Conceptual Article
Professional School Counseling
Supporting School Engagement
and High School Completion Through
Trauma-Informed School Counseling
Amanda D. Rumsey1 and Amy Milsom2
Abstract
Awareness of trauma and the impact it has on children is a growing concern for schools in the United States. Exposure to
trauma has been linked to challenges with learning, social/emotional health, and behaviors, all of which can negatively impact
school experience and lead to issues with engagement and high school completion. We discuss suggestions for how school
counselors can use a trauma-informed approach to implement systemic interventions, targeted interventions, and collaborative
partnerships.
Keywords
dropout prevention, engagement, school counseling, trauma-informed
School engagement and high school completion are connected
outcomes that remain in the forefront of improvement plans for
schools across the United States. Lack of engagement in school
has been directly linked to dropping out (Archambault, Janosz,
Fallu, & Pagani, 2009; McDermott, Donlan, & Zaff, 2019), and
dropping out of school is associated with decreased employment
rates, increased involvement in the criminal justice system, and
negative health and societal outcomes (Bjerk, 2012; Conger,
Conger, & Martin, 2010). As of 2016, approximately 5.2 million
Americans 18–24 years old (or 17%) had either not graduated on
time or not graduated at all (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2017).
Further, according to Porche, Fortuna, Lin, and Alegria (2011),
youth who have experienced trauma drop out of school at a
significantly higher rate (19.79%) than those who have not expe-
rienced trauma (12.97%). With growing awareness of the impact
trauma can have on students, schools and school counselors
would be remiss not to provide trauma-informed services.
Although schools may not be able to prevent experiences of
trauma, with increased awareness of what trauma is and how it
influences school engagement and high school completion,
school counselors can help schools identify and provide relevant
trauma-informed interventions and services.
With increased awareness of what trauma is and
how it influences school engagement and high
school completion, school counselors can help
schools identify and provide relevant trauma-
informed interventions and services.
Volume 22(1): 1-10
ª 2019 American School
Counselor Association
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2156759X19867254
journals.sagepub.com/home/pcx
School Engagement and High School
Completion
School engagement may be best understood as a multidimen-
sional construct that includes behavioral, cognitive, and affec-
tive ways in which a student actively participates in school and
cocurricular activities with a commitment to learning and
achieving academic goals (Christenson, Reschly, & Wylie,
2012). Examples of school engagement include being on task,
actively participating in class, and demonstrating self-
regulation (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006).
School engagement plays an important role in the process of
high school completion and the movement toward being col-
lege and career ready (Janosz, 2012). Further, as a construct,
school engagement is fundamental to most theories of dropout
prevention (e.g., Finn, 1989; Rumberger & Larson, 1998;
Tinto, 1975; Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Lesko, & Fernandez,
1989).
1
Department of Education and Human Development, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC, USA
2
Department of Human Development and Psychological Counseling, Reich
College of Education, Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Amanda D. Rumsey, PhD, Department of Education and Human Development,
Clemson University, 318 Tillman Hall, Gantt Circle, Clemson, SC 29634, USA.
Email: arumsey@clemson.edu
2 Professional School Counseling
Efforts to identify students at risk of school disengagement
or dropping out often focus on variables such as discipline
history, academic performance, and attendance (Parr & Bonitz,
2015). Factors that can influence those variables, and ulti-
mately school engagement and dropout, come from several
different domains (i.e., individual, family, school, and commu-
nity). Examining the underlying issues that lead to academic
struggles, behavioral challenges, and reduced school engage-
ment can offer school counselors and educators important
insight in the development of relevant interventions. Exposure
to trauma is one of the underlying issues that may be over-
looked in many students but that can have direct effects on
learning, behavior, school engagement, and high school com-
pletion (Iachini, Petiwala, & DeHart, 2016; Porche, Fortuna,
Lin, & Alegria, 2011).
Definition and Prevalence of Trauma
Trauma is defined in many ways and is best understood based
upon the context in which it is being discussed. According to
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
fifth edition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), a trau-
matic event includes exposure to actual or threatened death,
serious injury, or sexual violence. Briere and Scott (2015) iden-
tified trauma more broadly, as any event that is “extremely
upsetting, at least temporarily overwhelms an individual’s
internal resources, and produces lasting psychological
symptoms” (p. 10). Thus, when describing childhood trauma,
consideration should be given to experiences that may or may
not include exposure to death, serious injury, or sexual violence
but that do have lasting negative effects on children. For the
purposes of this article, we define trauma using the broad def-
inition that includes exposure to or experience of an event or
series of events that are frightening or threatening and have
lasting effects that are overwhelming and challenge one’s abil-
ity to cope (National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2013).
Two other terms capture experiences that would fall within
that definition of trauma. Complex trauma has been used to
describe both the exposure to and the impacts of multiple
adverse events that typically occur within a child’s caregiving
system during early childhood and that are severe, pervasive,
and often interpersonal in nature such as sexual or physical
abuse, profound neglect, and community violence (National
Child Traumatic Stress Network, 2014). Another term, adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs), describes a set of deleterious
events related to childhood abuse and/or household dysfunction
(Felitti et al., 1998).
The types of traumatic events that students experience vary
greatly. According to the 2015 National Survey of Children’s
Exposure to Trauma (NatSECV II), approximately two of the
three children under the age of 17 report exposure to different
forms of violence, crime, and abuse; more than 10% of these
children report exposure to five or more violent experiences
within a year (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2015).
Acts of mass violence, such as the school shootings that
occurred at Columbine High School in 1999, Sandy Hook Ele-
mentary School in 2012, and Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School in 2018, are traumatic events that impacted both school-
aged children and the individuals who were involved in sup-
porting them. Natural events such as hurricanes, tornadoes,
wildfires, and floods also are traumatic events that can affect
entire communities.
The most pervasive threat of trauma to children and adoles-
cents, however, is not necessarily the large, single-occurrence,
traumatic events, but rather the chronic and/or systemic acts of
violence that can happen repeatedly within the home or com-
munity (Meyers, 2014). Examples of these kinds of threats,
which could be classified as complex trauma or ACEs, might
include experiencing homelessness or extreme poverty, living
in a violent or unsafe community, or witnessing domestic vio-
lence at home. Direct experience and exposure to any of these
potentially traumatic events can interfere with a child’s ability
to succeed in school (Perfect, Turley, Carlson, Yohanna, &
Saint Gilles, 2016).
The most pervasive threat of trauma to children and
adolescents . . . (is) the chronic and/or systemic acts
of violence that can happen repeatedly within the
home or community.
The Impact of Trauma
Exposure to trauma can lead to lasting physical, mental, and
emotional harm, whether the child is a direct victim or a wit-
ness. Exposure to traumatic events also can negatively impact
physiological, psychological, and social development (Morton
& Berardi, 2018; Porche et al., 2011) and overall school
engagement (Porche, Costello, & Rosen-Reynoso, 2016). That
is, traumatic stress disrupts information processing (Van der
Kolk, McFarlane, & Weisaeth, 1996), which can lead to social,
emotional, and behavioral challenges that interfere with
healthy relationships and success in the academic environment.
For example, children who are exposed to trauma are more
likely to exhibit attachment problems, regressive behavior,
anxiety, depression, conduct problems, health-related prob-
lems, academic and cognitive problems, and delinquency and
to be involved in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems
(Morton & Berardi, 2018). Although many children will adapt
and overcome traumatic experiences, others will develop
symptoms that negatively impact learning, social and emo-
tional relationships, and behavior (Hodges et al., 2013).
Trauma and Learning
Complex trauma can alter the brain structure and lead to cog-
nitive and developmental issues that challenge academic suc-
cess in a variety of ways (Meyers, 2014; Walkley & Cox,
2013). For example, changes in the architecture of the brain
may jeopardize a child’s ability to sustain attention and regu-
late emotions and behavior (Craig, 2016). Trauma also can
Rumsey and Milsom
hinder the ability to process cause-and-effect relationships,
interfere with the ability to organize and remember new infor-
mation, undermine the development of language and commu-
nication skills, and diminish the capacity for creative play, all
of which compromise a child’s ability to attend to classroom
tasks and instructions (National Child Traumatic Stress Net-
work, 2014). Self-control, focus, memory, organization, com-
prehension, and social skills are all essential foundations of
learning, and deficits in any one area can influence a child’s
achievement in the classroom and ability to fully engage in
school.
Trauma and Social/Emotional Health
Babies and young children who have experienced maltreatment
such as abuse and neglect are likely to have insecure attach-
ment with caregivers (Morton & Berardi, 2018) and delays in
the development of age appropriate social skills. As they grow
into school-aged children, these attachment issues and social
delays can interfere with success in the social aspects of school.
Moreover, traumatic experiences involving lack of physical
and psychological safety can make children distrustful of adults
and/or peers and unsure of the security of their environment,
which may lead to persistent experiences of anxiety and anger
(Streeck-Fischer & Van der Kolk, 2000). These kinds of emo-
tional challenges carry over into the school environment, mak-
ing relationships with peers and teachers problematic.
Trauma and Behavior
Many children who have experienced trauma develop beha-
vioral coping mechanisms in an effort to feel safe and in control
(Van der Kolk, 2015). According to Kozlowska, Walker,
McLean, and Carrive (2015), physical symptoms such as ele-
vated heart rate and rapid breathing occur when individuals
experience stressful or traumatizing events. Further, stress hor-
mones become elevated and neural patterns trigger the body for
fight, flight, and freeze responses. Once the danger has passed,
the brain readjusts and the body returns to its standard mode of
functioning. In youth who have experienced trauma, the stress
hormones can spike very quickly and take much longer to
return to normal, leaving them highly reactive to external sti-
muli and defensive of perceived threats, even in a safe envi-
ronment (Van der Kolk, 2015).
The ability to modulate physiological arousal and the sub-
sequent loss of self-regulation have been linked to self-
destructive behaviors, conduct problems, and substance abuse
(Van der Kolk et al., 1996). Although both internalizing (e.g.,
withdrawing, numbness, depression) and externalizing (e.g.,
acting out, substance use) behaviors may be present as a result
of trauma, the externalizing behaviors may be more immedi-
ately evident in a school setting. That is, although externalizing
behaviors serve a function for the individual, they often are
confusing and misunderstood by educators and may include
actions that require disciplinary consequences in a school
3
setting. Internalizing behaviors may not be as clearly evident
to educators but can be equally problematic in terms of student
attendance, emotional stability, and readiness to engage and
learn.
Trauma, School Engagement, and Dropout
The connection between trauma, school engagement, and drop-
out is clear. The cognitive, psychological, social, and beha-
vioral challenges that can occur as a result of trauma are
closely related to commonly identified factors that negatively
impact school engagement and high school completion (Rum-
sey & Milsom, 2017). Individual responses to trauma vary, but
students who experience significant levels of subsequent psy-
chological distress may be at greater risk of experiencing more
severe problems in the school environment and ultimately
dropping out of school (Porche et al., 2011). Further, with
insufficient or inadequate support, students with learning chal-
lenges, low academic achievement, emotional disturbances,
and/or truancy (all potential symptoms of trauma) are more
likely to disengage and/or dropout of school (Hammond, Lin-
ton, Smink, & Drew, 2007).
The cognitive, psychological, social, and
behavioral challenges that can occur as a result of
trauma are closely related to commonly identified
factors that negatively impact school engagement
and high school completion.
Schools may not be able to eliminate chronic environmental
and systemic stressors and violence; however, mislabeling or
overlooking the impact traumatic events have on a child may
lead to increased frustration and decreased success for all
involved. In many cases, children experiencing trauma symp-
toms can be mislabeled with attention deficit disorder,
oppositional-defiant disorder, and conduct disorder (Perry,
2009), meaning that the underlying concerns related to trauma
may never be addressed. Trauma-related difficulty with emo-
tion regulation and attentional processes (Fuller-Thomson,
Mehta, & Valeo, 2014; Villalta, Smith, Hickin, & Stringaris,
2018) are often interpreted by teachers as disruptive classroom
behaviors and handled with disciplinary actions. School coun-
selors play an integral role in promoting a trauma-sensitive
environment by identifying students affected by trauma and
providing needed support and resources (American School
Counselor Association [ASCA], 2016).
Trauma-Informed School Counseling
Interventions That Support School
Engagement and High School Completion
The increase of traumatic events in the United States, along
with the growing awareness of the prevalence of exposure to
trauma among youth (Finkelhor et al., 2015) and the impacts of
trauma on the development of children (Perfect et al., 2016;
4 Professional School Counseling
Walkley & Cox, 2013), have led to a growing national move-
ment to create educational environments that are responsive to
the needs of trauma-exposed youth (Overstreet & Chafouleas,
2016). School counselors play a key role in this movement
through their position in understanding ACEs, identifying stu-
dents affected by trauma, and providing support and resources
in the school environment (ASCA, 2016). In this section, we
review school counselor roles in implementing trauma-
informed systemic and targeted interventions and engaging in
collaborative partnerships to positively affect school engage-
ment and high school completion.
Systemic Interventions
School counselors can focus on trauma-informed, systemic
interventions through activities aligned with the foundation,
management, and accountability components of the ASCA
(2012) National Model. For example, they can assume leader-
ship roles in ensuring staff have access to professional devel-
opment related to trauma and school engagement and advocate
for trauma-informed policies and procedures that address
issues with engagement and dropout. Further, school counse-
lors can collaborate with school leaders to collect and analyze
data to inform decisions related to tiered interventions (i.e.,
Tier 1, 2, or 3) and to monitor the effectiveness of those inter-
ventions. We discuss such roles in more detail below.
Before assuming these types of roles, however, school coun-
selors must understand the key tenets of trauma-informed
schools. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2014), a trauma-informed
organization is one in which everyone (a) realizes what trauma
is and how it can affect people; (b) recognizes signs and symp-
toms of trauma; (c) responds by implementing trauma-
informed policies, procedures, and practices; and (d) seeks to
resist retraumatization of individuals. Further, key principles
that are particularly relevant to school-aged students include
promoting a sense of safety, recognizing the importance of
family, promoting student empowerment and self-advocacy,
and being responsive to cultural needs. In general, SAMHSA
recommends a comprehensive and collaborative approach
where key stakeholders are knowledgeable about trauma,
where organizational policies and procedures reflect that
knowledge and a desire to foster safe and supportive environ-
ments, and where the unique needs of students affected by
trauma are considered.
Focusing specifically on school settings, the National Drop-
out Prevention Center (NDPC) developed the Trauma-Skilled
Schools Model (Gailer, Addis, & Dunlap, 2018), which deline-
ates a process that “guides all personnel and the school as a
cohesive unit to acquire knowledge, deliver supports, and mas-
ter the skills to foster successful outcomes for trauma-impacted
students” (p. 17). The three core components of their model
focus on school staff developing knowledge of trauma, build-
ing a system that fosters student resilience, and acquiring skills
to respond to trauma. The second and third components provide
direction for implementing, maintaining, and assessing a
trauma-skilled plan. School counselors are in a unique position
to take a leading role in implementing these components that
support systemic dropout prevention interventions in a trauma-
skilled manner.
Leading staff development. School counselors can assume a lead-
ership role in coordinating and/or delivering professional
development and ongoing trauma-related training. As evident
in the SAMHSA (2014) and NDPC (Gailer et al., 2018) models
presented above, staff professional development is critical to
ensuring school-wide implementation of trauma-informed
interventions. All staff members need to understand what
trauma is, what it looks like, and how it affects students and
families (Cole, Eisner, Gregory, & Ristuccia, 2013). They also
need to develop skills to interact effectively with students who
have experienced trauma (Gailer et al., 2018).
Although no specific models exist for implementing profes-
sional development on this topic, outcome data suggest the
components of the NDPC model (Gailer et al., 2018) are impor-
tant. In two elementary schools in Spokane, WA, teachers were
educated about trauma and its effects, learned to view student
behavior through a trauma-informed lens, and were provided
tools to create a supportive environment to address student
misbehavior. Bemiss Elementary saw a 20% decrease in office
referrals and 30% decrease in suspensions each year for 2 years
in a row, and Otis Orchards Elementary reported a decrease in
aggressive behavior from 83 incidents in 2012 to 13 in 2013
(Stevens, 2013).
To help teachers and other school personnel foster school
engagement and high school completion through a trauma-
informed lens, school counselors could facilitate annual faculty
and staff training related to recognizing and responding to signs
and symptoms of trauma. Emphasis on academic, social/emo-
tional, and behavioral effects of trauma and the warning signs
of school disengagement would support the recognition and
identification of students who may need additional support
related to coping with experiences of trauma. Further profes-
sional development could focus on the use and implementation
of data review teams and early warning intervention teams,
which typically are established to identify and monitor students
at risk for school dropout (Davis, Herzog, & Legters, 2013).
These types of trainings could be offered at the beginning of
each academic year or at the start of employment for any staff
entering midyear, along with suicide, mandated reporting, and
other required annual trainings.
Advocating for trauma-informed policies and procedures. While
ensuring staff are knowledgeable about trauma, school counse-
lors also can advocate for the implementation of trauma-
informed practices. One important role they can assume is to
contribute to the development of policies and procedures that
convey a safe and supportive environment for students and
families who have experienced trauma. Specifically, disciplin-
ary policies should ensure that students impacted by trauma are
Rumsey and Milsom
recognized and supported rather than penalized for behaviors
related to that trauma. Suh and Suh (2007) revealed school
suspension as a predictor of school dropout, so school person-
nel must consider the possibility that inappropriate behaviors
might be a result of trauma (Van der Kolk, 2015) and consider
alternate ways of addressing problem behavior.
Bornstein (2013) provided an example of how a school can
successfully implement supportive, rather than disciplinary,
approaches to inappropriate behavior. In Brockton School Dis-
trict, school staff collaboratively generated supportive options
for students who had difficulty managing emotions, including
allowing them to take a walk or listen to music for a short time.
They also made intentional efforts to help decrease potential
stress associated with school transitions (e.g., bus to school,
class to lunch) by providing clear instructions and expectations.
These kinds of trauma-informed procedures are examples of
how schools can foster student resilience, consistent with rec-
ommendations from the NDPC (Gailer et al., 2018).
With expertise in behavioral and social/emotional interven-
tions, school counselors are natural advocates and leaders in
developing these types of policies and procedures. Initially,
they could identify common behaviors that might be reflective
of trauma. Then, in collaboration with school administrators or
the leadership team, they could draft policies that include non-
punitive options for addressing those behaviors. Moreover,
school counselors could lead initiatives to regularly examine
school climate, helping identify opportunities to convey an
environment of support and safety in line with recommenda-
tions from the SAMHSA (2014). Formal use of school climate
surveys, such as those available through the National Center on
Safe Supportive Learning Environments (2019), could help in
this regard.
Collaborating in use of data. The incorporation of surveys to
generate data to inform policies and procedures aligns with the
final systemic role we envision school counselors assuming in
supporting student engagement and high school completion
from a trauma-informed perspective. Consistent with the
NDPC Trauma-Skilled Schools Model (Gailer et al., 2018),
collaboration in the use of data involves the process of collect-
ing and monitoring both schoolwide and individual data, and
then using that data to inform interventions. As mentioned
previously, common data points that can serve as indicators
of potential to dropout of school include disciplinary referrals,
course grades, and attendance (Parr & Bonitz, 2015).
School counselors can advocate for the incorporation of
universal screening systems by sharing the benefits of those
systems with key stakeholders (Donohue, Goodman-Scott, &
Betters-Bubon, 2016). In fact, researchers have discussed how
using early warning intervention teams to examine school
dropout indicators helps ensure a more comprehensive review
of students rather than a focus on the most disruptive students
(Davis et al., 2013). In other words, this kind of comprehensive
approach can help ensure students whose behavior or perfor-
mance is negatively affected by trauma are less likely to be
5
overlooked. Further, with outcome data maintained over time,
early warning intervention teams can collaborate to identify
targeted interventions designed with consideration of each stu-
dent’s unique needs (Davis et al., 2013).
School counselors might advocate for universal screening
approaches that focus not only on academic, behavioral, and
cognitive factors but also on affect or emotion. For example,
Donohue, Goodman-Scott, and Betters-Bubon (2016) identi-
fied some instruments that could be used for this purpose,
including the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Good-
man, 1997), which is a tool to gather information related to peer
relationships, emotional symptoms, and prosocial behavior and
to assess conduct and attention. Monitoring students more com-
prehensively by including affective assessment may help pro-
vide a better understanding of students’ experiences and needs
for targeted intervention (Lovelace, Reschly, & Appleton,
2017).
Targeted School Counseling Interventions
A comprehensive school counseling program that aligns with a
multitiered system of supports (MTSS) is important in the pro-
cess of removing systemic barriers and providing interventions
that support academic and behavioral success for all students
(ASCA, 2018). Through direct and indirect activities imple-
mented as part of the delivery system, school counselors can
provide targeted interventions addressing school engagement
and high school completion. Implementing Tier 1–3 interven-
tions, in collaboration with other school personnel, can help
students develop knowledge and skills to overcome or cope
with various trauma symptoms. Using a data-based MTSS,
such as Response to Intervention, that includes services to large
groups (such as whole school or classroom lessons), smaller
targeted groups, and individual students (based on relevant
academic, attendance, social/emotional, and behavioral data)
can help school counselors support all students, including those
who may be experiencing struggles related to trauma. School
counselors’ collaborative partnerships with families and com-
munity organizations also can help ensure that students receive
support and resources outside of school.
Through direct and indirect activities implemented
as part of the delivery system, school counselors can
provide targeted interventions addressing school
engagement and high school completion.
Tier 1 interventions. School counselors can provide Tier 1 inter-
ventions independently through their core counseling curricu-
lum or collaboratively through school-wide programming.
Considering the ways trauma can affect student learning, beha-
vior, and social/emotional health, Tier 1 interventions should
focus on helping students develop knowledge and skills to
overcome associated challenges. For example, coping, stress
management, and self-regulation skills could be important for
students exhibiting behavioral or social/emotional effects of
6 Professional School Counseling
trauma. Organizational and study skills could be beneficial for
students struggling with cognitive effects.
School counselors also can play an important role in identi-
fying evidence-based Tier 1 curricula that would be develop-
mentally and culturally relevant for their school. Although no
existing curricula specifically target school engagement and
high school completion from a trauma-informed perspective,
school counselors could identify and advocate for the incor-
poration of evidence-based, school-wide curricula that target
not only knowledge and skills areas critical to success but also
some of the behavioral, cognitive, and/or social challenges
experienced by students exposed to trauma. For example,
social/emotional programs like Second Step (Committee for
Children, 2018) have led to decreased behavioral problems,
increased prosocial behavior, and improved emotional regula-
tion and problem-solving (Low, Cook, Smolkoski, & Butain-
Ricklefs, 2015). The Student Success Skills (2019) curriculum
has been found to help students develop cognitive, social, and
self-management skills to achieve success in school (Lember-
ger, Selig, Bowers, & Rogers, 2015). Those and similar social/
emotional programs align with the trauma-informed practices
suggested by the SAMHSA (2014) and NPDC (Gailer et al.,
2018) for creating safe and supportive environments that foster
student resilience.
Tier 2 interventions. School counselors should consider that stu-
dents who have been exposed to trauma may have needs that
are not met by Tier 1 interventions and may benefit from more
targeted academic, behavioral, or social/emotional supports in
the school environment. Group counseling can be implemented
to improve attendance, academics, social support, or other
identified challenges within the school environment.
Evidence-based programs, such as the Student Success Skills
group model (Webb & Brigman, 2007), Cognitive Behavioral
Intervention for Trauma in Schools (Jaycox, Langley, &
Hoover, 2018), and Bounce Back (Langley, Gonzalez, Sugar,
Solis, & Jaycox, 2015), are group counseling interventions
aimed at addressing trauma-related symptoms through psy-
choeducation, relaxation training, social problem-solving, and
cognitive restructuring. They could be implemented by a
school counselor alone or in collaboration with other mental
health professionals, such as school social workers or school-
based mental health counselors.
School counselors also should be aware of other more indi-
vidualized, evidence-based interventions that could be imple-
mented by a variety of school personnel. Programs such as
Teachers as Advisors (Galassi & Gulledge, 1997), Check and
Connect (Strand & Lovrich, 2014), and Check-In/Check-Out
(CICO; Hawken & Horner, 2003) can be facilitated in a
trauma-informed manner that supports school engagement.
This might involve including space to identify signs and symp-
toms of trauma on the initial Check and Connect or CICO
referral. The case manager can then work to support the
student, keeping in mind the importance of family, relevant
cultural needs, and the need for student empowerment and
self-advocacy. In fact, CICO has been shown to reduce prob-
lem behaviors and increase engagement (Hawken & Horner,
2003; Maggin, Zurheide, Pickett, & Baillie, 2015). Check and
Connect has been shown to increase school attendance, school
completion, and school engagement (University of Minnesota,
2018). A meta-analytic review of mentoring programs pro-
vided evidence of positive effects on emotional/psychological,
problem/high-risk behavior, social competence, academic/edu-
cational, and career/employment outcomes, especially when
implemented with youth from backgrounds of environmental
risk and disadvantage (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, &
Cooper, 2002).
Tier 3 interventions. Students who exhibit numerous trauma
symptoms and/or dropout risk factors may require a more
intensive level of individualized support for academic and/or
behavioral problems. School counseling interventions for those
who have not responded positively with the implementation of
Tier 1 and 2 interventions may include individual counseling,
one-on-one mentoring, or referrals to outside agencies for more
intensive services (Ockerman, Mason, & Hollenbeck, 2012).
School counselors may directly provide interventions or serve
in a more consultative or facilitative role at the Tier 3 level.
They may take on the role of facilitating effective communi-
cation and/or involvement with families. Finally, school coun-
selors can play an integral role in ensuring that awareness of
trauma is included throughout the processes and interventions
at each tiered level.
Collaborative Partnerships
Consistent with trauma-informed practices supported by the
SAMHSA (2014) and NDPC (Gailer et al., 2018), school coun-
selors should ensure their schools are partnering with families
and communities to foster increased school engagement and
high school completion. High school students report their fam-
ilies as having the greatest influence on their decisions around
educational attainment, with 49% attributing family as the
greatest influence compared to 8% identifying teachers or
counselors as having the greatest influence (Oymak, 2018).
In light of families’ influence and the correlation between
socioeconomic status and school dropout (Stark & Noel,
2015), finding ways to work in partnership with families is
imperative for school counselors.
School counselors should ensure their schools are
partnering with families and communities to foster
increased school engagement and high school
completion.
Epstein and VanVoorhis (2010) described and illustrated a
method for thinking systematically about six overarching ways
to involve external partners (i.e., families and community),
with the idea that each approach could directly or indirectly
impact specific student outcomes. For example, providing par-
ents with information and tips for helping their children with
Rumsey and Milsom
homework or structuring their after-school time might lead to
increased homework completion and more positive attitudes
about school, which could lead to increased school engagement
and high school completion. Epstein and VanVoorhis (2010)
offered numerous citations to research showing positive out-
comes (including increased attendance, improved course
grades, and decreased disciplinary referrals and suspensions)
associated with one or more of the six types of involvement.
Below, we describe each type of involvement and offer an
example relevant to trauma-informed school counseling.
Type 1: Parenting. This type of involvement refers to helping
families gain knowledge to understand common developmental
challenges and how to support their students through those
challenges. Within this type, school counselors might partner
with a community mental health organization to develop a
pamphlet or information session to help educate parents about
types of experiences that can be classified as trauma, signs and
symptoms of trauma in their children or themselves, and ways
to seek support. With this information, a parent might know to
question if his child’s aggressive outbursts could be connected
to his wife dying in a car accident, and he would know where he
can turn in the school or community for support. With early
intervention, this student might be more likely to remain
engaged in and complete school than a similar student whose
trauma symptoms go untreated.
Type 2: Communicating. Determining when and how to imple-
ment and facilitate two-way communication between schools
and families is the focus of this type of involvement. School
counselors can encourage regular communication between
school staff and families by developing a schedule that dedi-
cates time each week for discussions about student concerns
and progress in a manner that is most convenient to families,
such as in the early evening hours (White & Kelly, 2010). They
might even partner with community organizations to conduct
these meetings at locations more convenient or accessible to
families than the school. With an understanding that not all
families have Internet or cell phone access and that language
may present a barrier for families’ access to information, coun-
selors can work strategically in collaboration with community
partners to disseminate information through multiple sources
and in multiple languages.
Type 3: Volunteering. For this type of involvement, schools strive
to recruit family and community volunteers to support various
activities. School counselors could approach this type as a way
to support Tier 2 and 3 trauma-informed interventions. By
recruiting family and community members as mentors, they
can build a contingent of individuals who could be paired with
students as needed. Diversity considerations could include
recruiting individuals from varied backgrounds (e.g., race, eth-
nicity, socioeconomic status) and with varied skills and knowl-
edge. For example, one mentor might provide support while
also inspiring a student interested in the military, while another
might be of benefit to a student who mainly needs emotional
7
support and a positive, stable relationship with someone from a
similar low-income background.
Type 4: Learning at home. Similar to Type 1: Parenting, this type
of involvement refers to helping families gain knowledge
regarding how to help support academic and curricular activi-
ties at home. As such, school counselors can proactively con-
sider the type of information to equip families to help students
cope with trauma symptoms in the context of school-related
activities. Information could be disseminated via brochures or
newsletters or through targeted workshops. With this approach,
even students and families with no trauma background might
benefit from the information because many trauma symptoms,
such as anxiety or limited attention span, might be present in
students with no trauma history. For example, students who
struggle with attention might benefit if their family knew how
to help them structure their time or take frequent breaks to stay
productive. Other families might appreciate knowing how to
help their student handle anxiety related to tests or curricular
decision-making.
Type 5: Decision-making. The purpose of this type of involve-
ment is to involve diverse family members on school commit-
tees and to seek input from all families on important school
decisions. Through Type 5 involvement, school counselors can
seek input from families while also helping them become
knowledgeable about how school policies and procedures are
developed. One way to implement this type of involvement is
to include family members on a committee to explore alterna-
tive discipline policies, an important consideration in trauma-
sensitive schools. With an intentional approach to recruiting
committee members from a diverse range of families, input
from families could help ensure that culturally sensitive poli-
cies and procedures are developed.
Type 6: Collaborating with the community. This final type of invol-
vement, according to Epstein and VanVoorhis (2010), involves
identifying community resources that could help support stu-
dents and their families while working in partnership with
community organizations to benefit the greater community.
School counselors can take a leadership role in fostering part-
nerships with community-based professionals and organiza-
tions that can offer specialized expertise or assistance.
Relationships with local mental health professionals and enti-
ties such as law enforcement, refugee support organizations,
and domestic violence centers can be useful in generating refer-
ral lists and soliciting experts to provide information to school
staff and families. Working with community volunteers to set
up a classroom volunteering and mentoring program can also
provide support to teachers and students.
Conclusion
Academic achievement and healthy social/emotional and beha-
vioral development are shared goals that support successful
school engagement and high school completion. With
8 Professional School Counseling
increased awareness of trauma and the impact trauma can have
on all of those goals, emphasis on creating trauma-informed
educational environments is growing. Through the implemen-
tation of trauma-informed systemic and targeted interventions,
school counselors can positively affect academic, social/emo-
tional, and behavioral outcomes, and ultimately support
increased school engagement and high school completion.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American School Counselor Association. (2012). ASCA national
model: A framework for school counseling programs (3rd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: Author.
American School Counselor Association. (2016). The school counse-
lor and trauma-informed practice. ASCA Position Statements.
Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/
asca/PositionStatements/PS_TraumaInformed.pdf
American School Counselor Association. (2018). The school counse-
lor and multitiered system of supports. ASCA Position Statements.
Retrieved from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/
PositionStatements/PS_MultitieredSupportSystem.pdf
Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., Kim, D., & Reschly, A. L. (2006).
Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: Validation of
the student engagement instrument. Journal of School Psychology,
44, 427–445. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.002
Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S., & Pagani, L. S. (2009).
Student engagement and its relationship with early high school
dropout. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 651–670. doi:10.1016/
j.adolescence.2008.06.007
Bjerk, D. (2012). Re-examining the impact of dropping out on crim-
inal and labor outcomes in early adulthood. Economics of Educa-
tion Review, 31, 110–122. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.09.003
Bornstein, D. (2013, November 13). Schools that separate the child
from the trauma. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://
opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/separating-the-child-
from-the-trauma/?_php¼true&_type¼blogs&_r¼1
Briere, J. N., & Scott, C. (2015). Principles of trauma therapy: A guide
to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment, DSM-5 update (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Hand-
book of research on student engagement. New York, NY: Springer
Science & Business Media.
Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Creating
and advocating for trauma sensitive schools. Massachusetts Advo-
cates for Children. Retrieved from https://traumasensitiveschools.
org/tlpi-publications/
Committee for Children. (2018). Second Step. Retrieved from http://
www.secondstep.org
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic
status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of
Marriage & Family, 72, 685–704. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.
2010.00725.x
Craig, S. E. (2016). The trauma-sensitive teacher. Educational Lead-
ership, 74, 28–32. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publica
tions/educational_leadership/sept16/vol74/num01/The_Trauma-
Sensitive_Teacher.aspx
Davis, M., Herzog, L., & Legters, N. (2013). Organizing schools to
address early warning indicators (EWIs): Common practices and
challenges. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 18, 84–100. doi:10.1080/10824669.2013.745210
Donohue, P., Goodman-Scott, E., & Betters-Bubon, J. (2016). Using
universal screening for early identification of students at risk: A
case example from the field. Professional School Counseling, 19,
133–143. doi:10.5330/1096-2409-19.1.133
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002).
Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic
review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197.
doi:10.1023/A:1014628810714
Epstein, J. L., & VanVoorhis, F. L. (2010). School counselors’ roles in
developing partnerships with families and communities for student
success. Professional School Counseling, 14, 1–14. doi:10.1177/
2156759X1001400102
Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D. F., Spitz, A.
M., Edwards, V., . . . Marks, J. S. (1998). Relationship of childhood
abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of
death in adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14,
245–258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015).
Prevalence of childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse:
Results from the national survey of children’s exposure to vio-
lence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 746–754. doi:10.1001/jama
pediatrics.2015.0676
Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational
Research, 59, 117–142. doi:10.3102/00346543059002117
Fuller-Thomson, E., Mehta, R., & Valeo, A. (2014). Establishing a
link between attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactiv-
ity disorder and childhood physical abuse. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 23, 188–198. doi:10.1080/10926771.
2014.873510
Gailer, J., Addis, S., & Dunlap, L. (2018). National dropout prevention
center trauma-skilled schools model. Retrieved from http://dropout
prevention.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Trauma-Skilled-
Schools-Model-Final-I.pdf
Galassi, J. P., & Gulledge, S. A. (1997). The middle school counselor
and teacher-advisor programs. Professional School Counseling, 1,
55–60.
Goodman, R. (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38,
581–586.
Hammond, C., Linton, D., Smink, J., & Drew, S. (2007). Dropout risk
factors and exemplary programs: A technical report. Clemson, SC:
Rumsey and Milsom
National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools.
Retrieved from http://dropoutprevention.org/resources/research-
reports/dropout-risk-factors-and-exemplary-programs-a-technical-
report/
Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Evaluation of a targeted
intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Jour-
nal of Behavioral Education, 12, 225–240. doi:10.1023/A:
1025512411930
Hodges, M., Godbout, N., Briere, J., Lanktree, C., Gilbert, A., &
Kletzka, N. T. (2013). Cumulative trauma and symptom complex-
ity in children: A path analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37,
891–898. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.001
Iachini, A. L., Petiwala, A. F., & DeHart, D. D. (2016). Examining
adverse childhood experiences among students repeating the ninth
grade: Implications for school dropout prevention. Children &
Schools, 38, 218–227. doi:10.1093/cs/cdw029
Janosz, M. (2012). Part IV commentary: Outcomes of engagement and
engagement as an outcome: Some consensus, divergences, and
unanswered questions. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C.
Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement. Bos-
ton, MA: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_33
Jaycox, L., Langley, A., & Hoover, S. (2018). Cognitive behavioral
intervention for trauma in schools (CBITS) (2nd ed.). Santa Mon-
ica, CA: RAND.
Kozlowska, K., Walker, P., Mclean, L., & Carrive, P. (2015). Fear and
the defense cascade. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 23, 263–287.
doi:10.1097/hrp.0000000000000065
Langley, A. K., Gonzalez, A., Sugar, C. A., Solis, D., & Jaycox, L.
(2015). Bounce back: Effectiveness of an elementary school-based
intervention for multicultural children exposed to traumatic events.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83, 853–865. doi:
10.1037/ccp0000051
Lemberger, M., Selig, J., Bowers, H., & Rogers, J. (2015). Effects of
the student success skills program on the executive functioning
skills, feelings of connectedness, and academic achievement in
in a predominantly Hispanic, low-income middle school district.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 25–36. doi:10.1002/
j.1556-6676.2015.00178.x
Lovelace, M. D., Reschly, A. L., & Appleton, J. J. (2017). Beyond
school records: The value of cognitive and affective engagement in
predicting dropout and on-time graduation. Professional School
Counseling, 21, 70–84. doi:10.5330/1096-2409-21.1.70
Low, S., Cook, C., Smolkowski, K., & Buntain-Ricklefs, J. (2015).
Promoting social-emotional competence: An evaluation of the ele-
mentary version of second step. Journal of School Psychology, 53,
463–477. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2015.09.002
Maggin, D. M., Zurheide, J., Pickett, K. C., & Baillie, S. J. (2015).
A systematic evidence review of the check-in/check-out program
for reducing student challenging behaviors. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 17, 197–208. doi:10.1177/109830071
5573630
McDermott, E. R., Donlan, A. E., & Zaff, J. F. (2019). Why do
students drop out? Turning points and long-term experiences.
Journal of Educational Research, 112, 270–282. doi:10.1080/
00220671.2018.1517296
9
Meyers, L., (2014). The toll of childhood trauma. Counseling Today,
57, 28–36.
Morton, B. M., & Berardi, A. A. (2018). Trauma-informed school
programing: Applications for mental health professionals and edu-
cator partnerships. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11,
487–493. doi:10.1007/s40653-017-0160-1
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (2019).
School climate survey compendium. Retrieved from https://safe
supportivelearning.ed.gov/topic-research/school-climate-measure
ment/school-climate-survey-compendium
National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2013). Understanding
child trauma. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://
www.nctsn.org/resources/understanding-child-trauma-and-nctsn
National Child Traumatic Stress Network. (2014). Complex trauma:
Facts for educators. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.nctsn.org/resources/complex-trauma-facts-educators
Ockerman, M. S., Mason, E. C. M., & Hollenbeck, A. F. (2012).
Integrating RTI with school counseling programs: Being a
proactive professional school counselor. Journal of School
Counseling, 10, 1–37. Retrieved from http://jsc.montana.edu/
articles/v10n15.pdf
Overstreet, S., & Chafouleas, S. (2016, March). Trauma-informed
schools: Introduction to the special issue. School Mental Health,
8, 1–6. doi:10.1007/s12310-016-9184-1
Oymak, C. (2018). High school students’ views on who influences
their thinking about education and careers. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Sta-
tistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.
asp?pubid¼2018088
Parr, A. K., & Bonitz, V. S. (2015). Role of family background,
student behaviors, and school-related beliefs in predicting high
school dropout. The Journal of Educational Research, 108,
504–514. doi:10.1080/00220671.2014.917256
Perfect, M., Turley, M., Carlson, J., Yohanna, J., & Saint Gilles, M.
(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, 8, 7–43. doi:
10.1007/s12310-016-9175-2
Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neuro-
developmental lens: Clinical applications of the neurosequential
model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss & Trauma, 14, 240–255.
doi:10.1080/15325020903004350
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,
8, 44–60. doi:10.1007/s12310-016-9174-3
Porche, M. V., Fortuna, L. R., Lin, J., & Alegria, M. (2011). Child-
hood trauma and psychiatric disorders as correlates of school drop-
out in a national sample of young adults. Child Development, 82,
982–998. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01534.x
Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student mobility and the
increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Edu-
cation, 107, 1–35. doi:10.1086/444201
Rumsey, A., & Milsom, A. (2017). Dropout prevention and trauma:
Addressing a wide range of stressors that inhibit student success
10
[White paper]. Clemson, SC: National Dropout Prevention Center/
Network. Retrieved from https://dropoutprevention.org/product/
dropout-prevention-and-trauma/
Stark, P., & Noel, A. M. (2015). Trends in high school dropout and
completion rates in the United States: 1972–2012 (NCES 2015-
015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/
pubs2015/2015015.pdf
Stevens, J. E. (2013). There’s no such thing as a bad kid in these
Spokane, WA, trauma-informed elementary schools [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://acestoohigh.com/2013/08/20/
spokaneschools/
Strand, P. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (2014). Graduation outcomes for truant
students: An evaluation of a school-based, court-engaged commu-
nity truancy board with case management. Children & Youth Ser-
vices Review, 43, 138–144. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.05.008
Streeck-Fischer, A., & Van der Kolk, B. A. (2000). Down will come
baby, cradle and all: Diagnostic and therapeutic implications of
chronic trauma on child development. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry, 34, 903–918. doi:10.1080/000486700265
Student Success Skills. (2019). Retrieved from http://studentsuccesss
kills.com
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014).
SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed
approach (SMA14-4884). Retrieved from https://store.samhsa.gov/
system/files/sma14-4884.pdf
Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high
school dropouts. Professional School Counseling, 10, 297–306.
doi:10.1177/2156759X0701000312
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synth-
esis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45,
89–125. doi:10.3102/00346543045001089
University of Minnesota. (2018). Selected findings from check and
connect research studies. Retrieved from http://checkandconnect.
umn.edu/research/findings.html
Professional School Counseling
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2017). Educational attainment in the
United States: 2016. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/
data/tables/2016/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.
html
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2015). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind,
and body in the healing of trauma. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Van der Kolk, B. A., McFarlane, A. C., & Weisaeth, L. (1996). Trau-
matic stress. New York, NY: Guilford.
Villalta, L., Smith, P., Hickin, N., & Stringaris, A. (2018). Emotion
regulation difficulties in traumatized youth: A meta-analysis and
conceptual review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 27,
527–544. doi:10.1007/s00787-018-1105-4
Walkley, M., & Cox, T. L. (2013). Building trauma-informed schools
and communities. Children & Schools, 35, 123–126. doi:10.1093/
cs/cdt007
Webb, L., & Brigman, G. A. (2007). Student success skills: A struc-
tured group intervention for school counselors. The Journal for
Specialists in Group Work, 32, 190–201. doi:10.1080/01933920
701227257
Wehlage, G. G., Rutter, R. A., Smith, G. A., Lesko, N., & Fernandez,
R. R. (1989). Reducing the risk. New York, NY: Falmer.
White, S. W., & Kelly, F. D. (2010). The school counselor’s role in
dropout prevention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88,
227–235. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00014.x
Author Biographies
Amanda D. Rumsey, PhD, is an assistant professor with the
Department of Education and Human Development at Clemson
University in Clemson, SC. Email: arumsey@clemson.edu
Amy Milsom, DEd, is a professor and chair of the Department
of Human Development and Psychological Counseling at the
Reich College of Education at Appalachian State University in
Boone, NC.