise struggle in her class.
Social justice, trauma-informed
practices, and This We Believe
The aforementioned frameworks for trauma-sensitive class-
room management and curricular practices create middle
school environments that meet one of traumatized students’
most fundamental needs—safety. Consistent with This We
Believe’s Culture and Community characteristics, school envir-
onments that students perceive as being safe and secure better
equip them to function at their highest and best, assisting
them in meeting the academic demands of the classroom
(NMSA, 2010). Given the long-standing effects of childhood
trauma, it should not be surprising that traumatized students
can face numerous negative outcomes throughout their life
course, academic and otherwise, which perpetuate their dis-
empowerment. This is disproportionately true for racial/eth-
nic minority students who are more likely to encounter
traumatic andoppressive systems (Brandt, 2006), and are then
often villainized and subjected to higher rates of school sus-
pension and expulsion (Gavazzi, Russell, & Khurana, 2009).
Rather than blaming and punishing students for their reac-
tions to their circumstances, trauma-informed teachinghas an
embedded social justice perspective that seeks to disassemble
oppressive systems within the school. It encourages educators
to gain awareness of the ways in which trauma-exposed stu-
dents have been disempowered by their circumstances, to
recognize the ways in which traditional school practice may
continue to disempower them, and to persistently monitor
their own behavior, exchanging oppressive and counterpro-
ductive responses for those that model positive socioemo-
tional skills for students.
Additionally, these practices address two essential
attributes of This We Believe by focusing on support services
for students through prepared teachers and specialized
professionals within guidance services as well as providing
opportunities for students to maintain healthy minds and
bodies by addressing health and wellness consistently
(NMSA, 2010). Collaboration among teachers and other
child-serving professionals inside and outside of the school
is essential. Further, clear and consistent communication
as well as strong collaboration with students’ caregivers
serves to further remove oppressive barriers that often
impede the success of students with complicated histories.
Rather than blaming and punishing stu-
dents for their reactions to their circum-
stances, trauma-informed teaching has an
embedded social justice perspective that
seeks to disassemble oppressive systems
within the school.
The enactment of trauma-informed practices in mid-
dle-grade schools illuminates an interdisciplinary
20 Middle School Journal September 2018
perspective of developmentally responsive pedagogy. This
We Believe advocates curriculum that is relevant, challen-
ging, integrative, and exploratory (NMSA, 2010). Viewed
through the lens of trauma-informed practices, curricu-
lum and instruction that is student oriented and empha-
sizes both cognitive and affective development provides all
students with opportunities to experience curriculum that
meets AMLE’s expectations and their needs as learners.
Drawing on students’ lived experiences and integrating
those into the classroom through curriculum, instruction,
and assessment promotes deeper more authentic connec-
tion to students’ lives (Bean, 2005). Bean (2005) sug-
gested that the “integration of experiences” within
curriculum design becomes “a resource for dealing with
problems, issues, and other situations, both personal and
social, as they arise in the future.” (2005, p. 397).
Expanding the meaning of responsiveness in the middle-
level classroom to include trauma-sensitive practices cre-
ates the culture of learning where students feel physically,
academically, and emotionally safe and valued. It also
highlights the ways in which This We Believe cuts across
disciplines of education, social work, and mental health
(NMSA, 2010).
Implications: Practical strategies for
implementation
As described in the aforementioned literature (i.e., Cole
et al., 2005; Wolpow et al., 2009), some practical key steps
for teachers, schools, and districts to implement trauma-
informed practice include:
1. Teachers: Establishing regular classroom routines that
are consistently followed, where transitions or changes
to the routine are discussed with students in advance
in order to maintain dependability
2. Teachers: Exercising patience and empathy when stu-
dents act out during a transitional time or unexpected
routine change, as these are often triggering for stu-
dents who experience trauma
3. Teachers: Taking intentional steps to remove potential
triggers from the classroom (e.g., addressing any bul-
lying that is witnessed, monitoring tone of voice with
students, being cautious about the use of physical
touch)
4. Teachers: Having safety plans in place for identified
students in order to be prepared when difficult stu-
dent behavior surfaces
5. Teachers: Having regular class meetings to discuss
safety, particularly after weekends and holidays, when
trauma-exposed students may be more prone to
trauma exposure in their home or community setting
6. Teachers: Embedding opportunities into the class
routine for students to have some measure of control
(e.g., allowing students to choose from a prescribed
list of readings, arranging peer tutoring opportunities
or partner/group activities that allow students to take
leadership in helping their classmates to learn, etc.)
7. Teachers: Modeling the use of feeling words with stu-
dents, so that they can develop language to better
verbalize their own emotions and begin to self-regulate
their behavior rather than acting out in inappropriate
ways (e.g., using expressive feeling words and “I”
statements when students do something disruptive or
upsetting in the classroom)
8. Teachers: Modeling empathy and other social skills in
the classroom through interactions with students (e.g.,
keeping a calm and moderate voice level when dealing
with an escalated student, using feeling words to
describe why a behavior is not appropriate)
9. Teachers: Providing curricular opportunities for stu-
dents to practice social skills and empathy within the
lesson plan (e.g., activities on assertiveness, nonviolent
communication, and fair fighting; writing and jour-
naling activities that allow students to discuss stress
and other emotions)
10. Schools and Districts: Generating buy-in and leader-
ship from school principals and administrators
regarding trauma-informed practice
11. Schools and Districts: Assessing school staff needs for
executing trauma practices and self-care, and provid-
ing resources and support to fill any gaps
12. Schools and Districts: Reviewing school policies, par-
ticularly disciplinary procedures (e.g., suspension/
expulsion), to ensure that they are trauma sensitive
13. Schools and Districts: Creating partnerships with
trauma-related community organizations and stake-
holders to share knowledge and resources
14. Schools and Districts: Evaluating school trauma prac-
tices on a regular basis and addressing remaining
barriers
(Also see Craig, 2017 for more explicit instructions on
how to design trauma-sensitive instruction for middle-level
education.)
www.amle.org 21
Trauma-informed teaching practices provide middle-level
learners affected by emotionally or physically harmful
events the social, emotional, and academic supports they
need. By attending to the curriculum as well as the school
and classroom environments, teachers can provide safe,
equitable, and meaningful learning experiences con-
nected to their students’ lives. Furthermore, the integra-
tion of trauma-sensitive practices expands the notion of
developmental responsiveness by including issues of
trauma that greatly impact a young adolescent’s develop-
ment. Finally, trauma-informed classrooms welcome and
encourage a child to bring who they are, where they are
from, and what they desire to be into the classroom
every day. Connecting with and supporting students in this
way inherently creates learning environments that are
more socially just for all students, including those who
have been traditionally disadvantaged.
ACEs Connection: A Community-of-Practice Social Network. (2016).
Childhood Trauma: America’s hidden health crisis. Retrieved
from http://www.acesconnection.com/clip/childhood-trauma-
america-s-hidden-health-crisis
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Trauma in Children and
Adolescents. (2008). Children and trauma: Update for mental health
professionals. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/families/
resources/children-trauma-update.aspx
Anderson, E. (1994). The code of the streets. The Atlantic Monthly,
273(5), 80–94. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/maga
zine/archive/1994/05/the-code-of-the-streets/306601/
Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E.,
& Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the
promise of alternatives to suspension in school discipline
outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 379–386.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025
Balfanz, R. (2009). Putting middle grades students on the graduation path:
A policy brief. Retrieved from https://www.amle.org/portals/0/
pdf/articles/policy_brief_balfanz
Baroni, B., Day, A., Somers, C., Crosby, S., & Pennefather, M. (2016).
The adoption of the Monarch Room as an alternative to suspen-
sion and expulsion in addressing school discipline issues among
court-involved youth. Urban Education, 1–21. Advance online
publication.
Bean, J. A. (2005). A special kind of unity. In Brown & Saltman
(Eds.), The critical middle school reader (pp. 395–408). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Bellair, P. E., & McNulty, T. L. (2005). Beyond the bell curve:
Community disadvantage and the explanation of Black-White
differences in adolescent violence. Criminology, 43(4),
1135–1168. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00035.x
Brandt, D. (2006). Delinquency, development, and social policy. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cameron, M., & Sheppard, S. M. (2006). School discipline and social
work practice: Application of research and theory to intervention.
Children & Schools, 28(1), 15–22. doi:10.1093/cs/28.1.15
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social
justice in teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cole, S. F., O’Brien, J. G., Gadd, M. G., Ristuccia, J., Wallace, D. L., &
Gregory, M. (2005). Helping traumatized children learn. Boston, MA:
Advocates for Children.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2018). English language arts
standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-
Literacy/CCRA/R/
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M.,
… van der Kolk, B. (2005). Complex trauma in children and ado-
lescents. Psychiatric Annals, 35(5), 390–398. doi:10.1002/jclp.21990
Cox, C. C., Visker, J. D., & Hartman, A. (2011). Educational faculty
perceptions of the learning climate in a juvenile justice residen-
tial facility. Current Issues in Education, 14(2), 1–16.
Craig, S. E. (2017). Trauma-sensitive schools for the adolescent years: Promoting
resiliency andhealing, grades 6–12.NewYork,NY:TeachersCollegePress.
Crosby, S., Day, A., Baroni, B., & Somers, C. (2015). School staff
perspectives on the challenges and solutions to working with
court-involved students. Journal of School Health, 85(6), 347–354.
doi:10.1111/josh.12261
Crosby, S., Somers, C., Day, A., & Baroni, B. (2016). Working with
traumatized students: A preliminary study of measures to assess
school staff perceptions, awareness, and instructional responses.
Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 8(1), 59–70.
doi:10.19157/JTSP.issue.08.01.08
Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health. (2011/2012).
National survey of children’s health 2011/2012. Retrieved from http://
www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/results?q=2614&r=1
Day, A., Somers, C., Baroni, B., West, S., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C.
(2015). Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with
girls in a residential facility school: Student perceptions of school
environment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24
(10), 1086–1105. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279
Day, A. G., Baroni, B., Somers, C., Shier, J., Zammit, M., Crosby, S., &
Hong, J. S. (2017). Trauma and triggers: Students’ perspectives
on enhancing the classroom experiences at an alternative resi-
dential treatment- based school. Children & School, 39(4),
227–237. doi:10.1093/cs/cdx018
Gavazzi, S. M., Russell, C. M., & Khurana, A. (2009). Predicting
educational risks among court-involved black males: Family,
peers, and mental health issues. Negro Educational Review, 60
(1–4), 99–122. Retrieved from http://thener.org/
Griffin, G. (2011). Public systems: Responding to students affected by trauma
[PDF Document]. Retrieved from lecture notes: Child and Family
Policy Forum. University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://www.
chapinhall.org/events/policy/child-family-policy-forum
Kliebard, H. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ko, S. J., Ford, J. D., Kassam-Adams, N., Berkowitz, S. J., Wilson, C.,
Wong, M., & Layne, C. M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed
systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care,
juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39,
396–404. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396
Losen, D. L., & Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle
schools in crisis. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA and the
Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved from http://civilright
sproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/schooldiscipline/sus
p end ed – e d u c a t i o n – u r b a n -m i d d l e – s c h o o l s – i n – c r i s i s
/SuspendedEducation_FINAL-2
22 Middle School Journal September 2018
http://www.acesconnection.com/clip/childhood-trauma-america-s-hidden-health-crisis
http://www.acesconnection.com/clip/childhood-trauma-america-s-hidden-health-crisis
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/children-trauma-update.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/children-trauma-update.aspx
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/05/the-code-of-the-streets/306601/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/05/the-code-of-the-streets/306601/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025
https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/policy_brief_balfanz
https://www.amle.org/portals/0/pdf/articles/policy_brief_balfanz
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00035.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cs/28.1.15
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21990
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josh.12261
http://dx.doi.org/10.19157/JTSP.issue.08.01.08
http://www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/results?q=2614%26r=1
http://www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/results?q=2614%26r=1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdx018
http://thener.org/
http://www.chapinhall.org/events/policy/child-family-policy-forum
http://www.chapinhall.org/events/policy/child-family-policy-forum
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.396
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/schooldiscipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis/SuspendedEducation_FINAL-2
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/schooldiscipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis/SuspendedEducation_FINAL-2
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/schooldiscipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis/SuspendedEducation_FINAL-2
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/schooldiscipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis/SuspendedEducation_FINAL-2
McNulty, T. L., & Bellair, P. E. (2003). Explaining racial and ethnic
differences in adolescent violence: Structural disadvantage, family
well-being, and social capital. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 1–31.
doi:10.1080/07418820300095441
National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence
Prevention. (2012). Childhood trauma and its effect on healthy
development. Retrieved from http://sshs.promoteprevent.org/
sites/default/files/trauma_brief_in_final
National Middle School Association. (2010). This we believe: Keys to
educating young adolescents. Westerville, OH: Author.
Noguera, P. (2008). The trouble with Black boys and other reflections on race,
equity and the future of public education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Oehlberg, B. (2008). Why schools need to be trauma-informed.
Trauma and Loss: Research and Interventions, 8(2), 1–4. Retrieved
from https://www.starr.org/sites/default/files/articles/
whyschoolsneed
Owen, J., Wettach, J., & Hoffman, K. C. (2015). Instead of suspen-
sion: Alternative strategies for effective school discipline. Durham,
NC: Duke Center for Child and Family Policy and Duke Law
School. Retrieved from https://law.duke.edu/childedlaw/
schooldiscipline/downloads/instead_of_suspension
Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2009). Developing social justice literacy:
An open letter to our faculty colleagues. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(5),
345–352. doi:10.1177/003172170909000508
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2012).
SAMHSA trauma definition. Retrieved from http://www.samhsa.
gov/samhsaNewsLetter/Volume_22_Number_2/trauma_tip/
key_terms.html
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015).
Trauma-informed approach and trauma-specific interventions. Retrieved
from https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/trauma-interventions
Taylor, W. L., & Piche, D. M. (1991). A report on shortchanging children:
The impact of fiscal inequity on the education of students at risk.
Prepared for the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S.
House of Representatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Thorpe, R. (2014). Urban divestment, rural Decline and the politics
of mass incarceration. The Good Society, 23(1), 17–29. doi:10.5325/
goodsociety.23.1.0017
West, S., Day, A., Somers, C., & Baroni, B. (2014). Student perspec-
tives on how trauma manifests in the classroom: Engaging
court-involved youth in the development of a trauma-informed
teaching curriculum. Children and Youth Services Review, 38, 58–65.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.013
Wolpow, R., Johnson, M. M., Hertel, R., & Kincaid, S. O. (2009). The
heart of learning and teaching: Compassion, resiliency, and academic
success. Olympia, WA: Washington State Office of Superintendent
of Public Instruction (OSPI) Compassionate Schools.
Shantel D. Crosby, Ph.D., LCSW, is an assistant professor in the Kent School of Social Work at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. E-mail:
shantel.crosby@louisville.edu
Penny Howell, Ed.D., is an associate professor of middle-level teacher education in the Department of Middle and Secondary Education in the
College of Education and Human Development at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. E-mail: penny.howell@louisville.edu
Shelley Thomas, Ed.D., is the assistant department chair and an associate professor of social studies education in the College of Education and
Human Development at the University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. E-mail: shelley.thomas@louisville.edu
www.amle.org 23
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095441
http://sshs.promoteprevent.org/sites/default/files/trauma_brief_in_final
http://sshs.promoteprevent.org/sites/default/files/trauma_brief_in_final
https://www.starr.org/sites/default/files/articles/whyschoolsneed
https://www.starr.org/sites/default/files/articles/whyschoolsneed
https://law.duke.edu/childedlaw/schooldiscipline/downloads/instead_of_suspension
https://law.duke.edu/childedlaw/schooldiscipline/downloads/instead_of_suspension
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000508
http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsaNewsLetter/Volume_22_Number_2/trauma_tip/key_terms.html
http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsaNewsLetter/Volume_22_Number_2/trauma_tip/key_terms.html
http://www.samhsa.gov/samhsaNewsLetter/Volume_22_Number_2/trauma_tip/key_terms.html
https://www.samhsa.gov/nctic/trauma-interventions
http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.23.1.0017
http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.23.1.0017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.013
Copyright of Middle School Journal is the property of Routledge and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
-
Abstract
- Enacting social justice through trauma-informed practice
- Classroom management practice and traumatized students
- Curriculum and traumatized students
- A trauma-informed teaching vignette
- Social justice, trauma-informed practices, and This We Believe
- Implications: Practical strategies for implementation
- Notes on contributors
Social justice
What is trauma-informed teaching?
Conclusion
References
14 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / o c t o b E r 2 0 2 0
How Trauma-Informed Are We, Really?
MITCH BLUNT / IKON IMAGES
Gorski.indd 14Gorski.indd 14 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 15
I
have a story for you,” Shari said as she
jogged toward me.
I had spent the day with her high school’s
administrative team discussing an equity
assessment they hoped to conduct.
A major challenge at this school, as in many
schools, was the leadership team’s habit of
embracing shiny new program after shiny new
program rather than addressing deep institu-
tional problems. Their latest shiny new program
was trauma-informed education. That August,
teachers attended two days of trauma-informed
training. Counselors learned to identify students
who carry the impact of trauma to school. It was
a core focus for the school year.
“I’m a queer Black woman. Transgender,”
Shari said. As far as she knew, she was the only
out transgender student at her school.
Several weeks prior, Shari explained, her
counselor administered a survey to her. “He
asked personal questions about my life, what
I’ve experienced at home. It was intrusive,”
she said.
After the survey, Shari had asked more about
it. “He called it ACEs,” she shared, “for adverse
childhood experiences.”
“Here’s what I want you to know,” she told
me now. “By a huge margin, the most adverse
experiences in my life have happened here. My
biggest source of trauma is how I’m treated at
this school. That’s what I told my counselor.”
“How did he respond?”
“He said there was nothing on the ACEs
questionnaire about that.”
Shari described unrelenting transphobic and
racist bullying, teachers refusing to use her
preferred pronouns or her name, her absolute
invisibility in health and other curricula, and
other conditions that made school the bane of
her well-being.
Is this what a trauma-informed school
looks like?
All in on Trauma-Informed Education
When I share Shari’s story, some educators
assume I’m a critic of trauma-informed edu-
cation. It’s true, I am concerned about schools
taking what I call the shiny new thing equity
detour (Gorski, 2019)—embracing a program
to solve institutional problems that a program,
however popular, can’t possibly solve.
But I’m also a champion of trauma-informed
education, something I came by through expe-
rience. As an elementary-aged child, I was
sexually abused repeatedly by an older boy who
lived in my neighborhood. I know something
of trauma.
I carried that trauma everywhere: soccer
practice, the dinner table, school. And I behaved
in perfectly reasonable ways for a sexually
How Trauma-Informed Are We, Really?
To fully support students, schools must attend to the trauma
that occurs within their own institutional cultures.
Paul Gorski
Gorski.indd 15Gorski.indd 15 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
16 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / o c t o b E r 2 0 2 0
abused child to behave (Everstine &
Everstine, 2015). I was restless. I pas-
sionately resisted being in confined
spaces with adults.
Teachers called this “acting up.”
They punished me for little behaviors
that I now know were proportionate
to my trauma (as, really, any behavior
is for a sexually abused child). Then,
because I received poor behavior
assessments, I was punished at home.
I can’t recall anyone being curious
about why I behaved the way I did.
There was no root cause behavior
analysis, just reactive rule-flinging.
So, I’m all in on trauma-informed
education—by which I mean I’m all
in on what it can be if we commit to
applying it mindfully and equitably.
Three Transformative
Commitments
A few years ago, I shared my story
with an elementary principal who
was rolling out trauma-informed edu-
cation in his school. He asked, “How
would your teachers know what you
were experiencing if you didn’t tell
them?” I thought, Is that the sort of
question his trauma-informed training
prepared him to ask? Does he really
believe it was my responsibility to
report something I didn’t understand to
adults I didn’t trust?
I thought about Shari and other
students drowning in traumas within
trauma-informed schools. This prin-
cipal’s ideological blockage caused
him to retraumatize me during a
conversation about my trauma. No
combination of trauma-informed
practices would make him trauma-
informed if he didn’t work through
that blockage.
The trouble surfaces when we
apply trauma-informed education
in ways that risk reproducing
trauma or that ignore significant
sources of trauma. It is in response
to that trouble that I share three
transformative commitments for
trauma-informed education. My hope
is that, by embracing these com-
mitments, we might maximize the
transformative potential of trauma-
informed education rather than just
layering it onto our program pile.
Commitment 1
Attend to the practices, policies,
and aspects of institutional
culture that traumatize children
at school.
My biggest source of trauma is how
I’m treated here. In every school, the
first trauma-informed step should be
mapping out all the ways students,
families, and even we, as educators,
experience trauma at school. When
we skip this step, we render the
entire trauma-informed effort a
hypocrisy.
It’s important to understand that
these traumas are not always—
perhaps not even usually—associated
with big, obvious traumatic events,
although of course such events do
happen, for example when a white
referee requires a Black student-
athlete to cut off his dreadlocks
(Carey, 2019) or when school
leaders refuse to take seriously the
claims of sexual assault survivors
(Green, 2019).
These causes of trauma aren’t as
rare as they ought to be, but they
may be rarer than what Nadal (2018)
calls microaggressive trauma: the
accumulative impact of insidious,
grinding traumatic experiences.
Generally, individual experiences
that accumulate into microaggressive
trauma aren’t recognized as traumatic
by those of us who don’t experience
them; we tend to see them as isolated
events, not building blocks of trau-
matic stress. One incident of ableist
bullying or one instance of LGBTQI+
invisibility in sex education would
not be classified as trauma by most
technical definitions (Nadal, 2018).
That’s a problem.
But more to the point, these inci-
dents rarely happen in isolation.
They usually are parts of traumatizing
patterns. It’s the constant stream
of transphobic bullying, plus our
failure to address it as an institutional
responsibility rather than a matter of
individual behavior, plus curricular
erasure, plus, plus, plus.
So, as we map potential causes
of trauma within our schools, it’s
important to dig beneath incidents.
How do we account for the damaging
belief systems behind LGBTQI+
people’s erasure from sex education
curricula? What other policies and
practices were informed by those
belief systems? According to GLSEN
(2017), 42 percent of transgender
and gender-nonconforming students
As we map potential causes
of trauma within our
schools, it’s important to
dig beneath incidents.
Gorski.indd 16Gorski.indd 16 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 17
have been prevented from using their correct
name or pronoun at school; 46 percent have
been forced to use the incorrect bathroom at
school. What is it about the institutional culture
of a school that allows this to happen? What
other traumas do we perpetuate by allowing
heterosexist, transphobic cultures to persist?
The same question applies to other belief
systems liable to produce traumatizing patterns
in schools, such as racism and ableism. If we
don’t address that underlying stuff, we’re more
trauma-avoidant than trauma-informed.
Commitment 2
We must infuse trauma-informed
education with a robust understanding
of, and responsiveness to, the traumas of
systemic oppression.
Shari associated her trauma with racism and
transphobia at school. Her story is a critical
lesson on why we should shake free from the
deficit-oriented view that traumas are mostly
the result of students’ home lives. This view
obscures the traumatizing impacts of sys-
temic oppression. If we’re not responsive to
these impacts, we’re enacting a privilege-laden
version of trauma-informed education.
For decades, researchers have shown how
racial and other oppressions can be trauma-
tizing. They link traumatic stress and related
symptoms like depression, anxiety, and even
internalized oppression to racism (Carter,
Kirkinis, & Johnson, 2020), heterosexism
(Straub, McConnell, & Messman-Moore,
2018), Islamophobia (Samari, Alcalá, & Sharif,
2018), and other forms of systemic injustice.
Consider that reality next to findings from a
recent study in which researchers (English et
al., 2020) followed 101 Black adolescents to
identify how often they experienced racism.
Turns out they experienced discernible racist
acts more than five times per day. That’s
just discernible racist acts. They did not
record insidious systemic racism. How are
we accounting for that in trauma-informed
schools?
Goldin and Khasnabis (2020) warn that,
when we fail to incorporate systemic oppression
into trauma-informed education, we risk
“draw[ing] teachers’ attention to the trauma
behaviors students exhibit, potentially patholo-
gizing children . . . and then blaming their
families for their trauma” (p. 10). This is deficit
ideology. It can retraumatize students.
With a deeper trauma-informed vision, we
recognize that many students of color expe-
rience the ravages of racism; that students
experiencing poverty contend with brutal eco-
nomic injustice. The issues to be addressed are
the racism and the injustice. The best trauma-
informed practices are rooted in anti-racism,
and anti-oppression more broadly, not just in
helping students cope with the impact of iso-
lated traumatic events, and not just in assuming
that a student whose family is experiencing
poverty must be experiencing some sort of
abuse at home. If I am not actively anti-racist, I
am not trauma-informed.
As described in Commitment 1, the first step
is refusing to recreate oppressive conditions in
schools. The second step is collaborating with
community organizations that fight condi-
tions—police brutality, the scarcity of living
wage work, environmental injustice—that
threaten the well-being of students, families,
and us. If you hire somebody to lead trauma-
informed training, ask what the latest research
shows about the relationship between racism
or ableism and traumatic stress. If they don’t
Gorski.indd 17Gorski.indd 17 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
18 E d u c a t i o n a l l E a d E r s h i p / o c t o b E r 2 0 2 0
have an answer, they are not trauma-
informed and can’t prepare you to be
trauma-informed.
Commitment 3
Dislodge hyper-punitive cultures
and ideologies.
Bad ideologies are harder to break
than bad practices. This might be
why, in my experience, the hardest
transition for most schools adopting
trauma-informed education involves
dislodging hyper-punitive educator
ideologies and school cultures.
Perhaps philosophically we recognize
that avoiding reactive rule-flinging
and responding to the root causes
of student behavior is a trauma-
informed practice. But to what extent
do we apply this in practice? Hyper-
punitive ideologies remain an edu-
cation epidemic, even in supposedly
trauma-informed schools.
I’m reminded of Carter, a high
school student whose story illus-
trates the incompatibility of trauma-
informed education and the mindless
application of rules. After I delivered
a brief presentation to his class,
Carter pulled me aside, whispering,
“I’m in a predicament.”
Carter was gay but not out. He
feared his parents would kick him
out of the house if they discovered
the truth. Still, classmates often
presumed he was gay, calling him
names or worse. Things were espe-
cially dire between fourth and
fifth period, when a group of boys
repeatedly assaulted him in an
unsupervised stretch of hallway.
Carter worried for his physical
safety. He also worried about the
three tardies he had accrued during
that grading period. He had found a
nook where he sometimes hid until
his tormenters passed, but that meant
being 10 seconds late to class. The
fourth tardy would mean a call home.
That terrified him.
He had considered confiding in
his fifth period teacher, but recently
she shamed him in front of the class:
Everyone seems capable of getting here
on time, so what’s your issue?
Curious after my conversation
with Carter, I reviewed his school’s
student conduct handbook, which
included big sections extolling the
virtues of social-emotional learning
and trauma-informed education.
About halfway through the handbook
I found a series of charts preas-
signing punishments for nearly every
imaginable behavior. The biggest
distinction was among various levels
of major and minor infractions. And
there it was under minor infractions:
three tardies means a warning. Four,
a call home. A few more, and Carter
risked in-school suspension. He was
on track to miss an entire day of
instruction for missing less than two
minutes of fifth period.
Most educators, I believe, would
eventually ask Carter what the heck
was going on. But Carter had reasons
to be reluctant to respond even
if asked.
From a trauma-informed per-
spective, I wondered about two
things. First, if the school intended to
shift ideologies and institutional cul-
tures to avoid reactive rule-flinging
and to respond, instead, to behaviors’
underlying causes (which may be
linked to trauma), why predetermine
punishments? Second, why use
presumptuous language like “infrac-
tions” at all? Is Carter the infractor or
the infractee in this scenario?
Nothing is simple, I know. It’s
hard to expect a school to address a
specific string of incidents no adult
knows is happening. But we should
know if we work in schools that het-
erosexism, racism, and other oppres-
sions are happening all the time. If
we’re sitting around waiting for stu-
dents to report it, we’re missing most
of it. That’s trauma-passive.
Being trauma-informed means
consciously cultivating space in our
mental models so that, even if we
know nothing about a particular
set of circumstances, we avoid the
temptation to mindlessly apply rules.
Carter was about to be punished
harshly due to the school’s failure
to protect him from heterosexism.
Again, perhaps no adult knew he was
being targeted, although in a way
that’s hard to believe; generally, we
know who’s being targeted even if it’s
not happening in front of us. But if
we’re trauma-aware, we realize that
the burden can’t be on people—on
children—experiencing trauma to
educate those who created the insti-
tutional culture in which the trauma
Whatever a child does, our
trauma-informed response
should be to first make sure
everybody is safe, then withhold
judgment and show concern.
Gorski.indd 18Gorski.indd 18 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
A S C D / w w w . A S C D . o r g 19
is happening. That expectation is,
itself, potentially traumatizing.
If a child accrues a bunch of
tardies, we must withhold judgment
and show concern. If a child comes
to school high, we must withhold
judgement and show concern.
Whatever a child does, the trauma-
informed response is first to make
sure everybody is safe, then withhold
judgment and show concern.
When I make this point to groups
of educators, inevitably a few argue
accountability. “We have to hold stu-
dents accountable or how will they
learn responsibility?” This illustrates,
for me, an ideological trap that is
incompatible with trauma-informed
education.
How does irresponsibly holding
Carter or 7-year-old me accountable
for the failures of adults and institu-
tions in our lives teach us responsi-
bility? In any case, when we abolish
the hyper-punitive culture, we’re
not saying nobody should be held
accountable for their behavior.
Instead, we’re acknowledging that
no child should be held accountable
for the ways we fail them. We’re
saying, hey, there are more humane,
trauma-informed, and effective ways
to engage with young people. We’re
acknowledging that trauma-informed
education cannot live where hyper-
punitive ideologies and institutional
cultures are allowed to live.
Triumph and Transformation
As a final commitment, let’s take
trauma-informed care of ourselves,
the community of educators. We are
not immune to the effects of trauma.
In a study about educator burnout,
for example, Cher Chen and I (2015)
found that educators of color who
speak up about racial justice in their
schools often face harsh and trauma-
tizing repercussions, sometimes from
their own colleagues.
I want to emphasize, again, the
importance of trauma-informed edu-
cation. The trick is striving for what
it can be if we embrace it—not as a
set of practices we apply selectively,
but rather as a reimagining of how we
relate with students and one another.
When we apply it with its full
robustness, it has the power to
transform classrooms and schools.
When we don’t, it has the power to
reproduce the harm it was designed
to redress. Let’s choose the former. EL
References
Carey, R. L. (2019). Imagining the com-
prehensive mattering of Black boys
and young men in society and schools:
Toward a new approach. Harvard Edu-
cational Review, 89(3), 370–396.
Carter, R. T., Kirkinis, K., & Johnson,
V. E. (2020). Relationships between
trauma symptoms and race-based
traumatic stress. Traumatology, 26(1),
11–18.
English, D., Lambert, S. F., Tynes, B. M.,
Bowleg, L., Zea, M. C., & Howard,
L. C. (2020). Daily multidimensional
racial discrimination among Black
U.S. American adolescents. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 66,
1–12.
Everstine, D. S., & Everstine, L. (2015).
Sexual trauma in children and ado-
lescents: Dynamics & treatment. New
York: Routledge.
GLSEN. (2017). The 2017 national school
climate survey. New York: Author.
Goldin, S., & Khasnabis, D. (2020,
February 19). Trauma-informed
practice is a powerful tool. But it is also
incomplete. Education Week.
Gorski, P. (2019). Avoiding racial equity
detours. Educational Leadership, 76(7),
56–61.
Gorski, P., & Chen, C. (2015). ‘Frayed all
over’: The causes and consequences of
activist burnout among social justice
education activists. Educational Studies,
51(5), 385–405.
Green, E. (2019, May 11). ‘It’s like the
wild west’: Sexual assault victims
struggle in K–12 schools. The New
York Times.
Nadal, K. (2018). Microaggressions and
traumatic stress: Theory, research, and
clinical treatment. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Samari, G., Alcalá, H. E., & Sharif, M.
Z. (2018). Islamophobia, health, and
public health: A systematic literature
review. American Journal of Public
Health, 108(6), e1–e9.
Straub, K. T., McConnell, A. A., &
Messman-Moore, T. L. (2018). Inter-
nalized heterosexism and posttrau-
matic stress disorder symptoms: The
mediating role of shame proneness
among trauma-exposed sexual
minority women. Psychology of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(1),
99–108.
Paul Gorski is the founder of the
Equity Literacy Institute (http://
equityliteracy.org), a longtime teacher
educator, and the author of several
books, including Reaching and
Teaching Students in Poverty: Strat-
egies for Erasing the Opportunity Gap
(Teachers College Press, 2013). Follow
him on Twitter @pgorski.
The first trauma-informed
step, according to Gorski, is to
map out all the ways students,
families, and staff experience
trauma at school. In what ways
have you seen this happen?
Is systemic oppression
incorporated into your school’s
approach to trauma-informed
education? Why or why not?
Rather than “mindless[ly]
applying rules” in response to
student behavior, how could
you “withhold judgment and
show concern”?
REFLECT & DISCUSS
Gorski.indd 19Gorski.indd 19 8/27/20 9:30 PM8/27/20 9:30 PM
Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
