Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

DOI 10.1007/s11256-016-0366-9

Assessing Perceptions of Culture and Trauma

in an Elementary School: Informing a Model
for Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed Schools

Lisa V. Blitz1 • Elizabeth M. Anderson2 •

Monique Saastamoinen3

Published online: 22 July 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Negative outcomes for students of color and those who are economically
disadvantaged are troubling patterns in schools nationwide. Systemic racial dis-
parities, including disproportional poverty, are part of the problem. Regardless of
their race, however, children who live with poverty often have heightened exposure
to adverse experiences. Implementing a culturally responsive trauma-informed
approach to understand and respond to students can address the impact of dispari-
ties, teach resiliency skills, and promote the wellbeing and achievement of all
students. This study describes a school-university collaboration to develop such a
model. Findings explore school personnel’s perceptions about race, trauma, and the
stressors their students face in the context of the developing model.

Keywords Culturally responsive
Trauma-informed
Toxic stress

Disproportionality
Secondary trauma
Sanctuary Model

& Lisa V. Blitz

lblitz@binghamton.edu
Elizabeth M. Anderson
eanders@binghamton.edu
Monique Saastamoinen
msaasta1@binghamton.edu
1
Department of Social Work, College of Community and Public Affairs, Binghamton University,
PO Box 6000, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA
2
Graduate School of Education, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA
3
Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY, USA

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 521

Introduction

Disproportionately higher discipline referrals and lower standardized test scores for
students of color and those who are economically disadvantaged are troubling
patterns seen in schools nationwide (Civil Rights Data Collection 2012). Systemic
racial disparities are certainly part of the problem. Students of color often receive
harsher and more punitive consequences than White students, resulting in higher
rates of discipline referrals, suspensions, and expulsions (Skiba et al. 2011). Further,
Black students are given discipline referrals for infractions that are subjectively
interpreted, such as being perceived as disrespectful, threatening, or excessively
loud, whereas White students are more likely to be referred for vandalism, smoking,
or leaving without permission (Skiba et al. 2002). When the bias is supported by
institutional policies, such as zero tolerance, it becomes imbedded in the school
(Tajalli and Garba 2014). Race bias only explains part of the picture, however, and
does not explain disproportionally negative outcomes for White students who are
financially poor. It is clear that complex approaches are needed to respond to these
multifaceted problems.
Examining policies and practices to eliminate bias is crucial, but environmental
and social-emotional factors that create social and educational inequities and impact
student achievement also need to be considered (Beckett 2014). Each year, almost
60 % of children either experience or witness some form of violence, often multiple
times, and as many as 15 % experience six or more incidences (Finkelhor et al.
2013). Children who live with poverty are more likely to be exposed to abuse, loss,
and violence (Wade et al. 2014). As a result, they may be more reactive to stressors
and less likely to possess behavioral and emotional regulation skills (Jaycox et al.
2012).

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy

Culturally responsive pedagogy teaches students how to understand and ultimately

challenge social injustice (Ladson-Billings 1995), so students learn from an early
age to locate problems in the context of social order rather than internalizing
troubles only as individual, family, or community deficits. Thus, culturally
responsive pedagogy requires that educators understand the impact of social
oppression on the communities in which their students live and develop specialized
skill sets that translate this understanding into strategies for student engagement and
teaching (Milner 2011). These strategies include developing close relationships with
students to identify and build upon their strengths and the strengths of their families
and communities, and using students’ culture, ethnic heritage, and experiences of
oppression as foundations for teaching and learning (Gay 2014).
One goal of culturally responsive pedagogy is to teach students how to
understand and ultimately develop healthy skills to resist social oppression (Ladson-
Billings 1995). When combined with strengths-based teaching and classroom
management strategies, students’ ability to learn social-emotional and academic
skills are enhanced (Boneshefski and Runge 2014). Neither culturally responsive

123
522 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

practice nor strengths-based strategies directly address students’ exposure to trauma,

however. New approaches are needed to promote resiliency and student achieve-
ment by addressing the intersections of institutional bias, trauma, and the chronic
stress often associated with poverty in the context of historical and structural
oppression.
This study describes a school-university collaboration, with faculty from the
disciplines of social work and education, to develop the groundwork for a culturally
responsive trauma-informed whole-school model. Such an effort requires the
support and participation of all members of the school community, so understanding
school personnel’s concerns was a first step. Thus, a community-based participatory
research (CBPR) paradigm (Mulvaney-Day et al. 2006) was used to better
understand school personnel’s perspectives and begin the process of building
partnerships for change.

Trauma and Toxic Stress and the Healing Potential of Schools

Exposure to trauma and chronic stress can have a major impact on children’s social-
emotional, cognitive, and academic growth (Ganzel and Morris 2011). The
environmental adversity associated with poverty, such as unsafe housing and
inconsistent caregiving, is correlated with higher stress levels, even in infants (Blair
et al. 2011). Over time, the accumulation of stress can become toxic. Toxic stress
refers to the bodies’ prolonged exposure to excessively high levels of stress
hormones that become harmful, particularly during child and adolescent develop-
ment (Shonkoff et al. 2012), contributing to health and mental health disparities
(Diez Roux and Mair 2010). These disparities appear early, as 20.5 % of children
from families living in or near poverty exhibit behavioral or emotional difficulties,
compared to 6.4 % of children from financially stable homes (Howell 2004).
The negative effects of trauma and toxic stress (TTS) in children are caused by
both prolonged adversity and the absence of a supportive network of adults who
teach coping (Garner et al. 2012). Incorporating trauma-informed approaches in
schools is crucial to meet the needs of children who face exposure (Jensen 2009).
Teachers and classroom aides are in an optimal position to teach coping skills, help
build resilience, model emotional processing and problem solving, and establish
psychological safety by instituting consistent expectations and familiar routines
(Baum et al. 2009). Teachers can also be instrumental in delivering classroom-based
interventions that address mental health, including coping with TTS (Wolmer et al.
2011). Teacher-provided interventions can effectively reduce student anxiety and
depressive symptoms, improve self-esteem and coping skills, and address
psychosocial difficulties of students (Stopa et al. 2010).

Secondary Trauma

School personnel are often aware of the adversity faced by their students, but may
not feel adequately equipped to respond to students’ mental health needs (Anderson
and Bronstein 2012), thus potentially increasing their vulnerability to secondary

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 523

trauma. Secondary trauma refers to the experience of caretakers who are in close
proximity to, and have relationships with, others who are experiencing TTS but who
do not have sufficient supports to manage the trauma of the other person. Thus, even
when they are not the primary targets of traumatic experiences, school personnel
can take on the emotional burden as secondary recipients of the trauma and stress
their students carry (Borntrager et al. 2012).
As a result of exposure to students’ TTS, school personnel may also
experience indicators of trauma, such as intrusive negative thoughts, avoidance
of stimuli that represent stress or disturbance, negative cognitions and mood,
hyperarousal and reactivity, i.e., being distractible or ‘‘on edge,’’ and/or feeling
hopeless about the possibility for change (Hydon et al. 2015; Bloom 2010).
Moreover, school personnel may not have the professional preparation or in-
service professional development training necessary for helping them better
understand and manage secondary trauma (Anderson et al. 2015), further
increasing their vulnerability. Therefore, supporting school personnel’s ability to
remain creatively engaged with their students, particularly those experiencing
trauma and toxic stress, also requires attending to the emotional demands placed
on school personnel.

Culturally Responsive Trauma-informed Approaches

A culturally responsive school recognizes and validates the cultural and racial
identity of each student, understands the historical context and experiences for
students’ cultural groups in American society, and responds affirmatively with
flexible pedagogy to meet a range of learning styles (Tanner 2013). A trauma-
informed school realizes the prevalence of trauma in children; recognizes the
physiological and relational impact of trauma on students and school personnel;
responds by translating this knowledge into practice as part of school-wide supports;
and reduces re-traumatization by adopting practices that promote healing and
growth rather than punishment and exclusion (Cole et al. 2013). Establishing
trauma-informed approaches in a culturally responsive context also requires that all
students see positive representations of their culture in the educational process
(Goldenberg 2014) to foster increased resilience and cultural pride.
The trauma-informed Sanctuary Model (Bloom 1997) is an organizational
approach that promotes (a) a commitment to non-violence, including psycho-
logical and moral safety; (b) an open and democratic process for communication
and decision making; (c) validation of the multiple perspectives of all those
involved with the school, including teachers, staff, students, and family
members; and, (d) appreciation for emotional intelligence, social learning, and
social responsibility (Esaki et al. 2013). These elements support culturally
responsive practice, align well with other school climate and character education
initiatives, and fit well with the goals of schools (Stanwood and Doolittle 2004).
The Sanctuary Model also promotes attention to secondary trauma for school
personnel (Bloom 2010).

123
524 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

Project Overview

The elementary school that participated in this project was located in an urban area
in the Northeast United States that has seen rapid changes in racial diversity and
local economy.1 In the last 30 years, this once mostly White middle class
community saw a more than 200 % increase in racial diversity. At the time of this
study, more than 25 % of all children, and nearly 50 % of children of color, lived
below the federally defined poverty level, and 70 % of the households had incomes
less than the 2012 national median of $51,371 (U.S. Census Bureau 2012).
Unemployment rates for the city were higher than state and national averages, and
the neighborhood where the school was located had one of the highest crime rates in
the city. The school served approximately 425 students in pre-kindergarten through
5th grade. School district data showed that over 90 % of the students were eligible
for free or reduced price lunch, and more than 50 % of all students were students of
color. The out-of-school suspension rate was more than 5 %, and students’ test
scores were well below state averages. Students of color were disproportionately
over represented in discipline referrals, suspensions, and low test scores.
School-university partnerships that commit to long-term initiatives designed to
address complex school and community concerns provide important insights as
individual school innovations contribute to the bigger picture of school reform
(Beckett 2014). To that end, beginning in spring 2013, the principal investigator
(PI), from the university’s department of social work, met regularly with the school
principal and a social worker from a school-based health clinic. Their concerns
included students’ difficulties with learning and disruptive behaviors that appeared
intractable, despite teacher professional development and initiatives that focused on
character education and bully prevention.
Both the social worker and school principal identified poverty, poor living
conditions, and environmental and family stressors as contributing to students’
academic and behavioral difficulties. They also shared that the teachers often did not
appear to know how to effectively address students’ challenging behaviors. The
school principal and social worker agreed that better understanding school
personnel perspectives was an important first step in developing a culturally
responsive trauma-informed model. Therefore, the study investigated teachers’ and
classroom aides’ (a) perceptions of student behaviors; (b) understanding of both
TTS and race; and, (c) self-reported stress levels and teaching efficacy.

Methods

The study utilized mixed methods and was developed collaboratively through
CBPR (Mulvaney-Day et al. 2006). The school district developed a letter of
agreement with the university, and the project was approved by the university’s
Institutional Review Board. School personnel were told that their participation was

1
To protect the identity of the school district, a specific citation is not provided for community or school
data.

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 525

voluntary and confidential, and data shared with the school principal and district
administrators would be anonymous.
After the meetings with the principal and social worker, the PI met with school
personnel to develop relationships and hear their perspectives. The goals of the
project, creation of two of the survey instruments, and clarification of research
procedures were developed collaboratively with the PI and a small work-group
consisting of four teachers, pupil services professionals (i.e., the guidance
counselor, school psychologist, school nurse, and the school-based social worker),
and the principal. The PI also reviewed school and district data provided by the
principal and district superintendent. Following data collection, the PI provided a
summary of findings to the principal, which they discussed to develop a deeper
understanding of concerns.

Questionnaires

Three questionnaires were used. The ‘Cultural Ecology’ questionnaire was already
being used by the school district as part of their efforts to address racial
disproportionality. It has been shown to have content validity and good reliability
(Cronbach’s a = .73; Tanner 2013). The ‘Perceptions of Student Behaviors’ and
‘Stress Level, Efficacy, and Confidence’ questionnaires were developed by the
aforementioned work-group of school personnel along with the PI. The questions
were developed to address areas that the CBPR team deemed important and convey
interest in the experiences and concerns of teachers, i.e., student disruptions and
their own stress level. The school members of the CBPR team felt it was important
to create questionnaires for the study, rather than use standardized instruments, to
convey to the school personnel that the project was tailored to the school and the
primary interest was to understand their experience.

Unstructured Interviews

Qualitative data were collected through unstructured interviews with school

personnel who volunteered to meet briefly with the researchers to answer one
question during scheduled breaks. School personnel were told that the researchers
were concerned with culturally responsive trauma-informed approaches for schools
and were asked, ‘‘What are your thoughts on how these issues of race, culture, and
trauma impact your students?’’ Interviews typically lasted for five to seven minutes,
but a few continued for up to 20 min.

Data Collection and Sample

Data were collected at three points over the course of a school year. In October
2013, the PI conducted a presentation for school personnel on the neurophysiolog-
ical and behavioral impact of TTS. Following this training, school personnel were
asked to complete the questionnaires. Qualitative data were collected in April and
May 2014. One day each month, the researchers conducted brief unstructured

123
526 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

interviews with school personnel. Participant responses were gathered making field
notes and then checking with each respondent to ensure accuracy.
The school employed 36 certified teachers and 25 classroom aides, some of
whom worked one-on-one with students with disabilities while others worked as
classroom assistants. Of the 36 teachers, 35 were White, 31 were female, and only
two had less than three years teaching experience. Of the 25 aides, 23 White, 24
were female, and all had worked in a similar position for at least three years. Given
the limited diversity, identifying school personnel by race and gender would
identify those who were not White and female. Therefore, demographic data were
not collected on respondents to protect their identity. Twenty six teachers and 16
aides completed the questionnaires, and 20 teachers, two pupil services profession-
als, and seven aides participated in the interviews. Survey data were collected
anonymously so the overlap between those who completed questionnaires and those
who participated in the interviews is not known.

Data Analysis

Since they have different roles in the school, quantitative data from teachers and
aides were analyzed separately to identify possible differences in their perspectives.
Analysis included univariate and bivariate distributions; Mann–Whitney tests were
applied to compare means and assess for differences between the two groups. Since
the purpose of the unstructured interviews was to understand perspectives on (a) the
impact of TTS, and (b) race and culture, qualitative data were analyzed using these
concepts as a priori codes. Initial qualitative analysis did not reveal differences
between groups so data were combined for the second level of analysis, which
included axial coding to look for themes that clustered together within the a priori
codes.

Findings

Cultural Ecology

As shown in Table 1, compared to aides, teachers showed more agreement with the
statement that they were distrusted by students or family members of some ethnic
groups. Both groups, however tended to ‘disagree’ with this statement and tended to
‘somewhat agree’ that they could counter this distrust. The scores of teachers and
aides indicated they tended to ‘agree’ that diverse students can be successful despite
negative influences, and ‘somewhat agree’ that some ethnic groups need to change
their value of education for this to happen. As a group, the scores show that they
tended to ‘somewhat disagree’ that it was easier for students of some ethnic groups
to master certain subjects, and between ‘somewhat agree’ and ‘agree’ in their beliefs
that the success of students was within their sphere of influence as educators. The
scores also indicated that both teachers and aides were between ‘somewhat agree’ to
‘agree’ in terms of their awareness of the various learning preferences of their

123
 Table 1 Cultural ecology
Questions Aides n = 16 Teachers n = 26
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Students and parents of some ethnic groups distrust me when it comes to their education 2.00 (1.15) 2.79* (0.97)
I am convinced that I can counter the distrust that some ethnically diverse students and parents display towards me 4.38 (1.62) 4.36 (1.18)
I believe that diverse students will rise to the level of success that I expect, despite other negative influences 4.63 (1.54) 4.84 (0.78)
In reality, some students from ethnically diverse groups need to change their value of education if they are to be successful. 4.00 (2.00) 4.08 (1.20)
It is easier for students of some ethnic groups to master certain subjects 3.30 (1.70) 2.92 (1.30)
The success of all students in my class is within my sphere of influence 4.73 (1.22) 4.50 (1.14)
I am aware of the learning preferences of the various students in my classes 4.60 (1.31) 4.73 (0.60)
I adjust my teaching style to match the learning preferences of my students 4.81 (1.17) 4.85 (0.67)

Used by permission, Educational Concepts LLC, Dr. Tyrone Tanner

6 = strongly agree; 5 = agree; 4 = somewhat agree; 3 = somewhat disagree; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree
* p \ .05
527

123
528 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

students, and more closely toward ‘agreeing’ that they adjusted their teaching style
accordingly.

Perceptions of Student Behaviors

Table 2 shows that the mean scores to the questions about student behaviors had a
large range, as shown by the standard deviation scores. The frequency distribution
adds to the understanding. The number of lessons that could not be completed
because of student behaviors ranged from zero to five for aides and most teachers.
One teacher was the outlier, reporting 40 uncompleted lessons in the previous week.
Over half the teachers (52.2 %) reported zero or one uncompleted lesson, and
43.4 % reported two to five uncompleted lessons in the past week.
The number of student disruptions reported by both aides and teachers ranged
from zero to 50 in the previous week. Thus, while lessons were completed, over half
of the aides (54 %) reported five or more disruptions, as did 62 % of the teachers.
Although findings indicate that teachers and aides generally perceived that student
behaviors frequently disrupted classrooms, most reported that they were able to
regain calm and refocus on learning within a few minutes.
Both aides and teachers reported that student behavioral disruptions were
observed three times more frequently when compared to students who appeared sad
or withdrawn. They also reported greater success in helping sad or withdrawn
students reengage in learning. Sending a student out of the classroom because of his/
her behavior, or having the student leave of his/her own accord, was reported as
relatively infrequent by both groups, although aides reported more instances of
students leaving on their own. The average number of contacts with parents the
week prior to the survey was two for teachers and one for aides. Teachers also
reported that conversations with parents were productive about half the time, but
generally felt as though the parents would follow through with teacher recommen-
dations slightly more often.

Stress Level, Efficacy, and Confidence

The frequency distribution adds to the understanding of mean scores in Table 3.

Although the mean scores for stress level came out as ‘moderate’ for aides, and just
above that for teachers, almost a quarter (23.6 %) of the aides and more than half
(54.1 %) of the teachers indicated that their stress levels were ‘high’ or ‘very high.’
The mean scores for student engagement indicated that overall, both groups felt
their students were engaged, but just under a third of the aides (29.4 %) and over a
third of the teachers (37.5 %) identified student engagement as ‘low’ or ‘moderate.’
The mean scores for effectiveness in handling student disruptions was moving
toward ‘high’ for both groups, but over half of the aides (56.3 %) rated their
effectiveness as ‘low’ or ‘moderate,’ and more than a third of the teachers (37.5 %)
rated their effectiveness as ‘moderate,’ and none selected ‘low’.
The mean score for effectiveness in working with students appearing sad or
withdrawn was also moving toward ‘high’ for both groups, with none of the aides
choosing ‘low’ and less than a third (29.4 %) rating their effectiveness ‘moderate.’

123
 Table 2 Perceptions of student behaviors
Thinking back over the past week… Aides n = 13 Teachers n = 26
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

How many times:

were you not able to complete a lesson due to student behavior? 2.20 (1.70) 3.43 (8.12)
did student behaviors disrupt your classroom or other students? 8.80 (12.77) 11.00 (12.10)
Of these,
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

how many times were you able to use a skill to help the student calm down? 6.60 (7.82) 9.80 (11.88)
how many times was the student able to re-focus on learning within 5 min? 6.25 (12.37) 10.19 (12.43)
how many times were you able to maintain a sense of calm so other students were not disrupted by the 6.92 (8.03) 8.11 (7.92)
disruptive student’s behavior for more than 3 min?
How many times did you respond to a student who seemed withdrawn or sad to the point of not being 2.91 (2.02) 3.66 (2.58)
able to focus on classroom activities?
Of these,
how many times were you able to use a skill to help the student engage in learning? 3.10 (1.45) 2.95 (2.01)
how many times did you observe the student’s mood appear to improve by the end of the class or 3.25 (2.42) 2.90 (2.02)
lesson?
How many times:
did you send a student out of the classroom due to disruptive behavior? 1.25 (1.40) 0.91 (1.35)
did a student leave the classroom on his/her own initiative due to emotional upset? (with or without 0.92 (1.50) 0.091 (0.30)
your permission)
How many parents or primary caretakers of your students did you speak to this week? 1.08 (1.24) 2.251 (2.42)
Of these,
how many do you feel you engaged in productive conversation? 1.00 (1.30) 2.40? (2.54)
how many do you think will follow through on ideas or suggestions you offered or otherwise respond to 0.90 (1.30) 1.83 (2.30)
your feedback?
1
p \ .10
529

123
530 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

Table 3 Stress level, efficacy and confidence

Thinking back over the past week Aides Teachers
(n = 17) (n = 24)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

What was your overall stress level? 3.00 (1.06) 3.501 (0.83)
How engaged were your students overall? 4.00 (0.93) 3.71 (0.75)
How effective did you feel:
in handling student disruptions? 3.60 (0.89) 3.75 (0.67)
in responding to withdrawn or sad students? 3.90 (0.69) 3.74 (0.75)
How confident did you feel:
that you had skills to respond to student’s emotional needs? 3.50 (0.80) 3.70 (0.76)
in your ability to manage your own emotional responses to student 3.71 (0.92) 3.83 (0.70)
issues or behaviors?

1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = moderate/neutral; 4 = high; 5 = very high

?
p \ .10

Among teachers, 4.3 % chose ‘low’ and 30.4 % rated their effectiveness as
‘moderate.’ While the mean shows that confidence in responding to students’
emotional needs for both aides and teachers was moving toward ‘high,’ more than
half the aides (58.8 %) selected ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ in this area, as did 41.7 % of
the teachers. About a third of both groups (35.3 % of aides; 33.3 % of teachers)
expressed ‘moderate’ or ‘low’ confidence in their ability to manage their own
emotional responses to student concerns.

Unstructured Interviews

The interviews were often highly emotionally charged, and the quotes offered below
to illustrate the themes may not fully capture the affective experience. Several of the
school staff began to cry or fought back tears while talking, and at other times
appeared angry and frustrated, and occasionally defensive. The school district was
engaged in district-wide professional development on cultural responsiveness to
address disproportionally negative outcomes for students of color. The workshop
focused on race, particularly Black students and families since this was the group
showing the highest disproportionally negative outcomes. Several of the respon-
dents used the interviews to share their thoughts on the workshop, which had
occurred about a month prior to the interviews.

Perceptions of the Impact of Trauma

Four themes within the a priori code regarding the impact of student TTS were
identified: (1) Awareness of TTS in the lives of their students; (2) Perception of a
lack of structure, guidance, and support for education in the children’s homes; (3)
Need for teaching tools and strategies to support student learning; and, (4)
Emotional burden of secondary trauma and stress.

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 531

Awareness of TTS in the Lives of Their Students

Many school personnel talked about what they heard or witnessed regarding their
students’ home lives. For example, one teacher described the lack of adult
supervision and care of children that he saw, ‘‘You have this 5th grader taking care
of a 3rd grader; this child hasn’t eaten in three days; this child has had less than
eight hours sleep in two nights.’’ Concern about students’ welfare was mirrored by a
teacher who expressed her frustration at the apparent inability of child-serving
systems to adequately respond to children’s needs:
There is such a disconnect between the high standards we set at school and the
really low standards set by [child protective services] about what’s accept-
able at home. I think our high standards are great…but when kids don’t have
any structure at home, when they’re being yelled at all the time, not sleeping,
whatever goes on, how can they come here and just switch off and deal with
school culture?

Perception of a Lack of Structure, Guidance, and Support for Education at Home

As seen in the quotes above, there was often an overarching tone of frustration and
disapproval when school personnel spoke about the students’ parents. Concern
about parenting skills was a subtext of discussions about living conditions, with
teachers indicating that the school has a responsibility to help (i.e., ‘‘We need
parenting classes’’ and ‘‘We need a ‘mother to mother’ support group…to relate to
how hard it is to be a mom’’). Some talked about parents not sending school supplies
with their children and sending their children to school hungry. Teachers talked
about parents who seem to avoid contact with the school (i.e., ‘‘I need a burner
phone to call home so I don’t need to use my personal cell since parents won’t
answer if the school phone number comes up on caller ID’’ and ‘‘You can’t build
relationships with the parents because they don’t show up’’). One spoke of feeling
that some parents do not respect the school, stating that parents ‘‘do things here they
would never do anywhere else, they show up in pajamas.’’

Need for Teaching Tools and Strategies to Support Student Learning

School personnel highlighted a need for additional tools and strategies to support
students’ learning. School-based mental health support was noted as an important
resource, not only for direct student support, but also to help teachers better
understand student behavior and improve engagement in learning. As one teacher
noted, ‘‘I can’t use the tools I have because I don’t know what is really going on
with the child. I access the social worker as the primary tool. [The students] have
needs that go beyond my skill set.’’ Another stated she needed help knowing how to
motivate her students to engage with learning independently, noting that,
They seem to have a willful helplessness, they know how to do the work, but
won’t do it until an adult sits with them. They are sometimes exceptionally

123
532 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

bright, but they need an adult to sit side by side with them before they will
attempt to do the work.
Another teacher shared her pain at not knowing how to comfort a child who goes
home to a very painful situation every night. Near tears, she shared:
What do you say? I can’t tell her it’s going to be ok because I know it’s not.
She says her father tells her she’s ugly, that her parents tell her they don’t like
her. I tell her that we like her; we think she’s beautiful and smart, but I can’t
tell her that it’s going to be ok.

Emotional Burden of Secondary Trauma and Stress

School personnel revealed the emotional burden they carry as a result of exposure to
students’ challenging behaviors, particularly when these behaviors are physically or
verbally aggressive. Fear about personal and school safety was evident. As one
teacher noted, ‘‘The violence kids are showing is not addressed: hitting, pushing,
swearing. There is so much disrespect…I get anxious, worried. If they will do that
to the principal, what about us?’’ A pupil services professional expressed feeling a
lack of support for what happens in school with troubled students as she spoke with
a combination of compassion, frustration, and fear:
I had a nine year old calling me a fucking bitch. I take it, I’m mature, and
calm, and I try to figure out what the problem is and do what I can…We’re not
getting enough support or understanding about the reality about what happens
to us. We get threatened and abused, some people are really scared, and then
we get blamed.

Race and Culture

The overarching themes within the a priori code regarding race and culture appeared
to be colorblindness and class-blindness, which were difficult to substantiate in the
data because they were noted primarily by the absence of discussion about race or
class. About half of the people who responded did not say anything about race or
culture, and when sharing stories about students none specified the race or ethnicity
of the student of whom they spoke. When talking about poverty, school personnel
demonstrated sincere concern for their students, but none reflected on the race or
class differences between school personnel and students’ families. While one
teacher, quoted below, mentioned feeling insulted by being told she is a white
teacher, she did not discuss having an awareness of how her racial identity may have
meaning in relationships with her students or their families. None of the other
respondents reflected on their own racial, ethnic, or class identity. None discussed
how such differences may impact teaching practices, nor did they talk about how
race or class differences between them and their students’ families may have an
impact on family engagement or be a factor in parent-teacher consultations for
addressing student behavior concerns.

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 533

Those who did talk about race, however, spoke up to make sure it was understood
that they did not view race as contributing to the concerns within the school.
Instead, they described feeling that family and environmental stress were the central
problems. Their reactions made it clear that they were offended by, and did not find
value in, the school districts’ training on cultural responsiveness. It is important to
note that the consulting group hired to provide the training was led by former
educators and school administrators who brought with them a considerable record of
success in working with other school districts. They were all African American, and
much of their previous work had been with school districts in communities that were
historically communities of color, as opposed to the community in this study that
has seen a significant change toward diversity in recent years.
While the content of the workshop focused on historical and structural issues of
racial injustice to inform culturally responsive pedagogy, it appeared that many of
the respondents experienced the presentation as accusing them of individual bias or
of lacking in compassion for their students. The respondents’ negative reactions to
this workshop were clearly reflected in the interviews. As noted angrily by one:
There’s too much focus on us being culturally insensitive and I’ve had it to
here being told that I’m insensitive. The issues here are not about race and
culture; it’s about needing to understand how stresses and so many other issues
that the child deals with can be addressed.
Staff in-service training that challenged colorblindness in favor of recognizing
the students’ race and acknowledging differences was experienced as insulting. For
example, one teacher stated emphatically, ‘‘The [professional development] on
cultural responsiveness…was offensive. We don’t treat the children of color
differently. Maybe in other schools, but not here. We treat everybody the same
regardless of what they look like.’’ Another teacher, visibly upset, indicated doubt
about whether such trainings should continue:
I was told that if I didn’t know the race and culture of each of my students I
was culture-blind. I was very offended, being told ‘‘you’re a white teacher.’’
…I think they just opened up a big can of worms that didn’t need to be
opened. I’m not sure it should be revisited.

Limitations

There are limitations in this study that are important to consider. The study relied on
a small sample in one elementary school, and may not be representative. The study
used locally developed questionnaires that had not been validated by previous
research. The questionnaires, designed to communicate interest in the school
personnel’s experience as well as collect data, could contain bias and wording that
was subjectively interpreted. No standard definitions of ‘disruption,’ ‘engaged,’
‘effective,’ or other variables were provided, so respondents’ interpretations of the
questions were subjective. The cultural responsiveness questionnaire did not specify
what is meant by the term ‘‘some ethnic groups,’’ which could also be interpreted
subjectively. Potential researcher bias should also be considered since the

123
534 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

researchers worked closely with the school personnel and these relationships could
have influenced responses and/or interpretation of findings. Generalizing these
findings to other schools should be made with caution, but findings do lay the
foundation for future study and inform program development.

Discussion

School personnel reported that student behaviors were disruptive in several ways,
and most felt the need to respond to disruptive student behaviors regularly. Teachers
reported that a high proportion of their students exhibited behaviors outside of what
they think of as typical for that age group, and were occasionally unable to complete
instructional objectives because of behavior issues. Some school personnel reported
feeling afraid and anxious due to students’ aggression and many felt sad and worried
about the lack of care their students received in the home. Concern about TTS was
strongly evident, and the teachers valued collaboration with mental health
professionals as a means to improving student engagement and learning.
Understanding the school personnel’s perceptions regarding race and culture is
complex, and colorblind ideals that appeared to be held by staff add to the
complexity. School personnel were adamant that racial bias was not an issue in the
school. Their deep caring for students and profound concern for the conditions in
which some students lived were obvious. Teachers felt criticized by the cultural
responsiveness trainings offered by the school district, however, and did not feel the
workshop offered content designed to be helpful to them in the classroom.

Reactions to the Workshop on Cultural Responsive Pedagogy

That the workshop on cultural responsiveness was off-putting to what appeared to

be caring, compassionate, veteran teachers is an important consideration in this
study and for the field. School districts nationwide are struggling to provide
authentic professional development on cultural responsiveness without making
teachers feel defensive and misunderstood, so efforts to understand the disconnect
between what was intended and what was experienced are valuable. With the caveat
that this study did not evaluate the workshop, the PI did attend one of the
presentations and discussed the material with the consulting team. The consulting
team’s intent was to teach about historical and structural issues and develop
constructive dialogues about racial equity to inform cultural responsive pedagogy.
Respondents, however, described experiencing shame and blame. It is not clear if
the respondents were reacting to the content, the way it was presented, the
presenters, or a combination. It appears, though, that teachers’ sense of insult
interfered with their ability to engage with the information in ways that could lead to
creative ideas about integrating social and racial justice in the classroom.
One possibility is that the consulting team, consisting of people from outside this
school’s community, were not able to develop relationships with participants that
allowed for a more open and honest dialogue. Without these relationships, the
consulting team may not have fully appreciated the perspectives of school personnel

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 535

about the unique challenges they are facing in this community and thus
unintentionally enacted the very type of non-responsive approach they were
advocating against. It is also possible that the predominantly White school
personnel were not used to having African American presenters talk authoritatively
about race, and may have felt accused by this type of dialogue and the presentation
style.
It is also important to note that this professional development workshop was
mandated by district administrators in response to data showing racial dispropor-
tionality in student achievement and discipline referrals. While having the
unequivocal support of organization leadership is crucial for the success of cultural
and racial equity initiatives, it is also essential to have the active engagement and
support of staff members (Blitz and Kohl 2012). Had they used a less ‘‘top down’’
approach, administration might have been able to more successfully engage school
personnel as collaborative partners in exploring issues of race and culture as they
impact education. Instead, without support at multiple points in the school district
hierarchy, the initiative itself may have mirrored what was experienced as
oppressive social order, with the workshop content and consulting team bearing the
brunt of criticism.
There is also the possibility that the reaction to the workshop reflected school
personnel’s secondary trauma, where they resisted changing their responses to the
needs and cultural reality of others because their own needs and cultural reality were
not addressed. School personnel were deeply connected to, and concerned about,
their students, and they were greatly impacted by their students’ troubles. Some
expressed concerns about school safety, and some felt threatened and abused.
School safety concerns are very real, but it is also not uncommon for school
personnel to take on some of the anxiety and fearfulness projected by children with
TTS, creating a further sense of vulnerability (Borntrager et al. 2012). Additionally,
students’ families were often perceived as avoidant and disrespectful so school
personnel tended to feel alone in caring for children in very troubling situations.
Bloom (2010) discusses parallel processes within organizations, where staff
members take on the trauma of the people served in the organization to such an
extent that the functioning of the organization reflects a form of collective
secondary trauma. Efforts to control the sense of chaos and disorder that students
and families with TTS may represent can result in policies and practices that are
progressively structured and rigid (Bloom 2010). These practices, however, inhibit
the flexibility and creativity needed to manage secondary trauma and students’ TTS.
Thus, when school personnel are asked to change the way they respond to students
and families without adequate recognition and support for the enormity of the
problems, they can become even more frustrated, reject new initiatives, and are
increasingly impacted by secondary trauma.

Equity Versus Equality

The concepts of equity and equality in education and in this study are complex.
From a policy perspective, concerns with equity involve providing all learners with
equal educational resources that are distributed in a compensatory manner so that all

123
536 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

children have access to quality education (Kornhaber et al. 2014). These values are
deeply engrained, but the subtle differences between what is ‘‘equal’’ and what is
‘‘equitable’’ can be difficult to discern. Schools in financially poor urban
communities face particular challenges, especially when ‘‘equity’’ requires
‘‘unequal’’ responses to more effectively meet the needs of all students. The
challenges these schools face are clear, but if the assets and resources of financially
poor urban communities are not also recognized, White middle class norms can
become the default frame of reference by which students and families are assessed
(O’Connor et al. 2014). Providing students with what seems ‘‘equal’’ based on
White middle class norms can result in even greater inequity if cultural pride is not
promoted and individual needs are not met.
In this study, the school personnel’s insistence that all children are treated the
same suggests a lack of understanding that in the context of structural racism
children of color and their families are likely to have experiences and needs
different from their White counterparts. For example, students of color may
experience school climate more negatively than White students (Voight 2013), in
part due to microaggressions, the repeated small, often unintentional, insults that
build to greater psychological injury (Sue et al. 2007). Moreover, microaggressions
can add to the overall stress burden for students (Allen et al. 2013). Although micro
draws attention to the power of subtle expressions of unintended individual bias, it
is also important to recognize that they are aggressions, a form of psychosocial
violence that reflects broader systemic bias. Disruptive student behavior may, in
part, be related to not feeling understood or supported by adults in the school
(Shirley and Cornell 2011), and ‘‘colorblind’’ microaggressions may contribute to
the problem.
Frustration with establishing effective partnerships with parents was evident, and
teachers recognized that the school had a responsibility to support parents.
However, school personnel also indicated that it was the parents’ responsibility to
behave in ways that are appropriate for the school’s culture, without corresponding
understanding of why or how this may be challenging for some parents. The idea of
reciprocal responsiveness, requiring flexibility and change on the part of both the
school and families, did not come up. An apparent unwillingness on the part of
school personnel to reflect on their own identity and the meaning of race and class in
relationships with students and families may be evidenced here. Without more fully
considering students’ and families’ racial and class experiences in the school, and
exploring the potential meaning of racial and class differences among families and
school personnel, important insights into effective family engagement can be
missed.
The lack of flexibility could also be another indication of secondary trauma, and
one that illustrates how the concepts of cultural responsiveness and trauma-
informed care interact. If contact with family members is stressful for school
personnel, the demand that family members change their behavior may reflect
school personnel’s efforts to protect their own emotional well-being—which in turn
creates further divides between school personnel and families.

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 537

Informing a Model for Culturally Responsive Trauma-Informed

Schools

From Secondary Trauma to Sanctuary

Findings from this study can be used to inform the development of a model for
culturally responsive trauma-informed schools, using the Sanctuary Model (Bloom
1997) as a conceptual framework for a whole-school approach. Fundamental to the
Sanctuary Model is understanding and responding to the psychosocial experiences
of school personnel since they are the primary caretakers and decision makers. High
stress levels for many teachers and aides were revealed in the findings, and may
reflect exposure to and internalization of trauma through close contact with students
with TTS. Secondary trauma requires targeted interventions that are incorporated
into school routines to promote increased resiliency among school personnel
(Caringi et al. 2015).
School personnel shared that their concerns were not being heard or understood
and that they felt alone in facing complex challenges, which can also intensify a
secondary trauma reaction. The Sanctuary Model supports open communication and
a commitment to growth and learning that helps people understand their own stress
in the context of exposure to TTS (Bloom 1997, 2010). Attending to secondary
trauma by integrating stress reduction into the daily routine for both staff and
students and developing peer support systems within the school are crucial
(Anderson et al. 2015). Open discussion among school personnel about student
trauma and secondary trauma and stress; peer supervision and mentoring; and, if
needed, accessing community based mental health services, are also recommended
(Caringi et al. 2015).
Sanctuary includes the development of a common language to communicate
agreed upon ways of understanding strengths and concerns and promote healing and
resiliency. Sanctuary uses the acronym SELF: safety, emotions, losses, and future as
the core of the common language to draw attention to specific domains for
assessment and intervention. To align with school education priorities and highlight
family engagement, modifying the acronym to safety, emotions, learning, and
family, has been proposed (Blitz and Lee 2015). Exploring the findings of this study
utilizing the domains of SELF can help better inform the application of Sanctuary to
school settings.

Safety

Concerns about safety were evident in many ways, and existing bully prevention
and character development initiatives were not meeting the needs of the school
community. The impact of TTS can manifest in disruptive or aggressive behavior
(Jensen 2009), and concerns about safety warrant special attention. School
personnel’s resistance to issues of race is important to address when considering
safety issues in the school for a number of reasons. Cultural responsiveness and a
healthy racial school climate are fundamental to psychological and moral safety,

123
538 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

and promote student success (Allen et al. 2013). This requires specific attention to
race and culture, including knowing how subtle race bias can manifest in a school
community and contribute to disproportionality (Boneshefski and Runge 2014).
Further, limited understanding of implicit bias can be reflected in conflation of
legitimate school violence concerns with fears based on stereotyped images of
violent ‘‘ghetto places’’ (DeLeon 2012). White teachers’ recognition of their own
racial identity, and its implications in a race-based society, is essential for culturally
responsive education (Milner 2011). Sanctuary’s focus on peacefulness and
appreciation of multiple perspectives can be used to enrich the racial climate,
enhance existing initiatives, and ensure that all students, their families, and school
personnel experience the school as a safe and nurturing environment.

Emotions

School personnel reported feeling ill-equipped to respond to the enormity of

problems in students’ lives. Profound losses accompany adversity. Loss of family
members through death, incarceration, or abandonment; loss of safety due to family
and/or community violence; loss of security and predictability due to many forms of
chronic instability all need to be validated before grieving can be resolved
(McCorkle and Yanosy 2007). Since these losses often impact entire family
systems, adequate support for grieving may not be available in the home.
In over-taxed family systems, students may turn to other adults in their lives—
their teachers—seeking comfort and answers to complex questions. Teachers in this
study appeared open to input from social workers and other mental health
professionals. Thus, a trauma-informed approach could be employed to build
partnerships among teachers and mental health professionals to address students’
grief and loss, and support emotional growth and wellbeing (Jaycox et al. 2012).
Moving from colorblind to race-aware is also important, since not fully considering
race can increase the potential for microaggressions (Sue et al. 2007) and inhibit the
development of trust. A culturally responsive, race-conscious, trauma-informed
process may better support students in developing relationships of trust with school
personnel that in turn promote resiliency.

Learning

Findings indicate a need for more effective classroom-based strategies for students
who are having difficulty behaviorally or emotionally. The development of the parts
of the brain responsible for executive functioning are impaired by TTS, and this
impacts students’ learning (Shonkoff et al. 2012). Students with TTS may have
difficulties with short term memory, concentration, problem solving, and recogniz-
ing cause and effect relationships, among other learning-related cognitive skills.
Effective teachers have strategies to work with students facing learning hurdles, but
may need to incorporate additional supports to establish safety and emotional
stability to engage students with TTS in the classroom (Jensen 2009).
Understanding the role of race in teaching and learning is important since
teachers who do not fully understand racial differences may be less effective in their

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 539

implementation of instructional strategies, managing the classroom, and engaging

students (Bloom and Peters 2012). As part of a whole-school trauma-informed
approach, teachers can develop strategies for teaching coping skills (Wolmer et al.
2011), and emotional processing and problem solving skills (Baum et al. 2009).
School personnel can support student resilience by talking openly about stressful
and painful events, acknowledging experiences of bias in the school and/or
community (Jaycox et al. 2012), and validating social and racial justice concerns
(Gay 2014).

Family

Family engagement is an important component of high achieving schools, and

contributes to cultural responsiveness (Henderson and Mapp 2002). Findings in this
study suggest that many school personnel had negative perceptions of students’
family life, assumptions of poor parenting, and little meaningful regular contact
with parents. Understanding families through a trauma-informed lens may help
school personnel move more easily beyond feelings of frustration and toward
joining with families to support improved success for the current and future
generations. It is important to consider that families living with poverty and high
exposure to adversity may also be living with historical and intergenerational
traumas. Understanding, validating, and using the resiliency inherent in survivor
communities is crucial to developing a more culturally responsive pedagogy
(Villanueva 2013).
It is also important to understand that when pain and abuse suffered in their youth
informs the adults’ worldview, it can greatly impact how parent are able to nurture,
attend to their child’s social-emotional needs, and develop consistent discipline,
among other aspects of parenting (Goodman 2013). Adults living with unresolved
trauma may also have physiological responses to stress that interfere with their
ability to concentrate, solve problems, plan for the future, and trust others—all of
which can impact how they interact with school personnel. Poor health and
diminished emotional wellbeing, factors often associated with childhood adversity
(Felitti and Anda 2010), may also impact family involvement. Delving into what it
means for some parents to become culturally responsive to the school may also help
school personnel better understand what the school may need to change to become
more responsive to families.

Conclusion

When knowledge about the legacy of historical and intergenerational trauma, the
physiological and psychosocial impact of TTS, and enduring race and class bias are
understood together, a vision for a culturally responsive trauma-informed whole-
school approach emerges. In this view, the unique identity and ethnic history of each
student is honored and understood through the lens of resilience and emergence
from oppression. Skills of healthy resistance and strengths-based strategies to work
toward racial and economic justice are taught as part of effective pedagogy. The

123
540 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

social-emotional needs of students are recognized in the context of trauma and toxic
stress, all adults take responsibility for the care of students and each other, and
school personnel are taught skills that help them address students’ social-emotional
and mental health needs. Achieving this vision may require a significant shift in
school culture and a substantial investment in acquiring a new set of skills, but the
potential exists that adapting the Sanctuary Model as a culturally responsive trauma-
informed whole-school approach can become a social justice approach to education.

References
Allen, A., Scott, L. M., & Lewis, C. W. (2013). Racial microaggressions and African American and
Hispanic students in urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117–129.
Anderson, E. M., Blitz, L. V., & Saastamoinen, M. (2015). Exploring a school-university model for
professional development with classroom staff: Teaching trauma-informed approaches. School
Community Journal, 25(2), 113–134.
Anderson, E. M., & Bronstein, L. R. (2012). Examining interdisciplinary collaboration within an
expanded school mental health framework: A community–university initiative. Advances in School
Mental Health Promotion, 5(1), 23–37. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2012.664860.
Baum, N., Rotter, B., Reidler, E., & Brom, D. (2009). Building resilience in schools in the wake of
hurricane Katrina. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 2(62), 62–70. doi:10.1080/
19361520802694323.
Beckett, L. (2014). Raising teachers’ voice on achievement in urban schools in England: An introduction.
Urban Review, 46, 783–799. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0301-x.
Blair, C., Raver, C., Granger, D., Mills-Koonce, R., & Hibel, L. (2011). Allostasis and allostatic load in
the context of poverty in early childhood. Developmental and Psychopathology, 23, 845–857.
doi:10.1017/S0954579411000344.
Blitz, L. V., & Kohl, B. G, Jr. (2012). Addressing racism in the organization: the role of white racial
affinity groups in creating change. Administration in Social Work, 36(5), 479–498. doi:10.1080/
03643107.2011.624261.
Blitz, L. V., & Lee, Y. (2015). Trauma-informed methods to enhance school-based bully prevention
initiatives: An emerging model. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 24(1), 20–40.
doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.982238.
Bloom, S. L. (1997). Creating sanctuary: Toward the evolution of sane societies. New York: Routledge.
Bloom, S. L. (2010). Trauma-organized systems and parallel process. In N. Tehrani (Ed.), Managing
trauma in the workplace—Supporting workers and the organisation (pp. 139–153). London:
Routledge.
Bloom, D. S., & Peters, T. (2012). Student teaching experience in diverse settings, white racial identity
development and teacher efficacy. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 2(2),
72–84.
Boneshefski, M., & Runge, T. (2014). Addressing disproportionate discipline practices within a school-
wide positive behavioral intervention and supports framework: A practical guide for calculating and
using disproportionality rates. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(149), 149–158. doi:10.
1177/1098300713484064.
Borntrager, C., Caringi, J., Van Den Pol, R., Crosby, L., O’Connell, K., Trautman, A., et al. (2012).
Secondary traumatic stress in school personnel. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 5(1),
38–50. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2012.664862.
Caringi, J. C., Stanick, C., Trautman, A., Crosby, L., Devlin, M., & Adams, S. (2015). Secondary
traumatic stress in public school teachers: Contributing and mitigating factors. Advances in School
Mental Health Promotion, 8(4), 244–256. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2015.1080123.
Civil Rights Data Collection. (2012). Revealing new truths about our nation’s schools. U.S. Department
of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf.

123
Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542 541

Cole, S. F., Eisner, A., Gregory, M., & Ristuccia, J. (2013). Creating and advocating for trauma-sensitive
schools. Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative, partnership of Massachusetts Advocates for
Children and Harvard Law School. Retrieved from: www.traumasensitiveschools.org.
DeLeon, A. P. (2012). ‘‘A perverse kind of sense’’: Urban spaces, ghetto places and the discourse of
school shootings. Urban Review, 44, 152–169. doi:10.1007/s11256-011-0174-1.
Diez Roux, A., & Mair, C. (2010). Neighborhoods and health. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, Issue: The Biology of Disadvantage, 1186, 125–145. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.
05333.x.
Esaki, N., Benamati, J., Yanosy, S., Middleton, J. S., Hopson, L. M., Hummer, V. L., et al. (2013). The
sanctuary model: Theoretical framework. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social
Services, 94(2), 87–95. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4287.
Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2010). The relationship of adverse childhood experiences to adult medical
disease, psychiatric disorders, and sexual behavior: Implications for healthcare. In R. Lanius & E.
Vermetten (Eds.), The hidden epidemic: The impact of early life trauma on health and disease. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure
in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(7), 614–621. doi:10.
1001/jamapediatrics.2013.42.
Ganzel, B., & Morris, P. (2011). Allostasis and the developing human brain: Explicit consideration of
implicit models. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 955–974. doi:10.1017/
S0954579411000447.
Garner, A., Shonkoff, J. P., Siegel, B. S., Dobbins, M. I., Earls, M. F., McGuinn, L., et al. (2012). Early
childhood adversity, toxic stress, and the role of the pediatrician: Translating developmental science
into lifelong health. Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, 129, 223–233. doi: 10.1542/
peds.2011-2662.
Gay, G. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching principles, practices, and effects. In H. R. Milner & K.
Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 353–372). New York: Routledge.
Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms: Embracing non-white students’ cultural
capital for better teaching and learning. Urban Education, 49(1), 111–144. doi:10.1177/
0042085912472510.
Goodman, R. D. (2013). The transgenerational trauma and resilience genogram. Counselling Psychology
Quarterly, 26(3–4), 386–405. doi:10.1080/09515070.2013.820172.
Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and
community connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: National Center for Family and
Community Connections with Schools.
Howell, E. (2004). Access to children’s mental health services under Medicaid and SCHIP. An urban
institute program to assess changing social policies, Series B, No. B-60, August 2004. Retrieved
from: http://www.urban.org/research/publication/access-childrens-mental-health-services-under-
medicaid-and-schip.
Hydon, S., Wong, M., Langley, A. K., Stein, B. D., & Kataoka, S. H. (2015). Preventing secondary
traumatic stress in educators. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 24(2),
319–333. doi:10.1016/j.chc.2014.11.003.
Jaycox, L., Kataoka, S., Stein, B., Langley, A., & Wong, M. (2012). Cognitive behavior intervention for
trauma in school. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(3), 239–255. doi:10.1080/15377903.
2012.695766.
Jensen, E. (2009). Teaching with poverty in mind: What being poor does to kids’ brains and what schools
can do about it. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kornhaber, M. L., Griffith, K., & Tyler, A. (2014). It’s not education by zip code anymore—but what is
it? Conceptions of equity under the Common Core. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(4).
doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n4.2014.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy.
Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
McCorkle, D., & Yanosy, S. (2007). When loss gets lost: Using the S.E.L.F. Model to work with losses in
residential treatment. In A. L. Vargas & S. L. Bloom (Eds.), Loss hurt and hope: The complex issues
of bereavement and trauma in children (pp. 116–141). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Milner, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review, 43,
66–89. doi:10.1007/s11256-009-0143-0.

123
542 Urban Rev (2016) 48:520–542

Mulvaney-Day, N. E., Rappaport, N., Alegrı́a, M., & Codianne, L. M. (2006). Developing systems
interventions in a school setting: An application of community-based participatory research for
mental health. Ethnicity and Disease, 16(S1), 107–117.
O’Connor, C., Mueller, J., & Neal, A. (2014). Student resilience in urban America. In H. R. Milner & K.
Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 75–96). New York: Routledge.
Shirley, E. L. M., & Cornell, D. G. (2011). The contribution of student perceptions of school climate to
understanding the disproportionate punishment of African American students in a middle school.
School Psychology International, 33(2), 115–134. doi:10.1177/0143034311406815.
Shonkoff, J. P., Garner, A. S., & The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child And Family Health,
Committee on Early Childhood. (2012). The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic
stress. Pediatrics, 129, 232–246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school
discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of
racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.
Stanwood, H. M., & Doolittle, G. (2004). Schools as sanctuaries. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(3),
169–172.
Stopa, J. E., Barrett, P. M., & Golingi, F. (2010). The prevention of childhood anxiety in
socioeconomically disadvantaged communities: A universal school-based trial. Advances in School
Mental Health Promotion, 3(4), 5–24. doi:10.1080/1754730X.2010.9715688.
Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., et al.
(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American
Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271.
Tajalli, H. & Garba, H. A. (2014). Discipline or prejudice? Overrepresentation of minority students in
disciplinary alternative education programs. Urban Review, Advanced online copy. doi 10.1007/
s11256-014-0274-9.
Tanner, T. (2013). Culturally responsive educational theories: A practical guide with case studies for
improving the academic performance of diverse learners. Cypress, TX: Educational Concepts.
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Briefs. (2012). Household income: 2012. Retrieved
from: census.gov.
Villanueva, S. T. (2013). Teaching as a healing craft: Decolonizing the classroom and creating spaces of
hopeful resistance through Chicano-indigenous pedagogical praxis. Urban Review, 45, 23–40.
doi:10.1007/s11256-012-0222-5.
Voight, A. (2013). The racial school-climate gap. WestEd Health & Human Development Program.
Retrieved from http://eac.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/
RacialSchoolClimateGapSynopsis_v2.pdf.
Wade, R, Jr., Shea, J. A., Rubin, D., & Wood, J. (2014). Adverse childhood experiences of low-income
urban youth. Pediatrics, 134(1), e13–e20. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2475.
Wolmer, L., Hamiel, D., Barchas, J. D., Slone, M., & Laor, N. (2011). Teacher delivered resilience-
focused intervention in schools with traumatized children following the second Lebanon war.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 24(3), 309–316. doi:10.1002/jts.20638.

123