Investigate Ways in Which Trauma May Be Exacerbated in Educational Settings

Social justice education through trauma-informed teaching

Shantel D. Crosby, Penny Howell, & Shelley Thomas

Abstract: 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.

What is trauma-informed teaching? 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

Conclusion 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.

References 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.pdf

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.pdf

22 Middle School Journal September 2018

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.pdf

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.pdf

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.pdf

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

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: [email protected]

www.amle.org 23

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.