research on trauma informed schools

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Leading trauma-informed education practice as an instructional model for teaching and learning.

• Melbourne Graduate School of Education, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Advances in trauma-informed practices have helped both researchers and educators understand how childhood trauma impacts the developmental capacities required for successful learning within school. However, more investigation is required to understand how leaders can implement trauma-informed practices in targeted areas of their schools. This paper is a case study of one school who intentionally implemented a trauma-informed instructional practice approach after undertaking trauma informed positive education professional learning over a period of two and a half years. The research was guided by three questions: how are students supported in their learning and wellbeing; how can teachers be supported to develop consistent trauma-informed practice in their classrooms; and what is the role of leadership in this process? To research the approach, quantitative measures of staff and student perceptions and qualitative strategies centering the voices and experiences of students, teachers, and school leaders, were employed. Implications for school leaders suggest that when implemented as a whole-school approach through multiple and simultaneous mechanisms, trauma-informed positive education instructional practices have the possibilities of yielding enhanced outcomes for wellbeing and enable students to be ready to learn.

Introduction

Trauma-informed practices for teaching and learning require further exploration to better understand the ways in which school leaders can effectively implement and sustain trauma-informed practice as a whole-school approach to enhance both wellbeing and learning. Building upon the longstanding evidence of lineages such as social emotional learning (SEL; see for example Durlak et al., 2011 ) and the growing evidence base for trauma-informed educational practices ( Berger, 2019 ), these advances have been shown to have positive impacts on social and emotional student capabilities. The aim is to expand the field to consider how trauma-informed practices can enhance instructional outcomes. Relevant literatures contributing to a school’s trauma-informed instructional approach are drawn together, including: trauma-informed education practices; positive education; leading instruction; and professional learning.

The research (funded by Berry Street and the Brotherhood of St Laurence) is drawn from a secondary school that was experiencing difficulty with their delivery of learning and wellbeing outcomes for students (evidenced by their standardized testing and teacher judgment results as well as student responses to the Attitudes to School Survey (AtoSS). Their journey was followed to implement a trauma informed instructional approach. This is the first two and a half years of that journey where the focus has been on student wellbeing and assisting students to be ready to learn. The contention is that through the intentional application of whole school strategies by school leadership, trauma-informed instructional models de silo traditional SEL approaches. Doing this enables the incorporation of knowledge of trauma’s negative impacts on child development and to enact proactive strategies to enhance student engagement with learning. This knowledge is then deliberately applied to multiple aspects of school’s instructional model. In short, trauma-informed instructional practices can help students and their teachers get ready to learn .

Trauma-Informed Education Practice

Trauma-informed education helps teachers understand the impacts of trauma and suggests proactive strategies to position the school itself as a predictable milieu for healing and growth. Broadly speaking, trauma is an adverse experience that compromises an individual’s sense of being safe in relationships and in the world around them; and can significantly inhibit both self-regulatory and relational capacities required for successful learning ( Brunzell et al., 2015 ). After a traumatic event or a series of events, it is normal for children to experience fear, stress and a heightened state of alertness ( Shonkoff et al., 2012 ). With simple trauma, these experiences tend to be brief, often occurring only once. However, complex relational trauma occurs over time and can be repeated often by someone known to the child. When children experience complex trauma, the effects are profound, multiple and not always well understood ( Van der Kolk, 2005 ; Bath, 2008 ). Throughout the pandemic incidences of complex trauma have increased with ongoing financial insecurity, lack of social connectedness and a rise in family violence ( Wilkins et al., 2021 ). This has manifested in young people’s mental health with record levels of mental health issues being recorded for both children and young people ( Brennan et al., 2021 ).

Complex trauma can present as a risk to children’s cognitive functioning in ways that are apparent from late infancy ( Cook et al., 2005 ). These effects include delays in developing receptive and expressive language, problem solving skills, attention span, memory and abstract reasoning ( Cook et al., 2005 ; Shonkoff et al., 2012 ). As would be expected, cognitive deficits such as these adversely affect children’s academic outcomes. Studies demonstrate that individuals who report adverse childhood experiences are 2.5 times more likely to experience difficulties at school ( Anda et al., 2006 ). Such difficulties are multiple and include low achievement, participation in special support programs, early drop out, suspension and expulsion ( Cook et al., 2005 ; Anda et al., 2006 ; Porche et al., 2016 ).

These neurological impacts of trauma have important implications for children’s relationships with teachers and other adults in school settings. In childhoods characterized by supportive, attentive parents, adults can act as a mediator, helping children to respond to dangers and the effects of trauma ( Van der Kolk, 2005 ). However, when a child presumes adults to be a threat and has difficulty forming attachments, it creates significant barriers for teachers and other professionals to assume a supportive role. The combination of these effects makes it more difficult for children impacted by trauma to independently form healthy relationships with peers and moderate their emotions in the classroom ( West et al., 2014 ).

Aside from home, school is the place where the majority of children spend most time, highlighting the importance of making it a safe space ( Downey, 2012 ; Costa, 2017 ). Feeling connected and having a sense of belonging to school are important protective factors for children ( Resnick et al., 1997 ). It cannot be assumed, however, that schools will provide a sense of safety for children contending with trauma’s impacts.

Due to the challenging behaviors that children sometimes present, schools and teachers may adopt a punitive approach in regard to their interactions with these children ( Hemphill et al., 2014 ; Howard, 2019 ) that ignore a child’s complex history ( Costa, 2017 ).

In order to support children to meet their needs for safety at school, teachers should be supportive, caring, and avoid acting in ways that might trigger the child and produce power-laden behavioral responses like bullying ( Bath, 2008 ; Shonkoff et al., 2012 ; Carello and Butler, 2015 ). To successfully support children, teachers require training about trauma and exposure to risk and how it is expressed by children ( Day et al., 2015 ; Berger, 2019 ; Stokes and Brunzell, 2019 ). This has implications for whole-school implementation, making it vital that teachers be supported through professional learning to understand how to identify risk and how to respond in proactive ways.

A Trauma-Informed Positive Education Approach to Teaching

From the paradigm of positive psychology and allied wellbeing sciences, positive education is the application of positive psychology interventions appropriate for use by a teacher in the classroom and is primarily concerned with improving an individual’s sense of social and emotional wellbeing. It aims to contribute to their hopefulness, optimism for the future and wellbeing ( Line Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000 ). Dodge et al. (2012) describe wellbeing as a fluid phenomenon that can be subject to change as children experience challenges and setbacks that unsettle their perceptions that all is okay with their world. In order to maintain a sense of equilibrium in their wellbeing, it is necessary for children to draw upon social and emotional capacities. This becomes more difficult for children who have experienced trauma ( Mashford-Scott et al., 2012 ).

Positive education, that includes a focus on strategies to increase student wellbeing, then ensures that educators remember that strengths reside in every one of their students ( Seligman et al., 2009 ). Put briefly, strength-based approaches aim to capitalize and build on children’s existing psychological strengths and positive dispositions ( Alvord and Grados, 2005 ).

Trauma informed positive education (TIPE) is one such approach using positive education strategies that was developed to meet dual concerns within the classroom for healing and growth ( Brunzell, 2017 , 2021 ). The development of the TIPE model was based upon a systematic literature review of trauma-aware practice models (see de Arellano et al., 2008 ; Perry, 2009 ; Wolpow et al., 2009 ) and of the student wellbeing literature (see Peterson and Seligman, 2004 ; Cornelius-White, 2007 ; Waters, 2011 ).

The TIPE model is based on developmental strategies focused on three trauma-informed positive education aims: (1) to build the self-regulatory capacities of the body and emotions, (2) to support students to build their relational capacity and experience a sense of relatedness and belonging at school, and (3) to integrate wellbeing principles that nurture growth, identify strengths and build students psychological resources ( Brunzell and Norrish, 2021 , p. 66). TIPE was developed as a pedagogical practice model for teachers to assist teachers in supporting trauma-affected students. The three developmental aims were developed to strengthen teacher practice through an understanding of the underlying causes of student resistance and other concerning classroom behaviors ( Brunzell et al., 2015 ) (see section “Materials and Methods” for an explanation of the TIPE professional learning model that has been delivered in schools). In an evaluation of the TIPE model when implemented in schools ( Stokes and Turnbull, 2016 ), it was found to have most impact on student learning and wellbeing when incorporated into everyday classroom routines rather than being confined to the delivery of pastoral care and home group sessions.

Leading Instructional Practices and the Role of Professional Learning

There has been ongoing interest in what educational leaders do to successfully lead their schools, both in learning and wellbeing as interconnected priorities. Whilst the impact of school leadership on student learning has been noted as difficult to measure ( Robinson and Gray, 2019 ), there is general acceptance by educators that leadership is important to student outcomes ( Leithwood et al., 2019 ). As noted by Dinham (2008) school leaders create the conditions for teachers to teach effectively and learning to take place. Equally, the impact of leadership on student wellbeing has also been difficult to measure, but the connection between learning and wellbeing is clear with the quality and design of student learning environments impacting on student wellbeing, engagement and retention ( Catalano et al., 2004 ; Bond et al., 2007 ). Many researchers have sought to propose a relationship between student attitudes, student wellbeing and academic achievement (see for example Seligman et al., 2009 ). This is aligned with the current Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO 2; Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training [VIC DET], 2022b ) that places both learning and wellbeing at the center of school improvement.

Robinson et al. (2008) conducted meta-analysis research on the impact of leadership on student outcomes (as a measure of success). They note that an instructional leader focuses on specific pedagogical work of teachers in the classroom. This enables the principal to have influence over what is happening with learning and wellbeing in the classroom while not actually being in the classroom ( Wahlstrom and Seashore-Louis, 2008 ). To be an instructional leader there are some key practices to enact. While these practices have been developed from a range of research in all schools, they are equally relevant for leaders in trauma affected schools. These practices include creating an orderly and supportive environment in the classroom ( Robinson et al., 2008 ); ensuring the quality of teaching through implementing a coherent instructional framework and the monitoring of student outcomes using evidence. Another important practice is to resource strategically and to understand both teacher and student time as a finite resource ( Robinson et al., 2008 ) with the enabling of on-task learning is a valuable way to effectively use this resource.

Another key leadership practice identified by Robinson and Gray (2019) to influence student outcomes is the leadership of teacher learning and development. Robinson and Gray (2019) relate this leadership practice to the learning needs of students. Trauma informed professional learning extends this leadership practice to both the learning and wellbeing needs of students ( Berger, 2019 ; Stokes and Brunzell, 2019 ). Stokes and Turnbull (2016) comment that professional learning in trauma-informed practice assists leaders and teachers to acknowledge the need for alternative instructional approaches to address the needs of students from trauma affected backgrounds. This responds to an issue faced in trauma affected schools, that of teachers experiencing professional burn out when unable to successfully teach vulnerable students ( Sullivan et al., 2014 ).

To ensure that both leaders and teachers engage in professional learning that can change their practice, professional learning must include more than just delivery of content. Underpinning the leadership of teacher learning and development are characteristics that Thompson et al. (2020) contend will lead to effective professional learning. These include: the building of trust; subject matter that is relevant; a sustained duration of programs; opportunities for teacher reflection and personalized support to individual learning needs.

Materials and Methods

This study draws on a larger 4-year longitudinal study of the implementation of trauma-informed education in three schools in Victoria, Australia, that is still being undertaken. The research is guided by three questions: how are students supported in their learning and wellbeing; how can teachers be supported to develop consistent trauma-informed practice in their classrooms; and what is the role of leadership in this process? All three schools received professional learning in the TIPE model (see the process outlined at the end of this section).

One school was selected and studied in depth because of the particular work they had done to intentionally implement a trauma-informed instructional approach based on their school context. A case study approach is used as the design for this study to focus upon depth rather than breadth ( Denscombe, 2003 ). As previously noted by their leaders, the school had longstanding difficulty delivering successful learning and wellbeing outcomes for their students. Therefore, the change in practice could be clearly followed once the initial professional learning had been delivered then sustained at the school. In addition to this, the school was able to share school data from the first 3 years (2019–2021) that enabled quantitative and qualitative perspectives to be gathered on the changes that had occurred over time.

Permission to conduct the research was granted through the University of Melbourne’s Human Ethics Advisory Committee (HEAC no. 1955892.1) and the State Government of Victoria’s Department of Education (DET). Because of COVID related lockdowns and remote learning in 2020 and 2021, all research in schools was suspended for periods of time. An exemption to the suspension was granted by DET for data collection in this study at different periods throughout 2020 and 2021, but this limited the original planned data collection (two sets of interviews were planned for each year) over 2020 and 2021.

It is a descriptive case study describing an intervention and the real-life context in which it has occurred ( Stake, 1995 ). The investigation of the implementation of trauma-informed instructional practices was from 2019 to 2021, using multiple sources of data from one secondary school and so binding the case by time and activity ( Baxter and Jack, 2008 ). As Baxter and Jack (2008) note, case study research can integrate both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (surveys) data to enhance the understanding of what is being studied. Of importance is the convergence of these sources in the analysis ( Baxter and Jack, 2008 ) to add strength and credibility to the findings. The description of the implementation of trauma informed instructional practices, while a case of one school, provides findings that may be relevant to other school and educational settings ( Stake, 1995 ).

Student and Family Context

The school participating in this study is situated in a suburb approximately 50 km from the state’s metro center. It is a suburb that has high levels of financial disadvantage and low levels of educational achievement. In 2016, the unemployment level in the region was 13.2% compared the Victorian average of 6.6% and national average of 6.9% ( Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020 ). The area ranks in the five most disadvantaged postcodes within the state out of 667 state postcodes ( Vinson et al., 2015 ). Of students in this school, 68% were rated as being in the lowest 25% of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA), a measure of socio-economic status highlighting the socio-economic disadvantage experienced by many of their students ( Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA], 2020 ). Approximately 75% of students have or have had Department of Human Services (DHS) involvement within their family.

Staffing Composition

Of the 34 teachers in the school, 56% are graduate and early career teachers with 14.5% less of this group with than 5 years of experience, 22% are graduates and 19.5% are pre graduates including Teach for Australia and those with permission to teach. Twelve percent of teachers have between 5 and 10 years of experience and 32% have greater than 10 years of experience.

Research Tools and Analytical Strategies

Both quantitative and qualitative data was gathered from the school. Because of Department of Education research restrictions in schools, related to COVID-19, interview data was only collected in 2021. Overall, 32 interviews were conducted (leadership N = 4, teachers N = 6, educational support staff N = 2, students N = 20; years 7–12). The principal provided the research team with 3 years of VIC DET surveys from 2019 to 2021. These surveys were:

The School Staff Survey (SSS) ( Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training, 2021 ) 1 . This was completed by the majority of staff (2019: N = 35, 2020: N = 30, 2021: N = 34).

The AtoSS Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training [VIC DET] (2022a) 2 . This was completed by the students [2019: N = 192 (59%), 2020: N = 256 (81%), 2021: N = 260 (83%)].

Relevant areas have been drawn on from both surveys that relate to the research study.

Data Analysis

The framework from Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to analyze the data from the interviews with leaders, teachers, educational support staff, and students. This framework follows a four-step process: data reduction, data display, identifying themes, and verifying conclusions. In the data reduction stage, the interviews were coded from each group of participants using the research questions as an initial guide (see Table 1 for an example of the overall research questions, the sub questions for teachers and the initial coding of responses). The data display stage with the themes from all four groups was displayed to look for patterns and interrelationships. This allowed for higher order themes (such as the development of the trauma informed instructional model ) to emerge as the data from all four groups, contributed to the analysis. Finally, using step four of Miles and Huberman (1994) framework, verifying conclusions, the confirmability of the data was analyzed with reference to the literature ( Miles and Huberman, 1994 , p. 11).

Table 1. Summary of key questions and themes.

From this process, three overarching themes and two sub themes emerged. See table below. These themes are used to structure the following sections where the data is presented and discussed.

The Trauma Informed Positive Education Professional Learning Model

The school undertook professional development in trauma-informed positive education ( Brunzell et al., 2015 ) from mid 2019 to 2021. This included four whole days of training for all staff including leadership and then further master classes (conducted face to face when possible and online) in 2021 as well. Also integrated within the third year (2021) was a coaching program for individual teachers with support from senior leaders.

Each of the four training days on the five domains of TIPE and subsequent staff implementation and reflection on the implementation were all facilitated and supported by the TIPE trainer.

The 4 days of training (underpinned by the three TIPE aims as outlined in the literature) focused on the domains of:

• Body, a suite of mindsets, strategies and interventions that help students to develop their self-regulatory capacities (Day 1);

• Relationship, supporting teachers to form strong and nurturing relationships to assist students to heal, grow and learn (Day 2);

• Stamina, supporting students to sustain effort in the classroom, and to demonstrate perseverance and resilience in learning (Day 3);

• Engagement, pathways to cultivate student interest, curiosity, flow and positive emotions in the classroom (Day 3); and

• Character, building psychological strengths through crafting conversations with children about what they value and do well (Day 4) ( Brunzell and Norrish, 2021 , pp. 67–71).

The 4 days followed an Appreciative Inquiry Participatory Action Research Cycle (AIPARC) ( Ludema and Fry, 2008 ; see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. TIPE appreciative inquiry participatory action research cycle (adapted from Brunzell, 2019 , p. 33).

Initially staff were guided through the Discovery phase as they developed a trauma-informed positive education lens through which to understand their students’ behaviors and needs.

In the Dream and Design phase staff generated and revised a question of their own to ensure that their future actions within leadership and in the classroom were meeting the current needs of their students. This involved reframing a deficit based question (i.e., How do I fix the aggressive behaviors in my classroom? ) to an “unconditional positive question” (i.e., What strategies can I use to increase a culture of relational density in my classroom?) . Using an “unconditional positive question” opens up new alternatives for transformation ( Ludema et al., 2006 , p. 155). Teachers at this school most commonly questioned: How can I support my classroom to stay on task? How can I get [student] to ignore distractions and complete his work?

As part of the Design phase , leaders, teachers and educational support staff co-created strategies (four different training days for the five domains) to enact in the classroom. These included: Domain 1 Body: providing effective alternatives to exclusion when students needed to self-regulate when escalated; Domain 2 Relationships: de-escalating students through proactive relational connection; Domain 3 Stamina: taking a strengths-based approach to restorative conversations to facilitate the student back to on-task, in-classroom learning; Domain 4 Engagement: Ways to cultivate student interest, curiosity, flow and positive emotions in the classroom; and Domain 5 Character: Building psychological strengths through crafting conversations with children about what they value and do well.

The Acting and observing phase involved the further refinement of whole school strategies by leadership in consultation with teachers. Teachers then implemented the strategies in the classroom with support from the leadership team.

On the next training day, the staff undertook reflection and future planning at the beginning of the training day in the Destiny and Plan Forward phase of the AIPAR cycle prior to moving to the next domain.

Findings and Discussion

As a unified effort, the school featured in this case study implemented trauma-informed education with it strategically positioned within its instructional practice. As Overstreet and Chafouleas (2016) note aligning trauma informed practices with ongoing educational practices can assist in the implementation of these practices into the school. This includes the incorporation of the knowledge of trauma’s negative impacts on child development and learning along with proactive trauma-informed strategies to be deliberately applied to multiple aspects of a school’s instructional model.

The research was undertaken at a school which had high levels of teacher absenteeism/turnover and low moral as well as low student outcomes (both academic and wellbeing). Leadership in the school acknowledged that teachers required a significant shift to their instructional practice and a wholesale change in the way they worked together to improve student outcomes. At the stage of this research, the school, while having undertaken all the TIPE professional learning, was working consistently within the first three domains of Body , Relationship , and Stamina . This is reflected in the responses from leaders, teachers and students. The following section provides evidence for the school moving from being trauma-affected to trauma-informed; and outlines the instructional elements that were implemented at the school along with discussion of the preliminary outcomes from those elements including the creation of an orderly learning environment and positive student outcomes.

Development of a Trauma Informed Instructional Model

From 2019–2021, the school leadership has taken steps to develop a trauma informed instructional model. This involved two key elements:

• Whole school involvement in TIPE professional learning (see in “Materials and Methods” for the outline of this process)

• The integration of trauma-informed practices into instructional practice including the development of a non-punitive behavior management system

Whole School Involvement in Trauma Informed Positive Education Professional Learning

The whole school involvement in TIPE professional learning over a sustained period of time enabled the leadership and teachers to work together on issues that were facing the school. Robinson (2011) describes effective teacher learning as one that includes all staff who have responsibility for instruction in the school to facilitate a shared responsibility for creating an effective climate for learning. This includes the participation of school leaders in the professional learning which as a leadership practice, has one of the biggest impacts on improving student outcomes ( Robinson et al., 2008 ).

Initially teachers spoke about their understandings of students impacted by trauma. One of the teachers describes the lives of some of the students that she taught.

I think everything is a struggle. Then when you throw in home life and those past traumas, or current traumas, in with being behind in the education, it just explodes into its own little world of understanding why these students react the way they do at times.

A school leader described the difficulty for new teachers or teachers who had not had experience working with children who are impacted by trauma:

They can’t really see the, the bottom of the iceberg. They’re only seeing what they see at the surface level stuff, they don’t really see what’s actually going on.

The school’s youth worker described what it was like before teachers understood the impact of trauma:

I don’t think staff were as equipped to do certain things, both teachers and wellbeing. I just think their training in certain areas, for understanding trauma-informed stuff, their empathy for certain things just wasn’t as good, and it just gave more of this kind of, it was much more of a hectic, uncontrolled - like a hectic energy.

Robinson (2011) comments that having leadership involved in professional learning allows the leaders to understand the challenges the teachers are facing in their context. This understanding was witnessed when one leader commented on the importance of teachers understanding the impact of trauma and how the training assisted with this:

Understanding the background of trauma and how that can manifest itself in so many different ways for a child. The willingness of staff to work through this and not just go, that’s a naughty kid.

The school staff then went on to describe the TIPE professional learning. One teacher described the 4 days of training which sustained their professional engagement with this instructional approach from mid 2019 – mid 2021 (at time of data collection) and how they transferred this learning to the classroom. As Wiliam (2014) notes teachers must be supported to develop their practice which in this case is trauma informed practice.

Yeah, 4 days spread out and so we’ve had time to - we unpack one domain, talk about I guess the reasons behind it, what it looks like in a classroom, all that sort of thing. Then we have time to implement that before we go into day two.

Another teacher described the training in more detail:

My initial training was coming in and doing it as a whole school training, so where we met as a staff, we spent a whole day learning about what are the areas and practicing. So, we would practice strategies you could use in the classroom, so we’d go through a role play.

To have an impact professional learning must be sustained ( Knapp, 2003 ; Thompson et al., 2020 ). The implementation of all the strategies was an ongoing process of learning and trialing for teachers. One teacher commented that this would take some time to put in place:

I think it is a lot to learn straight away and because we’ve only really had the couple of sessions on teaching it to the staff and - it’s been a lot to take in. I think it will probably take us another little while to get everyone’s heads around it and everyone doing it consistently in the classes and everyone using brain breaks and things like that.

School leadership then developed processes to assist staff (in between the training days) to effectively implement the TIPE model of instructional practice in their classrooms. They developed a coaching process that incorporated feedback after brief observation in the classroom which as Bishop et al. (2012b) note encourages teachers to be more aware of their classroom practice and assists teachers to understand why they are making changes to their practice ( Bishop et al., 2012a ). Two of the leaders talked about the support they were giving staff through a coaching process focused on using trauma-informed positive education strategies. Leaders supported teachers to work together and create consistent “welcome to class slides” projected at the beginning of all classes in their year-level to ensure the same trauma-informed language was used consistently to begin the lesson:

So, we just go into the class, talk about the entry routine, the slides at the start [requesting their students to ‘find your center , breathe, and start independent reading’], or talking about those things at the start. Then, together we use those Ready to Learn Plans [defined in the sections below], find those micro-moments when a kid is escalating, being able to actually see that. Then we just give them quick feedback after we go into the class. Three positives that we saw and one thing to consider. So, it’s that, straightaway that feedback.

Another leader described what they do to encourage teachers to reflect and change their practice:

We’re just going in and observing for 10–15 min and then sending an email to the staff member that says three things that they did that were great and aligned with those practices, one thing that they can consider working on and then we repeat. So, the idea is to try and not make it too laborious so that we get in lots and we can give lots of feedback.

These ongoing sessions with individual teachers target the individual learning needs of the teachers and as Thompson et al. (2020) note, support the teachers through a personalized approach.

As shown in Table 2 , the changes in the School Staff Survey reflect the delivery of TIPE professional learning that encourage the co-creation of activities so that teachers could personalize the learning for their classrooms.

Table 2. School staff survey – teacher collaboration in school planning.

The Integration of Trauma-Informed Practices Into Instructional Practice

Social and emotional learning programs have primarily focused on improving wellbeing outcomes ( Durlak et al., 2011 ) while instructional practices have focused on improving learning outcomes ( Dinham, 2016 ). Providing trauma-informed positive education as an instructional approach in both the classroom and across the whole school enables both wellbeing and academic outcomes for students ( Stokes and Turnbull, 2016 ). Aligning trauma-informed practices with ongoing instructional practices can bolster teacher implementation of trauma-informed practices into the school ( Overstreet and Chafouleas, 2016 ).

In many of the interviews, staff members commented that in the past they were losing instructional time due to multiple critical incidents occurring both inside and outside of the classroom each day. These incidences were often in the form of violent outbursts or escalations that would derail the delivery of instruction—and wasted precious instructional time. As a result of the TIPE professional learning and the clear direction of leaders (following consultation with teachers and educational support staff) decisions were made to implement a range of TIPE strategies adapted to their own school context. The instructional model changed over time and contained classroom strategies and practices that assisted students to learn skills to build networks of support, feel confident as learners and manage difficult and challenging emotions when learning.

At a whole school level, the leaders made decisions to implement a non-punitive response to behavior management. This was based on the TIPE professional learning to first understand what had been in place at the school where the punitive discipline approach ignored the complex histories of the children with whom they were working ( Costa, 2017 ). Instead, both leaders and teachers learnt the importance of support and avoiding actions that might trigger escalated power-laden responses in children ( Bath, 2008 ; Shonkoff et al., 2012 ; Carello and Butler, 2015 ).

A year 7 leader described the school’s prior response to behavioral issues which would impede a focus on instruction:

It’s gone from a punitive to a restorative kind of practice…we used to have detentions and all that type of stuff and that never worked, ever. Because it just, it wasn’t a timely reaction to what was going on and it wasn’t a meaningful reaction to what was going on. I used to be on the detention duty a lot and there’d be kids from all different year levels and they’re like, “Why am I here?”

I’d check the learning management system and have to say, “You’re here because you were being disrespectful,” and, their response was often, “I wasn’t doing that, and when was it?” Last week. They’re like, “Last week, why am I here now?” Because the detentions would carry over.

A student in year 12 described the behavior she used to see and the punitive responses that teachers used which completely distracted from her learning:

Just really, really bad behavior. Kids always getting sent out, learn nothing. They’d never come back or they’d get – we used to do like red slips, and you’d get sent out of class with that but then they’d just walk away…Something that just never worked with students.

This change in discipline policy required a wholesale shift toward a proactive mindset for leaders and teachers in this school. A teacher described the changes she has seen:

I’ve seen a change in this staff as well, the way they interact with students and the way that they communicate with them. I think they probably de-escalate them more than they heighten them, which is a big – from when I started. I think that some of the things that teachers said before were heightening students, and I don’t think they realized it. I did at the start too. I didn’t realize how to communicate with them.

I wasn’t enquiring with students, it was more that I would say to them, “Can you sit down?” Rather than, “Hey, what’s going on? Why are you standing up today?” Instead of, I would always – when I first started, I’d sort of jump to the – just telling them what to do rather than asking them what’s going on with them. A lot of the time they have a reason.

At the whole school level, school leaders developed a process that assisted them to support teachers and students in the process of being ready to learn. If a student is not ready to learn they may enact one of their Ready to Learn strategies (for example, walking outside the classroom for 5 min). Teachers webbex school leadership to notify if a student is leaving the classroom. All leaders are rostered on at different times to be in the corridors checking in (with non-confrontational approaches) with the students who are using their Ready to Learn Plans to take time out of the classroom. All leaders, teachers and school staff have been trained in TIPE approaches to be non-confrontational and walk side by side with students and at all times be focused on assisting students to understand their emotions and then move when ready back to learning in the classroom.

The youth worker described how he perceives the changes in the student management at the school:

I think the biggest contributors to changes in the school so far, what I’ve seen, is the trauma-informed positive education stuff. The structures that are in place for support when things happen, make a huge difference. They can just rely on that. The follow-up, the immediate follow-up, the follow-up afterward, if something would happen, Previous to that we didn’t have any of that. It was probably more punitive, rather than understanding as well.

The non-punitive response to behavior management was then enacted in the classroom by teachers, with the support of leaders, using TIPE strategies. The trauma-informed instructional strategies included all-staff agreements to enact: consistent transition and entry routines; Ready to Learn Plans in which students self-selected de-escalation and self-regulation strategies agreed upon with the teacher for use inside and just outside the classroom; brain breaks and mindfulness to renew focus on learning; deliberately building stamina for learning by visually charting and celebrating increasing minutes on task each day; and identification of micro moments of off task behavior as an early point of behavioral intervention (instead of waiting for a “bigger escalation” to occur which the teachers were doing before their trauma-informed professional learning).

The school leaders commented that in the past, escalated and disorganized student transitions between classes and activities were having a negative impact on instructional time in the classroom. Leaders commented that teachers were taking up to 20 min of instructional time getting their students settled after recess and other teachers were feeling let down by inconsistent transition routines between the prior teacher to the next teacher.

As discussed with the school leaders, teachers and staff at the TIPE professional learning, crisp, clear and consistent transitions that co-regulate students quickly and maximize learning were critical to both trauma-informed practice and learning more generally ( Robinson and Gray, 2019 ). At the core is the premise that leaders must see student and teacher time as a valuable resource to strategically manage to maximize learning ( Robinson and Gray, 2019 ). Leaders then supported a change to transition routines across the school. As one teacher commented:

The entry routines have been really good this year. A lot of the staff are doing them every single time. They’re waiting at the door, waiting for everyone to line up and then they’re greeting each student as they come in. I think that’s really good because you walk down the hallway and the kids are calm going into class.

As students entered the class, teachers did a quick emotional check in to see how the students were feeling about school. Two students explained how this worked in their classes. One explained the strategy.

Our maths and English teacher asks between ‘one-to-five’ how do we feel and how has the day gone so far? One is not even good, you don’t want to be at school but you’re at school, five is being you’re great, you’re at school, you want to learn and everything and they ask us what number are we? So if we say 2.5 they go, okay, you’re still at school but you’re in between. Then we prompt the students to use a strategy from their plan to boost to the next number if that will help for learning.

The other student explained why the teachers were doing the strategy.

It’s so the teachers can see who is stressed, who doesn’t want to be at school but they’re still at school. So, there’s something wrong in between somewhere so they can help that student out. We have to focus on strategies that build self-regulation.

Another strategy that teachers used to maximize instructional time for all students was the Ready to Learn Plan. These are a pre-agreed upon plan between student and teacher which empowered the student to enact a de-escalation or self-regulation strategy before returning to the learning task. A student explained what happens:

They’re just like, show us on your hands how you’re feeling today, from one to five. If people are one or two, the teachers go up to them and ask them what’s wrong and if they want to use their Ready to Learn Plan.

A school leader described the importance of Ready to Learn Plans to their classroom management strategy:

It’s really important at this school that kids are not in the classroom if they’re not able and ready to be doing what’s happening in there. We can’t expect them to self-regulate by themselves in the classroom without support.

A student described how Ready to Learn Plans empowered him manage his own behavior proactively:

If I’m feeling like aggravated or just really unsettled, I’ll use my Ready to Learn Plan and go get a drink. Just have a little walk outside.

This was reinforced by another student who commented:

Students that suffer from bad behavior, they’re just not having a good day, the Ready to Learn Plan is so good because it gives that student a second chance, which I think is really good.

One of the teachers described some of the benefits of the Ready to Learn Plan :

It’s a more settled environment and the students also have a feeling that they’re being listened to. It gives them an opportunity to have a voice, but also to reflect on their own thinking and behaviors and are they focused and ready to come into class.

Once the class was in progress there were strategies that teachers used throughout the lesson to maintain focus on effective instructional delivery. The instructional strategies that teachers and students consistently reported were: mindfulness; “brain breaks” (giving the whole class an opportunity to pause, breathe, anchor themselves with a prompt and return to learning); strategies to build stamina for learning and identification of early micro moments of off task behavior.

The strategies place a priority focus on increasing opportunities for students to focus on the academic work. While they appear to be strategies for student wellbeing, they are also strategies to improve learning with an alignment of both wellbeing and instructional strategies to assist implementation ( Overstreet and Chafouleas, 2016 ). Students have an opportunity to practice mindfulness, in addition to brain breaks which provide opportunities to move their bodies, take a breath, and build stamina for learning. Brain breaks were mentioned by teachers as something they could easily add to their classroom routines:

The brain breaks I feel, like in the teams that I was in last year and I’m in this year, I think that they came in quickly and it’s one of those things that it’s an easy implementation and the kids were responding well. I can’t imagine teaching without break breaks anymore. How on earth do you make them concentrate that long? No wonder we had so much trouble.

Students were consistently prompted by their teachers to consider what strategies were working well for them. A student commented on how they preferred brain breaks to mindfulness:

I like the brain breaks because it’s like for 5 min then we’re back doing work. So, I can sit still or do other things in brain break.

Mindfulness goes a bit too long. Some of the kids didn’t want to do it because they couldn’t sit still. I have to be doing something more physical.

Concurring with the findings of Robinson and Gray (2019) , leaders commented that teachers having proactive strategies to build on-task abilities “1-min at a time” for students who are quick to give up and avoid the task, is a critical component for improving student learning capabilities.

One leader described the work on stamina particularly in reading.

There were strategies where we had visually tracked their on-task learning with ‘stamina charts’ in classrooms where kids were doing independent reading for just 2 min because that’s all they could handle, now they’re doing it for 20 min which is all we need in the hour lesson to give them opportunity to increase reading success.

Finally, the TIPE strategy that teachers regularly mentioned was identification of “micro moments of off task behavior.” This strategy staff to move toward an early-intervention mindset with a focus on instructional time. Prior to their TIPE professional learning, teachers were not attuned to these micro moments of student escalation or off-task disengagement (hoping the adverse behavior would go away if ignored). The shift in early identification across the school sharpened the teachers’ collective ability to quickly identify the point of successful intervention and support with students struggling to de-escalate. One of the teachers described the importance of understanding micro moments but also the mental work that that level of awareness takes:

Seeing body language and how that’s going to impact when they come into the classroom and how you might spend a little extra time with them just at the door to give them a bit extra direction or a little bit extra conversation. A little bit extra that you’re keeping a watchful eye but knowing that there’s trigger points for that student that you can go over and quietly talk to them as opposed to remind them out loud of something.

So, you’re watching for those moments and changing what you do for that student. That, I think that’s a huge impact. I’m not going to lie to you, it’s tough though, because you’re constantly looking for these moments and every single student needs to be in your mind and how they’re reacting and behaving to each other, to you, to the work, to the classroom setting.

These strategies are similar to what other schools have put in place when implementing trauma-informed positive education (see Stokes and Turnbull, 2016 ; Stokes et al., 2019 ; Stokes and Aaltonen, 2021 for further examples of this work in schools). Developing the whole of school non-punitive behavior management response has taken the implementation of TIPE to a whole school level that is relevant for this school context. These changes to the school and classroom environment were reflected in the student responses in the AtoSS to their understanding of the effective use of class time (see Table 3 ).

Table 3. Attitudes to school survey – effective teaching practices for learning.

Following the implementation of the TIPE strategies, there have been positive outcomes for students at the school. These have included: the creation of an orderly environment for learning and an increase in positive student attitudes to school.

The Creation of an Orderly Environment for Learning

The creation of an orderly and safe environment for learning, underpins the opportunity for educational improvement in a school and must be included in a teacher’s instructional approach ( Robinson, 2011 ; Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012 ). Leadership in this area is important so that students can experience increased academic and wellbeing outcomes ( Marzano et al., 2005 ). Practices include clear and consistent discipline codes, high expectations for social behavior and a caring environment ( Robinson, 2011 ).

One of the leaders described what the school had been like and the impact of that on both staff and students:

The staff not turning up to work was massive in the past. Oh, he’s away again today, or she’s away. It was pretty rough before I got here. Some kids had had three teachers, different teachers in the same class in one term, so there was a great lack of relationships, so last year was the start of building good relationships with kids across the school.

While a teacher commented on the behavior she found when she came to the school a couple of years ago:

It was chaotic. Kids would come and go. They would be happy to verbally abuse anyone that came within 30 cm of them, even if you just looked at them…I think a lot of teachers struggling to make it through the day. Now it’s quite calm in comparison.

The students described what school had been like for them and how it had changed.

It used to be very ‘you do the work and you listen to me.’ Now it’s – “the teachers work with us.”

The teachers are more like listening to students, sort of working with them and stuff like that. More cooperative.

The students described more positive relationships with teachers as TIPE has been implemented in their school. This support for students who may be trauma affected concurs with research conducted by Berger (2019) on the impact of trauma informed professional practice.

This change in the learning environment, including shifting teacher practice that is caring and supportive with clear and consistent non-punitive discipline responses has been reflected in the change in the last 3 years of data from both staff climate surveys and student attitude to school surveys (AtoSS). Table 4 reflects the impact that the training, implementation and leadership support of trauma-informed positive education has had for teachers in the classroom. In 2019, only 15% of teachers responded that the learning environment in the school was orderly and focused. This changed to 53% in 2020 as trauma-informed positive education was being implemented and 89% as it was consolidated in the school.

Table 4. School staff surveys – the learning environment.

These findings are further supported by the Student AtoSS of the classroom environment. As can be seen from the Table 3 student responses on effective use of class time moved from the bottom quartile to the top quartile in the state from 2019 to 2021. This was the same period of time that the trauma-informed positive education training was undertaken by all school personnel and staff began implementing the strategies. In 2019 only 5.5% of students felt there was effective teaching time in comparison to all students in the rest of the State. This changed to 56.1% in 2020 and 88% in 2021.

An Increase in Positive Student Attitudes to School

Within the current case study, there were noticeable shifts in the ways students positively viewed their school, their teachers, and their peer-community. It is asserted that these changes were due to proactive changes to teachers’ instructional practice yielding changes in student perceptions of the school itself and thus, this cohort of students developed the ability to apply these wellbeing resources for readiness to learn. The change in student perceptions of the school was reflected in both the interview responses and from the AtoSS survey data over the past 3 years.

Comments from students included:

Yeah, it’s a lot better place to be. Like it used to be very – quite violent in a way. Like, mentally straining here because yeah, the teachers just wouldn’t listen to you.

The teachers that we have now are just all-round nicer people. Genuine. They’re not just doing it because it’s their job. They genuinely want to see us succeed.

These comments reflect the change in the way students and teachers interact and the corresponding change in student behavior and care shown by teachers toward the students.

The AtoSS survey data in Table 5 show the change of the last 3 years as TIPE has been implemented in the school. Student connectedness to school has moved from the bottom quartile compared to other students in the state to the top quartile, as has self-confidence, self-regulation (a particular focus of trauma-informed positive education), and high expectations for success. Students perceiving teacher were concerned about them was higher in 2019 at 39% than many other measures but this as well has moved to the top quartile (88.6%) in 2021. As Bryk (2010) notes students feeling that most teachers care about them is a measure of their engagement with school.

Table 5. Attitudes to school survey – social engagement and expectations.

The School Staff survey in Table 6 further supports these changes in positive student attitudes to school with 69% of staff trusting their students in 2021 compared to 11% in 2019. In 2019, 43% of staff felt that students cared about each other, and this has risen to 76% in 2021.

Table 6. School staff surveys – staff trust in students.

Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) have shown that when primed with positive emotion and the opportunity to increase positive outlook, young people increase the likelihood of developing psychological resources for improved coping with daily adversities. Reciprocally, they also showed that increased capabilities in coping skills predicted both increases in experiencing positive emotions over time and the ability to employ social resources (e.g., connecting with one’s peers in healthy ways). When students are given opportunities to nurture psychological resources for their own wellbeing such as healthy coping skills, management of their own resilient self-talk strategies, and identifying their own strengths, they increase capacity to achieve their own goals for learning ( Seligman et al., 2009 ).

A case study approach has been used to explore a school that has implemented trauma-informed practices as an instructional approach over the last two and a half years. The aim of this approach has been to show the ways in which trauma-informed education can be fully integrated for learning and wellbeing.

For leaders at this school, the explicit development and implementation of a TIPE approach, designed for the context of the school, brought about change. Underpinning this was the TIPE professional learning using an AIPAR cycle that provided opportunities for leaders working with teachers and educational support staff to understand issues and needs and then co-create responses to those needs. With the support of TIPE professional learning, the school leadership team were able to harness multiple levers (such as the development of a non-punitive discipline response) toward shifting staff mindsets from reactive to proactive. In addition, the consistent whole school use of TIPE strategies assisted them to proactively support the creation of classroom environments to enable students to be ready to learn.

The school has undertaken a process to implement strengths-based, positive education strategies. At this stage of the research, many of the strategies were located in the Body, Relationship and Stamina domains. Further work in the school will focus on the Engagement and Character domains as it is critical that teachers and all school staff remember that students made vulnerable due to trauma and adverse childhood experiences have inherent character strengths within them. These students require daily reminders of the inherent value they contribute to the school and what is right with them on their journey of both healing and growth.

This study’s mixed-method case study design drew together relevant data on the school’s trauma-informed instructional approach including trauma-informed education practices, students’ attitudes to school, leading instruction and the impact of the TIPE professional learning. The results offer promise to future researchers and education leaders seeking a holistic way to support school transformation journeys with underpinning evidence; and furthers the call to focus on the implementation and sustainability of trauma-informed education strategies.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of Melbourne, Human Ethics Committee HASS 1. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants or their legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

HS constructed the research framework, conducted the research in the schools then developed the literature, collected and analyzed the data through coding, developed the themes and then wrote the findings and discussion according to the themes.

Berry Street (No. 300781) and Brotherhood of St. Lawrence (No. 302406) commissioned the research from the University of Melbourne in the three schools on the programs they were running in the three schools.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• ^ https://www.education.vic.gov.au/PAL/data-collection-school-staff-survey-framework.pdf
• ^ https://www.education.vic.gov.au/PAL/attitudes-to-school-survey-framework.pdf

Alvord, M. K., and Grados, J. J. (2005). Enhancing resilience in children: a proactive approach. Prof. Psychol. Res. Pract. 36, 238–245. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.36.3.238

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Bremner, J. D., Walker, J. D., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. D., et al. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci . 256, 174–186. doi: 10.1007/s00406-005-0624-4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020). 2016 Census QuickStats. Available online at: quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/SSC20942 (accessed May 15, 2020).

Google Scholar

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority [ACARA] (2020). My School. Available online at: https://www.myschool.edu.au (accessed March 25, 2022).

Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaim. Child. Youth 17, 17–21

Baxter, P., and Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual. Rep. 13, 544–559:

Berger, E. (2019). Multi-tiered approaches to trauma-informed care in schools: a systematic review. Sch. Ment. Health 11, 650–664. doi: 10.1007/s12310-019-09326-0

Bishop, A., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., and Peter, M. (2012b). Developing an effective education reform model for indigenous and other minoritized students. Sch. Effect. Sch. Improv. 23, 49–70. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2011.647921

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Wearmouth, J., Peter, M., and Clapham, S. (2012a). Professional development, changes in teacher practice and improvements in Indigenous students’ educational performance: a case study from New Zealand. Teach. Teach. Educ. 28, 694–705. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2012.02.002

Bond, L., Butler, H., Thomas, L., Carlin, J., Glover, S., Bowes, G., et al. (2007). Social and school connectedness in early secondary school as predictors of late teenage substance use, mental health, and academic outcomes. J. Adolesc. Health 40, 357.e9–357.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013

Brennan, N., Beames, J., Kos, A., Reily, N., Connell, C., Hall, S., et al. (2021). Psychological Distress in Young People in Australia, Fifth Biennial Youth Mental Health Report: 2012-2020. Sydney: Mission Australia

Brunzell, T. (2017). “Healing and growth in the classroom: a positive education for trauma-affected and disengaging students,” in Future Directions in Well-being: Education, Organizational and Policy eds M. A. White, G. R. Slemp and A. S. Murray (Cham: Springer), 21–25. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-56889-8_4

Brunzell, T. (2019). Meaningful Work for Teachers Within a Trauma- Informed Positive Education Model. Unpublished thesis. Parkville VIC: University of Melbourne.

Brunzell, T. (2021). “Trauma-aware practice and positive education,” in The Palgrave Handbook on Positive Education , eds M. L. Kern and M. Wehmeyer (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 205–223. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-64537-3_8

Brunzell, T., and Norrish, J. (2021). Creating Trauma- Informed Strengths-Based Classrooms. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Brunzell, T., Norrish, J., Ralston, S., Abbott, L., Witter, M., Joyce, T., and Larkin, J. (2015). Berry Street Education Model: Curriculum and Classroom Strategies . Melbourne, VIC: Berry Street Victoria.

Bryk, A. (2010). Organizing Schools for Improvement. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.1177/003172171009100705

Carello, J., and Butler, L. D. (2015). Practicing what we teach: trauma-informed educational practice. J. Teach. Soc. Work 35, 262–278. doi: 10.1080/08841233.2015.1030059

Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., and Hawkins, J. D. (2004). The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: findings from the social development research group. J. Sch. Health 74, 252–261. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2004.tb08281.x

Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., and Liautaud, J. (2005). Complex trauma in children and adolescents. Psychiatr. Ann. 35, 390–398. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20050501-05

Cornelius-White, J. (2007). Learner-centered teacher-student relationships are effective: a meta- analysis. Rev. Educ. Res. 77, 113–143. doi: 10.3102/003465430298563

Costa, D. A. (2017). Transforming Traumatised Children within NSW Department of Education Schools: one School Counsellor’s Model for Practise – REWIRE. Child. Aust . 42, 113–126. doi: 10.1017/cha.2017.14

Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., Baroni, B. A., West, S. D., Sanders, L., and Peterson, C. D. (2015). Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with girls in a residential facility school: student perceptions of school environment. J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 24, 1086–1105. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279

de Arellano, M. A., Ko, S. J., Danielson, C. K., and Sprague, C. M. (2008). Trauma-Informed Interventions: Clinical and Research Evidence And Culture-Specific Information Project . Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.

Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide , England. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Dinham, S. (2008). How to Get Your School Moving and Improving: An Evidence-Based Approach . Melbourne. VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.

Dinham, S. (2016). Leading Learning and Teaching. Melbourne, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research Press.

Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., and Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int. J. Wellbeing 2, 222–235. doi: 10.5502/ijw.v2i3.4

Downey, L. (2012). Calmer Classrooms: A Guide to Working with Traumatised Children. Melbourne, VIC: Child Safety Commissioner.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., and Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Dev . 82, 405–432. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Fredrickson, B. L., and Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychol. Sci. 13, 172–175. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00431

Hemphill, S. A., Plenty, S. M., Herrenkohl, T. I., Toumbourou, J. W., and Catalano, R. F. (2014). Student and school factors associated with school suspension: a multilevel analysis of students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 36, 187–194. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.022

Howard, J. A. (2019). A systemic framework for trauma-informed schooling: complex but necessary! J. Aggress. Maltreat. Trauma 28, 545–565. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2018.1479323

Knapp, M. S. (2003). Chapter 4: professional development as a policy pathway. Rev. Res. Educ. 27, 109–157. doi: 10.3102/0091732X027001109

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manage 40, 5–22. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Line Seligman, M. E. P., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: an introduction. Am. Psychol. 55, 5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5

Ludema, J. D., and Fry, R. E. (2008). “The practice of appreciative inquiry,” in Handbook of Action Research , 2nd Edn, eds P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage), 280–296. doi: 10.4135/9781848607934.n27

Ludema, J. D., Cooperrider, D. L., and Barrett, F. J. (2006). “Appreciative inquiry: the power of the unconditional positive question,” in Handbook of Action Research , eds P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage), 155–165.

Marzano, R., Waters, T., and McNulty, B. (2005). Some Theories and Theorists on Leadership.School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results , ASCD. Available online at: https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UfNQBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=school+leadership+that+works+marzano&ots=qhs1Mzi6r5&sig=7AUgdwHwJmj_PhlUVePVd3MctmI#v=onepage&q=school%20leadership%20that%20works%20marzano&f=false (accessed March 25, 2022).

Mashford-Scott, A., Church, A., and Tayler, C. (2012). Seeking children’s perspectives on their wellbeing in early childhood settings. Int. J. Early Child . 44, 231–247. doi: 10.1007/s13158-012-0069-7

Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. (1994 11). Qualitative Data Analysis , 2nd Edn. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Overstreet, S., and Chafouleas, S. M (2016). Trauma-informed schools: introduction to the special issue. Sch. Ment. Health 8, 1–6. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1

Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. J. Loss Trauma 14, 240–255. doi: 10.1080/15325020903004350

Peterson, C., and Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Porche, M. V., Costello, D. M., and Rosen-Reynoso, M. (2016). Adverse family experiences, child mental health, and educational outcomes for a national sample of students. Sch. Ment. Health 8, 44–60. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9174-3

Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S., Blum, R. W., Bauman, K. E., Harris, K. M., Jones, J., et al. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA 278, 823–832.: doi: 10.1001/jama.278.10.823

Robinson, V., and Gray, E. (2019). What difference does school leadership make to student outcomes? J. R. Soc. N. Z . 49, 171–187. doi: 10.1080/03036758.2019.1582075

Robinson, V. (2011). Student-Centered Leadership , Vol. 15. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., and Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educ. Adm. Q . 44, 635–674. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321509

Sebastian, J., and Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: a study of mediated pathways to learning. Educ. Adm. Q . 48, 626–663. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11436273

Seligman, M. E. P., Ernst, R. M., Gillham, J., Reivich, K., and Linkins, M. (2009). Positive education: positive psychology and classroom interventions. Oxford Rev. Educ. 35, 293–311. doi: 10.1080/03054980902934563

Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., et al. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics 129, e232–e246. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2663

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research . London : Sage

Stokes, H., and Brunzell, T. (2019). Professional learning in trauma informed positive education: moving school communities from trauma affected to trauma aware. Sch. Leadersh. Rev . 14:6.:

Stokes, H., and Turnbull, M. (2016). Evaluation of the Berry Street Education Model: Trauma Informed Positive Education Enacted in Mainstream Schools. Melbourne, VIC: University of Melbourne.

Stokes, H., Turnbull, M., Forster, R., and Farrelly, A. (2019). Young people’s voices, young people’s lives: A Berry Street Edcuational Model (BSEM) project. Melbourne, VIC: University of Melbourne.

Stokes, H, and Aaltonen, S (2021). Time–space paths and the experiences of vulnerable young people in alternative educational settings, Int. J. Inclusive Educ. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1994663

Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., and Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Austral. J. Teach. Educ. 39, 43–56. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n6.6

Thompson, P., Kriewaldt, J., and Redman, C. (2020). Elaborating a model for teacher professional learning to sustain improvement in teaching practice. Austral. J. Teach. Educ 45, 81–103. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2020v45n2.5

Van der Kolk, B. A. (2005). Developmental trauma disorder: toward a rational diagnosis for children with complex trauma histories. Psychiatr. Ann . 35, 401–408. doi: 10.3928/00485713-20050501-06

Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training (2021). School Staff Survey. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Department of Education and Training.

Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training [VIC DET] (2022b). Framework for Improving Student Outcomes (FISO 2.0). Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Department of Education and Training.

Victorian State Government Department of Education and Training [VIC DET] (2022a). Attitudes to School Survey Framework. Melbourne, VIC: Victorian Department of Education and Training.

Vinson, T., Rawsthorne, M., Beavis, A., and Ericson, M. (2015). Dropping off the Edge 2015. Persistent Communal Disadvantage in Australia. Jesuit Social Services/Catholic Social Services Australia. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299389688_Dropping_off_the_edge_Persistent_communal_disadvantage_in_Australia/link/56f34ea308ae38d7109a5818/download (accessed March 25, 2022).

Wahlstrom, K., and Seashore-Louis, K. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educ. Adm. Q. 44, 458–495. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321502

Waters, L. (2011). A review of school-based positive psychology interventions. Austral. Educ. Dev. Psychol. 28, 75–90. doi: 10.1375/aedp.28.2.75

West, S. D., Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., and Baroni, B. A. (2014). Student perspectives on how trauma experiences manifest in the classroom: engaging court-involved youth in the development of a trauma-informed teaching curriculum. Child. Youth Serv. Rev . 38, 58–65. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.01.013

Wiliam, D. (2014). The Formative Evaluation of Teaching Performance. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Strategic Education.

Wilkins, R., Vera-Toscano, E., Botha, F., and Dahmann, S. (2021). The Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey: Selected Findings from Waves 1 to 19 . (Parkville VIC: University of Melbourne), 110–117.

Wolpow, R., Johnson, M. M., Hertel, R., and 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 Compassionate Schools.

Keywords : school leadership, instructional practice, wellbeing, professional learning (PL), trauma affected

Citation: Stokes H (2022) Leading Trauma-Informed Education Practice as an Instructional Model for Teaching and Learning. Front. Educ. 7:911328. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.911328

Received: 02 April 2022; Accepted: 08 June 2022; Published: 24 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Stokes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Helen Stokes, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts
• Submit your manuscript

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Effectiveness of trauma-informed, school-based interventions for children with a history of trauma or adverse experiences: an umbrella review protocol

McGraw, Sarah 1,2 ; Palokas, Michelle 1,2 ; Christian, Robin 1,2

1 School of Nursing, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

2 Mississippi Centre for Evidence Based Practice: A JBI Centre of Excellence, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA

Correspondence: Sarah McGraw, [email protected]

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Objective: 

The objective of this review is to synthesize evidence regarding the effectiveness of trauma-informed, school-based interventions for children with a history of trauma or adverse experiences as they pertain to academic performance and health outcomes, including behavior, mental health, and socio-emotional functioning.

Introduction: 

Children and adolescents who face prolonged adverse experiences or trauma have a predisposition toward emotional, behavioral, mental, and physical health problems. Few children or adolescents who endure the repercussions of constant stress and hardships, or survivors of one or more types of trauma, receive the appropriate screening and diagnosis; therefore, they do not receive tailored care or interventions.

Inclusion criteria: 

This review will include research syntheses pertaining to school-based, trauma-informed interventions for children and adolescents between the ages of 4 and 18 years with a history of adverse experiences or trauma. Comparisons will be made across all known school-based, trauma-informed interventions. This review will consider systematic reviews that include the following outcomes: mental health, behavior, academic performance, and/or socio-emotional functioning.

Methods: 

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished systematic reviews. An initial limited search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL (EBSCO) will identify articles on the topic. The search strategy will be adapted for each included information source. Articles published in English will be considered for inclusion and no date limits will apply. Two independent reviewers will critically appraise eligible studies. Extracted data will be tabulated and presented along with a narrative summary.

Introduction

The Center for Youth Wellness defines adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) as “stressful or traumatic events that children experience before the age of 18, such as violence at home, neglect, abuse, or having a parent with mental illness or substance dependence.” 1 (para.2) Generally well-understood and accepted throughout research literature, ACEs have detrimental effects on the overall well-being of an individual, both as a child and later in life as an adult. 1-9 Nearly half of all children in the United States are affected by ACEs, 1 and roughly one in four or five children and adolescents report mental health issues following ACEs. 2

Children and adolescents of ethnic minorities, those living in certain rural or urban settings, and those in foster care are often disproportionately affected by ACEs due to poorer social determinants of health, such as limited access to health care, transportation barriers, discrimination, failing educational systems, and generational poverty. 3 Children and adolescents who face prolonged adverse experiences or trauma have a predisposition toward emotional, behavioral, mental, and physical health problems. 1,4 Moreover, the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for executive functioning, such as planning, decision making, coping, and reasoning, is impaired. 5,6 Physical effects of persistent ACEs include obesity, worsening of asthma symptoms, hypertension, stroke, cancer, heart disease, and an overall estimated 20-year difference in life expectancy. 7

The severity of impact can be determined by screening tools such as the ACE questionnaire (ACE-Q). 1 The ACE-Q contains questions from three domains: household dysfunction, abuse, and neglect. 1 Data have estimated that approximately 13% of children have experienced ≥4 ACEs; these individuals are at greatest risk of toxic stress response, 7 which is defined as the sustained activation of a child's stress response as a result of repeated and/or prolonged exposure to extreme stress. 4 If left untreated, the developing body's responses to sustained “fight or flight” chemicals are weakened immunity, poor growth, and even changes in genetic makeup. 1 Mental implications of toxic stress in children are impaired academic performance and vulnerability to mental health disorders. 1,4 Many become depressed, anxious, experience suicidal ideation and/or attempt suicide, or have other behavioral issues. 1,5 While toxic stress refers to the effects of extended periods of stress in a child's life, 4 traumatic stress can be the result of a solitary trauma event and refers to “the physical and emotional responses to events that threaten the life or physical or psychological integrity of the child or someone critically important to the child.” 8 (p.9)

Unfortunately, few children or adolescents who endure the repercussions of constant stress and hardships, or survivors of one or more types of trauma, receive the appropriate screening and diagnosis; therefore, they do not receive tailored care or interventions. 9 School-based settings can ensure confidentiality, safety, trustworthiness, support, empowerment, and a variety of resources 3 ; however, most schools are currently poorly equipped to screen, recognize, and intervene in the lives of children who are vulnerable to or at high risk of myriad health-related consequences secondary to persistent traumatic stress. 9 There has been a recent surge in schools educating staff on the importance and implementation of trauma-informed and trauma-specific interventions. 9 Trauma-informed interventions are those that “realize the impact of trauma, recognize the symptoms of trauma, respond by integrating knowledge about trauma policies and practices, and seeks to reduce retraumatization.” 10 (p.1) Trauma-specific interventions are trauma-informed interventions that are tailored toward a particular type of trauma an individual has endured, addressing unique needs, such as anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and high-risk behaviors. 4 Depending on the kind of trauma, children and adolescents may benefit more from receiving or avoiding a particular type of intervention to avoid trauma triggers. 4 For the purposes of this review, trauma-specific and trauma-informed interventions may be used interchangeably, as some school-based interventions are more generalized in nature while others target a particular form of trauma.

In addition to support from literature linking ACEs to poor health outcomes, data also highlight the effectiveness of in-school health services. 1-9 When children are exploited or traumatized within the home setting, schools become critical in offering stability and support as established, trusting relationships with teachers, staff, social workers, and counselors often precede the trauma. 9 School settings are ideal for fostering resilience in children and adolescents who have a history of ACEs, toxic stress, or traumatic stress by providing targeted prevention, screening, and intensive treatment. 1-9 Trauma-informed interventions are integral to getting to the root of issues and treating the individual holistically, rather than merely the sequela of symptoms. 3 Moreover, Phelps and Sperry highlight the disadvantageous circumstances of school closures due to COVID-19, noting that schools are often a child's only source of trauma-informed support. 11 The effects of a pandemic are similar to those of any disaster, which “consists of the non-routine character that exceeds the local capacity to respond to it, and changes community, government, and in individual support and infrastructure and affecting the region's stability.” 12 (p.6) Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic and social distancing practices include higher rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic symptoms 12 ; therefore, school-based clinics must be prepared to provide specific care once students return to an in-person learning model and/or utilize online services to support vulnerable children. 11

Internationally, trauma-informed, school-based interventions show great promise in promoting resilience among refugee students and addressing post-traumatic stress secondary to parental separation, immigration, and discrimination. 13,14 Trauma-informed, school-based interventions are also being utilized for Mexican and Central American refugee students who have experienced or sustained physical, emotional, or mental trauma associated with migration. 13

Evidence from systematic reviews demonstrates the importance of school as a setting for mental, physical, and/or emotional recovery for children with histories of trauma/adverse events. 9,10,15,16 Types of trauma-informed interventions utilized in schools include, but are not limited to, in-person cognitive-behavioral therapy, web-based applications, group therapy, child-centered play therapy, and combined treatment techniques. 9,10,15,16 Interventions are selected based on the type(s) of adverse experiences or trauma students have faced. 10,15,16 Behavior, mental health, socio-emotional functioning, and academic performance outcomes are often assessed following interventions 10,15,16 ; these are measured by observing school performance and administering “standardized or unstandardized instruments using self-, parent-, or teacher-reported or researcher administered measures.” 10 (p.9) One systematic review sought to examine outcomes associated with trauma-informed school interventions. 10 However, no studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, and therefore no findings were reported. 10 In addition to outcomes of trauma-informed interventions, one review assessed their feasibility, acceptability, and participant demographics to increase generalizability. 15 Another review sought to evaluate the evidence surrounding trauma-informed, school-based interventions, including strengths and limitations of the existing research. 16

The objective of this umbrella review is to synthesize the current evidence from systematic reviews to inform clinical practice in school-based settings. A preliminary search of MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), ERIC (EBSCO), and Academic Search Premier (EBSCO) was conducted on June 28, 2021, and no current on in-progress umbrella reviews were identified. An umbrella review is needed to consolidate the effectiveness of interventions as they pertain to academic performance and health outcomes (behavior, mental health, and socio-emotional functioning) as well as to assess the evidence. This information will aid in the development of trauma-informed, trauma-specific, school-based health services. By synthesizing data from multiple systematic reviews, clinicians in school-based settings will be relieved of the burden of assessing information from numerous sources, thereby having easy access to current, evidence-based data to aid in determining which intervention(s) might be most beneficial for their particular student population based on the type of trauma experienced, socioeconomic status, race, and other demographics.

Review question

What is the effect of trauma-informed, school-based interventions on mental health, behavior, academic performance, and/or socio-emotional functioning for children with a history of adverse events or trauma?

Inclusion criteria

Participants.

Because this review assesses the effectiveness of school-based interventions, it will consider systematic reviews that include school-aged children, aged 4 to 18 years, in school settings, with histories of adverse experiences or trauma, which may be single events or repeated experiences. Adverse experiences or trauma may include, but are not limited to, abuse (emotional, physical, sexual), neglect, exposure to war terror, parental incarceration/separation, domestic violence, and/or substance abuse. Histories of adverse experiences or trauma may be identified with screening tools, such as the ACE-Q, or though clinical diagnoses, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), toxic stress, or traumatic stress.

Interventions

This review will consider systematic reviews that evaluate trauma-informed, school-based interventions. Trauma-informed, school-based interventions will be defined as any intervention conducted by individuals equipped to recognize and respond to children with histories of adverse events or trauma. Interventionists may include school personnel, school-based health clinic staff, community leaders, specialists, or a combination. Interventions may include, but will not be not limited to, in-person cognitive-behavioral therapy, play therapy, meditation, web-based applications, and group therapy. There will be no limits regarding frequency, duration, or intensity. Whole school approaches and/or individualized clinical interventions will be included, regardless of who is delivering the intervention.

Comparators

All interventions, such as in-person cognitive-behavioral therapy, play therapy, meditation, web-based applications, and group therapy will be compared, as available, to identify their effectiveness on the outcomes of this review. As we will be comparing the interventions identified in the systematic reviews to each other, the interventions will also serve as comparators.

This review will consider systematic reviews that include the following outcomes: mental health, behavior, academic performance, and/or socio-emotional functioning. Mental health will be defined as emotional and psychological well-being and will be measured by clinical rating scales for anxiety, depression, and PTSD, among others. Clinical rating scales may include but will not be limited to the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths tool, the Child Depression Inventory, and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Behavior will be defined as the way in which a student conducts themselves, measured by signs and/or symptoms of externalizing or disruptive behavior, including disciplinary referrals; acts of aggression; lack of concentration; decreased school attendance; and lack of compliance with student codes of conduct. Academic performance will be defined as the extent to which a student has attained their educational goals and will be measured by standardized achievement tests, grade point averages, or subject area mastery. Socio-emotional functioning will be defined as a student's ability to understand, experience, express, and manage emotions in relationships. This will be measured by interpersonal engagement, self-esteem, stress management, and regulation of emotions, and may be either self-, parent-, or teacher-reported on standardized or non-standardized instruments, such as the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support.

Types of research syntheses

This umbrella review will consider quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to trauma-informed, school-based interventions for children with histories of adverse experiences or trauma. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified as such by the authors will be included in the review.

The proposed umbrella review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for umbrella reviews. 17 This review was registered with PROSPERO on July 17, 2021 (CRD42021268481).

Search strategy

The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished research syntheses. An initial limited search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and CINAHL (EBSCO) was undertaken to identify articles on the topic. The text words contained in the titles and abstracts of relevant articles, and the index terms used to describe the articles were used to develop a proposed search strategy for MEDLINE via PubMed (see Appendix I). The search strategy, including all identified keywords and index terms, will be adapted for each included information source. The reference lists of syntheses included in the review will be screened for additional articles.

Only articles published in English will be included, as the authors do not have access to translation services. No date limits will be used during the searches, as awareness and application of school-based, trauma-informed interventions is a relatively new concept, growing in popularity over the previous 15 years.

The databases to be searched include MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, JBI EBP Database (Ovid), ERIC (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Campbell Collaboration.

Sources of unpublished syntheses and gray literature to be searched include ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Sciences (ProQuest), MedNar, and OpenDOAR.

Research syntheses selection

Following the search, all identified records will be collated and uploaded into EndNote V.20 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) and duplicates removed. Titles and abstracts will then be screened by two independent reviewers for assessment against the inclusion criteria for the review. Potentially relevant syntheses will be retrieved in full and their citation details imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI; JBI, Adelaide, Australia). 18 The full text of selected citations will be assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Reasons for exclusion of full-text papers that do not meet the inclusion criteria will be recorded and reported in the umbrella review. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers at each stage of the selection process will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The results of the search will be reported in full in the final umbrella review and presented in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. 19

Assessment of methodological quality

Eligible syntheses will be critically appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality using the standardized JBI critical appraisal instrument found in JBI SUMARI. 18 Authors of the systematic reviews will be contacted to request clarification, where required. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. The results of critical appraisal will be reported in narrative form and in a table. All syntheses regardless of the results of their methodological quality will be included in the review.

Data collection

Data will be collected from syntheses included in the umbrella review by two independent reviewers using the data extraction tool in JBI SUMARI. 18 The data will include specific details about the objectives, type of review, participants, setting, the scope of database searching, dates of the search, date range of included research syntheses, number of included research syntheses, details of critical appraisal and quality assessment, the method of synthesis/analysis, and outcomes. Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Authors of the systematic reviews will be contacted to request clarification, where required.

Data summary

The data collected from the selected reviews will be tabulated and accompanied by a narrative summary to address the objective and question of this umbrella review. For systematic reviews included in the umbrella review, the number of studies that inform the outcome, the number of participants from included studies, and the heterogeneity of the results of included reviews will be reported. Clear indication of any overlaps of original research studies in each of the included research syntheses will also be presented.

The results of the umbrella review will be provided in a tabular format in a Summary of Evidence table that includes a name for each intervention, specific measures of each outcomes with the corresponding results, and key synthesized findings, including effectiveness of each intervention. A simple visual indication of the results that follows a stop-light pattern to reflect effectiveness of the interventions will be included. 17

Acknowledgments

This umbrella review will contribute toward a Doctor of Nursing Practice degree for SM.

Appendix I: Search strategy

Medline (pubmed).

Search conducted on January 13, 2022.

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• PubMed | CrossRef |
• View Full Text | PubMed |
• View Full Text | PubMed | CrossRef |

adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); school-based; trauma-informed; traumatic events; umbrella review

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Trauma-Informed Schools: Introduction to the Special Issue

• Introduction
• Published: 03 February 2016
• Volume 8 , pages 1–6, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

• Stacy Overstreet 1 &
• Sandra M. Chafouleas 2  

45k Accesses

106 Citations

48 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This special issue on trauma-informed schools is the first compilation of invited manuscripts on the topic. The forces behind the movement and key assumptions of trauma-informed approaches are reviewed. The first eight manuscripts in Part 1 of the special issue present original empirical research that can be used to support key assumptions of trauma-informed approaches to school service delivery. Part 2 of the special issue opens with a blueprint for the implementation of trauma-informed approaches using a multitiered framework, which is followed by three case studies of the use of multitiered frameworks to implement trauma-informed approaches in schools. The special issue concludes with a commentary on future directions for the trauma-informed school movement.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Collectively, the articles in this issue of School Mental Health contribute to advancing our knowledge about trauma-informed schools. Trauma-informed schools reflect a national movement to create educational environments that are responsive to the needs of trauma-exposed youth through the implementation of effective practices and systems-change strategies (Chafouleas, Johnson, Overstreet, & Santos, 2015 ; Cole, Eisner, Gregory, & Ristuccia, 2013 ). The first author has identified at least 17 states in which trauma-informed schools have taken root in small clusters of schools (e.g., Louisiana, New Jersey), at a district-wide level (e.g., California, Pennsylvania), or at a state-wide level (e.g., Massachusetts, Washington, Wisconsin). The strength of the movement is also evidenced in the recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The federal legislation, now referred to as the Every Student Succeeds Act (Pub.L. 114–95), makes explicit provisions for trauma-informed approaches in student support and academic enrichment and in preparing and training school personnel (Prewitt, 2016 ).

The vigor behind the movement stems from the growing awareness of the prevalence of exposure to trauma among youth (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2015 ; McLaughlin et al., 2013 ) and from an increased understanding of the corrosive impacts resulting from the biological, psychological, and social adaptations to chronic exposure to trauma (Hamoudi, Murray, Sorensen, & Fontaine, 2015 ). The movement has also been fueled by demonstrations of the effectiveness of school-based trauma-specific treatments in ameliorating traumatic stress reactions in youth (Rolfsnes & Idsoe, 2011 ). These drivers of the movement are reflective of SAMHSA’s ( 2014 ) four key assumptions underlying trauma-informed approaches: (a) a realization of the widespread prevalence and impact of trauma, (b) a recognition of the signs of traumatic exposure and (c) a response grounded in evidence-based practices that (d) resists re - traumatization of individuals. The first eight manuscripts in Part 1 of the special issue present original empirical research that can be used to support these key assumptions of trauma-informed approaches to school service delivery.

Part 1: Key Assumptions of Trauma-Informed Schools

Realizing the impact of trauma and recognizing its effects.

In trauma-informed schools, personnel at all levels have a basic realization about trauma and an understanding of how trauma affects student learning and behavior in the school environment (Cole et al., 2013 ; SAMHSA, 2014 ). Based on their review of existing prevalence research, Perfect, Turley, Carlson, Yohannan, and Gilles ( 2016 ) estimate that approximately two out of every three school-age children are likely to have experienced at least one traumatic event by age 17. Porche, Costello, and Rosen-Reynoso ( 2016 ) report prevalence rates close to that estimate based on a sample of nearly 66,000 school-aged youth who participated in the National Child Study of Children’s Health. Among the 53.4 % of youth who experienced adverse family events, the average number of exposures was 2.1.

The systematic review conducted by Perfect et al. ( 2016 ) is a critical resource for schools to help them realize the educational implications of such exposure and recognize that signs of trauma exposure can be expressed in a number of ways outside of “typical” traumatic stress reactions. Perfect et al. ( 2016 ) distilled findings from 83 empirical studies with school-aged youth to document the widespread impacts of trauma exposure and traumatic stress symptoms on the cognitive, academic, and teacher reported social-emotional-behavioral outcomes of students. Porche et al. ( 2016 ) also focused on the educational implications of exposure to family adversity and found the impact of family adversity on school engagement, grade retention, and placement on an individual education plan (IEP) plan was partially mediated by the number of child mental health diagnoses. Children with higher numbers of adverse family experiences were more likely to have higher numbers of mental health diagnoses, and those with higher numbers of diagnoses were less likely to be engaged in school and more likely to be retained in grade or on an IEP. Taken together, these studies help expand the lens used to recognize reactions to trauma to include a focus on outcomes that may be more familiar and meaningful to school personnel.

Responding to Trauma and Resisting Re-traumatization

Trauma-informed schools respond to the needs of trauma-exposed students by integrating effective practices, programs, and procedures into all aspects of the organization and culture. This often begins with professional development training for all personnel (SAMHSA, 2014 ). Trauma-focused professional development training typically aims to create a shared understanding of the problem of trauma exposure, build consensus for trauma-informed approaches, and engender attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors conducive to the adoption of system-wide trauma-informed approaches. Preliminary evidence suggests that trauma-focused training delivered to service providers in clinical settings builds knowledge, changes attitudes, and fosters practices favorable to trauma-informed approaches (Brown, Baker, & Wilcox, 2012 ; Green et al., 2015 ). However, the impact of professional development training in educational environments has yet to be fully evaluated.

At least one factor contributing to the dearth of research on the effectiveness of professional development training is the lack of a psychometrically sound instrument with which to measure the impact of training. In this issue, Baker, Brown, Wilcox, Overstreet, and Arora ( 2015 ) report on a psychometric evaluation of the Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care (ARTIC) Scale. Utilizing a sample of 760 staff employed in education, human services, and health care, they found that scores on the ARTIC demonstrated strong internal consistency and test–retest reliability over 6 months. Furthermore, construct and criterion-related validity were supported by correlations with indicators of familiarity with trauma-informed approaches and with staff- and system-level indicators of implementation of trauma-informed practices. We hope the findings from this study will help spur additional psychometric research on measures to assess the process and outcomes of trauma-informed approaches.

Another commonly advocated practice for responding to the needs of trauma-exposed students is universal screening for trauma exposure and/or traumatic stress reactions (Ko et al., 2008 ; Listenbee et al., 2012 ). Given the high prevalence of trauma exposure and the associated risk for a variety of negative outcomes, a universal approach to screening can maximize detection of students at risk for a wide range of adverse outcomes, allowing schools to respond to those students and ameliorate or prevent negative outcomes (Gonzalez, Monzon, Solis, Jaycox, & Langley, 2015 ). However, concerns related to limitations in funding and staffing to conduct screenings, the availability of developmentally appropriate measures and procedures, and the capacity of schools to follow-up with students identified as needing services are common barriers to universal screening for trauma exposure and traumatic stress reactions.

Two articles in the special issue (Gonzalez et al., 2015 ; Woodbridge et al., 2015 ) provide valuable information related to issues associated with appropriate measures and procedures, which provide corresponding links to data-driven supports. First, both studies used student report of experiences to minimize the burden on teachers to complete screening measures for each of their students. Second, both considered developmental issues in the selection and administration of screening measures. Gonzalez et al. ( 2015 ) provide a detailed description of modifications used to administer two of the most widely used measures of trauma exposure and traumatic stress symptoms to elementary school students. Third, both studies provide data on the percentage of students identified as potentially needing services to address needs related to trauma exposure. Among their middle school sample, Woodbridge et al. ( 2015 ) found that 13.5 % of students reported traumatic stress symptoms at the clinical or subclinical levels. Gonzalez et al. ( 2015 ) found that 9.5 % of screened elementary school students reported clinically significant levels of traumatic stress symptoms; however, 26 % of students reported moderately elevated symptoms. Keeping generalizability issues in mind, this type of prevalence information can be used by schools to begin to estimate the extent of services that may be needed following universal screenings for trauma exposure in their schools.

Information derived from universal screening can also help prevent re-traumatization of students. Early identification of students struggling with trauma can help schools change the lens through which trauma-exposed students are perceived (Dorado, Martinez, McArthur, & Liebovitz, 2016 ; Wisconsin Department of Health Services, 2013 ; Wolpow, Johnson, Hertel, & Kincaid, 2009 ). Adaptations to chronic trauma can make students seem bad, unmotivated, hostile, or lost, which can leave teachers asking, “What is wrong with this student?” when confronted with challenging behaviors. This type of lens on student behavior can result in punitive disciplinary responses, increasing the likelihood of re-traumatization resulting from seclusion or harsh zero-tolerance policies (Dorado et al., 2016 ; Ford, Chapman, Mack, & Pearson, 2006 ). When schools understand the traumatic experiences of their students, they may be more likely to ask “What has happened to this student to shape these behaviors?”, which is more likely to lead to supportive interventions that avoid re-traumatization and teach the student a new repertoire of skills (Dorado et al., 2016 ; Ford et al., 2006 ). This shift in perspective may be particularly important for reducing racial disparities in academic outcomes and suspensions. Consistent with previous research, Woodbridge et al. ( 2015 ) found that African American middle school students were more likely than Caucasian students to report exposure to trauma. When these negative personal experiences are compounded by experiences in unresponsive educational environments, African American students are disproportionately at risk for poor outcomes (Busby, Lambert, & Ialongo, 2013 ).

As school personnel increase their understanding of trauma exposure and utilize universal screening to identify the needs of trauma-exposed students, the availability of effective prevention and intervention programs to address the identified need is critically important. A number of evidence-based interventions have been identified for use at more intensive tiers within a multitiered framework (see Chafouleas et al., 2015 ); however, fewer options exist at the universal level, or Tier 1. Social-emotional learning curricula (e.g., Second Step, PATHS) offer a general approach to building resilience to stress. However, when all students in a school experience a common trauma, the school may wish to take a universal approach to foster coping with that specific experience (Nastasi, Overstreet, & Summerville, 2011 ). In this issue, Powell and Bui ( 2016 ) report on the efficacy of Journey of Hope , an eight-session intervention designed for use at the universal level following exposure to a disaster. Their comparison of students who participated in a Journey of Hope group to students in a wait-list control group revealed significant increase in positive coping and prosocial behaviors among Journey of Hope students.

As the uptake of trauma-informed prevention and intervention services continues to increase, research on the factors that influence sustainment and de-adoption of services is important (Nadeem & Ringle, 2016 ). Two articles in this issue examine factors related to the sustainment and de-adoption of the trauma-informed treatment, Cognitive Behavioral Intervention in Schools (CBITS; Stein et al., 2003 ), from the perspective of teachers (Baweja et al., 2015 ) and clinicians (Nadeem & Ringle, 2016 ). Baweja et al. ( 2015 ) interviewed teachers and clinicians about teacher-perceived facilitators and barriers to CBITS implementation. Their findings highlight the importance of creating a shared understanding of the problem being addressed to achieve teacher buy-in. Participants indicated that teachers needed more training on trauma to help them identify traumatized students and trauma reactions; teachers who perceived a need for a trauma program in their school were more likely to support CBITS. Similarly, Nadeem and Ringle ( 2016 ) found that clinicians who sustained CBITS implementation over the course of 2 years noted previous positive experiences with the intervention and improved student outcomes as contributors of sustainment.

Unfortunately, staff buy-in and evidence of positive student outcomes aren’t always enough to sustain the use of evidence-based programs and practices in the face of system-level issues. Nadeem and Ringle ( 2016 ) found that de-adoption of CBITS was associated with district-level leadership changes, financial and workforce instability, and shifting priorities at the school- and district-level. As they point out, these sustainment barriers are common to those observed with other school-based mental health programs (Forman, Olin, Hoagwood, Crowe, & Saka, 2009 ; Stirman et al., 2012 ). Comprehensive integration of trauma-informed approaches into the larger school context and culture may help overcome these system-level sustainment barriers.

Part 2: Integration of Key Assumptions to Create Trauma-Informed Schools

We know from implementation science that increased awareness of a problem and access to specific tools to address it are almost never enough to sustain a new educational innovation (Metz, Naoom, Halle, & Bartley, 2015 ; Nadeem & Ringle, 2016 ). Therefore, most frameworks for the implementation of trauma-informed schools build upon the key assumptions to create integrated, comprehensive service delivery systems that develop individual capacity and foster organizational change (Bloom, 2007 ; Cole et al., 2013 ; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2013 ; Wolpow et al., 2009 ). To set the context for Part 2 of the special issue, Chafouleas et al. ( 2015 ) offer a blueprint for the implementation of trauma-informed approaches using a multitiered framework familiar to most schools—School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). The use of a familiar framework like SWPBIS is critical for the successful implementation of trauma-informed approaches in schools because it helps align trauma-informed approaches with existing educational practices, which can ease the tension that can arise when schools attempt to integrate mental health programs into the educational environment (Cole et al., 2013 ; Evans, Stephan, & Sugai, 2014 ).

The three articles in Part 2 of the Special Issue are case studies of the use of multitiered frameworks to implement trauma-informed approaches in schools. Thus far, the discourse on the implementation and impact of trauma-informed schools has happened largely outside of the scientific literature, grounded in uncontrolled studies with few explicit connections to implementation science. The three case studies included in this special issue advance the science on trauma-informed schools by using logic models to frame their work, and by presenting preliminary data related to implementation process and student outcomes. These case studies are the first step toward rigorous research that systematically and incrementally provides evidence for the implementation process and outcomes of trauma-informed schools. The case studies are followed by a commentary by Linda Phifer and Robert Hull, a school psychologist and one of the early leaders in the trauma-informed schools movement.

Given the epidemic of trauma exposure facing our youth, the growing movement to build trauma-informed schools is laudable. However, the selection of educational practices and the validation of educational innovations demand data-based decision making (Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2003 ). The current evidence-base for trauma-informed schools is limited by its almost exclusive reliance on uncontrolled and/or advocacy-driven program evaluation studies. The trauma-informed schools movement needs sound, objective knowledge of implementation processes and rigorous evidence of proximal and distal outcomes to guide scale up efforts and to ensure that those efforts result in the expected outcomes.

Implementation research is critical to facilitate cost-efficient and effective strategies for the adoption and implementation of trauma-informed approaches by schools. Although several frameworks exist for trauma-informed schools (Bloom, 2007 ; Cole et al., 2013 ; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2013 ; Wolpow et al., 2009 ), empirical studies have yet to identify factors that lead to the adoption, successful implementation, and sustainment of trauma-informed approaches. Furthermore, aside from preliminary data from the case studies in this issue, little is known about whether the educational workforce finds trauma-informed approaches acceptable and feasible. The articles in this issue should serve as resources to help schools provide a rationale for trauma-informed approaches, identify specific trauma-informed practices, and develop measurement plans to track the implementation process. Additional research is needed to identify and evaluate strategies to build receptivity to and capacity for the adoption and sustainment of trauma-informed approaches.

Of course, research that examines the impact of trauma-informed approaches on individual- and system-level outcomes is also needed. Given the varied theoretical and practice frameworks for implementation of trauma-informed approaches, it is critical that outcome-focused research is framed explicitly within a theory of change. As is the case for the articles in this issue, logic models can be used to identify assumptions and practice elements common across frameworks, the connections between assumptions, practice elements, and expected outcomes, and the full range of outcomes that could be logically expected in the short-term and the long-term. Early reports from uncontrolled studies of trauma-informed schools have reported drastic reductions in suspensions (Stevens, 2012 , 2013a ) and office referrals (Stevens, 2013a , 2013b ). However, it is not clear: (a) what specific elements of the trauma-informed schools may have contributed to those changes, (b) what short-term outcomes (e.g., changes in classroom management approaches, changes in school discipline policies, changes in student functioning) may have served as precursors to those changes, or (c) whether there are other long-term outcomes that could be expected. There are a myriad of outcome-related questions to be asked about trauma-informed schools; a more explicit focus on theories of change will help generate and refine those questions.

Baker, C. N., Brown, S. M., Wilcox, P. D., Overstreet, S., & Arora, P. (2015). Development and psychometric evaluation of the attitudes related to trauma-informed care (ARTIC) scale. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9161-0 .

Google Scholar  

Baweja, S., DeCarlo Santiago, C., Vona, P., Pears, G., Langley, A., & Kataoka, S. (2015). Improving implementation of a school-based program for traumatized students: Identifying factors that promote teacher support and collaboration. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9170-z .

Bloom, S.L. (2007). The Sanctuary Model of trauma-informed organizational change. The Source, The National Abandoned Infants Assistance Resource Center, 16 (1), 12–14. Retrieved from http://www.sanctuaryweb.com/PDFs_new/Bloom%20The%20Sanctuary%20Model%20The%20Source%20Articles%20Sanctuary.pdf .

Brown, S. M., Baker, C. N., & Wilcox, P. (2012). Risking connection trauma training: A pathway toward trauma-informed care in child congregate care settings. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4 , 507–514. doi: 10.1037/a0025269 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Busby, D. R., Lambert, S. F., & Ialongo, N. S. (2013). Psychological symptoms linking exposure to community violence and academic functioning in African American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 , 250–262.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chafouleas, S. M., Johnson, A. H., Overstreet, S., & Santos, N. M. (2015). Toward a blueprint for trauma-informed service delivery in schools. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9166-8 .

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide . U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from http://coalition4evidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/PublicationUserFriendlyGuide03.pdf .

Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Creating and advocating for trauma - sensitive schools . Massachusetts Advocates for Children. Retrieved from http://www.traumasensitiveschools.com .

Dorado, J. S., Martinez, M., McArthur, L. E., & Liebovitz, T. (2016). Healthy Environments and Response to Trauma in Schools (HEARTS): A school-based, multi-level comprehensive prevention and intervention program for creating trauma-informed, safe and supportive schools. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9177-0 .

Evans, S. W., Stephan, S. H., & Sugai, G. (2014). Advancing research in school mental health: Introduction of a special issue on key issues in research. School Mental Health, 6 , 63–67. doi: 10.1007/s12310-014-9126-8 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse. JAMA Pediatrics, 168 , 540–546.

Ford, J., Chapman, J., Mack, M., & Pearson, G. (2006). Pathways from traumatic child victimization to delinquency: Implications for juvenile and permanency court proceedings and decisions. Juvenile and Family Court Journal , 57 , 13–26.

Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1 (1), 26–36.

Gonzalez, A., Monzon, N., Solis, D., Jaycox, L., & Langley, A. K. (2015). Trauma exposure in elementary school children: Description of screening procedures, prevalence of exposure, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9167-7 .

Green, B. L., Saunders, P. A., Power, E., Dass-Brailsford, P., Schelbert, K. B., Giller, E., et al. (2015). Trauma-informed medical care: A CME communication training for primary care providers. Family Medicine, 47 , 7.

PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hamoudi, A., Murray, D. W., Sorensen, L, & Fontaine, A. (2015). Self - regulation and toxic stress: A review of ecological, biological, and developmental studies of self - regulation and stress . OPRE Report # 2015-30, Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Ko, S. J., Kassam-Adams, N., Wilson, C., Ford, J. D., Berkowitz, S. J., & Wong, M. (2008). Creating trauma-informed systems: Child welfare, education, first responders, health care, juvenile justice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39 , 396–404.

Listenbee, R. L., Torre, J., Boyle, G., Cooper, S. W., Deer, S., Durfee, D. T., James, T., Lieberman, A., Macy, R., Marans, S., McDonnell, J., Mendoza, G., & Taguba, A. (2012). Report of the attorney general’s national task force on children exposed to violence . U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf .

McLaughlin, K. A., Koenen, K. C., Hill, E. D., Petukhova, M., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler, R. C. (2013). Traumatic event exposure and posttraumatic stress disorder in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 52 , 780–783.

Metz, A., Naoom, S. F., Halle, T., & Bartley, L. (2015). An integrated stage-based framework for implementation of early childhood programs and systems (OPRE Research Brief OPRE 2015-48) . Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Nadeem, E., & Ringle, V. (2016). De-adoption of an evidence-based trauma intervention in schools: A retrospective report from an urban school district. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9179-y .

Nastasi, B., Overstreet, S., & Summerville, M. (2011). School-based mental health services in post-disaster contexts: A public health framework. School Psychology International, 32 , 533–552.

Perfect, M., Turley, M., Carlson, J. S., Yohannan, J., & Gilles, M. S. (2016). School-related outcomes of traumatic event exposure and traumatic stress symptoms in students: A systematic review of research from 1990 to 2015. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9175-2 .

Porche, M. V., Costello, D. M., & Rosen-Reynoso, M. (2016). Adverse family experiences, child mental health, and educational outcomes for a national sample of students. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9174-3 .

Powell, T. M., & Bui, T. (2016). Supporting social and emotional skills after a disaster: Findings from a mixed methods study. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-016-9180-5 .

Prewitt, E. (2016). New elementary and secondary education law includes specific “trauma-informed practices” provisions . Retrieved from: http://www.acesconnection.com/g/aces-in-education/blog/new-elementary-and-secondary-education-law-includes-specific-trauma-informed-practices-provisions .

Rolfsnes, E. S., & Idsoe, T. (2011). School-based intervention programs for PTSD symptoms: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24 , 155–165. doi: 10.1002/jts.20622 .

Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Kataoka, S. H., Wong, M., Tu, W., Elliott, M. N., & Fink, A. (2003). A mental health intervention for school children exposed to violence: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290 , 603–611. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.5.603 .

Stevens, J. E. (2012). Lincoln high school in Walla Walla, WA tries new approach to school discipline—Suspensions drop 85% . ACEs Too High. Retrieved from http://acestoohigh.com/2012/04/23/Iincoln-high-schooI-in-waIla-walia-wa-tries-new-approach-to-school-discipline-expulsions-drop-85/ .

Stevens, J. E. (2013a). At Cherokee point elementary, kids don’t conform to school; school conforms to kids . ACEs Too High. Retrieved from http://acestoohigh.com/2013/07/22/at-cherokee-point-elementary-kids-dont-conform-to-school-school-conforms-to-kids/ .

Stevens, J. E. (2013b). There’s no such thing as a bad kid in these Spokane, WA, trauma-informed elementary schools . ACEs Too High. Retrieved from http://acestoohigh.com/2013/08/20/spokaneschools/ .

Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7 (1), 1–19.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014) . SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma - informed approach (HHS Publication No. 14-4884). Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA14-4884/SMA14-4884.pdf .

Wisconsin Department of Health Services. (2013). Retrieved from www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/tic .

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 Compassionate Schools.

Woodbridge, M. W., Sumi, W. C., Thornton, S. P., Fabrikant, N., Rouspil, K. M., Langley, A. K., & Kataoka, S. H. (2015). Screening for trauma in early adolescence: Findings from a diverse school district. School Mental Health. doi: 10.1007/s12310-015-9169-5 .

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Division 16 of the American Psychological Association for supporting the Trauma-Informed Services Workgroup, which served as the genesis for this special issue. The Workgroup was chaired by Stacy Overstreet and members included John Carlson, Sandra M. Chafouleas, Marla Saint Gilles, Austin H. Johnson, Michelle M. Perfect, Natascha M. Santos, Kathryn Simon, and Mathew R. Turley.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Tulane University, 2007 Percival Stern Hall, New Orleans, LA, 70118, USA

Stacy Overstreet

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Sandra M. Chafouleas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stacy Overstreet .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Overstreet, S., Chafouleas, S.M. Trauma-Informed Schools: Introduction to the Special Issue. School Mental Health 8 , 1–6 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1

Download citation

Published : 03 February 2016

Issue Date : March 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Trauma-informed
• School mental health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.28(Suppl 2); 2018

Applying a Trauma Informed School Systems Approach: Examples from School Community-Academic Partnerships

Sheryl h. kataoka.

UCLA Semel Institute; Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Center for Health Services and Society; Los Angeles, CA

Pamela Vona

University of Southern California; Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work; Los Angeles, CA

Alejandra Acuna

Department of Social Work, California State University Northridge; Northridge, CA

Lisa Jaycox

RAND Corporation; Arlington, VA

Pia Escudero

School Mental Health and Crisis Counseling & Intervention Services; Los Angeles Unified School District; Los Angeles, CA

Claudia Rojas

Augustus Hawkins/Community Health Advocates School; Los Angeles, CA

Erica Ramirez

Audra langley, bradley d. stein.

RAND Corporation; Pittsburgh, PA

Research concept and design: Kataoka, Vona, Jaycox, Escudero, Langley, Stein; Acquisition of data: Escudero, Langley; Data analysis and interpretation: Acuna, Stein; Manuscript draft: Kataoka, Vona, Acuna, Jaycox, Escudero, Rojas, Ramirez, Langley, Stein; Acquisition of funding: Stein; Administrative: Kataoka, Vona, Acuna, Jaycox, Escudero, Rojas, Ramirez, Langley; Supervision: Kataoka, Escudero, Langley

Schools can play an important role in addressing the effects of traumatic stress on students by providing prevention, early intervention, and intensive treatment for children exposed to trauma. This article aims to describe key domains for implementing trauma-informed practices in schools.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA) has identified trauma-informed domains and principles for use across systems of care. This article applies these domains to schools and presents a model for a Trauma-Informed School System that highlights broad macro level factors, school-wide components, and tiered supports. Community partners from one school district apply this framework through case vignettes.

Case 1 describes the macro level components of this framework and the leveraging of school policies and financing to sustain trauma-informed practices in a public health model. Case 2 illustrates a school founded on trauma-informed principles and practices, and its promotion of a safe school environment through restorative practices. Case 3 discusses the role of school leadership in engaging and empowering families, communities, and school staff to address neighborhood and school violence.

Conclusions

This article concludes with recommendations for dissemination of trauma-informed practices across schools at all stages of readiness. We identify three main areas for facilitating the use of this framework: 1) assessment of school staff knowledge and awareness of trauma; 2) assessment of school and/or district’s current implementation of trauma-informed principles and practices; 3) development and use of technology-assisted tools for broad dissemination of practices, data and evaluation, and workforce training of clinical and non-clinical staff.

Nationally, 61% of youth in 2013-2014 reported being exposed to some form of violence or abuse in the past year, 1 with ethnic minorities at increased risk compared with majority populations due to such issues as being disproportionately affected by poverty, discrimination, and other social determinants of health such as educational disparities. 2 , 3 A survey of more than 28,000 6th grade students, in a large urban school district serving primarily Latino students living in poverty, found that 94% of youth had exposure to trauma in the prior year, and 40% reported direct victimization involving a gun or knife. 4 Despite being at increased risk for traumatic stress, ethnic minority youth are less likely to receive support services such as mental health care when it is needed, 5 thus schools can play an important role in providing that care. 6 , 7

In addition to negative mental health sequelae, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and behavior problems, exposure to violence is associated with lower grade-point average, decreased high school graduation rates, 8 decreased IQ, as well as significant deficits in attention, abstract reasoning, long-term memory for verbal information, and reading ability. 9 , 10 Researchers have found that cumulative adverse childhood events, including violence exposure, is also associated with greater suspensions and absenteesism, 4 and greater chronic health conditions in childhood and lower employment productivity in adulthood. 11

With this growing body of research documenting the lifelong deleterious effects of traumatic stress on development, there has been a national call to action for trauma-informed child-serving systems of care. 12 , 13 According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), trauma-informed systems integrate practices that incorporate the following elements: safety; trust; peer support; collaboration; empowerment; and culture. 14 In 2015, Chafouleas and colleagues integrated SAMHSA’s trauma-informed elements with a service delivery approach to school supports that span universal prevention to interventions. 15 In this article, we provide case illustrations of Trauma-Informed School Systems ( Figure 1 ), that draw on the trauma-sensitive system outlined by SAMHSA and the service delivery model of Chafouleus and colleagues.

This figure is adapted from SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma Informed Approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14-4884. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2014.

In Figure 1 , we illustrate a Trauma-Informed School System Framework and highlight the key components that span the whole school and district. Frequently detection and treatment of trauma-related mental health problems in students is the focus of trauma-informed services in schools. Although important, intervening with school organizational and broader community and policy factors in preventing and responding to traumatic stress can create a trauma-informed school environment where practices on campus are approached with a trauma “lens,” ie, a perspective that understands how violence and trauma can disrupt the social and emotional and cognitive growth of students.

The outer circle in Figure 1 contains the macro level aspects of a trauma-informed school. School implementation research has found that school leadership and policies, procedures, and financing can be important to sustain trauma-informed practices. 16 National policy recommendations have also emphasized implementing evidence-based interventions across a continuum of services with evaluation, progress monitoring, and quality improvement of services, focusing on outcomes relevant to education stakeholders. 17 Schools can be seen as a public health model “hub,” playing a critical role of prevention and early intervention for students who have experienced traumatic stress, and anchoring cross-sector collaboration with other child-serving agencies such as justice, child welfare, specialty mental health, and primary care. 12

The next inner circle in Figure 1 depicts trauma-informed practices within a school that influence a positive school climate, such as a safe school environment and strong school engagement with students and families. Positive school climate is associated with less bullying and harassment on campus, as well as improved school achievement, attendance, and better student mental health. 18 Often, teachers have not received training in responding to students who have experienced adversities or traumatic events, and feel poorly equipped to support students who have experienced trauma. 19 Thus, another key component of Trauma-Informed School Systems is the provision of short- and long-term training and professional development for all school staff to increase staff awareness and knowledge about how trauma can affect students’ social, emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning. Furthermore, similar to experiences of first responders and child welfare workers, teachers have also been found to develop posttraumatic stress symptoms as a result of being exposed to students’ accounts of stress and trauma, also known as secondary traumatic stress. 20 An important part of teacher training is learning about the importance of monitoring teachers’ levels of stress, and implementing coping strategies and self-care. 21 Finally, the innermost circle of Figure 1 represents the trauma-informed social-emotional supports for students on a campus, organized in a multi-tiered system of supports from universal prevention (Tier 1), to targeted prevention and screening (Tier 2), to treatment (Tier 3). 22

Currently, most schools address only a fraction of the components included in this comprehensive model. However, with enhanced awareness, support, and resources, schools will be better positioned to broaden their trauma-informed policies and programming.

In the following section, we present three case examples from our school community-research partnerships with the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), which illustrate successes and challenges in implementing some of the Trauma-Informed School System components outlined in Figure 1. Case 1 illustrates the outer circle of this framework, describing a pilot developed at the district level to improve prevention, early detection, and treatment of traumatic stress in schools. Although trauma-informed efforts are not yet universally practiced throughout the district, we present how two schools have incorporated some of these concepts despite multiple barriers. Designed from the outset as a trauma-informed school, Case 2 demonstrates how the Trauma-Informed Principles can be applied in a school context for ethnic minority youth. Case 3 illustrates how a local elementary school has implemented components of the framework’s inner circle especially for improving trauma awareness with families and school staff and the broader community.

Case 1. A District Pilot to Monitor a Trauma-Informed School System Approach

LAUSD is a large urban school district serving 664,774 students in grades K-12, with 80% of students living in poverty and 21% of students classified as English language learners. Almost 75% of students are Latino, mainly of Mexican descent, and 8% are African American. Although the District has a School Mental Health unit (SMH) comprising more than 350 professionals, mostly psychiatric social workers (PSWs), this workforce falls far short of meeting the high level of student and family needs across the more than 900 K-12 schools. For example, national recommendations for the school social worker:student ratio is 1:250, but in LAUSD that ratio is estimated to be 1:1900, with PSWs working across 1-3 school sites. 23

For more than 17 years, LAUSD SMH has partnered with academic clinician researchers to create and disseminate trauma-informed practices conducive to being delivered in schools efficiently and effectively, and developed in a pragmatic, culturally sensitive, and “school friendly” way for students, families, and school communities. 24 , 25 At its foundation, this community-academic partnership incorporates trust, respect, transparency, and cultural values and history across research and community partners. 26 One priority that the District has had was taking a public health approach to dissemination and evaluation.

From the outermost circle of the Trauma-Informed School System model, one key component of the continued growth of trauma-informed services in the District has been the sustained leadership of SMH that has prioritized the delivery of these practices. Recently this leadership has championed schools to begin offering a multitiered system of trauma-informed supports: Tier 1 universal prevention programs, such as the Resilience Classroom Curriculum; 27 Tier 2 targeted group prevention interventions, such as the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS), 28 and Tier 3 intensive treatments, such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT), 29 among others. Unfortunately, not all schools have the resources to offer these programs, with schools often having competing demands for limited funds and workforce.

State and local policies have also provided opportunities to sustain and spread these practices. For example, the State of California’s Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) provides funding for the delivery of the evidence-based trauma practices above. 30 LAUSD SMH leaders have advocated successfully for the reimbursement of trauma interventions, allowing them to potentially sustain the delivery of individual, group, and family trauma interventions. At the local level, District leadership has prioritized School Safety and Safe Learning Environments in the district’s Strategic Plan for 2016-2019, which includes a commitment to restorative justice practices, which focus on restoring connection and healing, improved school climate, and tiered systems of services. 31 With these policies in place, schools may be more motivated to adopt trauma-informed practices. Financing of tiered services is through an array of local, state and federal funding. One challenge however is the lack of funding available for screening and early detection of traumatic stress and other mental health problems.

Recently, SMH and academic partners have co-created and piloted an online progress monitoring and cloud-based care management tool that allows SMH to track students across tiered services and screen students electronically. Social workers can track whole classrooms by measuring school climate and connectedness and resilience characteristics of students (from the Resilience Youth Development Module, California Healthy Kids Survey). 32 After receiving a trauma-informed social-emotional learning curriculum in their classroom, 27 students are offered the Wellness Check-Up, which screens them for risk of traumatic stress, depression, and substance abuse following parental written consent. The Wellness Check-Up can then be used to identify students who need a higher level of service. This online tool can track students’ evaluations and participation in services and allows district leaders and frontline school social workers to approach trauma service delivery from a public mental health perspective. As part of Tier 3, LAUSD schools also facilitate cross-sector collaboration with child welfare and probation, community agencies, and mental health facilities.

Case 2. Whole School Approach: Community Health Advocates School

In 2009, the Los Angeles Board of Education passed the Public School Choice Initiative, which created a mechanism for teachers, administrators and other school stakeholders to submit plans to develop newly constructed schools or to redesign long-term underperforming public schools. Aware of the impact that poverty and violence were having on their students, a group of teachers in South Los Angeles came together with a shared mission of creating a trauma-informed school, in collaboration with academic partners who had expertise in trauma. The community of South Los Angeles is racially and ethnically diverse with 68% Latino, 28% African American, and 2% White. 33 Forty-four percent of youth in South LA were born outside of the United States 34 and fewer than 50% of households speak English at home. 33

From the outset, community empowerment and collaboration were central to the development process. Realizing the range of experience and expertise in their community, the teachers leading the development effort established a community-partnered approach that sought to give voice to families, gang intervention workers, priests, community health providers and local police. This process was guided by the principle of “Earned Insurgence,” which asserts that leaders must earn the right to fight alongside the community. 35 A vision for the school began to take shape when one stakeholder commented, “Imagine a school training kids how to identify their own and others’ trauma and equipping them with tools to heal themselves and others.” The Community Health Advocates School (CHAS) was designed to empower future social workers and community health advocates of South Central LA. As one stakeholder remarked, it would be a school, “of the community, by the community, and for the community.” In 2012, CHAS opened its doors to 376 students with a staff of 15: 12 teachers; one counselor; one principal; and one office technician. Four years later the school has grown considerably; 516 students are currently enrolled and supported by a staff of 45 that includes: 29 teachers; one principal; two assistant principals; three counselors; and 10 other support staff.

Trauma-informed principles are woven into CHAS’s academic curriculum. The curriculum is grounded in the Linked Learning Model 36 whereby career pathway concepts are integrated throughout the four-year curriculum. With CHAS’s emphasis on social work and advocacy, students are taught about individual, community, and cultural and societal factors that increase the likelihood of violence and traumatic events in their communities. At CHAS, instruction is not limited to the classroom. Students are empowered to translate their coursework into action in the community. For example, in 11th grade literature, students read “The Catcher in the Rye” and assess the protagonist’s behavioral and mental health needs. Upon completion of this assignment, students attend a National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) conference to advocate for individuals experiencing mental health difficulties. In 9th grade, students integrate classes in algebra and geometry for an assignment to redesign South Los Angeles into a safer and healthier community, with an emphasis on reducing violence in their neighborhood.

These academic efforts are grounded in a school-community that views its students and staff through a trauma lens. School-wide programming at CHAS aims to build a strong sense of community where students feel safe physically and emotionally, trust staff, and seek support from peers. Restorative practices are central to these efforts. With origins in indigenous communities, restorative justice is a form of mediation that aims to bring reconciliation between offender and victims. 37 Every Friday begins with classroom-based community circles that promote connectedness among students. Harm and re-entry circles de-escalate conflicts and restore trust and safety after conflicts arise between students or between students and staff. Trained facilitators oversee the dialogue encouraging openness, transparency, and equality. Although the process may include restitution, it is primarily designed to heal relationships among people and within the community rather than to impose punishment. On several occasions, these circles have culminated in the realization that both the perpetrator and victim have been affected by traumatic events. As a result of these school-wide restorative efforts, CHAS has experienced two consecutive semesters with zero suspensions.

Case 3. Harmony Elementary School: Trauma-Informed School Leadership that Engages Families, Students, and Staff

The principal at the newly built Harmony Elementary School in a primarily immigrant Latino neighborhood, overwhelmed by gang-related violence and poverty, a lack of community infrastructure, and racial/ethnic disparities in academic outcomes, prioritized trauma-informed services and engagement to address the community’s needs, illustrating a number of the trauma-informed principles described in Figure 1 (eg, safety, trust, peer support, collaboration, empowerment). He supported trauma education to help educators recognize when students’ emotional and behavioral responses may be resulting from traumatic stress. Employing a community organizing approach, this principal trained teachers to have one-on-one conversations with parents about why they became educators and what they hoped to accomplish – practices that highlight development of trust and transparency between school staff and families. These critical conversations were made possible by bilingual staff (teachers and/or teaching assistants). He also trained staff to listen to the stories of students and parents and identify recurrent themes. Common concerns were used to bring neighborhood families together for peer support at house meetings (small group meetings in the neighborhood) to develop plans for social action and empowerment.

One frequent concern was neighborhood safety. In response, the principal planned neighborhood walks to inventory conditions, opinions, and resources in the area surrounding the school. The data gleaned from these efforts were used to approach city council members and police department leaders, who were invited to the school to listen to parents trained to tell “three-minute stories” about their concerns about violence in their community, a civics exercise of collaboration and mutuality. After several years, the school’s family engagement ratings improved on the district’s annual parent survey, and with improving school climate and sense of safety, Harmony was the first school in this community to reach California’s standardized test score benchmark, an indicator that Harmony Elementary was closing the gap in standardized test scores.

This family-school engagement has also translated into higher-than-usual levels of parent involvement in trauma interventions for students. A significant protective factor for resilience following a child’s trauma is the quality of parent-child interactions and communication; yet, a frequent challenge in delivering school-based programs is often engaging parents in low-resourced communities to participate in treatment. In preparing to deliver CBITS student groups, the school psychiatric social worker at Harmony met with parents after students screened at-risk for posttraumatic stress. Although the meeting’s purpose was to obtain treatment consent and invite parent participation in treatment, the meeting also became a critical part of parent education about trauma’s effects on children. Parents for the first time realized that their children were “silently suffering” with feelings of hopelessness and anxiety. The social worker empowered parents to play a key role in supporting their child’s recovery and resilience through improved communication at home.

Recommendations

There has been a growing national recognition that the effects of traumatic stress on children and their families need to be better identified and addressed by child-serving systems of care. 12 The American Academy of Pediatrics has highlighted the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACES) on childhood health and wellbeing 13 and the SAMHSA-supported National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) has played a key role over the past 16 years in disseminating evidence-based trauma services for youth across the United States. 38 This article applies general trauma-informed concepts to school systems and illustrates through case examples how a trauma-informed approach can be implemented in schools, from district-level change, to building a trauma-informed school from the ground up, to broad community-school engagement in addressing traumatic stress. As has been described in other studies, adoption of trauma-informed approaches in schools has varied by the needs of school communities, available school resources, and schools’ capacity to implement change. As a result, some have prioritized adopting targeted trauma prevention programs, others have taken a whole-school approach, and others have initiated work in schools through creation of trauma-informed school crisis teams and disaster response. 6 , 28 , 39 , 40 Our case examples suggest that it is possible to implement a range of trauma-informed activities in schools, recognizing that variation across schools may exist in terms of priorities and capacity to adopt new practices.

Assessment of School Staff Knowledge and Awareness of Trauma

As part of the initial evaluation component in a Trauma-Informed School System, a first step for a school or district is to assess the staff’s level of readiness to adopt trauma-informed practices and to identify what is already occurring on a campus. Assessments now exist for many of these dimensions. The Attitudes Related to Trauma-Informed Care Scale (ARTIC) is designed to measure staff attitudes about trauma-informed services across a number of systems of care, including schools. 41

Assessment of School and/or District’s Current Implementation of Trauma-Informed Principles and Practices

The SAMHSA-funded Treatment and Services Adaptation Center for Resilience, Hope, and Wellness in Schools (TSA for Schools; traumaawareschools.org) has developed an online trauma-informed school self-assessment that provides schools with a rubric to help gauge their use of trauma-informed programming and policies and provides concrete recommendations for building on and enhancing these efforts. 42 Future research is needed to evaluate how these assessments relate to the ability of a district or school to redesign themselves into a trauma-informed system.

Development and Use of Technology-Assisted Tools for Broad Dissemination of Practices, Data and Evaluation, and Workforce Training of Clinical and Non-Clinical Staff

Technology can also facilitate school staff’s adoption of trauma-informed school principles and practices. Case 1 described the creation of online tools to measure school climate and screen and track student’s needs. Such online data collection can also help school leaders make more informed decisions regarding the needs of their students and the value of additional support services. Furthermore, training opportunities for clinicians practicing in schools can be limited due to scarce funding and lack of infrastructure and support. 43 To enhance professional development efforts, online trauma intervention trainings and implementation support platforms such as the CBITS website (cbitsprogram.org) have been shown to be an efficient approach for enhancing training for school mental health clinicians 44 and therefore may be a cost-efficient strategy for providing training and ongoing consultation to school-based clinicians.

Workforce training and implementation tools for teachers and other nonclinical school staff is another important aspect of professional development in disseminating trauma-informed practices in schools. Although some schools offer trauma-focused in-services, it is unclear if this approach alone is sufficient to successfully enhance knowledge and skills of non-clinicians. 40 Online simulations to reinforce teachers’ skills in interacting with students with trauma histories, and web-based trainings for teachers exposed to the secondary traumatic stress following teaching highly stressed and traumatized students are being developed in partnership with teachers and administrators to address this potential gap.

In conclusion, implementation of the core components of a Trauma-Informed School System can build on the strengths of each school and district, with no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Schools often have existing resources and programs that can be incorporated into a trauma-informed system, with some sites choosing to expand one component of the framework, while others choose to adopt other components initially. Irrespective of the “starting point,” the implementation of trauma-informed school systems will benefit from ongoing community-research partnerships to develop feasible and scalable tools and to evaluate their effectiveness in helping schools and districts successfully achieve desired changes. 14 , 15

• Skip to content
• Skip to search
• Staff portal (Inside the department)
• Student portal
• Key links for students

Other users

• Forgot password

Notifications

{{item.title}}, my essentials, ask for help, contact edconnect, directory a to z, how to guides.

• Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation

Trauma-informed practice in schools: An explainer

This report was originally published 28 January 2020.

• 2020 trauma informed practice in schools (PDF 444 KB)

This explainer briefly summarises the evidence on trauma-informed practice within an educational context. It is intended as a brief introduction to the topic for teachers, principals and other school staff. It provides information on six key questions:

• What is trauma?
• How prevalent is developmental trauma among children in NSW ?
• How can teachers and school staff recognise behaviours related to trauma?
• What is trauma-informed practice?
• What strategies can schools and teachers use to support students impacted by trauma?
• How can schools care for staff who are supporting students impacted by trauma?

Some links to further reading are provided within the text for readers wanting a more advanced understanding of developmental trauma and trauma-informed practice within an educational context.

How to use this resource

Purpose of resource.

The Trauma-informed practice in schools: An explainer resource briefly summarises the evidence on trauma-informed practice within an educational context.

When and how to use

The resource is review of research evidence and is accompanied by a Trauma-informed practice discussion guide . School leaders and teachers can read, reflect on, discuss and implement themes and strategies highlighted in the resource as part of school-developed High Impact Professional Learning (HIPL) .

The appropriate time to use this resource may differ for each school, leader and teacher.

School leaders can:

• unpack the resource, using the accompanying discussion guide , as part of whole-school professional development and/or stage or grade team meetings
• encourage teachers to share key findings during professional development
• reflect on strategies, policies or practices currently in place to support students impacted by trauma, as well as staff who are supporting these students
• lead discussions with staff about areas to improve across the school – you may wish to refer to the Achieving School Excellence in Wellbeing and Inclusion tool
• email Trauma-Informed Practice at [email protected] to schedule the Trauma-informed Practice for Improved Learning and Wellbeing professional learning for their school.

Teachers can:

• read the resource and reflect on policies and strategies currently in place at their school or in their classroom that support a trauma-informed practice approach
• unpack the resource, using the accompanying discussion guide , in a group setting
• refer to the additional reading provided in the resource to further develop their understanding of developmental trauma and trauma-informed practice within an educational context
• identify strategies to apply in the classroom to support students impacted by trauma
• reflect on the impact of the applied strategies.

Email feedback about this resource to [email protected] using subject line ‘Trauma-informed practice in schools: An explainer’. You can also subscribe to the CESE newsletter and connect with us on Yammer .

Alignment to system priorities and/or needs:

NSW Department of Education Disability Strategy

NSW Department of Education Inclusive, Engaging and Respectful Schools policy

Alignment to School Excellence Framework: Learning domain – wellbeing; Teaching domain – effective classroom practice, learning and development

Alignment with existing frameworks: Australian Professional Standards for Teachers – Standards 1, 4, 6

NSW Wellbeing Framework for Schools – Connect, Succeed, Thrive

Disability Standards for Education

Reviewed by: School Services and Disability Strategy Implementation directorates

Created/last updated: Originally published 28 January 2020

To be reviewed: CESE publications are prepared through a rigorous process. Resources are reviewed periodically as part of an ongoing evaluation plan

Related resources

• Trauma-informed practice discussion guide
• Research report

Business Unit:

Jump to navigation

• About Child Trauma
• Trauma Types
• Populations at Risk
• Trauma Treatments
• Screening and Assessment
• Psychological First Aid and SPR
• Core Curriculum on Childhood Trauma
• Trauma-Informed Systems
• Culture and Trauma
• Families and Trauma
• Family-Youth-Provider-Partnerships
• Secondary Traumatic Stress
• Trauma-Informed Organizational Assessment
• All NCTSN Resources
• Información en Español
• Public Awareness
• Structure and Governance
• Network Members
• Strategic Partnerships
• Policy Issues
• Position Statements
• About This Website

GET HELP NOW

Trauma-Informed Schools for Children in K-12: A System Framework

You are here.

Resource Description

Highlights the key elements of the 2017  NCTSN System Framework for Trauma-Informed Schools , while also underscor­ing the public health implications of trauma exposure and the benefits of having trauma-informed schools. Updated March 2021.

• Printer-friendly version

Related Resources

Creating, supporting, and sustaining trauma-informed schools: a system framework.

Presents a tiered approach to creating a trauma-informed school environment that addresses the needs of all students, staff, administrators, and families who might be at risk for experiencing the symptoms of traumatic stress.

Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Toolkit

Table of contents, introduction: using this toolkit, section 1: introducing trauma and trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools, section 2: universal trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools practices and processes, section 3: building a culture of faculty and staff compassion resilience, section 4: tier ii and tier iii interventions and supports, section 5: engaging parents, families, and communities, section 6: implementing and evaluating your trauma-informed, resilience-oriented innovations, section 7: educating during crisis: the covid-19 pandemic and beyond—recommendations for all phases.

The Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented (TR) Schools Toolkit outlines a framework for implementing trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approaches in any school or school district. The primary audience for this toolkit includes school administrators, school board members, teachers, and student support staff, parents and families, and community partners.

The toolkit was developed by the National Council for Mental Wellbeing in partnership with the National Center for School Safety.

The Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Toolkit outlines a framework for implementing these approaches in any school or school district. It utilizes tools, videos, professional development slide decks, and concise instruction to explain the concepts of trauma and toxic stress, offers individual and school-wide strategies for addressing trauma and fostering resilience for students, staff, and families, and offers strategies to assess the impact of these adaptations throughout the school community.

The sections’ topics are presented in the order your school or district will likely start to address them. However, this is a continual process of implementation, assessment, and improvement. As such, it is likely that you will not fully complete activities in one section before moving to the next, and action steps of one section may influence action and understanding of another.

Creates a shared understanding of core concepts and offers tools to encourage new mindsets about students, staff, and families

Outlines school- and district-wide strategies to establish safe and secure environments and relationships

Explains the importance of promoting staff wellness through improved resources and policies as universal strategies of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools

Details specific approaches for multi-tiered systems of support

Outlines strategies for including and supporting parents, families, and communities in student-centered planning

Explains how to build a system to continually evaluate the strengths and needs of your school

Details the use of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approaches in response to crises

Action Steps structure each section and offer different approaches for understanding and utilizing the information. Implementation Tools, Alternate Learning Strategies, and Inclusion and Engagement Action Steps are designed to provide tangible activities to apply your learnings in your school or district.

These appear throughout the toolkit in color-coded call-outs. The color key is below.

Action Steps

Overarching activities for schools to pursue

Implementation Tools

Concrete tools to integrate trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approaches

Defines important concepts used throughout the toolkit

Alternate Learning Strategies

Videos supplementing written content

Inclusion and Engagement Action Steps

Considerations to promote inclusion and engagement of all members of your school community

Case Example

Real-life example of a concept or resource that’s put into practice

Who should use this toolkit?

The primary audience for this toolkit includes: school administrators, school board members, teachers and student support staff, parents and families, and community partners. This toolkit recognizes the diversity of schools, districts, and communities and is designed to be applicable regardless of size, geography, and resources. Most resources included and citations referenced are free to use and in the public domain to prioritize accessibility. The authors understand that financial resources vary widely district-to-district, and so, each Action Step can be implemented with no or minimal additional funding needed.

It is recommended that each school or district form a core team to lead their trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools initiative. This team should consist of members who represent the diversity of the school community and are motivated and empowered to implement the Action Steps.

This toolkit is designed for adult learners, who: 1

• Are autonomous and self-directed: Implementation Tools for discussion, learning, and input from all adults involved in the school are offered.
• Have a foundation of life experiences and knowledge: This toolkit acknowledges the strengths each learner brings and encourages them to utilize them in the implementation of the material.
• Are goal-oriented: Action Steps provide clearly defined elements to learn, understand, and integrate into daily practice.
• Are relevancy-oriented: This toolkit offers guidance for elementary, middle, and high school settings; for teachers, staff, parents, families, and communities; and for programs with existing initiatives, such as PBIS, social and emotional learning, and multi-tiered systems of support.
• Are practical: Implementation Tools and Inclusion and Engagement Action Steps ensure learners can act on the information immediately.
• Want to be shown respect: This toolkit acknowledges that schools are experts on their own context and offers guidance to integrate into existing structures. It is strengths-based and acknowledges the incredible expertise and dedication educators, students, parents, and communities bring to their schools.

Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Action Steps Checklist

• Establish understandings of trauma, its impact, and prevalence in school communities
• Encourage new mindsets about students and their experiences of trauma and toxic stress
• Embed trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles into all decision-making
• Adapt the physical school environment to foster safety and learning
• Utilize a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens to build relationships
• Implement resilience-building classroom strategies
• Increase awareness and understanding of compassion fatigue, burnout, and compassion resilience
• Encourage wellness assessment and seek feedback from staff on resilient culture
• Implement individual and district-wide adaptations to promote resilience
• Create student plans responsive to trauma and rooted in resilience-building approaches
• Adapt schoolwide discipline processes
• Implement targeted practices for Tier III supports
• Apply a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens to parent and family engagement
• Identify and respond to needs of parents and families
• Build partnerships with families and community partners
• Establish a collaborative team to lead your trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools initiative
• Engage in the implementation process
• Utilize a continuous quality improvement approach
• Use a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens to plan and decide
• Undertake activities to put safety first
• Create support infrastructure for teachers and staff

Implement classroom strategies to promote safety and connection

• Alabama Pathways. (2014). Principles of Adult Learning. Alabama Childcare and Education Professional Development System. Retrieved February 18, 2021 from https://alabamapathways.org/principles-of-adult-learning/
• Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Reference Sheet
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Principles Assessment Questions
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Review Tool for School Policies, Protocols, Procedures & Documents
• Practicing Responding to Trauma Scenarios
• Personal Identity and Loss Activity
• Brain Rules Practice Template Tool
• Introduction to Trauma and Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Slide Deck

Students, staff, administrators, and families experience multiple stressors each day. For many, stressors are rising to the level of distress and trauma, and negatively impact their ability to live healthy lives and learn to their full potential. Before educators can make decisions about effective ways to address trauma in their classroom and throughout the school, they need to understand what it is, its impact generally, and its disproportionate effects on individuals of color and other underserved groups. This section of the toolkit establishes a common vocabulary related to trauma and resilience, their impact on life, learning, and other important concepts, and offers strategies to begin to embed a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approach throughout the school community before a crisis happens.

Establish Understandings of Trauma, Its Impact, and Prevalence in School Communities

Trauma and its impact are individual experiences. Multiple kinds of events such as child maltreatment, violence in the home, substance misuse, loneliness, serious illness, car accidents, natural disasters like flooding and forest fires, terrorism, and war, can all be experiences of trauma. Additionally, groups of people defined by culture, race, religion, ability, gender, sexuality, territory, socioeconomic status, or language can have collective experiences that impact themselves and multiple generations of their offspring. Often experiences of oppression related to the multiple pieces of a person’s identity layer on each other, and intensify and increase the frequency of trauma.

Defining Trauma

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances experienced or witnessed by an individual that amount to an overwhelming or life-changing effect on the individual’s well-being. 1 Trauma affects people in numerous and individualized ways, such as health complications, distrust of people, institutions, and systems, and an altered view of the world, beliefs, and spirituality.

Sometimes conflated, there is a difference in definitions for trauma , ACEs , and toxic stress .

An umbrella term used to describe the impacts of ACEs and toxic stress.

Specific experiences occurring during childhood, such as abuse or neglect.

Toxic Stress

Occurs when an individual “experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity” without adequate support. This term refers to the physiological stress response to ACEs. Without intervention, this response can disrupt brain and organ development and increase risk for serious health consequences later in life. 33

Historical Trauma

The cumulative and psychological wounding, over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences. 34

Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are a sociological measure of childhood experiences that can cause trauma. They include events occurring during childhood such as experiencing or witnessing violence and parental separation. Research has linked ACEs to chronic health issues, including mental illness and addiction. 2 Since 1997, almost every state has completed the ACEs survey at least once with a cross-sample of their population. Consistent through all the surveys is the conclusion that ACEs are common. They exist across states, communities, cultures, races, geographical areas, socio-economic categories, and languages. 3 Additional studies have been done in schools. A study in Washington State concluded that, on average, 13 out of every 30 students in a classroom will have toxic stress from 3 or more ACEs. 4

The original list of ten ACEs in the seminal 1997 study 5 has since been expanded as the field’s definitions of trauma have solidified and gaps in the list have been highlighted. 6 Trauma is now understood to result from experiences like food insecurity, poverty, and discrimination. 7

Historical trauma is the cumulative and psychological wounding, over the lifespan and across generations, emanating from massive group trauma experiences. 8 This form of trauma stems from an event affecting a group of people, and the consequences of the event impact generations to come, particularly as systems and institutions continue to inflict pain related to this event. 9 Some examples include genocide and forced assimilation of indigenous peoples in the United States, slavery, Jim Crow era discrimination, and procedures and policies that make it difficult for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color to achieve their goals. This form of trauma has long-lasting impacts and has been tied to disparities in health and educational outcomes for these populations.

Effects on Learning

Toxic stress, resulting from ACEs and trauma, can disrupt a learning brain. Much of our understanding of the effects of toxic stress on the brain comes from the work of Dr. Bruce Perry. 10 The stress response is not inherently bad; the brain reacts to challenging situations to protect the body through what is often called a fight, flight, or freeze response. 11 However, when experienced frequently and intensely, this stress response becomes toxic. The physiological response can negatively impact the development of the brain and other organs, potentially resulting in cognitive impairment and chronic physical disease. 12

An escalated stress response system activates the lower and midbrain (indicated by purple, green, and yellow on the diagram) causing individuals to be hypervigilant to threats and fears. When the stress response system remains escalated over an extended period of time, the brain can be structurally, chemically, and neurologically changed. Thus, learning is often impacted as memory function, attention, and cognitive abilities can be compromised.

In addition to the physiological disruption of learning, trauma can negatively impact a child’s sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Trauma is known to impact an individual’s sense of identity and how they perceive themselves. 13 Confidence and self-esteem are tied to learning. Students with low self-esteem frequently are hesitant to engage in learning and may respond to challenges in the classroom with frustration, anger, and disinterest. 14 This change in worldview, identity, and learning ability often manifests itself in negative behaviors. Educators’ responses to these attitudes and behaviors, such as focusing on poor performance, publicly addressing the issue, and ignoring students who are struggling can exacerbate the reaction, which further isolates and discourages the student. 15

Resilience—the Antidote

The prevalence and impact of trauma can be overwhelming and intimidating. Fortunately, it is possible to heal and prevent trauma and improve responses to stressors . Resilience is “the capability of individuals to cope successfully in the face of significant change, adversity, or risk.” 16 This capability is not fixed; through targeted strategies and interventions, it is possible for an individual’s resilience to improve . Changes to the environment, the development of protective factors, and practicing skills to manage stress response all can promote resilience.

• To promote resilience among students, it is important for teachers and staff to seek to understand the role identity and culture play in their own lives. During a professional development meeting, consider leading the group in the Personal Identity and Loss Activity. This exercise is meant to provide an experiential understanding of the loss of identity and the impact of intergenerational trauma.
• One activity you may consider is completing an implicit bias assessment. This can help educators to improve their ability to catch when they may be making assumptions about a student’s abilities and behaviors, and improve their pedagogical approaches to meet the student’s needs.
• It is also important to recognize that culture can be a source of resilience for individuals and communities. Make space in the school to celebrate the many aspects of diversity of your school community.

Encourage New Mindsets about Students and Their Experiences of Trauma and Toxic Stress

Where does that leave schools? With stress, toxic stress, and trauma on the rise, how can they respond? To begin, educators, administrators, and any individuals who interact with students must be introduced to the most basic information about trauma, its prevalence, and its impact. Consider sharing with teachers the article, 10 Things About Childhood Trauma Every Teacher Needs to Know , and creating one-page fact sheets about trauma and why your school and/or district is paying special attention to this issue, such as those provided by the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN) for preschool , elementary , middle school , and high school children. Integrate NEAR Science 17 (Neurobiology, Epigenetics, ACEs and Resilience) into science curricula at the high school level. Host information sessions at school board meetings, parent-teacher conferences, professional development meetings, and other established meetings to share definitions and begin community conversations about trauma and resilience, and how both show up in your school. Included in this toolkit is an introductory presentation that you can adapt for these types of sessions.

One goal of learning about trauma and resilience is to start to shift mindsets about students and their experiences of trauma and toxic stress. Support teachers, staff, families, and even the students themselves to adapt their perspective to understand that student disengagement, frustration, emotional dysregulation, and lack of academic success can all be related to experiences of distress, toxic stress, and trauma. Often, it’s not a question of their motivation to learn, but rather a question of what is getting in the way of learning. Even shifting language from describing a student as “acting out” or “uncontrollable” to “emotionally dysregulated” and “lacking skills” helps to focus an educator’s actions on teaching lagging skills and repairing relationships rather than on punishment.

Students experiencing trauma and toxic stress may be in a state of alarm while in the classroom, whether in person or virtually. 18 They may be teetering on the edge of calm and upset, and seemingly small actions may make the difference of which side they fall on. Even nonverbal cues from educators and staff may have a heightened effect on a student sitting in this state. 19 This is why it is important to shift mindsets from a behavioral deficit model to an understanding of students’ behavior .

Because this mindset may be new, it is important to practice how to respond when trauma and toxic stress show up in the classroom. When teachers and staff adopt and utilize regulating practices with students, they can help to keep a situation from escalating and even move a student from a state of alarm to calm, which allows their brain to utilize their cortex and learn more effectively. 20 Use the Practice Responding to Trauma Scenarios tool during professional development and parent-teacher conferences to consider how to respond to situations differently. Scenarios for early childhood, elementary, and secondary age groups are provided. Each practice scenario includes a description of a traditional response to challenging behaviors. Then, it offers an alternative rooted in trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles and practices.

The more educators can practice responding, the more effective they will become. Frequently, our brains run automatically, making decisions about how we feel about interactions and situations without our conscience recognition. 21 Fortunately, these automatic responses can be confronted. Consider these six brain rules to practice changing learned habits and behaviors for responding to challenges in the classroom:

• “The brain seeks to minimize social threats and maximize opportunities to connection with others in the community.” 22 Seek to prioritize relationships and connection-building activities throughout the school community.
• “Positive relationships keep our safety-threat detection system in check.” 23 Build community norms around supporting academic safety. Foster a psychologically safe environment that encourages the growth and risk-taking needed for learning.
• “Culture guides how we process information.” 24 Consider taking time to reflect on your own culture and view of the world. Our differences can be our strength, but only when we understand how they are playing out in our relationships and interactions.
• “Attention drives learning.” 25 Engage your brain in learning rather than operating on auto-pilot during challenging situations.
• “All new information must be coupled with existing funds of knowledge in order to be learned.” 26 Encourage each other to reflect on how new information is similar to or different from previous experiences and current expectations. This curiosity can spur growth and foster relationships.
• “The brain physically grows through challenge and stretch, expanding its ability to do more complex thinking and learning.” 27 Lean into learning. Support each other to engage in growth rather than step away when things are different or difficult. 28

A template found in this toolkit of the six brain rules includes the six rules, an explanation of each, implementation examples for work with students and staff, and a place for teachers to insert their own method of implementation.

Educators can also refer to three tips for making any lesson more culturally responsive. These tips take into account how students who come from a communal and oral tradition can be engaged in learning new knowledge and concepts. The tips are not based on language or race, but on a broader, cross-cultural oral tradition.

• Gamify it: Games “get the brain’s attention and require active processing,” which makes them a powerful strategy in the classroom. 29
• Make it social: Organize learning activities to encourage students to rely on each other. This will “build on students’ communal orientation…attention and engagement.” 30
• Storify it: The use of stories is universal. Students “learn content more effectively if they can create a coherent narrative about the topic or process presented. That’s the brain’s way of weaving it all together.” 31

Videos can be a helpful way to understand and see a visual depiction of what is meant by changing mindsets. In the Alternate Learning Strategy box, you will find videos to encourage staff, students, families, and communities to think about trauma and resilience in the classroom and school community.

Alternate Learning Strategy

Videos for understanding trauma, ACEs, and toxic stress and resilience:

• How childhood trauma affects health across a lifetime by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris at TEDMED 2015
• Experiences Build Brain Architecture from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
• Serve & Return: Interaction Shapes Brain Circuitry from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
• Toxic Stress Derails Healthy Development from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
• InBrief: The Science of Neglect from the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University
• Intergenerational Trauma Animation from the Healing Foundation
• How Do People Experience Historical Trauma? from the Children, Youth & Family Consortium at the University of Minnesota Extension
• Brains: Journey to Resilience from Alberta Family Wellness
• ReMoved by Nathanael Matanick
• Purple Glasses from Teeland Middle School at the Mat-Su Borough School District community.

Embed Trauma-Informed, Reslience-Oriented Principles into all Decision-making

Throughout this toolkit we will use the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles as applied to the field of education as a lens for choosing trauma-informed, resilience-oriented practices, processes, and procedures. When these principles are embedded in the school culture, policies, and daily practices, it can be identified as a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school: “an innovation in which schools infuse the core values safety, trust, choice, collaboration, and empowerment into their Multi-Tiered System of Support’s practices, assessments, and program adjustments. [The school] acknowledges the high prevalence of traumatic exposure for students, the importance of staff wellness, and strives to meet the unique needs of all learners.” 32

Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools

The central feature of a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school is the infusion of the Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools throughout the school community, its processes, procedures, and environments. The Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Reference Sheet serves as a quick reference sheet to help readers remember, understand, and communicate the principles.

To begin to embed these principles into decision-making, a good activity is to use the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Principles Assessment Questions tool to drive discussions with leadership, staff, students, and the broader school community. The guiding questions in this tool are broader and more theoretical, and may be used to open a discussion. The specific questions highlight more concrete considerations to take action on, and could easily be turned into a survey that is disseminated to school community members or used in a focus group. Consider using existing channels of communication, such as parent-teacher conferences and professional development days, to make it easier to gather this information. When making decisions that affect the school community, it is recommended that decision-makers come back to these principles and assessment questions. As you make plans and decisions, ask:

• How will this decision further embed the principles in our school community?
• How have we utilized these principles to make this decision?
• Is there an additional step we may need to take to ensure these principles are utilized in our decisionmaking process?

6 Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools

• Safety Ensuring physical, academic, social, behavioral, and emotional safety in the school community
• Trustworthiness Maximizing trustworthiness through task clarity, consistency, and interpersonal boundaries between all members of the school community
• Student Voice and Empowerment Maximizing student and family input, choice and control
• Collaboration Facilitating collaboration and sharing power
• Peer Support Providing help and support for each other, for both students and staff
• Inclusion and Engagement Practicing inclusion, seeking to prevent discrimination, and celebrating the unique aspects of our school community
• SAMHSA. (March 2014). TIP 57: Trauma-Informed Care in Behavioral Health Services. SMA14-4816. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://store.samhsa.gov/product/TIP-57-Trauma-Informed-Carein-Behavioral-Health-Services/SMA14-4816 .
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (April 3, 2020). Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences. Violence Prevention. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/fastfact.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fviolenceprevention%2Facestudy%2Ffastfact.html .
• Prewitt, E. (February 20, 2020). States Collecting ACE Date in the BRFSS through 2019. ACEs Connection. Retrieved October 22, 2020 from https://www.acesconnection.com/g/state-aces-actiongroup/blog/behavioral-risk-factor-surveillance-system-brfss .
• Stevens, Jane. (May 31, 2012). Massachusetts, Washington State lead U.S. trauma-sensitive school movement. ACEs Too High. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://acestoohigh.com/2012/05/31/massachusetts-washington-state-lead-u-s-trauma-sensitive-school-movement/ . While this study has not been repeated, further research on this topic can be found at: https://extension.wsu.edu/cafru/research/
• CDC. (April 13, 2020). About the CDC-Kaiser ACE Study. Violence Prevention. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/aces/about.html .
• McEwen, C. and Gregerson, S. (2018). A Critical Assessment of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study at 20 Years. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2019;56(6), 790-794.
• Yellow Horse Brave Heart, M. (2008). Gender Differences in the Historical Trauma Responses Among the Lakota. Journal of Health & Social Policy 10(4), 1-21.
• Michaels, C. (2010). Historical Trauma and Microaggressions: A Framework for Culturally-Based Practice. eReview Center for Excellence in Children’s Mental Health. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from http://www.ncdsv.org/images/CMHRerReview_TraumaAndChildWelfare-Part2_Oct2010.pdf .
• To learn more about Dr. Bruce Perry’s work, visit http://www.bdperry.com .
• Center on the Developing Child. (n.d.). Toxic Stress. Harvard University. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/toxic-stress/ .
• Cikanavicius, D. (2018). 5 Ways Childhood Neglect and Trauma Skews our Self-Esteem. PsychCentral. Retrieved October 23, 2020 from https://blogs.psychcentral.com/psychologyself/2018/05/childhood-self-esteem/ .
• Center for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2020). Students Experiencing Low Self-esteem or Low Perceptions of Competence. American Psychological Association. Retrieved September 11, 2020 from https://www.apa.org/ed/schools/primer/self-esteem.pdf .
• Stewart, M., Reid, G., and Mangham, C. (1997). Fostering children’s resilience. Journal of Pediatric Nursing 12(1), 21-31.
• Trauma-Informed Oregon. (n.d.). Module 4: A Brief Overview of NEAR Science. Trauma-informed Oregon. Retrieved October 22, 2020 from https://traumainformedoregon.org/tic-intro-trainingmodules/module-4/ .
• Perry, Bruce. (December 13, 2016). The Brain Science Behind Student Trauma. Education Week. Retrieved September 30, 2020 from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/12/14/the-brainscience-behind-student-trauma.html .
• Harrison Berg, Jill. (2020). Leading Together/Retraining the Brain. Educational Leadership, 77(8),
• Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press. P. 47.
• Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press. P. 48.
• Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain. Corwin Press. P. 49.
• Harrison Berg, Jill. (2020). Leading Together/Retraining the Brain. Educational Leadership, 77(8), pages 86-87. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may20/vol77/num08/Retraining-the-Brain.aspx .
• Hammond, Z. (2015). 3 Tips to Make Any Lesson More Culturally Responsive. Cult of Pedagogy. Retrieved November 6, 2020 from https://www.cultofpedagogy.com/culturally-responsive-teachingstrategies/ .
• Black, P., Cook, E., and Daniel, S. (2017). Wisconsin’s Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved October 22, 2020 from https://dpi.wi.gov/sspw/mental-health/trauma .
• Regulation Strategies Reference Sheet
• Sensory Strategies Reference Sheet
• Addressing the Use of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Principles
• Trauma-Sensitive Classroom Environment Assessment
• Physical Environment
• Building Relationships
• Classroom Strategies

Everyone benefits from a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school community culture, regardless of their histories and experiences. It is not always obvious which students, staff, or community members have been impacted by toxic stress and trauma. Implementing trauma-informed, resilience-oriented adaptations at the universal level ensures that everyone in the school can experience a basic level of support. Section 3 – Tier II and III Supports describes how to build systems of supports for those with a higher level of need. The Universal or Tier I level along with Tier II and III assessments, instruction, and supports make up a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS). In the Federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) MTSS is defined as “a comprehensive continuum of evidence-based, systemic practices to support a rapid response to students’ needs, with regular observation to facilitate data-based instructional decision making.” 1 Universal approaches help schools foster safe environments, focus on building relationships throughout the school community, integrate resilience-building classroom strategies, and provide meaningful support for teachers and staff. 2 These resilience-building efforts may improve the school community’s response to a crisis because of the trust and relationship built in advance. This is a big topic, and so, for ease of reading, we have separated teacher and staff compassion resilience into its own section. Please turn to the next section for more information.

Adapt the Physical School Environment to Foster Safety and Learning

Regardless of the setting, safety is the first and foremost consideration. When students feel safe, they are able to focus on building relationships and learning. When they do not feel safe, they spend time in their lower brain, endeavoring to ensure their personal security. Students in this state may withdraw or respond aggressively as they attempt to control what is perceived as threatening. 3 As discussed in Section 1, as a concept, this has several components: physical, emotional, social, behavioral, academic, and moral. First, we will focus on physical safety.

What should be addressed when focusing on physical safety? Any part of the school community, including:

• School building and administrative buildings
• Hallways and bathrooms
• Playgrounds
• School bus, transportation
• Field trip locations
• Athletic and arts facilities

The goal is to create predictable environments that are attentive to transitions and sensory needs. This toolkit narrows in on the classroom, but recommendations shared are applicable to all parts of the school community. Beginning in the classroom focuses our attention on those factors that immediately impact learning.

Assess Classrooms for Environmental Safety and Optimal Learning

Small changes will make a big difference. Consider how each of the components listed in this diagram may affect an individual student’s ability to focus and learn. Recommendations for creating inclusive, safe classrooms are listed below. This list is not exhaustive, and one activity you can lead with students is to ask them what would make the classroom a better place for them to learn. Consider asking them to complete the Classroom Environment Assessment to anonymously provide feedback. If a student complains or seems irritated by something in the room, talk with them more about this issue and seek to collaborate to resolve it.

• Calming tools, kits, and spaces: Normalize the need to regulate emotions in the classroom with a designated space or calming tools such as stress balls, small slinkies, thinking putty, an expanding ball, and glitter jars to name a few. When students are sent out of the classroom to regulate, it sends the message that regulating emotions is not a normal classroom experience. 4
• Adjust lighting: Fluorescent lighting and its noise can be harsh for children. Use full-spectrum light bulbs and cover fluorescent lights with curtains. 5
• Signage and visuals: Use clear and positive signage that is not cluttered. Students should easily understand images and text.
• Sound: Eliminate excess noise in the classroom as much as possible.
• Temperature: Research suggests comfortable classroom temperatures, around 72˚F, lead to optimal performance. 6 If you cannot change the temperature, allow students to wear layers to manage their comfort.

Videos for understanding changes to the physical environment:

• De-escalation Spaces at Pearl-Cohn High School by Edutopia
• Peace Corners at Fall-Hamilton Elementary School by Edutopia
• A School’s Journey Toward Trauma Sensitivity by Trauma Sensitive Schools
• Fall-Hamilton Elementary: Transitioning to Trauma-Informed Practices to Support Learning by Edutopia
• What Does a Trauma-Sensitive Middle/High School Look Like? by Trauma Sensitive Schools

Integrate Movement into the Classroom

Students at all grade levels benefit from movement throughout the day. This does not necessarily have to be large-scale exercises or a long activity. But, short movement breaks can help students to regulate and reset, giving them more efficient access to the cortex of their brains. Build brain breaks into each day. Brain breaks reduce stress and increase attention. 7 Some activities include stretching as a class, cross-lateral exercises, and moving in patterns. These are great strategies students can take home with them to practice when working on homework as well.

Utilize a Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Lens to Build Relationships

At the foundation of a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school is relationships. It is not necessarily an easy task to form supportive relationships with all students. Some students may be resistant to efforts to connect. This is where a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens and our understanding of brain development come in. As babies, we learn to self-soothe and build self-regulation skills through our connections with caregivers. Through the cyclical pattern of expressing a need and having it met, also called attunement, a child learns that people will take care of them. Regulation and relationships are intertwined at this stage of development, and if trauma interrupts this development, the effects may be lifelong. As children grow, this need for attunement does not disappear. In fact, it becomes a critical component of relationship building. 8, 9 Youth are very sensitive to the attention they receive when sharing information or seeking assistance from others.

When children have been impacted by trauma, the ability to connect and trust with any adult can be significantly compromised. Many times, students who have not had trusted, safe adults in their life withdraw from relationships altogether or participate in bullying, aggressive, or oppositional relationships, making it that much more difficult to connect and build positive relationships. 11

The cyclical pattern of expressing a need and having it met. This begins in the relationships between an infant and their caregiver and continues as a need throughout the lifespan.

Defined as “the interactions between brain regions that process emotion or sensation and those that play an executive role managing processes in planning.” 10

Emotional Self-Regulation

Involves “intentional processes to manage strong and unpleasant feelings.” 10

Fortunately, it is possible to reach even the most distant students through trauma-informed, resilience-oriented strategies. The Developmental Relationships Framework offers an overview of how to develop positive relationships through the eyes of a student: 12

• Express care: Show me that I matter to you by being trustworthy, paying attention when I speak and valuing what I say, showing you enjoy the time with me, and praising me for my effort even if it does not lead to achievement.
• Challenge growth: By expecting me to do my best and pushing me to keep getting better. Helping me to take responsibility for errors and learn from them.
• Provide support: Guide me through difficult situations and assignments, stand up for me when I need that, and put limits in place that keep me from moving off track.
• Share power: Treat me with respect by treating me seriously and fairly, including me in decisions about my education, working with me to solve problems, and providing new opportunities for me to grow.
• Expand possibilities: Connect me with people and places that broaden my world and open my eyes to new opportunities.

Seek to Build Safety and Trust with Students

For those who have experienced trauma, a sense of safety and trust is compromised. It will take time to build trust with students, and teachers and staff may have to prove to students that they are worthy of that fragile trust when adults in the past have broken it. Dr. Brene Brown offers a definition of trust using the acronym, BRAVING, that can help educators understand the components that must exist before a student is willing to build a relationship. 13

• B – Boundaries: I trust you if you are clear about your boundaries and you respect mine.
• R – Reliability: I trust you if you do what you say you are going to do over and over again.
• A – Accountability: When I make a mistake, I am willing to own it, apologize, and make amends.
• V – Vault: What is shared will be held in confidence.
• I – Integrity: Courage over comfort, right over easy, and practicing values, not just professing them.
• N – Nonjudgment: I can fall apart, be in struggle and not be judged. Must be able to ask for help.
• G – Generosity: I assume the most generous thing about the other person and do not assume the worst about what they are doing. 14

Educators can show reliability and integrity through how they make and keep a promise. Student-adult relationships and connections will grow stronger when the adult only makes promises they can keep. The table below shows common promises educators try to make and better ways to show support that they can actually deliver.

Similarly, adults and teachers reinforce trust when they have clear boundaries. A boundary is saying what is okay and what is not okay for you, and the other person in the relationship needs to honor those lines. Teachers and staff can help students to understand their own boundaries through modeling. Brittany Williamson, a mental health counselor at Florida Children’s Institute in Jacksonville, provides several methods of using modeling to teach boundaries.

• Empathy checks can happen throughout the day when one student offends another verbally or by taking something away. The teacher intervenes to ask the student, “How do you think you would feel if Aaron took your calculator when you needed it? What could you do differently next time?” These questions help a student gain perspective and start to think about boundaries with other students.
• Roleplay/discussions during social and emotional learning or morning meetings help students to see another’s perspective and get outside of their immediate need.
• Demonstrating clear boundaries is modeled by showing respect for every student, making only promises that can be kept, and showing consistency in actions.
• Reflecting on incidents and how they felt helps students understand what they will say yes to and what they will say no to. In this way, students begin to develop their own boundaries based on their experiences and feelings. 15

Come up with common agreements about how they will interact with each other in the school. This shared expectation feeds into the A of “BRAVING”: Accountability. When expectations are clear, it is possible to know when a boundary has been crossed and begin a process of making amends.

Finally, educators must endeavor to hone their empathy skills. A key step is listening to understand, not to reply. When someone is sharing their concerns, create the space for them to talk without fear of judgment, and reserve your response until you have heard them. Showing empathy in this way helps students to feel they have been heard and acknowledged, and then can look for ways to improve their situation with your support. Adults should not seek to solve students’ problems for them, but rather, they should provide the tools, skills, and strategies to move forward. Remember that actions speak louder than words, as the adage goes. Be sure to monitor your body language, gestures, and tone of voice when providing support to not undercut your supportive messages.

Seek to empower students, even when they do not reach expectations. Students experiencing trauma and toxic stress expect to hear that they are not good enough and have once again failed. A teacher in a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented classroom will identify the specific behavior or skill needing some work and offer clear guidance on how it can be strengthened through practice.

Focus on Regulation when Things Get Difficult

So, what do you do when you feel a student is difficult or distant? How do you prioritize a relationship when things are frustrating? It all comes back to regulation. No matter how strong relationships are, some students impacted by trauma and toxic stress will struggle to stay regulated. It is important to remember that a dysregulated adult cannot regulate a child. When a student acts in a way that shows dysregulation, the adult must take the lead and first mind their own thoughts and action. All it takes is one moment of breath to make the difference. When a student has done something disrespectful or harmful, adults should pause before responding. In that moment, the adult’s brain can take time to process what is happening and respond productively. When the adult is regulated, they are ready to respond. They should use a calm voice with a clear directive that makes sense to the student. Once the incident is over and the student has become regulated again, only then can the adult have a conversation with the student to help them identify other ways to express their concerns and needs.

In this way, adults can serve as a “relationship coach” for the students. Many students come to school lacking skills to initiate and sustain a conversation, let alone a relationship. When the teacher is present with students as they are learning, they can model behaviors and prompt conversations to coach the development of positive connections.

Implement Resilience-Building Classroom Strategies

To build on the burgeoning trust within a physically safe environment, teachers can implement specific strategies within the classroom, whether in-person or virtual, to support students to stay regulated, build resilience, and, ultimately, effectively participate in learning. A key component is to understand and promote social and emotional learning (SEL): “the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.” 16 Research has shown that SEL is appropriate to teach in schools and will effectively lead to improved student outcomes, academically, socially, and emotionally. 16

Social and emotional learning (SEL)

“the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.” 16

Many school districts have already begun implementing an SEL curriculum, and this integrates well into the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools framework. These models are complementary; implementation of one supports the implementation of the other. However, SEL implementation cannot replace school-wide trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools Approaches.

Videos for understanding more about SEL from the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL):

• What is Social and Emotional Learning?
• The Impact of Social and Emotional Learning

Foster a Positive Classroom Culture

A positive classroom culture provides a safe space for all students to learn. It builds on the expanded definition of safety discussion in Section 1 – Introducing Trauma and Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools. In this environment, students are all given access to learning and know that their efforts are valued. A central feature of positive classroom culture is predictability and routines. Students who have experienced trauma are on the lookout for threats to their safety. When a teacher builds predictability and routine into the classroom environment, that student can better regulate, know what to expect, and feel emotionally and psychologically safer. It is not always possible to set routines or prevent change. Whenever possible, notify students in advance of any changes to the status quo. All activities should be structured in a predictable and emotionally safe way.

• Avoid calling on students when they have not been given an opportunity to prepare to present.
• Seek to keep difficult situations private.
• Reduce shaming and blaming by eliminating public methods of noting performance, such as clip charts.
• Use multiple modalities of instruction to meet students’ different learning styles: visual, auditory, kinesthetic.

Culturally responsive instruction is an important approach to promote positive classroom culture and reach students who may seem distant or disengaged. Aligned with trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools principles, culturally responsive instruction is all about building relationships, but it takes a specific focus on building relationships with students’ families and communities. Use the VABB method to promote culturally responsive instruction: 17

• V – Validate the student and their culture.
• A – Affirm them in a positive way.
• B – Build connections between school and home, including language and culture, through instructional strategies and activities.
• B – Bridge any gaps by providing opportunities for students to learn, utilize, and share their cultural backgrounds.

At the start of the school year or term, set positive norms around learning for the whole class to practice. Consider these norms as a starting point:

• Everyone can learn to the highest level. Students can learn processes and tackle even the most difficult problems with support. Teachers acknowledge students’ work, effort, and learning rather than the results. This strategy applies to all areas of learning from math problems to discerning meaning in a difficult task to transferring social science information into a pro or con debate argument. Praise is given for the actual effort and not the end result by saying things like, “Look how much you have completed,” or, “You have really made clear the author’s purpose in writing.”
• Mistakes are valuable. Mistakes are opportunities for learning and growth. Present mistakes for everyone to learn from each other such as a math problem with an error for the group to find. While working on the problem the students are acknowledged for finding new ideas and good strategies.
• Questions are really important. Asking questions is linked to high achievement. 18 If the teacher does not have the answer to a question, they or the class seek to find the answer.
• Learning is about creativity and making sense, not memorizing. Visualize patterns, create solutions, discuss and critique your findings. Help students focus on understanding a problem and not finishing the work quickly. This is the skill that can always be applied to the next level of math they tackle.
• Learning is about connecting and communicating. Make connections between all subjects and topics demonstrating where the ideas and skills will show up in real life and in their other classes. Teaching an integrated curriculum is helpful to ensure that reading and writing skills are embedded in every academic subject and do not stand alone for 40 minutes a day.
• Class is about learning, not performing. Focus on growth, effort, and taking time to learn. Grades and tests are secondary to growth.
• Depth is more important than speed. It is a common myth that being a good learner means students act quickly. We no longer need students to work fast, but rather, take time to think deeply, connect methods, reason, and justifications. Processing through the difficult math problem creates a learning mindset that no problem is beyond my grasp. A valuable skill for any career path. 19

Facilitate Calm Environments and Co-Regulation

One of the most challenging skills for a student to learn is how to regulate their own behavior, emotions, and physical being. This is especially true for students impacted by trauma and toxic stress. Fortunately, this is something teachers can model and support students to develop by facilitating calm environments and co-regulation. It begins by understanding how the brain functions. This image helps us understand the main three areas of the brain.

• The lower part of the brain is sometimes called the “survival” brain. It functions primarily to help us survive and stay safe. This part of our brain asks, “Am I safe?” 3
• The middle part of the brain is our “relational” brain. It is focused on our relationships and emotions. This part of our brain asks, “Am I loved?” 3
• The upper part of the brain is the locus of cognition. Its functions are thinking, learning, planning, and remembering. This part of our brain asks, “Can I learn?” 3

Videos for understanding emotions, regulation, and the brain:

• Why Do We Lose Control of Our Emotions? by Kids Want to Know
• Brain & Amygdala Hand Model by EmpowerU Education Building Resilience
• Fight Flight Freeze – Anxiety Explained for Teens by Anxiety Canada
• State-Dependent Brain Functioning by Dr. Bruce Perry and the Neurosequential Network
• Emotional Contagion by Dr. Bruce Perry and the Neurosequential Network
• Regulate, Relate, Reason by Dr. Bruce Perry and the Neurosequential Network

Ideally, students would mostly be using the upper part of their brain while in class. However, due to current or past experiences of trauma and toxic stress, students’ relational and survival parts of their brain may take over and get in the way of cognition. When activated or dysregulated, a student’s brain will focus on survival first. This prompts the “fight, flight, or freeze response,” causing students to act out, run away, or withdraw altogether. If a student is exhibiting this behavior, teachers can identify that they are not in a place to learn and must return to a state of calm and regulation in order to allow the upper part of the student’s brain to dominate. Fortunately, there are strategies teachers can use to engage a student when they are in this state.

First, it is important to remember the power of calm. Remaining regulated in the classroom is the single most important strategy a teacher can implement. There is always a power differential between people that is communicated through their interactions. Adults, especially the teacher in a classroom, are at the top of the power differential, meaning they dictate the level of anxiety and panic in the classroom through their interactions with students. Dr. Bruce Perry calls this relational contagion. 20 When a teacher is dysregulated, it can cause a ripple effect through the classroom, changing the students’ emotional state and overall wellbeing. The opposite is true as well; when teachers decrease the power differential through positive cues like smiling, using a calm tone, and managing their physical presence, students will feel less threatened and more able to access the cognitive part of their brain. Teachers and other adults are then able to co-regulate with the student with a calm voice, soothing touch, or steady presence. There is no fear, anger, or frustration to mirror.

Second, when a student moves into that fight, flight, or freeze response, seek to co-regulate with the student. Teachers can do this using Dr. Bruce Perry’s memorable approach, “Regulate, Relate, Reason.” 21 This approach is tied back to our understanding of the three main parts of the brain: survival, relational, cognition. Recall that when a student perceives a threat, their survival brain takes over. Learning is extremely difficult in this state. The more anxious or threatened a student feels the less rational they become, and the further into that survival state they move. A teacher’s role is to monitor both their personal brain state and those of their students. As students start to show signs of dysregulation, change your educational strategies from reason (when an individual reflects, learns, remembers, articulates, and self-regulates their emotions), down to relate (connecting with the child), and even down to regulate (helping an individual control and calm their flight/fight/freeze response). 21 Start by listening more. Begin to use calming strategies, such as brain breaks, a mindful minute, or prompt the student to use the calming kits or spaces you developed in the classroom. A list of various sensory strategies to support teachers in moments like this is provided in the Sensory Strategies Reference Sheet. These are only a few examples of actions teachers can take to practice co-regulation with students.

When the student is back to a state of calm, consider talking with them about what strategies work best for them for the next time this might happen. That is also a great opportunity to help them start to identify what caused them to be dysregulated in the first place and seek to minimize those experiences in the classroom. It is critical to note that you will not be able to have this conversation with the student until they have regulated. If they are operating from their survival brain, they are not in a place to reason, and, despite your intentions, teachers may even aggravate the situation if they do not seek to co-regulate first.

As mentioned before, predictability and clear expectations can help create calm classrooms. Take the brain states into account when making lessons plans to ensure the stress related to a given lesson is predictable, moderate, and controlled. Having small moments of manageable stress gives students an opportunity to build their resilience skills and grow to handle increasingly difficult work. Be sure to build breaks in throughout the class period and day.

Support Students to Build Skills for Regulation

In addition to supporting students through co-regulation, teachers and other adults can help students build lifelong skills for emotional and behavioral regulation. This toolkit will highlight a few approaches that many schools around the country have already started to integrate with great success.

One approach is to help students learn about regulation and how to identify it in themselves and others. Several models teach emotions with words to describe them. The emotions are linked to words such as happy, sad, discouraged, and angry, as well as the way those feelings present themselves physically in the body. This work is intimately tied to teaching social and emotional learning (SEL) 22 discussed previously in this section.

Mindfulness

One extremely effective strategy to help students learn how to calm their brain is mindfulness. This is both a regulatory and cognitive strategy. It requires students to focus enough to relax their muscles before they begin to relax their brain. 23 This can be used as a universal strategy built into the daily routine. Alternatively, it can be used with specific students when they are struggling to focus, stay on task, or remain calm. It is estimated that five minutes of mindfulness practice at a difficult time in the classroom will give the teacher back 20 minutes of calm learning time.

Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS)

The research on the impressive success of collaborative problem solving (CPS) 24 means this approach cannot be ignored. This model understands brain states and recognizes that students benefit from understanding why they are struggling in the first place. As the creators say, “kids with challenging behavior are already trying hard. They don’t lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well.” 24 CPS focuses on building those skills in partnership with the student when a conflict or a challenge arises. Adults trained in CPS learn the three components of the approach:

• Empathize: Clarify the child’s concern and perspective.
• Share the adult’s concern.
• Collaborate: Brainstorm, assess, and choose a solution that addresses both sets of concerns. 25

While it seems simple, this approach can teach communication, attention, emotion and self-regulation, cognitive flexibility, and social thinking skills. It also builds positive relationships between the adult and student in stark contrast to traditional discipline and punitive practices. Research shows schools that integrate CPS into their practices experience a 73% reduction in oppositional behaviors during school, a 25% reduction in school office referrals, and reduced stress among 60% of teachers. 26

• Ablon, J. S. (2021, September 23). About Collaborative Problem Solving for Educators. Think:Kids. https://youtu.be/kkRlNH9TETo
• Bailey, B. (n.d.). The Conscious Discipline Brain State Model. https://consciousdiscipline.com/methodology/brain-state-model/
• Boaler, J. (n.d.). Setting up Positive Norms in Math Class. youcubed. http://www.youcubed.org/wp-content/uploads/Positive-Classroom-Norms2.pdf
• Brown, B. (2021). The BRAVING Inventory. Dare to Lead. https://daretolead.brenebrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/DTL_BRAVING_102221.pdf
• Chan, T. C., & Petrie, G. F. (1998, November). The Brain Learns Better in Well-Designed School Environments. Classroom Leadership, 2(3). http://www1.ascd.org/publications/classroom_leadership/nov1998/The_Brain_Learns_Better_in_Well-Designed_School_Environments.aspx
• Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS). (n.d.). Think:Kids. https://thinkkids.org/cps-overview/
• Cox, R. (2018). Attunement, Attachment & Connection: The Very Real Importance of Friendships. Thrive Global. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/attunement-attachment-connection/
• Educators. (n.d.). Think:Kids. https://thinkkids.org/educators/
• Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 8002. (2015). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177/text
• Fitzell, S. (n.d.). Make Your Classroom Lighting Learner Friendly. https://susanfitzell.com/make-classroom-lighting-learner-friendly/
• Fundamentals of SEL. (n.d.). CASEL. https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/
• Hamoudi, A., Murray, D., Sorensen, L., & Fontaine, A. (2014). Self-Regulation and Toxic Stress Report 2: A Review of Ecological, Biological, and Developmental Studies of Self-Regulation and Stress (OPRE Report # 2015-03). Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Harmon, W. (2019). How to Create a Calm Down Corner in 5 Easy Steps. The Art of Education University. https://theartofeducation.edu/2019/01/21/how-to-create-a-calm-down-corner-in-5-easy-steps/
• Higher Order Thinking: Bloom’s Taxonomy. (n.d.). The Learning Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://learningcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/higher-order-thinking/
• Hollie, S. (2012). Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Learning: Classroom Practices for Student Success. Shell Education.
• InBrief: The Science of Neglect. (2013, October 31). Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. https://youtu.be/bF3j5UVCSCA
• Morin, A. (n.d.). How brain breaks can help kids with homework frustration. Understood. https://www.understood.org/articles/en/brain-breaks-what-you-need-to-know
• Perry, B. (2020a, March 30). 3. Emotional Contagion. Info NMN. https://youtu.be/96evhMPcY2Y
• Perry, B. (2020b, April 2). 4. Regulate, Relate, Reason (Sequence of Engagement). Info NMN. https://youtu.be/LNuxy7FxEVk
• Rossen, E., & Hull, R. (2012). Supporting and Educating Traumatized Students: A Guide for School-Based Professionals. Oxford University Press.
• Shardlow, G. (2015, November 18). Integrating Mindfulness in Your Classroom Curriculum. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/integrating-mindfulness-in-classroom-curriculum-giselle-shardlow
• The Anatomy of Trust. (n.d.). https://brenebrown.com/videos/anatomy-trust-video/
• The Developmental Relationships Framework. (2016). Search Institute. https://www.search-institute.org/downloadable/Dev-Relationships-Framework-Sept2014.pdf
• Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. (n.d.). Trauma-sensitive schools help children feel safe to learn. https://traumasensitiveschools.org/trauma-and-learning/the-solution-trauma-sensitive-schools/
• What Is the CASEL Framework? (n.d.). CASEL. https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/what-is-the-casel-framework/
• Williamson, B. (2021). Teaching Healthy Boundaries to Students. Everfi. https://everfi.com/blog/k-12/healthy-boundaries/
• Safe and Secure Environment Staff Survey
• Questions for Leaders about Workplace Psychological Health and Safety
• Developing a Self-Care Plan
• Building a Culture of Educator Compassion Resilience Professional Development Slide Deck

A trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school honors the need to prioritize the well-being of all staff. Compassion fatigue and burnout are increasingly prevalent when staff members work daily with students who are impacted by trauma and toxic stress. The reality of public school education is that it is both exhilarating and stressful, and staff do well if they are able to within that environment. Education is a realm full of organizational and professional changes, expectations, and uncertainties that are often continuous, fast-paced, sometimes contradictory, and usually in response to economic, social, and political demands. Over time, the effect of that demanding work takes its toll. Trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools have parallel processes of supporting students and supporting staff to build resilience.

Increase Awareness and Understanding of Compassion Fatigue, Burnout, and Compassion Resilience

These are not concepts widely discussed among faculty and staff, but they need to be. All individuals need to have strong compassion resilience skills to balance out the stress, toxic stress, and trauma they experience in their lives. It is helpful to plan to address the needs of staff while addressing the needs of students. Staff, like students, need:

• A physically, emotionally, and psychologically safe environment to work in.
• Healthy relationships with peers, administrators, mentors, and supervisors, as well as students and families.
• Instruction on how to implement new strategies to take care of themselves.
• Support from building and district leadership to implement these self-care strategies.
• Building and district processes and procedures to follow when in need of more support.

An intentional focus on building faculty and staff resilience is both an individual and organizational responsibility and opportunity. Educating staff on these concepts is an important first step toward addressing them and building a culture of resilience within your building and school.

Understanding definitions of these common concerns among educators can help staff identify them in themselves and others.

Classified in the 2019 International Classification of Diseases, this occupational phenomenon is “a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” 7 It is characterized by physical and emotional exhaustion, cynicism, detachment, and feelings of ineffectiveness.

Compassion fatigue

Chronic “feelings of depression, sadness, exhaustion, anxiety, and irritation that may be experienced by people who are helpers in their work and/or personal life.” 8 It includes experiences of burnout.

Compassion resilience

The antidote for compassion fatigue. It is defined as “the ability to maintain physical, emotional, and mental well-being while responding compassionately.” 9

It is common for faculty and staff to experience stress; this is a demanding job. It is important to understand when stress becomes toxic. Look out for the following symptoms of burnout and compassion fatigue:

• Chronic fatigue, insomnia.
• Forgetfulness, impaired concentration.
• Physical symptoms, illness, loss of appetite.
• Mood changes, anxiety, anger, depression.
• Isolation, detachment, pessimism, apathy, hopelessness.

The development of compassion fatigue happens in a circular, logical path. 

Faculty and staff enter the field as Zealot/Idealist. 4 They are committed, involved, ready to make a difference, and willingly put in extra hours. Once educators start to see the system and the people in it are not perfect, they enter the stage of Irritability. 4 They start to distance themselves from students, coworkers, and friends. They may avoid student and parent contact and speak unfairly about their challenges. Sometimes, they feel anger, cynicism, sadness, and hopelessness. 

As the complexity of need and unrealistic expectations placed on educators grows, they enter the stage of Withdrawal. 4 Their enthusiasm turns sour, and they see students as irritants, not individuals. Colleagues make complaints about their work. They may have problems in their personal life, are tired all the time, and no longer wish to talk about work. This can lead to absenteeism. If these concerns are not addressed, the educator can enter the Zombie stage. 4 Here, hopelessness turns to rage and hate. They have no patience and cannot experience fun or joy. They have a sense that they cannot ever do enough, but no one else can do what they do.

Fortunately, it is possible to interrupt this cycle by building a culture of compassion resilience for educators. Compassion resilience is “the ability to maintain physical, emotional, and mental well-being while responding compassionately.” 5 It can be fostered on the individual, building, and district levels and serves to respond to and prevent burnout and compassion fatigue among all staff. Efforts to support educators will have positive effects on students and families as well; supported teachers support students. Compassion resilience is comprised of four components: the heart (relationships and emotions), the spirit (core values, rest, play), strength (care for the body), and mind (school, work). Before you can address these four components in your environment, you must assess the needs of your staff and seek their feedback on your organizational culture.

Encourage Wellness Assessment and Seek Feedback from Staff on Resilient Culture

Staff wellness assessments.

Once faculty and staff have a better understanding of these concerns, it is appropriate to encourage staff to assess their wellness related to work. There are several faculty and staff well-being assessments available, including the Professional Quality of Life Measure ( ProQOL ). This tool is widely used across all helping fields and is available in several languages. Panorama Education also offers a free well-being survey designed specifically for teachers. It is a lengthy survey, but portions of it can be pulled out for different assessment purposes.

Staff may be sensitive regarding their responses, not wanting to be negatively assessed or criticized for issues pertaining to their emotional, mental, and work-related well-being. Consider how you will encourage these assessments without perpetuating stigma. One strategy to prevent feelings of targeting or judgment is to ask all staff to complete the assessments and normalize the idea that anyone may be feeling toxic stress at work. Additionally, consider what response and resources are available to staff whose results indicate compassion fatigue and burnout. Do not ask staff to publicly report their scores on these assessments. There is a self-score version of the ProQOL available, which allows staff to interpret their results without sharing widely. Provide guidance to staff about resources available, such as Educator Assistance Programs, community-based services, policies for using sick days for mental health, and services provided by their union.

Seek Feedback on Current Culture and Ideas for Improvements

In addition to understanding individual-level well-being, it is important for school buildings and districts to assess their culture for compassion resilience. Individual efforts to build resilience can be amplified or hindered by the culture of the building and district. And so, it is important to understand what is going well and what can be improved. Staff members are the best resources available for the administration to understand the underlying culture at the building, and seeking their input is deeply aligned with the Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools. Ask staff to complete the Safe and Secure Environment Staff Survey or other assessments, such as sections of Panorama Education’s well-being survey mentioned earlier. Be sure responses are anonymous and free of retaliation for negative assessments. If not, staff may not feel as comfortable being truly honest about what is going on at the building.

Consider assembling a team of administration, faculty, and staff to review the aggregated responses and develop a plan to build on your strengths and address needs and gaps. As a team, discuss the Questions for Leaders about Workplace Psychological Health and Safety . This tool is designed to prompt further discussion about common barriers to well-being at your building or district.

Implement Individual and District-Wide Adaptations to Promote Resilience

To effectively build a culture of compassion resilience, adaptations are needed on the individual, building, and district levels. Adaptations to one level only are insufficient to promote widespread and deep culture change. Efforts to foster one level should also support the others.

Individual Strategies to Promote Compassion Resilience

Faculty and staff can start to foster compassion resilience in themselves and among their peers by focusing on the four components: the heart (relationships and emotions), the spirit (core values, rest, play), strength (care for the body), and mind (school, work). 6

An additional, helpful strategy for individuals is to develop a self-care plan . This activity prompts faculty and staff to proactively take care of themselves when they are so accustomed to caring for others. This tool also includes a small card template for strategies to use in moments of crisis. Completed at a moment of calm, this can quickly be referred to when stress is at an all-time high to help manage in the moment.

Building- and District-Wide Adaptations to Foster Resilience

The building’s and the district’s roles are to encourage and facilitate individual efforts to build compassion resilience. Using the responses from surveys, seek to address the barriers to resilience in your building or district. As a team, create an action plan to take this on intentionally and continuously seek staff input on strategies and implementation. One strategy may be to weave relationship-building activities into existing professional development days. Another may be to celebrate weekly wins with each other via email. Reconsider your policies and benefits, and partner with the teachers’ union to improve your response when a staff member is having well-being challenges, including burnout. Explore opportunities in your community to support staff wellness; for example, ask a gym in town to offer an educator discount on memberships. Finally, be sure to facilitate ample opportunities for staff to grow in their role, including utilizing mentorship, encouraging additional certifications and endorsements, and promoting teacher leadership.

• It is important to acknowledge that strategies to support individual resilience may differ based on culture, gender, and abilities. Create space for individuals to pursue the strategies that resonate the most for them and never assume you know what will work best for someone.
• Ensure activities are inclusive of staff with differing religious practices, cultures, and holidays. Encourage staff to share their culture and celebrate together.
• Nurture involvement in their communities, support networks, and individual spiritual practices to promote well-being.
• Be wary of stigmatizing language, like “crazy,” when discussing stress and burnout and set up recovery-friendly staff bonding events without alcohol.
• WISE. (n.d.). Compassion Fatigue’s Path. Compassion Resilience Toolkit. Retrieved November 10, 2020 from https://compassionresiliencetoolkit.org/media/Schools_CompassionFatigueCycle.pdf
• Compassion Resilience Toolkit. (2019). Compassion Resilience. Retrieved from https://compassionresiliencetoolkit.org/schools/
• World Health Organization. (2019, May 28). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”: International  Classification of Diseases. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/&nbsp ;
• Compassion Resilience Toolkit. (n.d.). Advancing Adult Compassion and Resilience: A  toolkit for Health Care Agencies, Section 2, What are We Talking About? Retrieved from https://compassionresiliencetoolkit.org/media/Healthcare_Section2_Intro.pdf
• Compassion Resilience Toolkit. (2019). Compassion Resilience. Retrieved from https://compassionresiliencetoolkit.org/healthcare/a-toolkit-for-healthcare/

Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) 1

A framework to improve outcomes for all students. Emerging from the public health approach to prevention, this model breaks down levels of supports for students into three tiers.

Tier III: Intensive, Individualized Prevention (few)

These supports feature an “individualized approach of developing and carrying out interventions.” These interventions are based on some type of individual student plan including behavioral and academic supports.

Tier II: Targeted Prevention (some)

These supports focus “on improving specific skill deficits students have.” These interventions are typically provided in small groups to students with similar needs.

Tier I: Universal Prevention (all)

These supports “serve as the foundation for behavior and academics.” These interventions are provided to all students.

Once universal trauma-informed, resilience-oriented practices are in place, a small percentage of the student population will continue to struggle academically and/or behaviorally. Traditionally, these students would be referred for special programs such as Title I or Special Education Programming. Less time is spent in the general education classroom and interventions were chosen based on a student’s lowest skill in an academic area. Often the student has mastered many of the skills in the chosen curriculum; however, the programmatic choice is either full-time instruction in the specific academic area in the general education classroom or in the pull-out intervention program. The result is students falling farther and farther behind their grade-level peers. Educators would consider, “What is wrong with this student?” and, “Which program will best address their deficits?”

In a multi-tiered system of supports, at Tier II, students receive services and supports in small groups and individually at Tier III. 1 Although they benefit from Tier I approaches, these more targeted interventions and supports fill in where universal strategies fall short for these specific students.

The key purpose of schools is to ensure that students learn academic skills and knowledge as well as social and emotional skills, executive functioning, and problem-solving skills. It is not the role of the school to assess, diagnose, and provide therapeutic treatment for students with mental illness. However, it is necessary to understand an individual student’s mental health needs and how to support them in the academic environment. Trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools create partnerships with community agencies to provide students with the services that the school does not. More about school-community partnerships can be found in Section 5 – Parent and Community Partnerships.

In a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approach implemented in a tiered framework, student needs, interventions, and how they were implemented is the focus of the discussion. Individual skills are remediated, with the student only leaving the general education classroom for short periods of time.

The goal of a multi-tiered system of supports (represented in the Key Terms box) is to maintain all students in their classrooms with their peers and the teacher who knows the content. When they need more support, the staff are curious about the root of the problem and choose an evidence-based intervention targeting the specific root or need. It might be implemented in a small group (Tier II) or in a one-on-one situation (Tier III) until the student has mastered the specific skill. For the remainder of the day, the student continues to learn in the classroom, leaving just for the targeted instruction. Finally, the educators consider what they need to do differently to assist the student in their learning. How can the environment be altered? Do I provide a safe environment and relationship that supports the student? How can I change my instruction based on what I have learned about the student?

Some examples of interventions for challenges related directly to toxic stress and trauma used at Tier II and III include alternative teaching of specific social and emotional skills such as identifying feelings and sharing that information with others, communicating frustration in a calm and helpful manner, working collaboratively with their peers, and other coping skills. Academic intervention may already be established in your school. Other sources for these interventions include the National Center on Intensive Intervention and the Wisconsin Response to Intervention Center . Most states have their own list of interventions that are recommended and vetted for their districts. In the area of behavior, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports suggests many evidence-based interventions. Interventions are best implemented within a system of assessment, implementation, and tracking to document success or identified needed changes.

• Create student plans that are responsive to trauma and rooted in resilience-building approaches
• Adapt schoolwide discipline processes to meet individual students’ mental health needs
• Implement targeted practices for Tier II and III supports
• Practice Scenarios – Alternatives to Discipline
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Check-In/Check-Out Checklist
• Individual Student Behavior Plan
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Social, Academic, Instructional, Groups (SAIG) Review Activity
• Student Progress Record of Interventions
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Instruction-Curriculum-Environment-Learner (ICEL) Assessment Questions
• Schoolwide Discipline Processes Adaptations
• Targeted Tier III Practices

Create Student Plans Responsive to Trauma and Rooted in Resilience- Building Approaches

Teams comprised of the student (when developmentally appropriate), their parents or guardians, teachers, administrators, student support staff, and community providers work collaboratively to determine the individual’s unique needs and then create an individualized plan. Teams can be a multi-tiered system of support team, a grade-level team, a 504 Plan team, or an Individual Educational Plan (IEP) team, where the focus is on building an effective plan rooted in the individual student’s strengths to address the challenges they experience at school.

Student voice and choice must be involved in all stages of this process. Input from students may include:  identification of safe adults and environmental factors, preferred learning style, effective regulation strategies, and their tolerance for length and style of interventions. To build resilience and to set clear expectations, the plan primarily focuses on what is behind the behavior, such as trauma and toxic stress, and what needs the student is attempting to meet, such as safety and emotional regulation. Disruptive behaviors are not condoned at any point in this plan.

• Talking or yelling during instruction or quiet work time.
• Shutting down and not doing work.
• Physical aggression toward others or self.
• Using disrespectful language.
• Hurting other students’ property, classroom materials, furniture, or the building.
• Frustration
• Lack of regulation skills
• Intrusive or distorted beliefs

Plan to Address the Need

• Identify specificity of need, source of pain, and fear.
• Determine level of readiness.
• Teach executive functioning, communication, academic, social, and emotional skills.
• Model and support development of skills.

Information about the challenge is gathered using a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and/or academic assessment. All individuals on the team bring their knowledge of the student’s strengths and challenges to the table. Based on all the data the team creates a follow-up behavioral intervention plan (BIP). The assumption or belief behind a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented FBA and BIP is that all behavior serves a purpose. For students impacted by trauma, that purpose is generally an attempt to feel safe. Adults on the team must remember the neurobiology of trauma and toxic stress, and reflect the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented assumptions about student behavior:

• All behavior serves a purpose.
• Students do well if they can—when they do not, something is lacking.
• Behavior continues because it is reinforced in some way.
• It is necessary to understand the need behind behavior in order to understand its function or purpose. It is necessary to understand that information in order to choose interventions that will change a student’s behavior.

Choose Evidence-Based, Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Interventions in the Student Plan

Once the team has gathered the necessary data, they can choose specific interventions and supports to address the identified need. One key difference between universal approaches and interventions at Tier II and III is the increased intensity, frequency, and duration. In other words, they are utilized more often, are implemented in smaller groups, and are more focused in their scope. The interventions often continue for a longer duration and over a more extended period of time. These factors are part of a process to increase the student’s opportunity to learn new skills. Comprehensive lists of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented, evidence-based Tier II and III interventions can be found at Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development 2 and the Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse . 3

Social, Academic, Instructional Groups (SAIG) 4 and Check-In, Check-Out (CICO) 5 connections between an individual educator and student are commonly used and easily implemented strategies. SAIG is organized as a Tier II intervention to bring together students with similar social, emotional, regulation, or academic instructional needs. Adults leading the group may use specific curricula and should monitor students’ progress throughout the intervention. Students with significant academic needs in specific subjects may be placed in evidence-based interventions where progress is monitored weekly. Teams should consider this course of action if the student’s academic needs are so great that they are considering an evaluation for learning disabilities in the future. To ensure your SAIG is meeting the needs of students impacted by trauma and/or dealing with ongoing toxic stress, use the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented SAIG Review Activity.

Students impacted by trauma benefit from CICO as both a Tier II and Tier III intervention. Through CICO, they can solidify a relationship with an individual educator. Every morning and afternoon, the student and educator touch base to monitor emotional, behavioral, and academic performance on that day. If a student is dysregulated during this meeting, the educator has time to help them return to a calm state before the school day or class period has even started. Educators do this through sensory regulation strategies, such as deep breathing, yoga moves, brain breaks, grounding exercises, or allowing the student to take time in a calming place. The educator can also refer to strategies the individual student has identified as helpful in their individualized plan. The educator can ask questions quietly and calmly, such as, “How are you feeling today?” “Do you feel safe this morning?” “What assignments do you need help with?” “Are you concerned about any class today?” “Will you have time to complete this work tonight?” These interventions and supports are helpful for students at all grade levels. To assess the efficacy of your CICO interventions, use the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Check-In/Check-Out Checklist.

The student’s ability to stay regulated and benefit from instruction and support will determine the intervention dosage. The intervention itself should not push a student into a dysregulated state. For the intervention to be beneficial, the time of day and length of the intervention must align with a student’s tolerance level. This ensures they can experience stress as positive or tolerable as defined on the stress continuum. 6

Mild or moderate stress over short periods is considered to be healthy for development. All learning pushes students beyond their comfort level, enabling them to incorporate new concepts, skills, and processes. However, for students who have been impacted by trauma, learning new skills and ideas can be experienced as toxic. Unfortunately, learning stops when a student is experiencing toxic stress. During interventions, it is necessary to monitor the student’s state of mind to gauge their ability to regulate and/or reason.

Choosing the appropriate response based on a student’s brain state may look like taking a short break. Use the Individual Student Behavior Plan tool to see what responses are most beneficial at each stage of escalation and de-escalation.

Most students can learn the new skills needed to maintain regulated emotions and behavior when Tier II interventions are planned and implemented with fidelity based on student needs and input, and integrate the knowledge of the professional educators. Some students will need to be taught and supported in a more intensive setting than the Tier II small groups. These students require one-on-one work at Tier III. The instruction may be the same, but the student is receiving it more frequently in a one-on-one situation for a longer duration each time. As soon as a student is able to return to a Tier II group or the classroom, a shift in the schedule should be made. This would happen when they have mastery of the regulation skill needed to remain calm in an environment with other students.

Adapt Schoolwide Discipline Processes

Schoolwide discipline processes may not only unsuccessfully address problematic behaviors, but at their worst, they can cause further toxic stress and trauma for students. The traditional school discipline model is based on the increasing severity of consequences aimed at motivating a student to behave in “appropriate” ways. Often, these consequences include exclusion from peers, such as separate lunch or after-school detention. When a student’s behavior does not change or becomes more severe, schools traditionally continue along the continuum to suspension and, finally, expulsion.

Many schools have already started to adapt their discipline processes through programs such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Restorative Practices, and Conscious Discipline. These types of programs add instruction on appropriate behaviors and opportunities for discussing hurt and possible repair as responses to challenging and unsafe behavior. The decision-making process about consequences is considered a restorative approach when they move from “to” to “with” a student as seen on the Social Discipline Window. 7

A more flexible program that allows administrators, teachers, families, and students to create a plan responsive to the problematic behavior holds hope for helping students learn better behavior. These programs incorporate reflection, instruction, and restoration in their frameworks. 8 This process involves guiding a student to think about the behavior, then creating a plan with the educator to learn new skills and address the harm that was done. A student is connected with the trusted adult identified in their plan. This educator facilitates the student‘s reflection on their behavior by discussing what happened and why, who may have been hurt, what can be done to “repair” the harm, and what appropriate consequences or actions to take. Together, they create a contract that the educator monitors with the student. When the student, and in some cases their family, is involved in this process, the plan created can positively impact the student’s future.

For some students, this alternative discipline process is not easy or simple. It is difficult for them to reflect on their behavior and see why or how it must change. Truly restoring the harmed relationships is even more difficult. Collaborative Problem-Solving (CPS), 9 discussed in Section 2 – Universal Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Practices and Processes, is an evidence-based approach to help students move beyond their current understandings of safety and needs to a place where they can effectively learn new behaviors and repair damage they have done. The techniques from CPS can be blended in conversations utilizing reflection, instruction, and restoration. The key is listening to the student first, then sharing the adult concerns, and then finally working collaboratively to find a solution.

• The discipline process used with students identified as living with a disability is very specific and part of the educational services they have a right to in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• An adaptive discipline including reflection, instruction, and restorative practices fits nicely into the guidelines in this law. 10

Implement Targeted Practices for Tier III Supports

There are students so gravely impacted by their experiences that they do not have all their needs met by Tier I and Tier II strategies. They require even more targeted, intensive, and frequent interventions and supports categorized as Tier III. These strategies should be implemented one-on-one with a trusted adult who understands the impact of trauma and the specific interventions that work for that student. In many schools, these students will be receiving services in a special education program driven by an Individual Education Plan (IEP), but that is not required.  Students do not need to qualify for special education programming to receive supports and interventions at this level. Tier III services should be available to all students regardless of their disability status.

Always Return to Regulation

Dysregulation is a significant problem for students in need of Tier III interventions and supports. It is likely that instruction and interventions have not been understandable, broken into small enough steps, reinforced, or supported enough to help the student change their behavior. In addition to slowing down instruction and chunking it into shorter time segments, utilize unique approaches to meet the student’s readiness level. A student may not be able to follow common plans to dysregulate because they are unaware of how it feels in their body or do not have the communication tools to express what is happening. In addition to using the curriculum and the strategies focused on regulation introduced in Section 2, the student might benefit from a better understanding of what they are able to tolerate.

The Window of Tolerance 11 , graphically depicted below, helps us understand and describe brain and body reactions to adversity. This concept suggests there is a window of tolerance for stress and our nervous system can cope with an acceptable amount of up and down. Any reaction outside of this window may be the result of toxic stress, unmet needs, and trauma. It aligns with the fight, flight, and freeze response discussed in Section 1. The more adverse experiences a student has, the smaller their window of tolerance becomes. This is why it may be difficult for them to manage dysregulation. Simply put, they have less space in their window for the ups and downs of stress and, unfortunately, as a result, spend more time in the fight, flight, or freeze response.

Improving Academic Supports at Tier III

Academic activities can be activating for students who have experienced significant challenges and failure up to this point. If intensive evaluation of their academic difficulty has not happened, it is important to ensure that it is completed. This can be done outside of an evaluation for special education using the Response to Intervention approach and the ICEL Model (Instruction, Curriculum, Environment and Learner). 12  

The goal of this approach is to ensure that adult educators understand the power they have to implement changes that will make a difference for students and their ability to learn. Using the trauma-informed resilience-oriented lens, the student or learner is the primary factor at all times. So, even though the learner profile is listed last in this model, the learner’s viewpoint of all four domains is the most important information. Use the Trauma-informed, Resilience-Oriented ICEL Questions to monitor academic interventions.

In addition to benefiting from small group or individual instruction in reading, math, and writing, students are likely to have other lagging skills in executive functioning, communication, attention and working memory, cognitive flexibility skills, and social thinking skills. Fortunately, students can learn these skills. But first, adults must identify the combination of triggers and lagging skills leading to a student’s struggles in class. 13 By connecting these together, counselors, social workers, behavioral therapists, special education teachers, and Tier III specialists can identify a series of interventions to teach these skills. 14, 15  

Additionally, school counselors or others working with students impacted by trauma can be trained in Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS). 16 This is an evidence-based program disseminated through SAMHSA’s National Child Traumatic Stress Network, which has demonstrated statistically significant improvement in student behavior. It includes ten group sessions, three individual sessions, two-parent psycho-educational sessions, and one teacher educational session.

The Road to Formal Assessment

After all three tiers of interventions and supports have been tried, some students continue to need even more support. For those students, mental health or trauma screenings and assessments are important. Screening processes and protocols need to be inclusive and engaging for all students in the school setting. First, each individual school should check their state guidance on securing consent to proceed with the screening or assessment. Student voice in this process is critical; answering all of their questions about how the information will be used, what information will be collected and why it is being done will make the process smoother, more effective, and truly trauma-informed and resilience-oriented. If your school does not have services on-site, partner with community agencies to provide mental health interventions after identifying needs led by student support staff.

• The Most Important Questions to ask about Children’s Behavioral Challenges by Dr. Mona Delahooke
• Check-In/Check-Out: Providing a Daily Support System for Students by Edutopia
• Restorative Practices in Education by Twin Cities PBS

Schools still have a responsibility to provide supports to their students even if they receive additional mental health therapy and supports from a community agency. Schools are primarily responsible for their academic instruction and, in the case of special education students, their Free Appropriate Public Education as required by law. Educators and student support staff must be strong in their commitment to continue to implement interventions and supports while that student is also supported outside the school. Strong communication between parents and guardians, the community agency, and the school is vital to making this structure beneficial for the student.

• Center on PBIS. (2020). Tiered Framework. Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. Retrieved December 17, 2020 from https://www.pbis.org/pbis/tiered-framework#:~:text=A%20Multi%2DTiered%20System%20of,MTSS%20centered%20on%20social%20behavior .
• Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development. (2020). Find Programs. University of Colorado Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Science. Retrieved December 19, 2020 from https://www.blueprintsprograms.org/program-search/ .
• National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse. Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved December 19, 2020 from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ .
• Milwaukee Public Schools. (2020). Social Academic Instructional Group (SAIG) Curriculum. Retrieved December 19, 2020 from https://mps.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/en/Families/Family-Services/Intervention—PBIS/SAIG-Curriculum.htm .
• Horner, R., Sugai, G., Tood, A., Dickey, C.R., Anderson, C., Scott, T. (2008). Check-In Check-Out: A Targeted Intervention. Center on PBIS. Retrieved December 19, 2020 from https://www.pbis.org/resource/check-in-check-out-a-targeted-intervention .
• Center on the Developing Child. (2020). Toxic Stress. Harvard University. Retrieved December 19, 2020 from https://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/toxic-stress/ .
• Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining Restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices. Retrieved December 18, 2020 from https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf .
• Hannigan, J.D, and Hannigan, J.E. (2016). Don’t Suspend Me! An Alternative Discipline Toolkit. Corwin.
• Think:Kids. (2020). What is CPS? Collaborative Problem Solving. Retrieved November 10, 2020 from https://thinkkids.org/cps-overview .
• Gill, L. (2017). Understanding and Working with the Window of Tolerance. Attachment and Trauma Treatment Centre for Healing (ATTCH). Retrieved December 18, 2020 from https://www.attachmentand-trauma-treatment-centre-for-healing.com/blogs/understanding-and-working-with-the-windowof-tolerance .

Parents, families, and the community at large all play an important role in each student’s life. While most students spend a large portion of their week in school, whether it is in a building or on a virtual platform, when they leave that environment, they go into the community and back to their homes, both of which can impact their education. Thus, a collaborative approach to address the wellness and success of all students will be more effective if schools, families, and community organizations such as the National Alliance for Mental Illness (NAMI) and Mental Health American (MHA) along with unique organizations in each community work together. In this section of the toolkit, we will look at these three critical groups and their roles in student-centered planning. Please note, throughout this chapter, we will use “parents” and “families” interchangeably to include biological, adoptive, foster parents and families, legal guardians, and anyone else the student defines as playing a significant role in their upbringing and education.

The “why” of partnerships with parents, families, and the community has been identified and reinforced by research over the last thirty years. When parents and families are engaged in school, their students do better academically, behaviorally, emotionally, and socially. 1 Parent-teacher organizations have long existed to nurture that involvement. As our understanding of the causes of student struggles and their shifting needs evolves, we are challenged to find new approaches to fully engage families as an active part of the school community.

• Identify and respond to the needs of parents and families
• Adjusting Educator Mindsets Toward Parents and Families Reference Sheet
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Guiding Questions: Parents and Families
• School Policies, Protocols, Procedures, and Documents Review Tool: Examination of Parent and Family Engagement
• Shared Decision-Making with Parents and Families Activity
• Practicing Responding to Trauma: Parent and Family Scenarios and Directions
• Partnering with Parents
• Engaging Community Partners

Apply a Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Lens to Parent and Family Engagement

It is important to remember that trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools involve everyone—students, staff, parents, families, and communities. Traditional approaches may limit family engagement, only involving them when a student is in academic or behavioral trouble or at parent-teacher conferences. However, families are important partners for educators and staff when engaged through a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approach. Research suggests that students whose parents are involved in their school community are more likely to have higher grades, improved attendance, strong social skills, and improved behavior in the classroom. 2

Parental Involvement

It is about enfolding parents. Planning for them and telling them how they can contribute.

Parental Engagement

It is about doing with parents, listening to parents think, dream, and worry. 3

Prioritizing parent and family engagement can lead to improved student outcomes. For this reason, trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools take this on with intention. To start the conversation on improved engagement, building and district staff should review the Adjusting Educator Mindsets Toward Parents and Families Reference Sheet. Discuss what assumptions may permeate your school’s or district’s culture about parents and families. Then, consider the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Guiding Questions: Parents and Families tool to more concretely identify areas of strength and growth for your building or district. The National PTA offers six National Standards for Family-School Partnerships. These standards outline the critical building blocks for successful family engagement and district-wide assessments are available to further understand your district’s strengths and gaps in this area. The six Standards are:

• Welcoming All Families into the School Community: Families are active participants in the life of the school and feel welcomed, valued, and connected to each other, to school staff, and to what students are learning and doing in class.
• Communicating Effectively: Families and school staff engage in regular, two-way, meaningful communication about student learning.
• Supporting Student Success: Families and school staff continuously collaborate to support students’ learning and healthy development both at home and at school and have regular opportunities to strengthen their knowledge and skills to do so effectively.
• Speaking Up for Every Child: Families are empowered to be advocates for their own and other children, to ensure that students are treated fairly and have access to learning opportunities that will support their success.
• Sharing Power: Families and school staff are equal partners in decisions that affect children and families. Together they inform, influence, and create policies, practices, and programs.
• Collaborating with Community: Families and school staff collaborate with community members to connect students, families, and staff to learning opportunities, community services, and civic participation. 4

To engage meaningfully with parents and families, it is important to recognize and honor that they have their own histories of trauma and toxic stress, and may actively continue to experience challenges that school and district staff do not know about. Everything you learned in Section 1: Introducing Trauma and Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools about the impact of trauma and toxic stress on behavioral and emotional responses apply to students’ parents and families as well. To practice applying knowledge and skills, utilize the Practicing Responding to Trauma: Parent and Family Scenarios during professional development time. 

Assumptions about parents’ ability or willingness to engage in school activities are not helpful. Schools must resist urges to label parents or families as “good” or “bad.” Research has found that parents and families of color, those living in poverty, and families that do not speak English at home all have lower rates of family engagement. 5 A trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school understands that these families experience additional challenges, including bias in education, and seeks to reduce those challenges to increase and improve opportunities for engagement.

Everyone has a unique set of strengths and needs to consider when planning for engagement. Some parents will thrive in the classroom with students, planning and implementing school activities, or serving on school committees. Others will seem disinterested or will be unable to participate. Some families and parents could benefit from the school reaching out and supporting them with resources, learning events, mentors, or connections to community resources. Regardless of the level of family engagement, schools and districts should seek to make their systems clearer, easier to navigate, connected to community resources, and approachable for all parents and families. The remainder of this section illustrates how school personnel can provide a safe bridge to support parents and families.

Videos for understanding parent and family engagement:

• Teacher and Parent Relationships – A Crucial Ingredient by Cecile Carroll (TEDxWellsStreetED)
• Building Relationships Between Parents and Teachers by Megan Olivia Hall (TEDxBurnsvilleED)
• Parent-Teacher Home Visits by Flamboyan Foundation
• Initiating Contact by Learning for Justice

Seek to Improve Bi-Directional Communication Channels

Communication is the foundation for successful parent and family engagement. On a most basic level, all communications from the school should be timely, clear, concise, in the languages spoken by families at the school, and provided through multiple modalities (e.g., email, phone call, social media, take-home handouts). At its most complex, true engagement of families means parents are involved in school and district decision-making.

Communication must be bi-directional; families must have a consistent, easy-to-utilize mechanism to provide feedback to the school and district. Not only is it important to know about families and their approaches to life, but we need to know how they feel about the school that their student attends. Do they feel welcome and included or isolated and misunderstood? In a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school, there are processes in place to ensure that families can provide this feedback at any time, whether it is positive or negative, without fear of retaliation against their students.

• All school communications with parents and families must be responsive to their needs, schedules, and preferred forms of communication, utilizing more than a single method of interaction.
• Diversity in work schedules, lifestyles, cultural and religious practices, and language among families require educators to use every form of communication available to them to connect.
• Try using social media channels, such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube, to reach parents and families in real-time, share video messages in multiple languages, and increase opportunities for them to provide feedback.
• Even with the growth of technology, in some communities, traditional methods are most helpful, including phone calls, text message reminders and notifications, and written notes sent home with students.
• When scheduling parent-teacher conferences, remember the diversity of your school community. When setting the school calendar, ensure these do not conflict with religious and cultural celebrations and holidays. Set aside extra dates and times for parents who may not be available due to work schedules at the time of conferences. Consider how you can overcome barriers to attendance, such as transportation, timing, technology, and location.

Once communication channels are established and regularly utilized in both directions, your building and district can begin to build processes for shared decision-making. Sharing power with parents and families is fundamental to a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approach to engagement. But what does that mean? Shared decision-making means parents and families are involved on an ongoing basis in:

• Individualized education plans and other Tier II and III supports for their student
• Brainstorming, planning, and execution of school activities
• School committees, taking leadership roles in initiative and task-force work
• Code of conduct committees such as Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports, discipline committees, and trauma-informed resilience-oriented workgroups
• District and building strategic planning and infrastructure changes, such as building a new school, contracting with a new food service, and initiating school-based health care services

By taking this step, schools move from informing parents to engaging them, then to centering them and their experiences in the school community.

Identify and Respond to Needs of Parents and Families

A trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school seeks to understand the needs of parents and families and work to meet them. It is important for schools not to make assumptions about those needs. This requires proactive outreach and authentic listening and curiosity about their concerns, experiences, and perspectives on what would make the school community more inclusive and supportive.

This is not easy. Educators at all levels are trained to provide solutions to problems. Listening to understand rather than to reply requires patience and time, especially when individuals come from a place of distrust and are reluctant to share to protect themselves. An educator can become easily frustrated by the amount of time it takes to engage in real communication. As difficult as this part of the process is, it is an essential part of planning to deliver the proper services and supports.

There are several ways to gather information from parents and families about their needs:

Using written tools like surveys and assessments can provide a glimpse of parents’ and families’ experiences and show through quantitative data where your school may want to focus its efforts. One tool to consider is the U.S. Department of Education School Climate Survey to understand family and student feelings of emotional and physical safety in the school.

The School Policies, Protocols, Procedures, and Documents Review Tool: Examination of Parent and Family Engagement can also help you understand how well a specific policy or procedure aligns with the Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools.

Bringing parents and families together in conversation with school leadership and educators can be a powerful way to build bridges and improve collaboration between the two. The National PTA Local Leader Kit can help each parent-teacher organization form and flourish. Ensure parents and families are included in district committees. Utilize the resources on shared decision-making to create a meaningful role for them in these activities.

Home visits are a new trend but are becoming more common nationwide. Conferencing in a family’s home or at a local community center or library may reduce tangible barriers to engagement like transportation and can provide a more emotionally safe place for parents to meet. In these settings, parents may be more willing to share information about themselves, their concerns, hopes, and dreams for their children.

After gathering information about needs, trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools work to meet them. Report back to those who participated in your information-gathering initiatives on what the data shows and how the school or district plans to act on this information. In meeting these identified needs, trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools have an opportunity to increase engagement with families through the planning and execution of new projects, policies, and procedures. For example, if surveys found a desire among parents to be more involved in high school classrooms, the school can work with the local parent-teacher organization to create a plan for parents to share about their careers. Or, perhaps the assessments point to struggles accessing online materials to monitor grades. And so, your school counselor may offer training sessions for parents upon student enrollment to show them all the online tools available and how to access them.

Schools may not be able to meet all parent needs, but they can foster parent groups, such as PTA or parent mentorship programs. Primarily emerging to support families with students who receive special education services, parent mentorship programs are a new way to provide parent-to-parent support in the school community. In some areas, these networks have expanded to include parents of any student in the district. A trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school is the perfect location for a parent mentorship network connecting parents to parents, parents to educators, and parents to resources, both in and out of the building. Given the proactive and universal nature of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented programs and schools, mentoring is extended to all families and parents in all grades and is primarily proactive in its approach. Emphasizing parent strengths and building on those from the very beginning has the potential of keeping many students out of special education programs and engaged 100% of the time with their general education peers.

In 2002, the Georgia Department of Education initiated the Georgia Parent Mentor Partnership to improve family engagement statewide. 6 This diagram from their toolkit outlines the key components of the program. 6 It weaves together a variety of resources into a structure to provide professional and peer support to parents, and the toolkit offers guidance for building this type of partnership in your district.

Finally, this is not a process that should be done once and assumed to be comprehensive. Trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools are committed to continually gathering feedback about needs and initiatives put in place to meet them to ensure they continue to be relevant and responsive.

Build Partnerships with Families and Community Partners

Schools exist as part of communities—communities where individuals and organizations can be mobilized to support schools and have skills and expertise not available within the district. By connecting and creating partnerships with these individuals and organizations, it becomes possible for schools to provide rich experiences beyond the classroom and receive support or assistance from experts in their field. Some partnerships may benefit all students, and others may specifically target the students who have needs beyond the school’s expertise. As with parent partnerships, actively exploring community partnerships is a relatively new phenomenon in education. Community partnerships have emerged out of schools’ need to have more skilled professionals to support Tier II and III interventions and offer clinical mental health services.

At the foundation of any partnership should be the Six Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools. Schools should practice these principles with community partners and support them to understand and adopt the principles in their organization. Utilizing this approach can help reduce common barriers, such as insufficient involvement of leadership, misunderstandings of the different systems, questioning the ability of the partners to meet the current needs, funding, time, and other competing initiatives.

One strategy to beginning a new community partnership is to start with small, concrete tasks. Taking on smaller, visible projects helps the staff, students, families, and community members to understand what is happening and what to expect in the future. As the partnership grows, engage in shared decision-making with the partner about their vision for new activities, supports, and events they would like to contribute to in the school community. For example, a local bank may begin its partnership by having its employees volunteer at graduation each year. Over time, they may develop a young professionals training program to allow students the opportunity to learn about working in the financial sector.

Mental Health Services Partnerships

A common partnership across districts is with community mental health providers to bring services inside the school building. Using the multi-tiered system of supports framework, these providers come into the schools to work with individuals and small groups of students at both the Tier II and Tier III levels. These groups can be co-facilitated by school and community professionals, but, in most cases, the providers work individually with students with the greatest needs while school counselors, social workers, and nurses handle small groups. Reasons for moving mental health services into the school buildings are numerous:

• Schools are a natural setting because it is where students already are.
• Onsite services give families convenient access with less system navigation.
• It will support school-wide efforts to address toxic stress and trauma.
• Staff knowledge of signs and symptoms of distress will improve.
• Teachers will develop tools and techniques to promote emotional support and well-being.
• Introducing mental health providers in school can help destigmatize mental health.
• It increases access to mental health services for students regardless of socioeconomic status.
• Services play a major role in early childhood intervention, mitigating impacts later in life.
• Intensive, individualized support can be provided to small groups of students with high emotional and/or behavioral needs.
• It can help families navigate the mental health system. 7

In the exploratory conversations regarding these services, complete a needs assessment within the school or district and a resource map or scan to narrow the scope of a potential partnership. Once a provider is identified and selected, it is recommended that schools and community mental health providers utilize a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to lay out the specific goals, funding, roles, and responsibilities of each player. Committees creating these agreements should include teachers, school counselors, and social workers, as well as the administrators responsible for the financial wellbeing of the school. This will help to counter any staff resistance stemming from a concern among student support staff that outside providers pose a threat to their job.

Wrap-Around Services for Tier III Services

Tier III services, whether they are in or out of the school building, are the most intensive trauma and mental health interventions provided through a school-community partnership, and are often implemented as a wrap-around service. In this partnership type, schools and providers create a process for making referrals from the school to the provider for individual students whose needs greatly exceed services provided on-site. 9 Throughout that process, parents and families are engaged, and the student’s voice is centered. 10 Schools that use the multi-tiered system of supports framework, especially those that use a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens, view wrap-around services as another part of the process of supporting students and families to gain the skills, confidence, and support they need to manage their own futures and needs.

Wrap-around services support both the family and the individual student. Community mental health providers and others in a student’s support network, such as family, teachers, religious leaders, employers, peers, and mentors operate as one team, not separate school and community teams. Together, they help the family and student develop a plan to achieve their vision. That individualized plan is student-centered and relies on family involvement to ensure it reflects the strength, needs, and culture of the student and family.

Community Schools

One of the strongest partnerships between schools and communities is a community school. 11 This encompasses both the physical location and the set of partnerships between the school and community organizations to help provide students with the full range of services and opportunities they need to thrive. The model and services should vary based on the needs of each school and community, but the general structure embeds community organizations in the school so that students can easily access them, and families can find everything they need for their student’s well-being in one place. In this form of partnership, the school becomes the hub of the community.

• Sheldon, S. B., & Jung, S. B. (2015). The Family Engagement Partnership: Student Outcome Evaluation. John Hopkins University School of Education Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319226886_The_Family_Engagement_Partnership_Student_Outcome_Evaluation
• Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. National Center for Family and Community Connections with Schools, Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. https://sedl.org/connections/resources/evidence.pdf
• Ferlazzo, L. (2011). Involvement or Engagement? Educational Leadership. https://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/may11/vol68/num08/Involvement-or-Engagement%C2%A2.aspx
• National PTA. (n.d.). Successful Family-School Partnerships. National Standards for Family-School Partnerships. https://www.pta.org/home/run-your-pta/National-Standards-for-Family-School-Partnerships
• Child Trends. (2013). Parental Involvement in Schools.
• Southeast Regional Resource Center. (n.d.). Georgia Parent Mentor Partnership. Georgia Department of Education. https://archives.gadoe.org/DMGetDocument.aspx/Ga_Parent_Mentor_Partnership_Toolkit.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F61644459880B40C298399B0F7A0AD2D95ED002C0D534D2853&Type=D
• Wilder Foundation. (2019). 10 Reasons Schools Should Have Youth Mental Health Services on Site. https://www.wilder.org/articles/10-reasons-schools-should-have-youth-mental-health-services-site
• National Association of School Psychologists. (2006). Communication Planning and Message Development: Promoting School-Based Mental Health Services. Communiuqe, 35(1), 27.
• Krubsack, L., Caldwell, M., Collins, R., Herlizke, T., & Schoening, J. (2019). School Mental Health Referral Pathways Guide. Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sspw/pdf/DPI_Mental_health_referral_pathways_web.pdf .
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). School Mental Health Referral Pathway Toolkit. Now Is The Time Technical Assistance Center. https://www.escneo.org/Downloads/NITT%20SMHRP%20Toolkit_11%2019%2015%20FINAL.PDF .
• Coalition for Community Schools. (2021). Community Fact Sheet. https://www.communityschools.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/05/CS_fact_sheet_final.pdf .

Using the information and tools discussed in this toolkit to address targeted areas of need in a school does improve services. Areas such as special education and discipline processes immediately come to mind as ones that benefit from the implementation of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approaches. Sustainable, lasting change that positively impacts the lives of the whole school community requires a larger vision and plan, the involvement of all collaborators, ongoing evaluation, and strong leadership at all stages of implementation. Implementation and forward progress rely on data collection. Leadership takes on both the roles of leading and managing the cultural changes. Their involvement is significant to success throughout the entire process. 1

The trauma-informed, resilience-oriented approach to schools is an innovation that requires a deep level of commitment and change management. It is an innovation or introduction of something new that often tweaks or changes an already existing program or process. It is not an initiative that ends on the last day of school in spring to make way for another initiative in the fall. The changes are a permanent shift in culture that do not replace previous processes. They increase the voice of the student and family, the emotional safety of the school, collaboration, inclusion, and engagement of all. Every area of school culture is assessed prior to the creation of plans. In this section, the discussion will focus on implementation action steps, ongoing evaluation, and the role of leadership in the process.

• Implementing and Evaluation Your Program Professional Development Training Slide Deck
• Communicating about Your Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented School Initiative
• Activities for Continuous Quality Improvement
• Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Fidelity Assessment and Scoring Tool

Establish a Collaborative Team to Lead Your Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Initiative

No one can lead or execute this initiative alone. A strong team composed of diverse collaborators across the school community should be formed, and a team leader or co-leaders identified. While everyone in the school community will be involved in the implementation, this team will be the champions and coordinators of each activity. A recommended list of participants includes:

• School and district leadership
• Teachers from multiple departments
• Support personnel
• Classified staff
• Parents and families
• Community partners
• Students (no less than two)

It is recommended this team meet twice a month at the start of the initiative to set goals and action plans. As the initiative builds momentum, the number and frequency of meetings may change.

Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Leadership within the Implementation Process

Traditionally, school administrations have asked counselors and teacher leaders to take the helm of initiatives such as instituting trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles, practices, and policies. However, administrative buy-in and commitment are critical to the successful implementation of an innovation that involves changes on all levels and in all areas of school practice. Administrators often help determine the make-up of the team leading the initiative. They can ensure the team is a diverse group of individuals representing different departments, grades, and groups in the school and that those chosen represent different cultures, races, genders, and viewpoints present in the district. The administrator should participate on the team, not serving as the team lead, but rather providing guidance, motivation, and support when things are not going well and celebrating and communicating the successes along the way. Having school and district leaders there demonstrates the importance of this work and the school’s or district’s commitment to it. 

One pivotal role for administrators is to ensure that resources are available, including funds and time for assessments, training, tools, and people to implement the interventions and strategies. They secure time for professional development for all staff and remain committed regardless of competing priorities. Only a person with the power of this position can provide these resources, which are vital to the forward movement of the innovation. 

Another important role for administrators is communication and messaging about this initiative to all members of the school community. Participating in the development of the vision and making sure that it aligns with the building or district vision is critical. Collaborating with that same team to develop an elevator speech about the benefits of implementing trauma-informed, resilience-oriented practices and the strategies for securing buy-in from everyone with interest in the school is key to strengthening the innovation.

Engage in the Implementation Process

Working to adapt trauma-informed, resilience-oriented practices in your school or district is a process. It is not achieved overnight; it is a lifelong process of implementation. As you begin this work, your school will move through phases outlined by the Missouri Model’s Developmental Framework pictured below. 2 The framework has four phases: Trauma Aware, Trauma Sensitive, Trauma Responsive, and Trauma Informed. Understanding these phases can help your team have realistic expectations around progress and create a strong vision for the future.

Trauma Aware

A team, leader, staff, and everyone who is involved in the school setting learns about trauma, its impact, and how to address it in the school setting. Everyone is made aware of how and where to find additional information and are supported in further learning. Following training, conversations among staff include key terms and concepts. Staff members demonstrate curiosity and a desire to know more so they can improve their practices. A school team is formed that explores what this new information might mean for them and what next steps may need to be taken.

Trauma Sensitive

The school team explores the principles of safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness, and empowerment within their environment and daily work. There is widespread communication about what is learned to both families and staff through multiple communication channels. Through a self-assessment process, the organization identifies existing strengths, resources, and barriers to change as well as practices that are consistent or inconsistent with the principles. Leadership prepares the school or district for change and leads a process of reflection to determine readiness for change. The school and district begin to review tools and processes for implementation in the school. The school values and prioritizes the trauma lens; a shift in perspective happens. Trauma training expectations for all staff are established, including within new staff orientation. School and district leadership recognizes and responds to staff compassion fatigue and secondary trauma. Hearing stories of trauma and working tirelessly with students and colleagues impacted by trauma can lead to the development of compassion fatigue even when an individual has not personally experienced the trauma.

Trauma Responsive

School or district culture has begun to change, highlighting the role of trauma and resilience. At all levels, staff members begin re-thinking the processes, practices, routines, and infrastructure of the school. There is an integration of principles into staff behaviors and practices and into staff support. Changes to environments are made in the classroom as well as school-wide settings. The school and district have developed a ready response for crisis management that reflects trauma-informed values.

Trauma Informed

The school or district has made trauma-responsive practices the organizational norm. The model has become so accepted and so thoroughly embedded that it no longer depends on a few leaders. The school or district works with community partners to strengthen collaboration. Policies and procedures are revised and measured for fidelity to a trauma-informed model. Teachers and others involved with the school experience adequate support and say the culture is safe and supportive and that despite the challenges, they enjoy working in the school. The organization uses data to inform decision-making at all levels. Training is promoted and made accessible to staff, including at new staff orientation. Ongoing coaching and consultation are available to staff on-site and in real-time. The business model including fiscal structures works to meet the need to address the needs of the school or district.

Understanding Phases of Implementation

The Missouri Model provides an overall picture of where schools are going to achieve a level of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools. However, it does not provide a step-by-step approach to start and continue the process. The National Implementation Research Network’s (NIRN) 3 work in the field of education is focused on developing processes that support the selection, adoption, and sustained use of educational practices that are supported by evidence and have shown positive outcomes for students. 4 They have broken down the change process into a series of four stages. Along with their implementation tools, their implementation stages provide an excellent guide to a school team wanting to smoothly implement their trauma-informed, resilience-oriented innovation with success.

Learn more about the National Implementation Research Network’s framework.

NIRN estimates it will take a team anywhere from two to four years to complete all implementation phases.

1. Exploration

During this stage a team considers the possibility of implementing trauma-informed, resilience-oriented school principles and practices in their setting by answering the following questions:

• Where is the area of need?
• What is the urgency of that need?
• What resources will be needed?
• What is the capacity of our team/staff/district to provide those resources and implement them?

These questions highlight the key decisions that need to be made before a school or district can effectively begin the change process. When a team decides to quickly implement one strategy or a quick training with no follow-up activities, the efforts are likely to fail. Rushing to “fix” problems in schools without thoughtful planning and careful attention to alignment with existing initiatives will result in unsustainable outcomes for students. More than that, it may make staff reluctant to continue to engage in the process at all. Teachers often experience initiative fatigue, stating “we’ve already tried that, it didn’t work for us” when asked to consider further innovation in strategies and practices. To support this phase, consider using the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Fidelity Assessment and Scoring Tool to gather baseline information.

2. Installation

This phase includes the steps of creating a vision, setting up communication channels, and planning for ongoing communication with all collaborators. This is when the team and leadership ensure that financial and human resources are in place to implement any plans they create, including professional development. Use the Communicating about Your Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented School Initiative tool to create your vision and communicate it broadly.

Awareness training continues as staff members enter the district while deeper strategic training is provided to classroom teachers and support staff on specific interventions that have been chosen for implementation. Choosing the interventions and supports can be a difficult step. There are a variety of resources and places to look; in fact, it can be overwhelming. Consider gleaning practices from other sections of this toolkit as well as a few other sources listed below:

• Trauma-Informed Programs and Practices for Schools (TIPPS) Program Guide from the University of Michigan School of Social Work
• Resources from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network
• Trauma Sensitive Schools Initiative from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
• Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative (TLPI) from the Massachusetts Advocates for Children and Harvard Law School

As new strategies and programs are chosen, professional development and resources are provided so that staff members have everything they need to implement. The team examines policies and procedures to ensure they are in alignment with the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles and are implemented equitably.

3. Initial Implementation

When a school or district reaches this phase, the majority of teachers and practitioners in the school are using the practice or program that was identified in the goal(s). Data and feedback are available from that practice or program to inform decision-making and improve the implementation of the practice or program. Teachers and other practitioners are beginning to achieve fidelity and improve the quality of implementation efforts. The evidence shows that the implementation of the practice or program is feasible.

It is important to note that some practices within the school may be at the initial implementation phase while the school team is just beginning to introduce another practice. For example, a school may have instituted calming places for all students and space spots for students with more significant needs. These may be an accepted part of the school’s process of addressing dysregulation. At the same time, they may be beginning the process of introducing restorative practices as a strategy that will replace their current punishment-oriented discipline program.

Many other activities can happen during this phase including the implementation of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented coaching in the school setting. Feedback drives the reassessment process on each specific goal.

4. Full Implementation

This is not achieved quickly. In this phase, a school has shifted its culture and thus its practices to be in alignment with the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented principles. Staff members describe their school as a calm and supportive place to work. Students and their families say that they feel like they belong and that the staff cares for them. This is a goal for a school team to push for, but not something that happens without resistance, regrouping, or reteaching.

Utilize a Continuous Quality Improvement Approach

Because trauma-informed, resilience-oriented implementation is a continuous process in which the team is striving to make decisions that will improve the work and outcomes for students and staff over time, it is important to use a continuous quality improvement approach. Often used in healthcare settings, continuous quality improvement is a process of incremental changes to processes and practices to improve the experience and efficiency of your program. 5 This approach encourages teams to collect and analyze data throughout implementation to discern what needs to be kept, changed, added, or stopped.

When data and outcomes are not what is expected, the team might have to look at their process to identify what is missing. Have they been communicating the vision to generate support among collaborators? Are there those who do not understand the communication? Has staff development been effective? Are the resources necessary available to the staff and do they have the support they need to implement what they have been asked to do? If the answers to any of these questions lead a team to pause, then it is time to go back and address the missing link. This is a natural progression in an implementation process and will happen at some time to almost every team.

One strategy is to complete the Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools Fidelity Assessment every year and compare your data over time. This will allow you to see what your school or district does well and where you may need to focus your implementation efforts next. Be sure to communicate the results of the assessment, share depictions of the data over time, and publicize your next steps based on the data with all parties.

The Activities for Continuous Quality Improvement tool includes a variety of activities to utilize with your team to practice this approach. Your team should meet consistently to review your implementation progress, review data, and assess what is working well and where your team should focus its efforts next. Continuous quality improvement does not consider unexpected outcomes as failures, but rather as an opportunity for learning and then moving forward. With the proper support, guidance, and resources a team of committed individuals can bring to life trauma-informed resilience-oriented practices in their school.

• When gathering and reviewing data from implementation, it is critical to obtain feedback from a representative sample. Without input from diverse collaborators’ perspectives, your team runs the risk of maintaining and reinforcing unhelpful practices.
• Encourage participation in implementation. Your team might be leading the innovation, but everyone interested in being involved should be. Consider how and when you are meeting, planning, and seeking input to ensure everyone has an opportunity to participate.
• Rotate team membership to gather new perspectives. Eliminate barriers to participation by providing transportation, food, child care, and interpretation services. And, ensure each member’s voice is respected and given equal weight. This will help reduce feelings of tokenism among participants as you seek to make your team more representative and inclusive.
• Minnesota Department of Education. (Revised 2019) Change Leadership — A Guide for School Leaders. https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=mde059459&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&Rendition=primary
• MO Dept. of Mental Health and Partners. (2014). Missouri Model: A Developmental Framework for Trauma Informed Approaches.
• National Implementation Research Network. (n.d.). Framework 2: Implementation Stages. Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. Retrieved March 17, 2020 from https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/module-1/implementation-stages .
• National Implementation Research Network: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute. K-12. https://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/focus-areas/71
• O’Donnell, B and Gupta, V. (2020). Continuous Quality Improvement. StatPearls. Retrieved March 22, 2021 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559239/ .
• Use a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens to plan and decide appropriate policies and procedures
• Initial Activities for Staff and Students
• COVID-19 Surveys and Return to School Alignment Planning Tool
• Student Activity: Creating a Safe Virtual Learning Space
• Educating During Crisis: The COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond Professional Development Training Slide Deck

Beginning the 2020-2021 school year in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic turned the excitement of back-to-school preparations into overwhelming anxiety for all involved. Teachers, administrators, students, and families had concerns about plans for the upcoming school year—whether they are virtual, hybrid, or physically in person. During times of crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters, or experiences of community trauma, these concerns continue and may change throughout the school year. This section of the toolkit provides resources to help schools take steps forward during a crisis. The guidance and tools in this section are relevant at any point of the school year and duration of a crisis, and administrations should return to them as their areas move through phases of re-opening and community healing to continue positive conversations with all parties and increase positive connections with students and their families.

All individuals involved in schools will need to be flexible and prepared to respond to changing conditions. A high level of flexibility is only possible when individuals have trust in each other developed through transparent communication and that everyone’s concerns have been heard and considered. Use the tools in this section to help build trust with everyone in the school community during times of crisis.

Using the trauma-informed, resilience-oriented lens, a school or district can ensure all communications, staff trainings, parent interactions, and learning activities are designed to create a safe and trustworthy environment for all involved.

Use a Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Lens to Plan and Decide

In response to a crisis, school administrators may need to create and revise plans about schooling and staffing throughout the school year. As areas look to move through phases of re-opening and/or adjusting schedules in response to the effects of the crisis, schools will respond to match the community’s needs. It is important to remember the principles of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented schools and infuse them into planning and decision-making processes.

Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools

• Trustworthiness
• Student Voice & Empowerment
• Collaboration
• Peer Support
• Inclusion & Engagement

It is recommended to begin by referring to the most current expert guidance to understand recommendations for schools affected by the crisis. For example, guidance has been ever-changing as researchers learn more about COVID-19, its prevention, treatment, and spread. This toolkit includes the Return to School Alignment Planning Tool to support efforts to organize the recommendations.

You may revisit this tool to align this information with the concerns highlighted in surveys, described further below. This tool uses COVID-19 as an example, and starts with the following recommended resources:

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Toolkit for K-12 Schools
• Your local and state public health departments
• Your state departments of education

In alignment with the Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools, it is important to seek to understand the concerns, needs, and priorities of your three primary audiences: students, parents and families, and staff. When schooling is interrupted due to a crisis, districts will endeavor to return as many staff and students to the school building as possible, but both in-person and virtual settings cause stress for students, faculty, and staff. In a trauma-informed, resilience-oriented community, all parties are given a voice in decisions that affect them.

The five surveys in this toolkit help districts collect data regarding concerns about both in-person and virtual instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. These surveys were the collaborative effort of educators working in the field of trauma-informed, resilience-oriented practices and Social Emotional Learning. 1 The surveys target different audiences: staff; parents, guardians, and families; high school students; middle school students; and elementary school students. Feedback from staff, parents and families, and all students helps a district or school understand stress related to the implementation of any scenario and prepare to meet everyone’s needs. When you disseminate the surveys, spend time explaining what the survey is for, how the results will be used, and confidentiality protections. Additionally, follow your district’s protocols around informed consent and collecting information from minors.

Districts and schools can create their own surveys, search online for surveys, or work with vendors that will assist them in creating surveys specific to their organizational needs.

• Each of the surveys provided begins with demographic questions. Use these questions to understand how each demographic group in the school or school boundary area is represented relative to their percentages within the community.
• Translate the survey into the languages spoken in your school community.
• Consider sending the survey electronically and on paper. If you use a digital survey, be sure it can be read by screen-readers used for visual impairment and that there is a mobile-compatible version. If you use paper surveys, provide a return envelope with paid postage to mail their response back.
• Create a survey dissemination plan that ensures every student and family learns of the survey and has adequate time to complete it. In some cases, this will mean districts may need to send a second round of surveys along with text, phone, and TV messages to ensure that all members of the school community receive and complete the form.

Factors to consider in creating a survey are to include student, staff, family, and community voice by gathering information from each group about their safety and learning concerns, academic and social needs in both virtual and in-person learning settings, and necessary health procedures. If a team is utilizing a vendor to develop a survey, look for ones that provide free surveys, will take input on design, and allow for easy access to results.

Once surveys are returned, the process of aligning needs and concerns with safety recommendations begins. This is when you can revisit the Return to School Alignment Planning Tool to add the information gathered from the surveys. Now you have one document with all inputs for decision-making. If there are discrepancies, consider hosting virtual town hall meetings, focus group sessions, or key informant interviews to better understand what will be best for your community. No matter what plan your district creates, it must be clearly communicated back to all school community members. Share how the plan was created and how future decisions will be made with the community and refer to the Inclusion and Engagement Action Steps above to inform your communication planning.

As much as possible social and emotional best practices should be at the center of the decision-making and planning process. An environment for mutual decision-making, considering everyone’s voice, can be created by following these steps:

• Take time to cultivate and deepen relationships, build partnerships, and plan for social and emotional learning.
• Design opportunities where adults can connect, heal, and build their capacity to support students.
• Create safe, supportive, and equitable learning environments that promote all students’ social and emotional development.
• Use data as an opportunity to share power, deepen relationships, and continuously improve support for students, families, and staff. 2

Case Example – Fulton County Schools COVID-19 Decision Matrix

To guide decision-making, the Fulton County School District created a decision matrix. This tool is an example of a communication tool successfully modeling transparent sharing of information behind decisions for quarantines, closings, and opening due to COVID-19. Parents and community agencies can plan how to support the fluid changes that will happen during the school year. As the COVID-19 pandemic ebbs throughout their community, they will close schools, zones, and even the entire district. This tool does not have the details for contact tracing, quarantine, or cleaning, but it helps the community to understand when the schools might close, causing them to shift their own schedules to address childcare and work concerns in their families.

Undertake Activities to Put Safety First

When planning for the school year during a crisis, the toughest conversation may be “What do we do first?” With all the concerns, priorities, and guidelines swirling around, it can feel overwhelming. In that moment, it is important to come back to the first of the Principles of Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools—safety. When actions are rooted in prioritizing safety for all, it ensures the regular school activities can occur.

There are several dimensions of safety: physical, psychological, social, moral, and academic. These dimensions are defined in the Introduction section of this toolkit. The following recommendations will support schools and districts to prioritize all types of safety as they respond to a crisis in their community.

Begin by assessing safety in your environment. One tool to consider is the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Trauma-Sensitive Environment Implementation Tool on Safety . This tool can be used to assess both in-person and virtual settings, and focuses on student needs specifically. It provides concrete strategies to implement immediately to promote safety in both settings. Teachers can select the most applicable strategies and incorporate them into lesson plans, as relevant.

One of the most important strategies to put safety first is establishing routines and maintaining clear communication. 3 While it can be difficult to create predictable environments in a time of crisis, schools and districts can strive to be counted on for consistent and clear communication. Build trust between administration, teachers, staff, students, and families that, while you may not always have the answers, you will regularly and clearly update them, explaining changes in accessible language. 4

Create Support Infrastructure for Teachers and Staff

Teachers and staff will experience high levels of stress as they work to effectively teach and provide services during a crisis, whether in-person, virtual, or in a hybrid model. School and district leaders must be proactive to support a culture of safety and collegiality among staff. Asking teachers and staff to practice self-care without the infrastructure to support them is not a sustainable approach. It is important to promote compassion resilience among all school and district staff during a difficult time. During professional development time, try this activity—bring staff together to create shared staff agreements, or a joint commitment to creating a positive culture.

• In small groups, discuss helpful behaviors for the work environment.
• Come together as a full group to share what the groups discussed and identify common themes.
• Draft an agreement specifying the agreed upon helpful behaviors.
• Post the agreement in common areas. During times of conflict, refer back to this agreement to guide conversations and actions.

Strategies for developing strong collaborative healthy teams within schools are available in multiple resources developed over the last several years. Teams can search for resources that focus on compassion resilience for staff, social-emotional learning (SEL) skills for school staff, and collaboration to find these resources. One such source is the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s Trauma-Sensitive Module on Compassion Resilience . This resource provides an example of a cultural contract developed using the four steps listed above.

Next, it can be helpful to provide staff with skills to manage difficult conversations. Given the heightened levels of stress and anxiety, changing public health and other official recommendations, and pressures from multiple fronts, to say staff should anticipate difficult conversations coming up might be an understatement. They will be unavoidable, but how staff manages them as they come up will make all the difference. The Self-Care Module of the Trauma-Sensitive Schools Online Professional Development includes a 6-step process for responding in a compassionate resilient manner. The steps are as follows:

• Notice: Be present in the moment and able to recognize signs of distress.
• Self-check: Be aware of your initial thoughts and feelings.
• Seek understanding: Suspend appraisals. Listen for feelings and strengths.
• Cultivate empathy: Develop genuine concern based on your connection to what the person is feeling.
• Discern best action: Co-plan with the person to figure out what would be helpful to them.
• Take action: Be aware that intention alone is not compassionate action.

During professional development time, staff can discuss these workplace scenarios from the Compassion Resilience Toolkit in small groups. This will give them an opportunity to practice navigating difficult conversations before they arise. In the event a staff member appears to need additional and even professional support, this guide offered by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction suggests a helpful approach. This document can support staff to respond with empathy when one of their colleagues is really struggling and help connect them with resources.

• Staff members’ responses to stress and preferred resilience-building activities can be rooted in their culture, religion, and community. Remember that each of us has our own sources for and strategies to build resilience.
• Allow staff to define what self-care means to them and create space for them to engage in the practices that are most healing for them, even if they are different from yours.
• When leading mindfulness or grounding activities, be mindful to use activities that do not actively exclude anyone. Consider giving everyone an opportunity to share and lead an activity that is special to them.

The classroom, online or in-person, is one of the most important places to promote safety and connection. Students of all ages have experienced and may continue to experience varying levels of separation from friends and trusted adults. Uncertain times and changes at home will increase stress for them as well. While teachers and staff may be more familiar with strategies to promote safety and connection in the classroom, such as social-emotional learning (SEL), using these practices in virtual settings is new. But, it is more important than ever to integrate SEL and trauma-informed approaches .

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)

“the process through which children and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions.” 10

• Make the paradigm shift to prioritize relationships and well-being over assignments and compliance. 5
• Seek to make students feel valued regardless of the grade they achieve.
• In virtual environments, it may be harder to engage students. One strategy is the Two-by-Ten approach – spending two minutes a day for ten consecutive days getting to know a student who is difficult to connect with. 6
• Make a personal connection with each student sometime during a session or day, either through specific feedback on skills or to note an achievement, targeted social and emotional instruction, or to hear their input into the class discussion. 7

Learning for Justice (formerly Teaching Tolerance) lists several ideas to promote connection and help students to cope with stress during the pandemic. But connections with students will look different depending on the age of your students.

• Teachers and staff should engage in connection building activities with elementary school-age students daily. Try five-minute virtual chats one-on-one or with small groups. 8
• For middle and high school-age students, try using chat features or email exchanges through school email accounts consistently, such as every Wednesday, to talk about something other than academic work.

Other activities to try include:

• Virtual backgrounds show-and-tell: the day before, ask students to choose an image that shows their favorite food, activity, character in a book, somewhere they would like to travel, or something that gives them comfort when they are stressed. Take time to allow students to share what they chose and why to get to know each other better and build connection.
• Create a Bitmoji classroom . You can also use Google Slides or Microsoft PowerPoint to create this engagement tool as well.
• Movement breaks: for students who can, take time to move their bodies throughout the day. It can be very difficult to sit at the computer or tablet for a full day of classwork. Movement and exercise have been shown to improve focus and cognitive function. 9 Implement strategies daily to get kids moving.

Some students may require additional supports beyond these Tier I/universal approaches. These Tier II and Tier III supports will look different virtually than in-person, but they are just as important. To support teachers and school psychologists to identify a student’s needs, use the COVID-19 School Adjustment Risk Matrix (C-SARM) developed by the National Association of School Psychologists.

• Adapted from Black, P. (2020). Back to School Surveys. Trauma-Sensitive Education, LLC.
• Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2020). Reunite, Renew and Thrive: SEL Roadmap for Reopening School. Retrieved August 20, 2020 from https://casel.org/reopening-with-sel/
• Staff. (March 23, 2020). A Trauma-Informed Approach to Teaching Through Coronavirus. Teaching Tolerance. Retrieved August 21, 2020 from https://www.tolerance.org/magazine/a-trauma-informed-approach-to-teaching-through-coronavirus
• McKibben, S. (2014). The Two-Minute Relationship Builder. ASCD Education Update. Retrieved August 21, 2020 from http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education_update/jul14/vol56/num07/The_Two-Minute_Relationship_Builder.aspx
• Johnson, Eric L & Eckert, Jonathan. (2021, January3) 5 Ways to Take Some of the Distance Out of Distance Learning. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/5-ways-take-some-distance-out-distance-learning?gclid=Cj0KCQiA7NKBBhDBARIsAHbXCB7psZmEucASRueZuUQYpKwZeE-3Wq0ZRuLYQBZlA4V0Rb8gq-8EujwaAnrwEALw_wcB
• CASEL. (2020). 5 Minute Chats with Students. Retrieved August 21, 2020 from https://casel.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/5-Minute-Chats-with-Students.pdf
• Ratey, J. (2012). Run, Jump, Learn! How Exercise can Transform our Schools. TEDxManhattan Beach. Retrieved August 21, 2020 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBSVZdTQmDs&feature=youtu.be
• CASEL. (n.d.). What is SEL? Retrieved August 21, 2020 from https://casel.org/what-is-sel/

Pamela Black, MEd, MA External Consultant National Council for Mental Wellbeing

Linda Henderson-Smith, PhD, LPC Sr. Director Children and Trauma‑Informed Services National Council for Mental Wellbeing

Sarah Flinspach Project Manager Trauma Practice Area National Council for Mental Wellbeing

Phoebe Kulik, MPH, CHES Director of Workforce Development National Center for School Safety Region V Public Health Training Center

Emily Torres, MPH Program Manager & Technical Assistance Lead National Center for School Safety

Carolyn Seiger, MA Instructional Designer National Center for School Safety

Brent Miller, MA Instructional Designer National Center for School Safety

Acknowledgements

Additional thanks to Rebecca Yi and Joe Alberts.

Recommended Citation

Black, P., Henderson-Smith, L., & Flinspach, S. (2021, September 21). Trauma-Informed, Resilience-Oriented Schools (TR) Toolkit . National Center for School Safety. https://www.nc2s.org/resource/trauma-informed-resilience-oriented-schools-toolkit/

National Center for School Safety

The National Center for School Safety (NCSS) is a Bureau of Justice Assistance-funded training and technical assistance center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. As a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional center focused on improving school safety and preventing school violence, the NCSS team is composed of national leaders in criminal justice, education, social work, and public health with expertise in school safety research and practice. NCSS provides comprehensive and accessible support to Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing (STOP) School Violence grantees and the school safety community nationwide to address today’s school safety challenges. NCSS serves as the national training and technical assistance provider for the STOP School Violence Program.

National Council for Mental Wellbeing

The National Council for Mental Wellbeing drives policy and social change on behalf of nearly 3,500 mental health and substance use treatment organizations and the more than 10 million children, adults and families they serve. They advocate for policies to ensure equitable access to high-quality services and build the capacity of mental health and substance use treatment organizations. They also promote greater understanding of mental wellbeing as a core component of comprehensive health and health care.

Share this:

NASP: The National Association of School Psychologists

Communiqué

In this issue.

• Relationships Matter

Trauma-Informed Care in Schools: A Social Justice Imperative

• Keeping Up With Transgender Youth
• Are Minority Students Under- or Overrepresented in Special Education?
• Time for Students to Prepare for School Psychology Awareness Week 2015
• Incorporating Tech Into Report Recommendations
• Trans: A Personal Story
• Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
• Come to New Orleans; Connect the Dots of Resilience!
• NOLA Dining and Restaurant Guide
• Mardi Gras 101: Laissez Les Bons Temps Roulet!
• The Provision of School Psychological Services to Bilingual Students
• Nightmares: Neurological Correlates, Prevalence, and Intervention
• Gender and School Psychology
• Changing Practice by Knowing What's on the Refrigerator
• Reflections on the NASP Position Statement on Bilingual Students
• Book Review: Treating Peer Mistreatment
• Book Review: Ordinary Magic: Resilience in Development
• Book Review: A Cookbook for Play Therapy

Research-Based Practice

By Tamique J. Ridgard, Seth D. Laracy, George J. DuPaul, Edward S. Shapiro & Thomas J. Power

Volume 44 Issue 2,

NASP Members: Log in to access this article

By Tamique J. Ridgard, Seth D. Laracy, George J. DuPaul, Edward S. Shapiro & Thomas J. Power

The mental health field has long recognized the negative consequences associated with a range of traumatic events, including physical assault, sexual assault, natural or man-made disasters, accidents, and medical incidents (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). The shockingly high prevalence of exposure to violence among America's children and adolescents highlights the importance to school psychologists of understanding the effects of violence and effective intervention strategies.

The Prevalence of Trauma Among Youth

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence conducted in 2011 indicated that 41.2% of children had been victims of physical assault within the last year, with 10.1% of these incidents causing physical injury and 6.2% of the incidents including the use of a weapon (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2013). During the same time period, 5.6% of children and adolescents were victimized sexually, with rates reaching as high as 22.8% among adolescent females. In addition to threats in the community, 13.8% were subjected to neglect or physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a caregiver. Furthermore, 22.4% of youth witnessed violence at home, at school, or in the community. Taking into account 50 different victimization categories, 57.7% of youth had some exposure to violence, 15.1% had been exposed to six or more categories, and 4.9% had been exposed to 10 or more categories.

Rates of exposure to community violence are especially high among children living in urban, low-income, predominantly racial/ethnic minority communities. For example, adolescents from families with incomes of less than $20,000 are more likely than those from families with incomes greater than $50,000 to have witnessed violence (49.8% vs. 34.8%) or been the victim of physical assault (24.2% vs. 15.0%; Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000). Rates of exposure to violence are also higher among adolescents from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds. Lifetime prevalence of having witnessed violence is higher among African American (57.2%) and Hispanic (50.0%) youth than Caucasian (34.3%) youth. Similarly, having been the victim of physical assault is higher among African American (24.2%) and Hispanic (20.7%) youth when compared to Caucasian (15.5%) youth (Crouch et al., 2000). Critically, the protective influence of higher income on exposure to violence was only found among Caucasian adolescents; children from high-income African American and Hispanic households were exposed to more violence than teenagers from low-income Caucasian households (Crouch et al., 2000). In addition to higher rates of exposure to traumatic violence, African American, Hispanic, and Native American individuals demonstrate higher rates of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) even after controlling for levels of traumatic exposure and other demographic variables (APA, 2013). Additionally, children who are recent immigrants are at especially high risk for a history of victimization or exposure to violence, with up to 32% reporting symptoms of PTSD and 16% reporting clinically significant symptoms of depression (Jaycox et al., 2002).

The Impact of Trauma on School Functioning

Exposure to trauma or chronic stress has a negative impact on several domains of functioning related to school performance. Traumatic experiences and exposure to community violence can contribute to dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, which in turn can manifest as either hypoarousal or hyperarousal in response to different routine or distressing stimuli (Lynch, 2003). Traumatic exposure at home, school, or in the community has been associated not only with PTSD, but also higher rates of separation anxiety, social anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and oppositional and aggressive behavior (Overstreet & Mathews, 2011; Ruchkin, Henrich, Jones, Vermeiren, & Schwab- Stone, 2007). Trauma also has a negative impact on academic functioning with higher symptoms of traumatic stress predicting poorer reading, math, and science achievement scores among elementary students (Goodman, Miller, & West-Olatunji, 2012). Additionally, traumatic symptoms are associated with a three-fold increase in odds of having an Individualized Education Program for learning or behavior problems (Goodman et al., 2012).

The Role of Schools

Despite the serious consequences of trauma and other mental health concerns, the majority of youth with mental health concerns lacks access to treatment, and those that receive treatment often receive ineffective care (Weist & Evans, 2005). Schools may represent an ideal setting for expanding mental health treatment to youth in need. Schools are already the most common location for youth to receive mental health services (Farmer, Burns, Phillips, Angold, & Costello, 2003), and the ability of educational systems to identify and intervene with children and adolescents in a natural setting offers an opportunity to reach high-risk populations. School-based mental health intervention may also reduce racial and ethnic disparities in access to mental health services (Kataoka, Stein, Nadeem, & Wong, 2007). The importance of school mental health services has led to calls for expansion of services that rely on partnerships between schools, families, and community agencies to provide evidence-based and data-driven prevention and intervention programs in schools (Weist & Evans, 2005).

Major traumatic events, such as Hurricane Katrina and the events of September 11, 2001, have demonstrated that well-prepared schools with comprehensive mental health programs and training in crisis and trauma response are better equipped to deal with community-wide trauma than those without such programs (Jaycox, Stein, Amaya-Jackson, & Morse, 2007). These events and a growing awareness of the effects of trauma on youth have led many schools to do an admirable job of training and preparing for crisis response (Brock & Cowan, 2004). Less is known, however, about the preparedness of schools to deal with the effects of ongoing community violence. Providing effective interventions for students exposed to violence may help to reduce longstanding concerns with disproportionality of discipline, given that exposure to violence increases the odds of truancy and suspension from school (Ramirez et al., 2012). Helping students cope with the potentially traumatic effects of community violence promotes school engagement and success; treating behavior that may be related to trauma as a disciplinary concern, rather than a mental health concern, is neither effective nor socially just.

Schools may address the negative academic, behavioral, and psychological impact of trauma on their students by adopting a trauma-informed approach. The trauma-informed approach is not an intervention; rather, it is a way of providing services to children and families that facilitates the improved functioning of those negatively affected by trauma (Keesler, 2014; SAMSHA, 2014). Because students from racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds may disproportionately experience some potentially traumatic events, provision of trauma-informed care in schools may minimize disparities in academic, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes related to the experience of trauma. When framed this way, the use of a trauma-informed approach becomes more than an issue of mental health service delivery; it becomes an issue of social justice.

Trauma-Informed Service Delivery

Defining trauma-informed care . The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA, 2014) identifies four aspects of a trauma-informed approach to service delivery. The first is to “ realize the widespread impact of trauma and understand potential paths for healing” (SAMSHA, 2014, p. 1); the second is to “ recognize the signs and symptoms of trauma in staff, clients, and others involved with the system” (SAMSHA, 2014, p. 1); the third is to “ respond by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures, practices, and settings” (SAMSHA, 2014, p. 1); and the fourth is to “actively resist re-traumatization ” (SAMSHA, 2014, p. 1). Any organization or system that serves victims of trauma, including schools, can incorporate a trauma-informed approach into their practice.

Implementing trauma-informed care . A trauma-informed approach can be incorporated in schools through the use of a multitier service delivery system for students exposed to trauma (Keesler, 2014; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Systemic changes to school policies, practices, and procedures can be thought of as the universal, or Tier 1, level of service delivery. For a school to adopt a trauma-informed approach, changes need to be made to the culture, policies, and procedures that govern the school community (Keesler, 2014; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Schools can make these necessary changes to establish a universal tier of service delivery by integrating the four aspects of trauma-informed care (i.e., realize, recognize, respond, and resisting retraumatization) into school practice.

The first two aspects of the trauma-informed approach, realizing the widespread impact of trauma and recognizing the signs and symptoms of trauma, can be achieved through additional stafftraining and universal screening for symptoms of trauma (Ko et al., 2008; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Stafftraining may improve school personnel's knowledge of the pervasive impact of trauma and their ability to respond appropriately to the academic and behavioral manifestations of trauma symptoms. Research related to implementing trauma-informed care in other child-serving professions (e.g., child welfare) suggests that stafftraining can increase knowledge about trauma-informed care, improve attitudes toward the use of trauma-informed care, and increase use of traumainformed practices (Brown, Baker, & Wilcox, 2012; Conners-Burrow et al., 2013). In addition, universal screening is an important component of a Tier 1 level of service delivery. Schools implementing a trauma-informed approach should conduct screenings to identify students who have experienced a potentially traumatic event, exhibit symptoms associated with trauma, and are not responding to universal strategies to address the negative impact of trauma (Conradi & Wilson, 2010; Walkley & Cox, 2013).

To incorporate the third aspect of the trauma-informed approach (i.e., responding by integrating knowledge about trauma into practice) into a universal level of service delivery, school policies and procedures could be adjusted to include the six principles of a trauma-informed approach: safety; trustworthiness and transparency; peer support; collaboration and mutuality; empowerment, voice, and choice; and cultural, historical, and gender issues (SAMSHA, 2014). These principles are closely aligned with best practices in the school setting, so modifications can easily be made to existing policies and procedures to align school practices with a trauma-informed approach. For example, in a trauma-informed approach, trustworthiness and transparency are defined by open and honest communication, consistent and reliable interactions, and clear expectations (Keesler, 2014). Schools often have clear expectations for student behavior that are posted throughout the school building; to become more trauma-informed, schools could also develop clear expectations for staffbehavior and post those expectations in the school building alongside student expectations (Walkley & Cox, 2013).

The final aspect of a trauma-informed approach, preventing retraumatization, may be achieved through modifications to discipline practices. Many schools use schoolwide positive behavior support to manage students’ behavior, which is consistent with the “compassionate and effective” discipline practices that are recommended for a trauma-informed approach (Walkley & Cox, 2013, p. 125). Harsh, negative discipline practices, such as restraint, have the potential to retraumatize children (Keesler, 2014). Schools integrating a trauma-informed approach in a multitiered system of service delivery should alter discipline practices for all students by decreasing the use of punitive strategies, such as suspension and expulsion, as the main methods of discipline and increasing the use of positive strategies, such as positive behavior supports and restorative practices (e.g., practices that allow students to be accountable for their actions and address the harm that their actions may have caused; Walkley & Cox, 2013).

Using a Trauma-Informed Approach as a School Psychologist

In addition to advocating for universal policies and procedures for schools to become more trauma-informed, school psychologists can make adjustments to their practice when working with individual students at Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels of service delivery. A trauma-informed approach can be incorporated within the context of a multitiered model of service delivery by making modifications to the core domains of school psychology practice, including assessment, consultation, and intervention.

Assessment . School psychologists can consider trauma when conducting psychoeducational evaluations with students. As part of a comprehensive assessment, school psychologists can gather information about past trauma history. When obtaining information about developmental and medical history, school psychologists should pay attention to relatively recent data as well as children's early childhood experiences. Children experience rapid brain development in early childhood, and therefore are particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of trauma on the brain during this period (Walkley & Cox, 2013). In addition, school psychologists can incorporate the principles of the trauma-informed model into their assessments. In the medical field, physicians typically assess the ABCs (i.e., airway, breathing, and circulation). In a trauma-informed model of healthcare, the assessment of the ABCs can be followed by an evaluation of the DEFs (i.e., distress, emotional support, and family; Marsac, 2015). In school psychology we assess our own ABCs (i.e., antecedents, behavior, consequences); incorporating the DEFs is a highly useful complement to our assessment practices. Assessing distress refers to gathering information about the child's fears and worries related to the assessment process and the child's experience of grief and loss (Marsac, 2015). The child's fears and worries should be addressed by giving the child control during the assessment process; the child should understand assessment procedures and have the ability to provide input (e.g., choosing which assessment measure to complete first, as appropriate; Marsac, 2015). In addition, it is important to assess the child's understanding of the process, clarify misconceptions, and give the child reassurance (e.g., they are not in trouble; Marsac, 2015). The second part of assessing distress is considering the child's experiences of grief and loss and how that trauma may be impacting their academic, behavioral, psychosocial functioning (Marsac, 2015).

Consultation . Assessing the second two parts of the DEFs can be conducted in the context of engaging in consultation with parents. Partnership with parents and families is an essential component of providing trauma-informed care (Conradi & Wilson, 2010). The E in the DEFs represents emotional support. Assessing emotional support for a child involves understanding what supports the child needs to cope and barriers to accessing these supports. Assessing emotional support involves consulting with families to understand successful coping strategies used at home, ensuring that parents understand the reasons for assessment and possible methods of intervention, asking parents to contribute to the evaluation, and encouraging parents to use successful coping strategies used at school, at home (Marsac, 2015). The last part of evaluating the DEFs, assessing family, involves examining family resources and stressors (Marsac, 2015). This fits well in a consultation model for school psychologists. When school psychologists gather information about family resources and stressors, they can encourage parents and siblings to access additional resources needed, such as outside mental health care, which may lead to a more stable and supportive environment overall for the student. In addition to engaging in consultation with parents, school psychologists can initiate consultation with other professionals (e.g., primary care providers or social workers) who are coordinating care for the student to ensure effective and comprehensive services (Conradi & Wilson, 2010).

Intervention . School psychologists can also contribute to the delivery of evidencebased, trauma-focused interventions in schools (Conradi & Wilson, 2010). Manualized intervention packages, such as Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS; Jaycox et al., 2007) can be implemented with groups of students at Tier 2. Students who do not respond to Tier 2 group interventions can participate in Tier 3, individualized interventions packages adapted to their needs. These interventions should target the negative consequences of trauma that are directly related to learning and academic success, including “decreased cognitive capacity, poor memory and concentration, language delays, and the inability to create and sustain positive relationships” (Brunzell, Waters, & Stokes, 2015, p. 4). As school psychologists, we are familiar with implementing interventions that target many of these areas. Additional intervention strategies that would be helpful for school psychologists to incorporate into their practice include a focus on promoting self-regulation and secure attachment (Brunzell et al., 2015).

When developing interventions related to self-regulation, school psychologists should consider students’ physical and emotional self-regulation (Brunzell et al., 2015). Self-regulation strategies could include rhythmic, patterned activities, such as songs with movement or exercise, that give students an opportunity to continually practice physical self-regulation skills (Brunzell et al., 2015). To practice emotional regulation, students may benefit from the opportunity to practice identifying their feelings, linking their feelings to their experiences, and learning strategies to calm themselves down (Brunzell et al., 2015). These emotional regulation strategies are often taught in cognitive– behavioral therapy intervention programs.

Some students may have experienced traumatic or highly stressful events in the absence of the consistent, nurturing presence of a supportive person, which may result in a failure to seek help or a tendency to respond to stress in maladaptive ways (e.g., aggression, withdrawal, or bullying; Brunzell et al., 2015). Trauma-informed interventions can help students build positive, trusting relationships with adults and peers in the school, which may increase students’ feelings of safety and belonging (Brunzell et al., 2015). In order to build positive relationships, school staffneed to be empathetic, warm, and make students feel respected and valued. It is recommended that staffinteract with students in this way at all times, regardless of the student's behavior or response (Brunzell et al., 2015). In all interventions, a strengths-based approach is recommended; school psychologists can focus their efforts on building students’ competencies and skills to promote improvement in academic, psychosocial, and behavioral functioning (Brunzell et al., 2015; Conradi & Wilson, 2010).

Trauma-Informed Care and Racial/Ethnic Disparities

Given racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the experience of trauma and chronic stress, use of a trauma-informed care approach may reduce disparities in the emotional and health outcomes of these students, which may then positively impact students’ academic and behavioral functioning. Failure to detect and address the trauma experienced by students exposed to violence may perpetuate disparities in educational and health outcomes (Brunzell et al., 2015; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Using a trauma-informed approach in schools virtually ensures that the negative impact of trauma is recognized and that the needs of students who have experienced trauma are addressed. Some schools are beginning to incorporate a trauma-informed approach and are seeing the benefits. For example, during the 2010 to 2011 school year, Lincoln High School in Walla Walla, Washington adopted a trauma-informed approach to discipline. The school saw a significant reduction in suspensions (85%), expulsions (40%), and written referrals (50%; Walkley & Cox, 2013). Schools that would like to integrate a trauma-informed approach into their practice may consider using a multitiered system of service delivery in which they make adjustments to school policies and procedures at Tier 1, provide group interventions and consultation at Tier 2, and develop individualized interventions to address the effects of trauma at Tier 3. As advocates for social justice, school psychologists are charged with the task of providing appropriate supports to meet the needs of all students; providing trauma-informed care may be a necessary part of meeting the needs of many students from racial/ethnic minority and low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Tamique J. Ridgard and Seth D. Laracy are graduate student trainees on the Leadership Training Grant in Pediatric School Psychology at Lehigh University. George J. DuPaul, PhD, Edward S. Shapiro, PhD, NCSP, and Thomas J. Power, PhD, are coinvestigators of the Leadership Training Grant, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education

Mitigating The Impacts of Secondary Trauma in K-12 Educators

• Lasha Luciw University of Calgary

Given the prevalence of adversity experienced by students attending K-12 schools, educator roles have evolved to include supporting student mental health through trauma-informed practice. What remains largely unaddressed, are the impacts of student trauma on the educators who support them, as well as best practices for alleviating this stress in school personnel, as part of a trauma-informed approach. With secondary trauma being an understudied construct in educators, this systematic literature review provides an overview of studies on how secondary trauma impacts educators, as well as approaches to supporting educator mental health following indirect trauma exposure. Qualitative data analysis resulted in the identification of themes surrounding secondary trauma impacts, including emotional and psychological affects, burnout and compassion fatigue, educator attrition, and effects on student outcomes. Themes related to mitigation strategies included individual and organizational approaches. Although best practices for mitigating secondary trauma in educators include a combination of interventions, organizational practices superseded those required by individuals alone. Thus, this review also calls for greater attention from administrators and educational policymakers to invest in further research and management of secondary trauma at an organizational level. A limitation of this research is the lack of empirical information on the impacts of secondary trauma in educators, and research-based ways to support staff affected, given the dearth of studies that currently exist.

Keywords : secondary trauma, educators, school personnel, mental health, organizational practices

• PDF (Français (Canada))
• Manuscripts submitted to CJNSE/RCJCÉ must be original work that has not been published elsewhere, nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere. The author should confirm this in the cover letter sent with the manuscript.
• Articles that are published within the CJNSE/RCJCÉ must not be published elsewhere, in whole or part, for one year after publication.
• Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Granting the CJNSE/RCJCÉ first publication rights must be in the cover letter sent with the manuscript.
• If the manuscript contains copyrighted materials, the author should note this in the cover letter sent with the manuscript, and indicate when letters of permission will be forwarded to the Editor.
• If the manuscript reports on research with “human subjects,” the author should include a statement in the cover letter that ethics approval has been received for the research, indicating the granting body and protocol number if applicable.
• Authors are encouraged to use language that is inclusive and culturally sensitive.

Developed By

• Français (Canada)

Information

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Last updated November 2 2018

Research management

Sponsored by

Research shouldn’t cause trauma – let’s find a better way

How can we conduct research and share results without affecting the well-being of those around us? Eileen Harkess-Murphy advocates for a trauma-informed approach

Eileen Harkess-Murphy

• More on this topic

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover elsevier.

Created in partnership with

You may also like

Popular resources

.css-1txxx8u{overflow:hidden;max-height:81px;text-indent:0px;} RIP assessment?

Emotions and learning: what role do emotions play in how and why students learn, how to do self-promotion without the cringe factor, a diy guide to starting your own journal, how hard can it be testing ai detection tools.

Should academics be worried that the findings of their research will traumatise people? It’s a valid question. 

We know everyday experiences have the potential to be a source of psychological distress and trauma. Researchers explore challenging and complex issues, affecting society and individuals – and it’s important to consider how we can make sure our findings don’t cause further harm. 

What is trauma and what does it mean to be trauma-informed?

Trauma is more common than we might think, with about 70 per cent of people estimated to have experienced it at some point in their life. Although there is no accepted definition of trauma, a strong starting point is the definition by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration , which describes it as an event or circumstance which has lasting effects on an individual’s well-being. 

Trauma overwhelms us. It makes us feel like we can't handle things – and it can build up over time, affecting our overall health. But here’s the thing: if we know about the potential for trauma, we can do something about it.

• Dealing with abuse after public commentary
• A case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research
• Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations

Being trauma-informed means recognising that the things we do and share, including research findings,  could potentially hurt people. So, before we dive into how to handle this, let’s talk about why it matters.

Why it matters to be trauma-informed

How can people – participants, researchers or public as a whole – be traumatised by the sharing of research news after projects have finished? Well, in a nutshell, you don’t have to experience something first-hand to be affected by it. This phenomenon is more commonly known as “vicarious trauma” or “secondary trauma” and can happen when we connect emotionally with what we’re hearing or reading. For example, reading an upsetting news story can trigger secondary trauma. When we connect meaningfully with something, we are inevitably affected by it. 

When research findings are hard-hitting, such as highlighting discrimination and inequalities, those engaging with them are exposed to the risk of psychological distress in ways we cannot predict. With psychological distress comes the risk of trauma, which has huge implications for our well-being.

Research news is meant to connect with us, to make us think and feel something. But what if those feelings end up being negative? We don’t always know how people will react to what we share, and that is a problem. That’s where trauma-informed principles come in. 

Trauma-informed principles

Trauma-informed principles are guidelines that help us share research in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and aims to prevent any extra distress.

There are six in total. Here they are, and what they mean in practice:

Safety 

This is about more than just physical safety. Researchers should ensure emotional safety by being mindful of each interaction during research. 

Trustworthiness and transparency

It’s vital that you are honest and clear with participants when laying out what you plan to do, what they can expect and what you are setting out to achieve. 

Peer support 

Support networks are vital in life, and during research this is no different. Researchers understand the challenges faced by other researchers, and can provide valuable support. 

Collaboration and mutuality

Research can feel like us-and-them. Instead research and dissemination should promote a sense of coming together to explore findings and next steps, working together as partners where the input of those involved is mutually agreed.

Empowerment, voice and choice

Involving the people on which the research is based and who it impacts is crucial. It’s important that the voice of participants and those who are affected by research is valued, and they have a role in shaping decisions. 

Cultural, historical and gender issues

We know stereotypes, discrimination and bias can be a source of trauma.   When research collaboratively works with people impacted by its findings, it can help support an appropriate, sensitive and effective way forward. 

Using these principles as a guide, researchers can universally approach dissemination in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and buffer against additional distress that the research may communicate.    

For example, during the pandemic, researchers took a close look at how they shared their findings on the impact of visiting restrictions in care homes with the stakeholders who regulated this. They already knew that these limitations were emotionally draining and extremely difficult for those affected, and made sure to protect people from any extra trauma.

To do this, they put several important measures in place. These included giving people a heads-up about their trauma-informed approach, letting people have a say in how the information was shared, taking breaks during discussions to give people time to reflect and making sure that quieter voices were heard. 

Researchers said this created a sense of safety in an open, permissive and non-judgmental space. This approach allowed researchers to put a different lens on the findings, with participants making researchers sensitive to the alternative perspectives of their role in the project. Researchers said that without the trauma-informed approach, the findings would have been didactic. Instead, they gained illustrative insights into the real stories that created authentic reflection and was an important reality check on how to share distressing information with other groups.  

Trauma-informed research dissemination is important because trauma can come from everyday things, such as news stories or even just a conversation. Our tipping point is invisible and we may not know ourselves where our threshold is. Researchers should be acutely aware of this, and be vigilant in protecting participants and those consuming their research. This promotes a sense of safety and is a necessary best-practice step that the research community must test further. 

It’s a step in the right direction to ensure our research doesn’t cause negative outcomes for individuals, alongside any positives it brings for wider society. We can’t – and clearly shouldn’t – avoid tackling difficult subjects. However, the right approach can help ensure we handle them in a sensitive and considered way. 

Eileen Harkess-Murphy is lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,  sign up for the Campus newsletter .

RIP assessment?

Confronting generative ai in the fast-changing higher education sector, creating inclusive spaces for inclusive events, contextual learning: linking learning to the real world, webinar: how to recruit talented staff in higher education, tried and tested ways to teach your students soft skills.

Register for free

and unlock a host of features on the THE site

• Office of Micro-Credentials >
• Offerings >

Foundations of Trauma-Informed Care

All program and enrollment questions should be directed to the contact person listed on the program page.

School of Social Work

Program description.

This micro-credential focuses on Trauma-Informed Care (TIC), an approach that assumes that an individual is more likely than not to have a history of trauma. TIC recognizes the presence of trauma symptoms and acknowledges the role trauma may play in an individual's life—including service staff. Learners can either contract as an organization with ITTIC or complete four online modules, which will provide foundational training on trauma and TIC before responding to a scenario to showcase their skills.

Samantha Koury 219 Parker Hall Buffalo, NY 14214 Email:  [email protected] Phone: 716-829-2607

• Continuing Education/Professional Development

Who is Eligible

• Both UB and Non-UB students

Credit or Non-Credit

Instruction method.

• In Person   (no courses offered online)
• Online   (100 percent of the degree requirements can be fulfilled online)

Average Time to Completion

• Less Than One Semester

Skills Obtained*

• Career and Self-Development
• Communication
• Critical Thinking
• Equity and Inclusion
• Professionalism

*Categories based on the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) key competencies .

A Decrease font size. A Reset font size. A Increase font size.

• Newsletters & Media
• The Giving List
• The Youth We Help
• College Preparation
• FAFSA/CADAA Completion
• Expanding Financial Aid
• Campus Support Programs
• Student Homelessness
• Student Basic Needs
• Education in Los Angeles County
• California College Pathways
• Supportive Housing for Foster Youth
• State Investment in Youth Homelessness
• JBAY Housing Complex
• Reproductive and Sexual Health
• Student Mental Health
• Expectant and Parenting Youth
• Reducing Poverty
• Burton Critical Needs and Opportunity Fund
• 2024 Policy Agenda
• 2023 Policy Victories
• 2022 Policy Victories
• 2021 Policy Victories

2024 Blueprint For Success Conference 

• Housing & Homelessness
• Economic Security
• Publication
• Training Curriculum
• Program Roster
• Tools and Toolkits

Trauma Informed Education

This training is designed for campus faculty, classified professionals, and administrators who will come into contact with foster youth students in the course of their careers. The training covers the impact of trauma on student development, relationship-based approaches to supporting students impacted by trauma, and tools and resources for deeper learning. 

SHARE THIS:

A look at nextup implementation in california: a qualitative research study, outreach and recruitment, removing obstacles: ab 789 implementation webinar, removing obstacles: ab789 implementation toolkit.

John Burton Advocates for Youth improves the quality of life for youth in California who have been in foster care or homeless by advocating for better laws, training communities to strengthen local practices and conducting research to inform policy solutions.

Continuing education (CE) programs on evidence-based practices

10-14-24 Case conceptualization: Weaving together a trauma-informed lens and DBT principles to increase intentionality in therapy

Date : Monday, October 14, 2024 Time: 12 – 2 pm EST

Format: Hybrid

• Livestream via Zoom, or
• In person: UNC School of Social Work, 325 Pittsboro Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

CE Credit: 2   CEs , read for full information on credit types awarded. Fees: $35 ( scholarships available )

Description: 

Case conceptualization is fundamental to effective therapy, answering the question, “Why am I doing what I am doing?” This workshop draws from a person-centered, trauma-informed DBT perspective to equip participants with skills to create comprehensive roadmaps for therapy. Participants will learn how to create formal and less formal (on-the-fly) case conceptualizations that prioritize treatment hierarchies tailored to client’s unique needs. Jennifer will illustrate how a well-conceived plan heightens intentionality around client experiences and treatment strategies and targets, such as when and how to use behavioral contingencies and rewards, somatic exploration, and exposure decisions to reduce emotional avoidance during sessions. Jennifer will provide practical examples, and participants will practice engaging with case conceptualizations in small group exercises.

Learning Objectives:

At the end of the training participants will be able to:

1. Explain the significance of case conceptualization, including how it guides treatment planning, intervention strategies, and understanding client behaviors.

2. Identify and integrate at least three elements of DBT case conceptualization and practice integrating them into a comprehensive, individualized treatment plan.

3. Apply case conceptualization to develop to prioritize treatment targets according to the DBT hierarchy as well as the client’s unique needs and circumstances in session.

References:

• Fitzpatrick, S., & Rizvi, S. L. (2022). Dialectical behavior therapy: Assessment and case conceptualization. Behavior therapy: First, second, and third waves (pp. 173-193) https ://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11677-3_8
• Rizvi , S. L., & Sayrs , J. H. R. (2020). Assessment-driven case formulation and treatment planning in dialectical behavior therapy: Using principles to guide effective treatment. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice , 27(1), 4-17. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2017.06.002
• Sayrs, J. H. R., & Rizvi, S. L. (2020). Behavioral assessment in DBT. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice , 27(1), 1-3. https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2019.06.004
• Sloan, C. A., Berke, D. S., & Shipherd, J. C. (2017). Utilizing a dialectical framework to inform conceptualization and treatment of clinical distress in transgender individuals. Professional Psychology, Research and Practice , 48(5), 301-309. https ://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000146

UNC Chapel Hill – Clinical Lecture Series